RSS
The Historical Roots of President Trump’s Gaza Relocation Plan
US President Donald Trump meets with Jordan’s King Abdullah at the White House in Washington, DC, Feb. 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
President Donald Trump has overturned the Middle East chessboard by proposing that the population of Gaza be resettled elsewhere to allow for the total razing and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and the full eradication of its terrorist infrastructure.
Trump views Egypt and Jordan as logical hosts to the resettled Gaza population. By mentioning the critical contributions the US makes to Egypt and Jordan, not to say their full reliance on the US, Trump is sending a strong hint to President Sisi and King Abdullah that their reservations about his proposal will come with a price. This could have serious consequences for the two Arab states, both of which face major domestic challenges including economic instability and political unrest.
Those fears notwithstanding, Egypt and Jordan have called on the Arab League to demonstrate a determined and united front against the relocation initiative. The Joint Arab statement of February 1, 2025, read, “We affirm our rejection of [any attempts] to compromise Palestinians’ unalienable rights, whether through settlement activities, or evictions or annexation of land or through vacating the land from its owners…in any form or under any circumstances or justifications.”
Several European countries have wondered about the ethics of forcibly relocating a population. Relocation, even if framed as voluntary, often involves coercion when individuals have no real alternatives. This raises questions about the morality of displacing millions of people who have already suffered decades of conflict, displacement, and loss.
Will this thwart the American president’s ambitious plan? Not necessarily. Trump will likely exert additional pressure on the Jordanian king and Egyptian president, alongside generous economic incentives.
It should be noted that the current relocation initiative is not a new idea. It has long historical roots that stretch all the way back to the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence (1948-1949) and the emergence of the problem of Palestinian refugees. Plans were proposed that were mainly directed toward resettling the refugees through formal absorption into host countries.
Most of these initiatives were thwarted by the Arab League countries as part of a strategy intended to eventually annihilate Israel by inflating the cause of the refugees’ “right of return” to the territory of the State of Israel.
The lessons learned from past failures can serve as reference points for considering President Trump’s plan to relocate the residents of the Gaza Strip. The following historical overview sheds light on the circumstances that played a critical role in the past and can help us judge the prospects for Trump’s relocation and resettlement initiative.
Background
The documented evidence shows that the Arab countries, since the very beginning of the Palestinian refugees’ tragedy, have never been interested in any kind of solution to the refugee problem but solely in their return to their homes within Israel. Using this rationale, all the Arab states, with the exception of Jordan, refused to grant citizenship to any Palestinian refugees residing within their borders. Most Arab leaders reasoned that resettling the Palestinians was tantamount to renouncing Arab claims to Palestine. Out of an overt hostility toward Israel, they deliberately refused to resettle Palestinian refugees in an effort to maintain their refugee status and keep the Palestinian issue alive in the world’s consciousness.
Resettlement versus the “right of return”
Official Arab discourse on the matter centered around the implementation of the “right of return” and the preservation of UNRWA as a symbol of both the refugees’ plight and the international community’s responsibility for implementing UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
At the birth of the Palestinian refugee crisis, the Arab states faced a political challenge. While they encouraged their peoples to demand the refugees’ repatriation in Israel, the Arab governments lacked the power to force Israel to accept them. Arab host states found themselves insisting that the Palestinian refugees “go home” even though they did not have the ability to make this happen.
In striking testimony, British MP Richard Cross Brian said, on visiting a refugee camp in Jordan in March 1951, that “…the Arab League needs the refugee problem in order to keep the struggle against Israel. The resettlement of the refugees would have denied its most important tool in this respect”.
Systematic Arab rejection of the refugees’ resettlement
Ever since the early stages of the Palestinian refugee problem, numerous resettlement projects have been proposed, international funds provided, and studies undertaken, all of which focused on the benefits to the refugees of their absorption into Arab host countries. The main idea was that the Palestinians’ rehabilitation could help the host countries develop their own economic potential under proposed aid programs as well as remove the main obstacle to a settlement in the Middle East.
However, the resettlement initiatives, all of which were intended to better the lives and ease the suffering of the Palestinian people, became the official symbol of “betrayal” of the refugee cause. The term “return” remains to this day – an empty slogan devoid of any clear reference to the modalities of its implementation, either in terms of procedure or in terms of the political regime that might prevail in a recovered Palestine.
