RSS
The Campus Problem Didn’t Start on October 7 — And Won’t End This Year
Pro-Hamas demonstrators at Columbia University in New York City, US, April 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs
The horrors of October 7 unleashed a wave of antisemitism that, for many of us, was sadly unsurprising. We’ve seen this before.
In May 2021, when Hamas launched an 11-day war against Israel with a relentless barrage of missiles, anti-Jewish hatred quickly resurfaced.
Critics seized on the conflict to vilify Israel, questioning its right to self-defense. “Why should Israel defend itself?” they screamed.
The disparity in military capabilities was their rallying cry — as though Israel should willingly allow its citizens to become sitting ducks simply because defending them would result in an uneven death toll.
Their warped rationale reframed Israel’s very act of survival as aggression. To them, the lower number of Israeli casualties wasn’t a sign of successful protection but evidence of a moral failing.
The first wave of college campus protests — ostensibly in support of the Palestinians — came just days after October 7.
Even as the bodies of massacre victims were still being recovered and identified, and while it remained unclear who had been killed or abducted into Gaza, American students were already gathering on campus lawns, chanting slogans like “Free, free Palestine,” “Palestine is here and proud,” and the infamous “From the river to the sea.”
The anti-Israel campus protests quickly mutated in the days and weeks following October 7. What began as rallies led by familiar groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the ironically named Jewish Voice for Peace soon swelled into broader support from the general student population.
This escalation was enabled by the alarming inaction of college faculty and leadership, who stood by as student mobs commandeered campus quads to set up so-called “Zionist-free” zones. These makeshift encampments, they proclaimed, would remain until university administrations caved to their nebulous demands for “divestment” from companies with tenuous, if any, connections to Israel.
Yet, these student protests and the horrifying displays of antisemitism they showcased brought into sharp focus a long-festering issue that HonestReporting and others have been warning about for years: the pervasive antisemitism on college campuses.
For years, Israel’s efforts to defend itself from terrorists seeking its annihilation have been seized upon by college activists, eager to use them as a pretext for antisemitism.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, US college campuses saw a surge in antisemitic incidents. A 2005 briefing by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had already sounded the alarm on how criticism of Israel frequently crossed the line into blatant antisemitism. The usual suspects were named: Columbia University, the University of California at Irvine, UC Berkeley, Northwestern, and others.
The scenes that unfolded on these campuses mirrored the abhorrent incidents we’ve witnessed in the past year: Holocaust memorials built by students were desecrated, swastikas were carved into tables meant for Holocaust memorial candles, and antisemitic speakers appeared on campus podiums to address crowds of impressionable 18-year-olds, pushing hateful rhetoric like the “Jewish Cracker theory” and warning them to be wary of “arrogant” Jews.
There was the brick thrown through the Hillel building’s windows during Passover, visibly Orthodox Jewish students attacked, and Jewish students reciting the Kaddish at a Holocaust memorial drowned out by their peers praising Palestinian suicide bombers.
In yet another vile incident, a three-foot swastika was scrawled alongside the phrase “Die Jews” on a campus wall.
Jewish university students share their experiences on campuses in the US.
An important thread pic.twitter.com/6NooG0XFXm
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 27, 2024
How The Media Became Campus Co-Conspirators
A report released this month by the ADL lays bare the troubling state of American campuses over the past year, documenting a 477% increase in anti-Israel incidents. These incidents have included the promotion of classic antisemitic tropes, such as references to Jewish wealth and control, as well as open expressions of support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Jewish student centers like Hillel and Chabad were frequently targeted, with at least 73 incidents directly impacting these organizations, including calls for universities to sever ties with them. Protests outside their buildings and events disrupted Jewish life across numerous campuses.
When college administrators finally took action after months of disruptions — spurred by both their disastrous Congressional testimonies and threats from high-profile donors to pull hefty endowments — university presidents began to fall on their swords and resign.
