RSS
Pro-Hamas Student Group That Cheered Oct. 7 Massacre Wants to Defend Harvard in Legal Fight Against Trump
An “Apartheid Wall” erected by Harvard University’s Palestine Solidarity Committee. Photo: X/Twitter
A pro-Hamas student group whose campus activism heightened scrutiny of antisemitism and far-left extremism at Harvard University has filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit the school filed to halt the Trump administration’s confiscation of its taxpayer-funded grants and contracts.
Legal counsel for the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC), provided by the controversial Palestine Legal nonprofit, submitted the document on Monday to the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, The Algemeiner has learned. Endorsing Harvard’s push for a summary judgement in its favor, the court filing argues that the school’s alleged neglecting to restrict antisemitic demonstrations did not violate the civil rights of Jewish students.
“The expression of views critical of Israel — even where it personally offends — is not actionable harassment under Title VI [of the US Civil Rights Act],” wrote Palestine Legal attorney Radhika Sainath. “Defendants have not specifically alleged what actions they believe created a severe or pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students in violation of Title VI — or what educational programs or activities were limited or denied by such acts.”
Sainath continued, comparing Jewish Zionists to segregationists who defended white supremacy during Jim Crow, while comparing anti-Zionists — who have been trafficking racial slurs and epithets about African Americans on social media during the Gaza war — to the civil rights activists of the 1960s.
“Many white parents who supported segregation were discomforted — even frightened — by the prospect of Black children attending schools with their children. But advocacy for the rights of Black Americans to live as equal citizens was not anti-white any more than advocacy for the equal rights of Palestinians is anti-Jewish,” Sainath charged. “In fact, it is opposition to equal rights of Black people that is discriminatory, just as opposition to equal rights for Palestinians is discriminatory.”
The PSC’s entrance into Harvard’s historic legal fight with the Trump administration comes 20 months after it prompted worldwide outrage and condemnation for endorsing Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel in a statement which alleged that “millions of Palestinians in Gaza have been forced to live in an open-air prison.”
Mere hours after images and videos of Hamas’s atrocities — which included sexual assaults, abductions, and murders of the young and elderly — spread online, the campus group said, “The coming days will require a firm stand against colonial retaliation. We call on the Harvard community to take action to stop the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians.”
Those remarks triggered a cascade of events in which Harvard was accused of fostering a culture of racial grievance and antisemitism and important donors suspended funding for various programs. Additionally, the school’s first Black president, Claudine Gay, resigned in disgrace after being outed as a serial plagiarist. Her tenure was the shortest in Harvard’s history.
More incidents followed over the next several months. In one notorious episode, a mob of anti-Zionists — including Ibrahim Bharmal, editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review — were filmed following, surrounding, and intimidating a Jewish student. A pro-Hamas faculty group also shared an antisemitic image depicting a left-hand tattooed with a Star of David, containing a dollar sign at its center, dangling a Black man and an Arab man from a noose.
Meanwhile, Harvard acted disingenuously to deceive the public and create a false impression that it was working to combat antisemitism, according to a shocking report issued by the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce. One section of the report claimed that the university formed an Antisemitism Advisory Group (AAG) largely for show and did not consult it in key moments, including when Jewish students were harassed and verbally abused. So frustrated were a “majority” of AAG members with being part of what the committee described behind closed doors as a public relations facade that they threatened to resign from it.
The slew of incidents made Harvard University the face of campus antisemitism and a major target for a surging conservative movement, led by US President Donald Trump, which blamed elite higher education for declining civic patriotism, the rise of antisemitic violence across the US, and the spread of “woke” ideologies which undermine faith in liberal, Western values. After Trump won a historic second, non-consecutive term in office, the school was, within a matter of months, pummeled by a volley of punitive measures, including the confiscation of some $3 billion in federal funds.
“Harvard is an Anti-Semitic, Far Left Institute, as are numerous others, with students being accepted from all over the World that want to rip our Country apart,” Trump said in April, writing on his Truth Social media platform. “The place is a Liberal mess, allowing a certain group of crazed lunatics to enter and exit the classroom and spew fake ANGER and HATE [sic]. It is truly horrific. Now, since our filings began, they act like they are all ‘American Apple Pie.’ Harvard is a threat to democracy.”