The principle of maintaining the refugees as stateless persons in order to retain their Palestinian nationality and thus preserve their “right of return” was the key premise of the Arab League’s Palestinian refugee policies.
Walter Eytan, the first director general of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote in his book The First Ten Years:
…The Arab states were quick to see that they had in the refugees a priceless political asset. They were determined to do everything to preserve it – which meant doing nothing for the refugees…The Arab states as a whole will have no interest in the solution of the problem until the refugees become a political liability for them, as they have been for Israel, or at least cease to be an asset.
The logic behind the principle of resettlement
The first UN secretary general, Trigve Lie, expressed a realistic vision on the topic by stating, “The Arab States would have a change of opinion, and they would recognize the inevitability of reintegration of refugees elsewhere than in Israel.” A Report of the Special Study Mission of the US Congress stated in 1954 that the objective should be for refugees to become citizens of the Arab states – but also noted that “any Arab political leader suggesting an alternative to repatriation in what was formerly Palestine would have been ousted from office and, perhaps, have run the risk of assassination”.
The approach of Israeli President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi
A creative idea of how to solve the refugee problem was proposed in December 1960 by the late former Israeli President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi. He suggested that the Arab refugees be regarded as a fair exchange of population for the Jews expelled from Muslim countries who subsequently settled in Israel.
Ben-Zvi said, “The Arabs must accept the fact that Arab refugees should be resettled in their respective countries just as Jews were resettled in Israel…The UN must understand that this was the only way of solving the problem, even if it required financial support.” The Arab side rejected President Ben-Zvi’s proposal on the claim that it violated UN resolutions.
Resettlement initiatives that were stopped by the Arabs
Several initiatives were explored based on the idea of resettlement. They included the following:
- The Syrian case: After its 1948 defeat, the Syrian government was in desperate need of agricultural workers. A joint US-UK initiative to offer a deal for the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Syria was raised, first with then Syrian Prime Minister Husni Za’im (mid-1949) and then with Adib Shishakly (who overthrew Za’im). The basic framework was settlement in return for money. The plan was to resettle 500,000 refugees in Syria at a cost of $200,000,000. However, shortly after the Egyptian revolution of July 1952, Shishakly shut down the project, claiming that he was being accused of suppressing freedom, binding Syria to the imperialist organizers of Western pacts and to the oil companies, and of “selling” the refugees. In February 1954, Shishakly was driven from the country by a military coup.
- The American plans: A plan was put forward by US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in August 1955 that suggested the resettlement of the refugees in Arab states. This was to be incentivized through the development of water management projects with the US as a major contributor; payment of compensation for lost property; return of a limited number of refugees to Israel; and a solution to the border problem between Israel and the Arab states. Another US plan, initiated by President Eisenhower after the Israeli military campaign in Sinai (October-November 1956), offered an economic solution to the refugee problem through regional economic development. The last official US plan in this regard was that of Joseph Johnson in October 1962, who suggested that refugees be given a choice of return or compensation from UN and US funds while maintaining Israel’s right to refuse returnees on security grounds.
- The Iraqi case: On several occasions, the feasibility of resettling the refugees in Iraq was raised both theoretically and practically. One of the ideas was a possible quid pro quo in which Iraq would absorb a major share of Palestinian refugees in exchange for the 100,000 Jewish residents of Iraq, who would be authorized to emigrate to Israel without hindrance. Though a preliminary scheme for this kind of population exchange was raised by the Iraqi side, the idea was never implemented. This is unfortunate, as resettlement of the refugees in Iraq could have benefited the refugees while helping to solve one of Iraq’s own development problems.
- The Canadian case: In mid-1955, at the request of UNRWA, the Canadian government expressed a readiness to admit displaced Palestinian refugees. Canadian officials believed that alleviating the refugee problem in the Middle East would help to further regional stability. The resettlement scheme was still politically sensitive, however. Arab governments protested what they labeled a Zionist plot to remove Palestinians from their ancestral land, and Palestinian activists threatened to conduct violent attacks in Canadian cities if Ottawa kept offering Palestinian refugees safe haven in Canada.