Among those who stepped down were Penn’s Liz Magill and Harvard’s Claudine Gay. Some felt a flicker of hope, believing this might signal a broader recognition of the problem — that institutions were finally waking up to what Jewish students have been voicing for years.
So much easier for @thetimes‘s sub-header to blame “Jewish students and benefactors” for Liz Magill’s resignation rather than her own disastrous and morally bankrupt performance in front of Congress.https://t.co/QyN1jrXGgU pic.twitter.com/jWv688M89E
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 10, 2023
But that hope is misplaced. In truth, college campuses are just a microcosm of a wider problem, where antisemitism is widespread and Israel is uniquely vilified. This issue isn’t confined to academia — it often begins with the journalists covering these conflicts, shaping the public narrative.
The irony is that the media’s coverage of the student protests perfectly demonstrated their own anti-Israel bias. As videos flooded online — showing Jewish students being harassed and pro-terror chants echoing across the manicured lawns of America’s elite institutions — the evidence was clear for millions to see. Yet much of the international media downplayed or excused the protests, reinforcing the very problem they were supposed to report on. Even when they acknowledged the incidents, the coverage was often dismissive, minimizing the severity of the antisemitism on display.
Amid its generally supportive coverage of the student protests, The New York Times sent a journalist to file a “dispatch from inside Columbia’s student-led protest” — the same college that later fired faculty over antisemitic posts.
It was striking that while the reporter could freely enter the protest and write about it, any so-called “Zionist” student attempting the same would have faced immediate hostility and exclusion.
In the first paragraph of the article, the journalist conveniently witnesses a moment that supposedly proves the Columbia campus demonstrations weren’t on the whole antisemitic.
Across the street from the university, a man — clearly not a student — with a large gold cross around his neck, is waving a bloodied Israeli flag and shouting, “The Jews control the world! Jews are murderers!”
As if on cue, a “pro-Palestinian” student calmly walks over and tells him, “That is horribly antisemitic. You are hurting the movement, and you are not a part of us. Go away.” The man obliges and leaves.
The Guardian ran a “video guide to the protest movement,” complete with maps and infographics informing readers that the “war in Gaza [had] unleashed the biggest outpouring of U.S. student activism since the anti-racism protests of 2020.”
There it was, in the first sentence — The Guardian’s view was unmistakable: the anti-Israel protests were morally equivalent to anti-racism demonstrations.
Students shouting that “Zionist pigs don’t deserve to live” were, in the eyes of the outlet, imbued with a sense of righteousness. The paper’s seal of approval, complete with a guide for others to join in, effectively encouraged more students to intimidate their Jewish peers.
Meanwhile, a glowing feature in The New Yorker hailed the protests as a “national uprising of students to end the war in Gaza and, for some, to end their institution’s financial ties to Israel.” But that was hardly the full extent of their demands.
Some college protestors went even further than the official BDS movement, calling for individual Zionists and Israelis to be banned from campuses — a stance that, according to the ADL, breaks with USACBI guidelines, which specifically advocate for “the boycott of Israeli institutions, not individuals” and “[reject] on principle boycotts of individuals based on their identity or opinion.”
For months, the media narrative was unwavering: the students, guided by their unimpeachable moral compasses, were on the side of righteousness. Even when protests veered unmistakably into antisemitism, we were reassured that these were merely isolated incidents — just a few “bad apples.”
The prevailing wisdom, as The New Yorker so confidently asserted, was that the kids were not all right — but only because they weren’t being heard.
Even as universities, after much delay, were finally forced to act — dismantling encampments, suspending students, and issuing long-overdue disciplinary actions — the media somehow continued to rally behind a cause that had rapidly devolved into the indefensible.
And now, here we are, with a new academic year just beginning.
Repercussions and Lessons Learned?
Despite the break in protests and leadership resignations, the reality is that we’re likely to see a repeat of last year’s scenes — if not over the current war against Hamas, then certainly the next time Israel makes headlines.
Why? The inadequate and delayed responses from universities only served to embolden the protesters. It’s this hesitancy, coupled with words of approval from university leadership in the early stages, which allowed the demonstrations to persist for as long as they did.
In fact, some of the key figures behind the protests have even been rewarded by their institutions.
For example, the Columbia University student who famously demanded “humanitarian aid” and “a glass of water” for protesters — claiming they’d “die of dehydration and starvation” without support from the administration — now teaches a required undergraduate class.
At the same institution, Professor Joseph Massad, who openly praised Hamas, still holds his position teaching Middle East studies, facing no consequences. Likewise, at Cornell, the professor who described the October 7 Hamas attacks as “exhilarating” remains unpunished and continues teaching.
Second, and perhaps more troubling, is the fact that many in positions of authority at these academic institutions see no need for punishment — largely because they align with the broader sentiments expressed. The normalization of anti-Israel rhetoric has reached a point where even calls for the deaths of “Zionists” are shrugged off as poor word choice or an excess of passion, while the underlying ideology is tacitly accepted.
It’s difficult to imagine such grotesque views being directed toward the citizens of any other nation, let alone met with the same indifference or rationalization.
At the core of this issue lies the media.
In Europe and the US, the press has traditionally been regarded as the “fourth estate” — distinct from the clergy, nobility, and commoners — acknowledging its powerful role in holding other estates accountable and shaping public understanding. However, when it comes to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the surge of antisemitism, the media has abdicated this crucial role. Where it once sought to expose, scrutinize, and challenge, it now falters. Increasingly, journalists position themselves not as impartial purveyors of truth, but as activists, emboldened by employers that sanction such partisanship.
If meaningful reform is to take root in American colleges, it must begin with a renewed commitment from the media. Journalists must reclaim their role as objective arbiters, subjecting issues to rigorous scrutiny rather than ideological alignment. The path forward requires a return to the fundamental duty of their profession: to illuminate the truth, without fear or favor.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post The Campus Problem Didn’t Start on October 7 — And Won’t End This Year first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Antisemites Target Synagogues in Spain, France Amid Surge in Jew Hatred Across Europe

The exterior wall of a synagogue in Girona, Spain, vandalized with antisemitic graffiti. Photo: Screenshot
Pro-Palestinian activists have vandalized synagogues in Spain and France in recent days, sparking public outrage and calls for authorities to step up protections.
These are only the latest incidents in a troubling wave of anti-Jewish hate crimes targeting Jewish communities across Europe which continues unabated.
On Thursday, the Jewish community of Girona, a city in Spain’s northeastern Catalonia region, filed a police complaint and urged authorities to take action after the outer wall of the city’s synagogue was defaced with an antisemitic slogan.
Unknown perpetrators defaced the synagogue’s walls with antisemitic graffiti, scrawling messages such as “Israel is a genocidal state, silence = complicity.”
The city’s Jewish community strongly condemned the incident, urging authorities to conduct a swift investigation, impose exemplary sanctions, and ensure robust security measures.
“Disguised as political activism, [this attack] seeks to stigmatize citizens for their faith — something intolerable in a democratic society,” the statement reads. “Tolerance and respect are values we must defend together.”
The European Jewish Association (EJA) also condemned the incident as a hate crime, urging the Spanish government to ensure the safety and protection of its Jewish citizens.
“This is yet another antisemitic attack, part of a wave we’ve seen daily for nearly two years,” the EJA wrote in a post on X.
This is what members of the Jewish community in Girona found this morning when they arrived at their synagogue to pray.
Antisemitic vandals had defaced the synagogue’s outer wall with the words:
“ISRAEL ESTAT GENOCIDA, SILENCI = CÒMPLICE”
Translation: “Israel is a genocidal… pic.twitter.com/ERj4z1hKOP— EJA – EIPA (@EJAssociation) September 4, 2025
In a separate incident, three pro-Palestinian activists were arrested on Thursday after trying to force their way into a synagogue in Nice, southeastern France, during an informational meeting on aliyah, the process of Jews immigrating to Israel.
According to local reports, several individuals attempted to forcibly enter the place of worship, sparking violent clashes and insults that left a pregnant woman injured.
Shortly after the incident, law enforcement arrested two women in their forties and a man in his sixties, taking them into custody as part of an investigation into aggravated violence.
The charges involve attacks on a vulnerable person, actions carried out by a group, religious motivation, and public religious insults.
Local authorities strongly condemned the act and announced that police officers would remain stationed outside the synagogue for as long as necessary.
Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents have surged to alarming levels across Europe.
Jewish individuals have been facing a surge in hostility and targeted attacks, including vandalism of murals and businesses, as well as physical assaults.
RSS
Iran’s Alliances With China, Russia Falter as Regime Faces Growing Isolation, Study Finds

Chinese Foreign Minister Wag Yi stands with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazeem Gharibabadi before a meeting regarding the Iranian nuclear issue at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Photo: Pool via REUTERS
As Iran continues to face major crises both at home and abroad, its ties to China and Russia are proving far weaker than they seem, leaving the regime to confront the fallout largely on its own, according to a new study.
The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank, has released a report examining how the 12-day war with Israel in June exposed the limits of Iran’s alliances with China and Russia.
In the study, authors Raz Zimmt and Danny Citrinowicz note that both China and Russia favored cautious diplomacy over direct support at a time when the Iranian regime was most vulnerable.
“The policy of Moscow and Beijing, which consisted of fairly mild condemnations of the Israeli and US strikes in Iran, sparked criticism and disappointment in Tehran,” the report explains.
“It also reinforced the Iranian assessment that its reliance on Russia and China remains limited, particularly in the event of a military confrontation with Israel and the United States,” it continues.
Earlier this week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian traveled to Beijing, joining Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, as the three nations aim to project a united front against the West.
The high-profile gathering came after Pezeshkian and Putin held talks in China on Monday on the sidelines of the 25th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin.
During a joint press conference, the Iranian president hailed Tehran’s cooperation with Moscow as “highly valuable,” adding that continued implementation of their 20-year treaty signed earlier this year would further strengthen ties and expand collaboration.
Putin also noted that the relationship between the two countries is “growing increasingly friendly and expanding” amid mounting pressure and sanctions from Western countries.
According to Zimmt and Citrinowicz, Iran has little room to maneuver, even more so now as the regime faces the imminent threat of UN sanctions being reimposed due to efforts by Britain, France, and Germany, forcing it to rely on its fragile alliances with Russia and China.
“It is clear that for now, Iran has no viable alternative to continuing its political, economic, and security partnership, as limited as it may be, with Russia and China, especially given the escalating tensions between Tehran and Europe,” the paper explains.
“Likewise, Russia and China, who view Iran as a junior partner in a coalition against the West and the United States, have no real alternative to Tehran, and they are expected to continue the partnership as long as it serves their interests,” it adds.
The authors argue that China and Russia could readily sacrifice Iran to further their strategic goals, including strengthening ties with Washington.
The study comes just days after an Iranian official accused Russia without evidence of providing intelligence to Israel during the 12-day Middle Eastern war in June which allegedly helped the Jewish state target and destroy Iran’s air defense systems.
Mohammad Sadr, a member of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council and close adviser to former President Mohammad Khatami, claimed Israel’s precise strikes on Iranian air defense systems were suspicious.
He noted Russia’s refusal to support Iran during the war, saying that Moscow had shown a “bias in favor of Israel” and that the recent conflict demonstrated the “strategic agreement with Russia is nonsense.”
“This war proved that the strategic alliance with Moscow is worthless,” Sadr said during an interview with BBC Persian, referring to the 12-day war between Iran and Israel.
“We must not think that Russia will come to Iran’s aid when the time comes,” he continued.
At the SCO summit in Tianjin earlier this week, Tehran also described its ties with China as “flourishing,” pointing to a strategic pact similar to the one it signed with Russia.
According to some reports, China may be helping Iran rebuild its decimated air defenses following the 12-day war with Israel.
China is the largest importer of Iranian oil, with nearly 90 percent of Iran’s crude and condensate exports going to Beijing. The two sides also recently signed a 25-year cooperation agreement, held joint naval drills, and continued to trade Iranian oil despite US sanctions.
“It should be noted that despite the 25-year cooperation agreement signed between Tehran and Beijing in March 2021, the partnership between the two countries remains very limited, and China does not provide solutions to most of Iran’s economic difficulties, including the need for infrastructure investment,” the INSS study explains.
RSS
US Lawmakers Urge Trump to Restrict Visas for Iran’s President, Other Regime Officials Ahead of UN General Assembly

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian speaks during a meeting in Ilam, Iran, June 12, 2025. Photo: Iran’s Presidential website/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
A bipartisan group of US lawmakers is urging President Donald Trump to block or sharply restrict visas for Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, and other top Iranian officials traveling to New York this month for the United Nations General Assembly, warning that Tehran will use the global platform to disguise its escalating repression at home.
In a letter sent to Trump on Thursday, 40 members of Congress pointed to Iran’s recent human rights record, which includes nearly 1,500 executions in the past year, and accused Pezeshkian’s government of openly threatening to repeat the mass killings of dissidents that scarred the country in 1988.
“Immediately following the recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran, the Iranian regime escalated its widespread internal crackdown, arbitrarily arresting hundreds of ethnic minorities, civil society leaders, women’s rights activists, and others,” the lawmakers wrote. They described Iran’s leaders as “criminals” who “support terrorism” and “sow hatred and instability across the Middle East.”
The letter was signed by an unusually broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats, including House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (NY), as well as Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Deborah Ross (R-NC), and Val Hoyle (D-OR), underscoring how concern about Iran’s hostility toward the US and its allies continues to cut across party lines.
Drawing a distinction between the regime and the Iranian people who support democracy, the lawmakers asked Trump to make a strong statement against a country that US intelligence agencies have long labeled the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.
“We respectfully urge you to restrict the Iranian delegation’s freedom of movement, and, to the extent possible, refrain from issuing visas to key delegation members, including for its President, Masoud Pezeshkian,” the letter stated.
It continued, “We urge you to take a strong stand against the Iranian regime’s ongoing support for terrorism and human rights abuses, in line with your dedication toward ‘Peace through Strength’ and the maximum pressure campaign against the regime. We look forward to working you to further
oppose the destructive and destabilizing influence of the government of Iran and support the
Iranian people on the world stage.”
The lawmakers’ request comes as the Trump administration weighs new restrictions on several UN delegations ahead of the annual gathering. According to a State Department memo obtained by the Associated Press, the US is considering limiting the movements of officials not just from Iran, but also from Sudan and Zimbabwe. The department is also considering limiting the movements of officials from Brazil, whose president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, traditionally opens the General Assembly.
The proposals also suggest that Iranian diplomats be barred from shopping at Costco or Sam’s Club without explicit permission from the State Department, according to the AP report. Diplomats from Iran have historically relied on those stores to buy affordable goods unavailable in their home country. By contrast, the memo indicates that delegates from Syria may be granted a waiver, reflecting shifting US priorities in the region.
Under the UN Headquarters Agreement, the US is obligated to grant visas to foreign officials attending UN functions. But successive administrations have imposed restrictions on the travel of adversarial delegations, typically confining them to Manhattan and surrounding boroughs. The latest proposals would go further, potentially requiring advance State Department approval for movements and limiting access to certain businesses.