In suing the administration to stop the actions, Harvard said the Trump administration bypassed key procedural steps that must, by law, be taken before sequestration of federal funds is enacted. It also charged that the 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” — an argument it supported by pointing to the funding freeze being connected to Trump’s calling for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat,” a wishlist of conservative policy reforms.
Now, PSC is defending Harvard by arguing that the very policies which set off what is arguably the most tumultuous period in Harvard’s history should be preserved. Drawing more comparisons to unrelated political conflicts, Sainath called for both ruling in Harvard’s favor and rescinding the university’s recent adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
“Though the university purports to be addressing antisemitism, conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism via a politicized definition does not make it so, any more than it would be an act of anti-Russian discrimination to protest Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or anti-Hindu discrimination to protest India’s human rights violations in Kashmir,” she concluded. “Indeed, it is only Palestinians on campus, and those advocating on their behalf, who are constrained from engaging in political critiques of their own peoples’ subjugation, dispossession, and killing.”
Other entities have come rushing to Harvard’s defense by citing different reasons for restoring Harvard’s federal funding that stayed clear of Palestine Legal’s arguments seemingly justifying calls for a genocide in Israel. In another amicus brief, attorneys Daniel Cloherty, Victoria Steinberg, and Alexandra Arnold stressed on behalf of two dozen American colleges and universities — including Brown University, Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Dartmouth College — the importance of the federal government’s role as a benefactor of higher education.
“For over 80 years, the federal government has invested heavily in scientific research at US universities,” the attorneys wrote. “This funding has fueled American leadership at home and abroad, yielding radar technology that helped the Allies win World War II, computer systems that put human on the Moon, and a vaccine that saved millions during the global pandemic.”
They added, “Broad cuts to federal funding endanger this longstanding, mutually beneficial arrangement between universities and the American public. Terminating funding disrupts ongoing projects, ruins experiments and datasets, destroys the careers of aspiring scientists, and deters investment in the long term research that only the academy — with federal funding — can pursue, threatening the pace of progress and undermining American leadership in the process.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Pro-Hamas Student Group That Cheered Oct. 7 Massacre Wants to Defend Harvard in Legal Fight Against Trump first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Envoy Says Israel Should ‘Comply’ With Lebanon Plan to Disarm Hezbollah
US Ambassador to Turkey and US special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack speaks after meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, in Beirut, Lebanon July 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Top US envoy Thomas Barrack said on Monday Israel should comply with a plan under which Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah would be disarmed by the end of the year in exchange for a halt to Israel‘s military operations in Lebanon.
The plan sets out a phased roadmap for armed groups to hand in their arsenals as Israel‘s military halts ground, air, and sea operations and withdraws troops from Lebanon‘s south.
Lebanon‘s cabinet approved the plan‘s objectives earlier this month despite Iran-backed Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm, and Barrack said it was now Israel‘s turn to cooperate.
“There’s always a step-by-step approach, but I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They’ve taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply with that equal handshake,” Barrack told reporters in Lebanon after meeting Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.
Barrack described the cabinet decree as a “Lebanese decision that requires Israel‘s cooperation” and said the United States was “in the process of now discussing with Israel what their position is” but provided no further details.
Under phase 1 of the plan, which was seen by Reuters, the Lebanese government would issue a decision committing to Hezbollah’s full disarmament by the end of the year and Israel would cease military operations in Lebanese territory.
But Israel has continued strikes against Lebanon in the weeks since the cabinet approved the plan.
In a written statement after his meeting with Barrack, Aoun said that “other parties” now needed to commit to the roadmap’s contents.
Calls for Hezbollah to disarm have mounted since a war with Israel last year killed 5,000 of the group’s fighters and much of its top brass and left swathes of southern Lebanon in ruins.
But the group has resisted the pressure, refusing to discuss its arsenal until Israel ends its strikes and withdraws troops from southern Lebanon.
On Friday, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem raised the specter of civil war, warning there would be “no life” in Lebanon should the state attempt to confront or eliminate the group.