- The South American option: It was recently revealed that the US proposed giving Palestinian refugees land in South America as a solution to the refugee problem. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served during the administration of George W. Bush, suggested that displaced Palestinians be settled in Argentina and Chile. Rice made the proposal during a June 2008 meeting with US, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Berlin. The initiative was bluntly rejected by the Palestinian side.
The special resettlement initiative of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold
Of all the resettlement proposals, the initiative of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold was the most comprehensive. On June 15, 1959, he made the assertion that there were feasible means of absorbing the refugees into the economy of the Arab region. He asserted further that the refugees would be beneficial to their host countries by adding vital manpower to assist in their development. Hammarskjold detailed the estimated cost of the refugee absorption, which he said could be financed by oil revenues and outside aid.
The Arab states strongly rejected the plan on the grounds that it overlooked the Palestinians’ national rights. They also strongly objected to its blueprint for regional economic development, which would result in economic cooperation with Israel and eventually political cooperation. This was deemed unacceptable as it would benefit Israel by ending the boycott.
The most radical remark on behalf of the Arab States was delivered by Saudi Arabian representative to the UN Ahmad Shukeiri, who warned that unless Israel was forced to accept the complete repatriation of the refugees, 80,000,000 Arabs “from Casablanca to the Persian Gulf” were ready and eager to go to war against the Jewish State.
The Jordanian option as an “alternative homeland”
The case of Jordan, which bears the highest burden of refugees, illustrates why other Arab states are reluctant to accept Palestinian refugees. In terms of demographics, the over 2 million refugees who reside in Jordan – 40% of all registered refugees – represent more than 70% of the total Jordanian population. The idea of flooding Jordan with large numbers of additional Palestinian refugees directly threatens the future of the Hashemite Kingdom. It can therefore be easily understood why Jordan’s King Abdullah expressed his firm position that he will never accept turning Jordan into the Palestinians’ “alternative homeland”.
No matter what the official Jordanian position may be, the notion of Jordan as an “alternative homeland” is still alive. It is being pushed by Dr. Mudar Zahran, the Secretary General of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition, who aims to bring about the collapse of the Kingdom of Jordan.
Conclusion
In all the proposals for resettling Palestinian refugees, they were identified not as a liability but as an asset. They were described as a reservoir of manpower which, combined with the economic potentialities of the area, could contribute toward raising the standard of living across the whole region. But on the political level, the refugees were perceived as a threat to stability and peace, and as people who could easily be exploited by Communist and other radical movements.
Since neither Israel nor the US had the power to compel resettlement, the Palestinians and the Arab states succeeded in resisting it. In the wake of the failure of any resettlement strategy to take hold, UNRWA – a tool of UN – was suspected of indirectly helping to subsidize Palestinian terror groups and even of abetting Palestinian atrocities against Israelis on October 7.
The Arab States’ resistance to resettlement was well reasoned. Notwithstanding the 1949 armistice, the Arab governments did not accept Israel’s legitimacy. To agree to resettlement as a resolution to the refugee problem would have been tantamount to acknowledging the permanence of Israel.
Israeli historian Prof. Benny Morris, commenting on the 1948-49 negotiations concerning repatriation and resettlement, bluntly argued that the Arab states regarded the refugees as a potential fifth column. Some Arab governments feared that the absorption of Palestinian refugees could undermine their own political stability.
Finally, voices among the refugees themselves have described their feelings on the matter: “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”
Dr. Raphael Bouchnik-Chen is a retired colonel and author of the books Diplomat and Secret Man and The Intelligence Failure and the Yom Kippur Surprise. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The Historical Roots of President Trump’s Gaza Relocation Plan first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Police Officers Injured as Violent Clashes Erupt at Anti-Israel Nakba Day Rally in Berlin
A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator speaks to a police officer during a protest against Israel to mark the 77th anniversary of the “Nakba,” or catastrophe, in Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
Anti-Israel demonstrators clashed violently with Berlin police officers during a march on Thursday, resulting in injuries and heightened tensions throughout the German capital city.
More than 600 police officers were dispatched to contain the “Nakba Day” protest in Berlin’s central Kreuzberg district, where over 50 arrests were made. The demonstrators were recognizing the 77th anniversary of the “nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists to refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
According to local law enforcement, approximately 1,100 people took part in the pro-Hamas rally, which also protested against Israel’s military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group in the Gaza Strip.