RSS
Hamas Accepts Proposed Deal for Ceasefire With Israel and Hostage Release, Egyptian Source Says
A displaced Palestinian man fleeing northern Gaza gestures atop a vehicle loaded with belongings while he heads south as the Israeli military prepares to relocate residents to the southern part of the enclave, in Gaza City, Aug. 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
Hamas has accepted the latest proposal for a 60-day ceasefire with Israel that includes the return of half the hostages the terrorist group holds in Gaza and Israel‘s release of some Palestinian prisoners, an Egyptian official source said on Monday.
Senior Hamas official Basem Naim wrote on Facebook: “The movement has handed over its approval to the new proposal presented by the mediators.”
There was no immediate response from Israel.
The Egyptian official source said the latest proposal included a suspension of Israeli military operations for 60 days and a path to a comprehensive deal to end the nearly two-year war.
A source familiar with the matter said the proposal was nearly identical to one put forward previously by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, which Israel had accepted.
Israel‘s plans to seize control of Gaza City have stirred alarm abroad and at home where tens of thousands of Israelis on Sunday held some of the largest protests since the war began, urging a deal to end the fighting and free the remaining 50 hostages held in Gaza since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. Israeli officials believe 20 are alive.
The planned offensive has spurred Egyptian and Qatari ceasefire mediators to step up efforts to forge a deal.
Thousands of Palestinians fearing an imminent Israeli ground offensive have left their homes in eastern areas of Gaza City, now under Israeli bombardment, for points to the west and south in the shattered territory.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described Gaza City as Hamas‘s last big urban bastion. But, with Israel already holding 75 percent of Gaza, the military has warned that expanding the offensive could endanger hostages still alive and draw troops into protracted and deadly guerrilla warfare.
Dani Miran, whose son Omri was taken hostage on Oct. 7, said he feared the consequences of an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza City. “I’m scared that my son would be hurt,” he told Reuters in Tel Aviv on Monday.
In Gaza City, many Palestinians have also been calling for protests to demand an end to a war that has demolished much of the territory, and for Hamas to intensify talks to avert the Israeli ground offensive.
An Israeli armored incursion into Gaza City could displace hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have been uprooted multiple times during the war.
Ahmed Mheisen, Palestinian shelter manager in Beit Lahiya, a war-devastated suburb abutting eastern Gaza City, said 995 families had departed the area in recent days for the south.
A protest by unions is scheduled for Thursday in Gaza City, and people took to social media platforms vowing to participate, which will raise pressure on Hamas.
DIPLOMATIC DEADLOCK
The last round of indirect ceasefire talks ended in deadlock in late July with the sides trading blame for its collapse. Israel and the US both recalled their negotiators from the talks in Qatar, with Witkoff saying at the time that Hamas had not been acting in good faith and “clearly shows a lack of desire” to reach a deal.
Israel says it will agree to cease hostilities if all the hostages are released and Hamas lays down its arms – the latter demand publicly rejected by the Islamist group until a Palestinian state is established.
A Hamas official told Reuters earlier on Monday the terrorist group rejects Israeli demands to disarm or expel its leaders from Gaza.
Sharp differences also appear to remain over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and how humanitarian aid will be delivered around the enclave.
US President Donald Trump wrote on his social media platform on Monday: “We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed!!! The sooner this takes place, the better the chances of success will be.”
On Saturday, the Israeli military said it was preparing to help equip Gazans with tents and other shelter equipment ahead of relocating them from combat zones to the south of the enclave. It did not provide further details on quantities or how long it would take to get the equipment into the enclave.
The war began when Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists stormed across the border into southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing power in the enclave.
RSS
The Sacred and the Subverted: Resisting the Weaponization of Faith Against Israel’s Right to Exist
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024 during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
In a world that is increasingly polarized, few tactics are as dangerous as the deliberate perversion of sacred texts to undermine legitimate national existence and justify political agendas.
This disturbing trend is particularly evident in the ongoing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel, often leveraging the Christian faith to do so. From the outright fabrications peddled by figures like Nun Agapia to certain theological interpretations that inadvertently — or even directly — question Israel’s very foundations, this campaign demands a robust and principled counter-argument. It’s time to expose how the Christian faith is being weaponized, not only by outright anti-Zionists, but sometimes even by those within the Church who, perhaps unintentionally, give succor to such narratives.
Consider the recent spectacle of Orthodox Nun Agapia Stephanopoulos on Tucker Carlson’s program.