Demonstrators initially intended to march from Südstern Square in the southern part of the capital to the adjacent Neukölln district, but local authorities only allowed the protest to remain stationary.
Even though a local court had ruled that the anti-Israel protest couldn’t move through the city, demonstrators repeatedly attempted to march through the neighborhood. When police intervened to stop them, they were met with insults and violent attacks from the crowd.
Police officers stand guard in front of Pro-Palestinian demonstrators during a protest against Israel to mark the 77th anniversary of the “Nakba” or catastrophe, in Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Axel Schmidt
During the protest, one of the organizers addressed the crowd, declaring, “The nakba is a continuing campaign of ethnic cleansing that has never stopped.”
The demonstration was also marked by antisemitic rhetoric and inflammatory chants, including accusations that the Israeli government and military are “child murderers, women murderers, baby murderers,” as well as the use of the banned slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The slogan is popular among anti-Israel activists and has been widely interpreted as a call for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
When police intervened to stop the inflammatory rhetoric, they were met with significant violence from the crowd, who reportedly threw bottles, stones, and other objects, and sprayed officers with red paint.
After the incidents, police reported that one officer was pulled into the crowd, forced to the ground, and trampled until he lost consciousness. The 36-year-old officer sustained severe upper body injuries, including a broken arm, and remains hospitalized.
“The attack on a police officer at the demonstration in Kreuzberg is nothing but a cowardly, brutal act of violence,” Berlin Mayor Kai Wegner said in a statement. “Attacks against officers are attacks on law and order and therefore against all of us.”
“Those who misuse the right to demonstrate to spread hate, antisemitic incitement, or violence will face the full force of the law,” the German leader added.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators during a protest against Israel to mark the 77th anniversary of the “Nakba” or catastrophe, in Berlin, Germany, May 15, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Local authorities reported that 11 officers and an unspecified number of protesters were injured during the incidents, with the injured demonstrators receiving treatment from the Berlin fire department.
The German-Israeli Society (DIG) condemned the violence and hateful rhetoric, urging authorities to reconsider granting permission for such demonstrations.
“Often, these events are not demonstrations for the rights and the legitimate concerns of Palestinians but merely express outright hatred of Israel,” the group said in a statement.
Germany has experienced a sharp spike in antisemitism amid the war in Gaza. In just the first six months of 2024 alone, the number of antisemitic incidents in Berlin surpassed the total for all of the prior year and reached the highest annual count on record, according to Germany’s Federal Association of Departments for Research and Information on Antisemitism (RIAS).
The figures compiled by RIAS were the highest count for a single year since the federally-funded body began monitoring antisemitic incidents in 2015, showing the German capital averaged nearly eight anti-Jewish outrages a day from January to June last year.
According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), police registered 5,154 antisemitic incidents in Germany in 2023, a 95 percent increase compared to the previous year.
The post Police Officers Injured as Violent Clashes Erupt at Anti-Israel Nakba Day Rally in Berlin first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Signals Support for Future Iran Trade Deal if Regime Dismantles Nuclear Program
US President Donald speaking in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington, DC on March 3, 2025. Photo: Leah Millis via Reuters Connect
US President Donald Trump on Thursday seemed to signal openness to striking a trade deal with Iran if the Islamist theocracy agrees to dismantle its entire nuclear program.
“Iran wants to trade with us. Okay? If you can believe that. And I’m okay with it. I’m using trade to settle scores and to make peace,” Trump said while speaking to Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “But I’ve told Iran, ‘We make a deal, you’re gonna be really happy.”
However, Trump underscored the urgency in finalizing a nuclear deal with Iran, saying there’s “not plenty of time” to secure an agreement which would dismantle Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.
“There’s not plenty of time. You feel urgency? Well, they’re not gonna have a nuclear weapon. And eventually, they’ll have a nuclear weapon, and then the discussion becomes a much different one,” Trump said.
The US and other Western countries say Iran’s nuclear program is ultimately meant to build nuclear weapons — a claim denied by Tehran, which asserts the program is only geared for peaceful nuclear energy.
Trump on Friday said Iran had a US proposal about its nuclear program and knows it needs to move quickly to resolve the dispute.
“They have a proposal. More importantly, they know they have to move quickly or something bad — something bad’s going to happen,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, according to an audio recording of the remarks.
However, Tehran denied receiving a US proposal yet. According to some reports, Oman, which has been mediating US-Iran nuclear talks in recent weeks, has the proposal and will soon give to the Iranians.
US lawmakers and some Trump administration officials have repeatedly stressed the importance of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, arguing that Tehran could use a nuclear bomb to permanently entrench its regime and potentially launch a strike at Israel. Some experts also fear Iran could eventually use its expanding ballistic missile program to launch a nuclear warhead at the US.
However, the administration has sent conflicting messages regarding its ongoing nuclear talks with Iran, oscillating between demands for “complete dismantlement” of Tehran’s nuclear program and signaling support for allowing a limited degree of uranium enrichment for “civilian purposes.” Many Republicans and hawkish foreign policy analysts have lamented what they described as similarities between the framework of the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran and the controversial Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 deal negotiated by the former Obama administration which placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of major international sanctions. Trump withdrew the US from the deal during his first term, arguing its terms were bad for American national security.
Trump indicated last Wednesday during a radio interview that he is seeking to “blow up” Iran’s nuclear centrifuges “nicely” through an agreement with Tehran but is also prepared to do so “viciously” in an attack if necessary. That same day, however, when asked by a reporter in the White House whether his administration would allow Iran to maintain an enrichment program as long as it doesn’t enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, Trump said his team had not decided.
Furthermore, US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff drew backlash last month when, during a Fox News interview, he suggested that Iran would be allowed to pursue a nuclear program for so-called civilian purposes, saying that Iran “does not need to enrich past 3.67 percent.” The next day, Witkoff backtracked on these remarks, writing on X/Twitter that Tehran must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”
Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, reported last year that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to close to weapons grade at its Fordow site dug into a mountain.
The UK, France, and Germany said in a statement at the time that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Iran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”
While speaking to Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim al-Thani on Wednesday, Trump reportedly said that he would like to avoid war with Iran, “because things like that get started and they get out of control. I’ve seen it over and over again … we’re not going to let that happen.”
Trump has threatened Iran with military action and more sanctions if the regime does not agree to a nuclear deal with Washington.
The post Trump Signals Support for Future Iran Trade Deal if Regime Dismantles Nuclear Program first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard, Jewish Activist ‘Shabbos’ Kestenbaum Settle Antisemitism Lawsuit
Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum makes remarks during the fourth annual Countering Antisemitism Summit at the Four Seasons, Feb. 26, 2025. Photo: USA Today Network via Reuters Connect.
Harvard University and Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum have settled a lawsuit in which the former student turned widely known pro-Israel activist accused the institution of violating the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 by permitting antisemitic discrimination and harassment.
The confidential agreement ends what Kestenbaum, an Orthodox Jews, had promised would be a protracted, scorched-earth legal battle revealing alleged malfeasance at the highest levels of Harvard’s administration. So determined was Kestenbaum to discomfit the storied institution and force it to enact long overdue reforms that he declined to participate in an earlier settlement it reached last year with a group of Jewish plaintiffs, of which he was a member, who sued the university in 2024.
Charging ahead, Kestenbaum vowed never to settle and proclaimed that the discovery phase of the case would be so damning to Harvard’s defense that no judge or jury would render a verdict in its favor. Harvard turned that logic against him, requesting a trove of documents containing his communications with advocacy groups, politicians, and US President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign staff during a period of time which saw Kestenbaum’s star rise to meteoric heights as he became a national poster-child for pro-Israel activism.
Harvard argued that the materials are “relevant to his allegations that he experienced harassment and discrimination to which Harvard was deliberately indifferent in violation of Title VI.” Additionally, it sought information related to other groups which have raised awareness of the antisemitism crisis since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, demanding to know, the Harvard Crimson reported, “the ownership, funding, financial backing, management, and structure” of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Students Against Antisemitism (SAA), and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE).
Without the materials, Harvard claimed, it would be unable to depose witnesses.
According to the Crimson, the university and Kestenbaum failed to agree on a timeframe for producing the requested documents, prompting it to file in May a motion that would have extracted them via court order. Meanwhile, two anonymous plaintiffs who also declined to be a party to 2024’s settlement came forward to join Kestenbaum’s complaint, which necessitated its being amended at the approval of the judge presiding over the case, Richard Stearns. In filing the motion to modify the suit, the Crimson reported, Kestenbaum’s attorneys asked Stearns to “extend the discovery deadline by at least six months” in the event that he “rejects the motion.”
On April 2, Stearns — who was appointed to the bench in 1993 by former US President Bill Clinton (D) and served as a political operative for and special assistant to Israel critic and former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern — spurned the amended complaint and granted Harvard its discovery motion, which Kestenbaum’s attorneys had opposed in part by arguing that Harvard too had withheld key documents. Kestenbaum was given five days to submit the contents of correspondence.
On Wednesday, both parties lauded the settlement — which, according to the Crimson, included dismissing Kestenbaum’s case with prejudice — as a step toward eradicating antisemitism at Harvard University, an issue that has cost it billions of dollars in federal funding and undermined its reputation for being a beacon of enlightenment and the standard against which all other higher education institutions are judged.
“Harvard and Mr. Kestenbaum acknowledge each other’s steadfast and important efforts to combat antisemitism at Harvard and elsewhere,” Harvard University spokesman Jason Newton said in a statement.
In a lengthy statement of his own, Kestenbaum expressed gratitude for having helped “lead the student effort combating antisemitism” while accusing Harvard of resorting to duplicitous and intrusive tactics to fend off his allegations.
“Harvard opposed the anonymity of two of its current Jewish students who sought to vindicate their legal rights, and the Harvard Crimson outed them, even before the court could rule on their motion for anonymity. Harvard also issued a 999-page subpoena against Aish Hatorah, my Yeshiva in Israel that has been deeply critical of the university,” he said. “Remarkably, while Harvard sought personal and non-relevant documents between me and my friends, family, and others in the Jewish community, they simultaneously refused to produce virtually any relevant, internal communication that we had asked for during discovery.”
He continued, “I am comforted knowing that as we have now resoled our lawsuit, the Trump administration will carry the baton forward.”
Harvard’s legal troubles continue.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the university sued the Trump administration in April to request an injunction that would halt the government’s impounding of $2.26 billion of its federal grants and contracts and an additional $450 billion that was confiscated earlier this week.
In the complaint, shared by interim university president Alan Garber, Harvard says the Trump administration bypassed key procedural steps it must, by law, take before sequestering any federal funds. It also charges 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 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 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 implore Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
Harvard rejects the Trump administration’s coupling of campus antisemitism with longstanding grievances regarding elite higher education’s alleged “wokeness,” elitism, and overwhelming bias against conservative ideas. Republican lawmakers, for their part, have maintained that it is futile to address campus antisemitism while ignoring the context in which it emerged.
On April 28, a Massachusetts district court judge, appointed to the bench by former US President Barack Obama, granted Harvard its request for the speedy processing of its case and a summary judgement in lieu of a trial, scheduling a hearing for July 21.
The following day, Harvard released its long anticipated report on campus antisemitism and along with it an apology from Garber which acknowledged that school officials failed in key ways to address the hatred to which Jewish students were subjected following the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre
The over 300-page document provided a complete account of antisemitic incidents which transpired on Harvard’s campus in recent years — from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee’s (PSC) endorsement of the Oct. 7 terrorist atrocities to an anti-Zionist faculty group’s sharing an antisemitic cartoon which depicted Jews as murderers of people of color — and said that one source of the problem is the institution’s past refusal to afford Jews the same protections against discrimination enjoyed by other minority groups. It also issued recommendations for improving Jewish life on campus going forward.
“I am sorry for the moments when we failed to meet the high expectations we rightfully set for our community. The grave, extensive impact of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel and its aftermath had serious repercussions on campus,” Garber said in a statement accompanying the report. “Harvard cannot — and will not — abide bigotry. We will continue to provide for the safety and security of all members of our community and safeguard their freedom from harassment. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that the university is a place where ideas are welcomed, entertained, and contested in the spirt of seeking truth; where argument proceeds without sacrificing dignity; and where mutual respect is the norm.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard, Jewish Activist ‘Shabbos’ Kestenbaum Settle Antisemitism Lawsuit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.