Dressed in the robes of spiritual authority, she spun a narrative rife with historical falsehoods and theological distortions. Her claims of Palestinians as unique “Canaanite descendants” and the “first Christians” are not merely inaccurate; they are calculated fabrications designed to strip away the millennia-long, unbroken Jewish connection to the Land of Israel.
This narrative isn’t about historical truth; it’s about manufacturing a theological supersessionism, implying that Christian claims somehow negate or outweigh Jewish indigeneity and self-determination in their ancestral homeland. This is weaponization: taking a faith tradition and twisting its tenets to serve an overtly political, anti-Zionist agenda.
This problematic trend extends to how some Christian scholars interpret Biblical texts in the context of the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Take, for instance, Father David Neuhaus, a German-Israeli Jesuit priest, in his recent L’Osservatore Romano article, “Leggere la Bibbia dopo la distruzione di Gaza.”
Father Neuhaus grapples with the agonizing question of how Christians should read Biblical passages that speak of conquest or judgment. He specifically criticizes the use of texts like Deuteronomy 20:16-17 or the Amalek passage by figures like David Ben-Gurion and Benjamin Netanyahu, asserting they constitute a “dangerous biblicism” that can “promote war and hatred” and legitimize military actions or dispossession.
While Father Neuhaus’s Christian conscience may lead him to question certain interpretations, his critique, by linking Israeli leaders’ use of Biblical references to concepts of “dispossession” and “dangerous biblicism,” unwittingly feeds into narratives that undermine Israel’s historical and theological legitimacy. It implies that the deep, covenantal bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, as understood and articulated by Jewish leaders, is somehow problematic or even a misuse of scripture when applied to modern national self-determination.
Such a perspective risks placing a Christian lens above Jewish self-understanding of their own foundational texts and national aspirations. It fails to adequately distinguish between modern political actions and the millennia-old, unbroken spiritual, and historical claim of the Jewish people to their homeland, a claim rooted in the very same Biblical narratives.
The core issue isn’t whether modern nations should live by ancient laws of war, which they clearly do not. It’s the implicit suggestion that a Jewish understanding of their historical and Biblical ties to the land, expressed by their leaders, is inherently “dangerous” when it pertains to their national rebirth and defense. This interpretation, while perhaps well-intentioned from a Christian perspective, can inadvertently echo the very arguments used by those who seek to deny Israel’s fundamental right to exist. It opens the door for anti-Zionist Christian movements to further weaponize their faith by claiming that Israel’s very existence, particularly its defense of its borders, is somehow contrary to divine will or proper Biblical understanding.
These anti-Zionist groups employ a perverse form of “replacement theology” — often cloaked in social justice rhetoric — that argues the Church has superseded the Jewish people, thereby nullifying God’s covenant with Israel and, by extension, its modern re-establishment. They take the nuanced, often challenging, Biblical narrative of a particular people’s covenant and twist it into a universalistic dismissal of Jewish national aspirations. They don’t merely critique Israeli policies; they systematically dismantle the theological foundations for Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of their Christian followers.
The implications for societies and interfaith relations are dire. This weaponization of Christian faith fosters deep distrust between Jews and Christians, undermining decades of good-faith interfaith dialogue. It provides moral cover for those who advocate for Israel’s dismantling, transforming political animosity into a religiously sanctioned imperative. It emboldens antisemitism by clothing ancient prejudices in modern theological language, painting Jews as occupiers or oppressors defying divine will. And it deeply wounds the vast majority of Christians worldwide who stand in genuine solidarity with Israel, recognizing its historical, Biblical, and democratic significance.
For all who value truth, justice, and the integrity of faith, the task ahead is clear and urgent. There must be an unequivocal rejection of the ideological hijacking of sacred texts for political ends, whether those ends are to deny national self-determination or to demonize a nation. It is crucial to firmly challenge interpretations, even from well-meaning scholars, that inadvertently undermine the Jewish people’s unique and enduring connection to their land. The sacred bond between the Jewish people and their land, affirmed throughout scripture, must be understood and respected on its own terms. The Christian faith, at its best, is a source of profound love, compassion, and reconciliation. It must never be perverted into a destructive force, manipulated to deny the legitimate aspirations and very existence of the Jewish State.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx