Connect with us

RSS

What the Media Isn’t Telling You About Mahmoud Khalil and His Possible Deportation

A pro-Palestine protester holds a sign that reads: “Faculty for justice in Palestine” during a protest urging Columbia University to cut ties with Israel. November 15, 2023 in New York City. Photo: Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

The case of Mahmoud Khalil has been the talk of the nation’s media in recent days.

Predictably, coverage has been short on context, but long on editorializing platitudes. Outlets like NPR and CNN have worked to depict Khalil’s story as simply one of a “prominent” protester “against Israel’s war in Gaza,” whose right to “free speech” is being attacked by the Trump administration.

But this narrative is only tenable when material information is left out of the story.

As with any legal proceeding, there is some legal and factual ambiguity, but mainstream media outlets have omitted crucial context about both the law and the facts.

Some of that context is provided below, beginning with a broad overview of the relevant laws and ending with a list of some of the relevant facts.

US Immigration Law

US immigration law provides reasons for which a green card holder may be deported (“removed”) from the country. (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)). Those relevant to the Khalil case include general security considerations, terrorist activities, and foreign policy considerations.

General security grounds for deportation include any green card holder who engages in “criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security” or “any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means…” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)).

Another grounds for deportation is if a green card holder engages in “terrorist activity,” which includes anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization…” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)).

The third grounds provides that any green card holder “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)).

First Amendment Protections

Green card holders do have some rights, including under the First Amendment. However, those rights may be restricted where there is a “legitimate governmental interest.”

For example, Mark Goldfeder, a former law professor and CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, has pointed to Citizens United v. FEC, in which the Supreme Court specifically mentioned “foreigners” as a category of individuals whose speech rights may be restricted and which “are not automatically coextensive with the rights” of “members of our society.”

In another Supreme Court case referenced by legal expert Erielle Azerrad at City Journal, our Nation’s highest court held that foreigners may be deported on the basis of their destructive or “dangerous” advocacy (Turner v. Williams).

Recognizing the importance of the freedom of expression, the Court still acknowledged that governments “cannot be denied the power of self-preservation.” Azerrad also pointed out two recent cases in which appeals courts upheld deportations on grounds that the deportees had distributed flyers on behalf of terrorist organizations (see Hosseini v. Nielsen and Bojnoordi v. Holder).

Other commentators have pointed to even more cases, such as Harisiades v. Shaughnessyand Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Even if these precedents did not exist, the First Amendment is not an automatic bar or absolute right. As explained by Goldfeder, Supreme Court precedent provides that even the right to free expression may be restricted if the law is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest” which, in this case, would be national security.

A related legal issue typically omitted by media commentators is the prohibition against providing material support for a terrorist organization (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). While this law does not prohibit an individual advocating for a terrorist organization on his own accord, it can and does prohibit “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project).

The Facts

So which facts fit the law in the Khalil case? Consider just a sampling of the evidence.

Khalil is a leader in the organization Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), an organization whose most prominent coalition member is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

Immediately after Hamas’ October 7 massacre, National SJP aligned itself with Hamas, declaring it was “part of” the “movement” operating “under unified command” which had just waged “a large scale battle … within ’48 Palestine” (referring to southern Israel).

Since then, CUAD has been directly involved in numerous illegal and violent actions, including the illegal encampment and the violent takeover of Hamilton Hall at Columbia. During the latter, university staff were violently assaulted and kidnapped.

Importantly, Khalil is not in trouble merely for his and his organization’s horrendous views.

As explained by Ken Marcus, founder of the Brandeis Center: “This was not mere protest activity, but involved some degree of criminality. The federal government is not prosecuting people for engaging in political speech. The federal government is addressing criminality, violation of school rules and violation of the terms of either green cards or student visas.”

At the encampment and other CUAD-sponsored events, Hamas propaganda was distributed, including personally by Khalil himself. This included a document titled “Our Narrative … Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” with the “Hamas Media Office” marking on it.

Footage has emerged from earlier this month showing Khalil at one such event where the propaganda booklet was being distributed.

Literature distributed by CUAD contained language such as: “This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly.”

The organization has also hosted events featuring the designated terrorist organization Samidoun and a senior terrorist leader. Events and publications have regularly glorified terrorists, and participants have even encouraged Hamas attacks against peaceful Jewish counter-protesters.

Khalil’s organization also harbors deeply anti-American motives. In August 2024, for example, CUAD posted that it is “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization” and aligning itself with “militants … who have been on the frontline in the fight against tyranny and domination which undergird the imperialist world order.” CUAD then declared that its members “must be prepared to make … sacrifices” in order “to achieve liberation in America.”

There is also evidence that has not been made public. According to The New York Post, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was “presented with intelligence” regarding Khalil being a threat to national security. Classified intelligence may be used in deportation hearings that does not need to be disclosed either to the defendant or to the public, if the judge determines that disclosure could harm national security. (8 U.S.C. § 1534(e)(3))

Khalil will have his day in immigration court to make his legal case. But it is incumbent on the media to ensure that the law and the facts have their day in the court of public opinion.

David M. Litman is a Research Analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).

The post What the Media Isn’t Telling You About Mahmoud Khalil and His Possible Deportation first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Rafael Lemkin’s Family Fights to Have Anti-Israel Group Stop Using Name of Famed Zionist Who Coined Term ‘Genocide’

Raphael Lemkin being interviewed on Feb. 13, 1949. Photo: Screenshot

The family of Raphael Lemkin — the Polish-born Jewish lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and helped draft the Genocide Convention after World War II — is taking legal action against a stridently anti-Israel group based in the US, accusing the nonprofit organization of corrupting his family name and legacy.

Joseph Lemkin, the cousin of Raphael Lemkin and closest living relative, confirmed to The Algemeiner that his family is initiating legal proceedings against the Pennsylvania-based Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, with the support of the European Jewish Association (EJA), to stop the misuse of his family name.

“From our perspective, the Lemkin Institute has no right to use his name. Their actions are completely opposed to what he stood for,” Lemkin told The Algemeiner, referring to his cousin. “He was a passionate Zionist who dedicated all his efforts and resources to one cause: the adoption of the Genocide Convention.”

Lemkin’s father was Raphael Lemkin’s first cousin, and he said the two men had a close relationship.

First reported by The Algemeiner, the institute has used the Lemkin name to advance an agenda of extreme anti-Israel activism, which Lemkin’s family called a “shameful betrayal” of their legacy.

Initially registered in Pennsylvania as a nonprofit organization in 2021, the institute received US federal tax-exempt status two years later.

Since the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the organization has shifted toward aggressive anti-Israel political advocacy, backing pro-Hamas campus protests and reaching millions on social media with posts that falsely accuse Israel of genocide.

Less than a week after the Oct. 7 atrocities, for example, the institute released a “genocide alert” calling the Palestinian terrorist group’s onslaught an “unprecedented military operation against Israel.”

Comparing Israel’s defensive military actions against Hamas to the Holocaust, the institute accused the Jewish state of carrying out a “genocide” against Palestinians — the very term Raphael Lemkin coined in 1943. Israel had not even launched its ground offensive in Gaza at the time of the social media posts.

Days later, the Lemkin Institute called on the International Criminal Court “to indict Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the crime of #genocide in light of the siege and bombardment of #Gaza and the many expressions of genocidal intent.” Israel still had not initiated its ground campaign.

Since then, the organization’s vocal anti-Israel advocacy has continued unabated for the past two years, accusing the Jewish state of genocide and terrorism while largely staying silent about Hamas.

According to the Lemkin family, such statements distort history and undermine their legacy, but even more, they disrespect the memory of six million Jews.

“The institute has used this term to promote an inflammatory, antisemitic stance against Israel — completely contrary to the principles he stood for,” Joseph Lemkin told The Algemeiner, referring to his cousin.

“Astonishingly, they have even expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas — both internationally designated terrorist organizations — while smearing Israel,” he continued.

Now, legal steps are underway to hold the institute accountable, stop it from exploiting the Lemkin name to raise money, and end its Holocaust comparisons.

After first sending letters demanding that the institute change its name, the Lemkin family is now awaiting a response — and if no voluntary action is taken or Pennsylvania officials fail to intervene, the matter will be taken to court, Lemkin told The Algemeiner.

Beyond its communications with the institute, the EJA legal team also sent letters to Gov. Josh Shapiro and Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations regarding this issue.

“The Lemkin Institute, through its very name, as well as its marketing and other materials, represents itself as an embodiment of Mr. Lemkin’s ideology. In reality, the Lemkin Institute’s policies, positions, activities, and publications are anathema to Mr. Lemkin’s belief system,” the letter reads.

“The Lemkin Institute is not authorized by Raphael Lemkin’s family, his estate, or any custodian of his legacy to rely upon his name for any purpose,” it continues. “The European Jewish Association and Mr. Lemkin’s family are outraged by the Lemkin Institute’s use of Mr. Lemkin’s name, especially in the context of the Lemkin Institute’s anti-Israel agenda.”

EJA Chairman Rabbi Menachem Margolin has sharply condemned the institute’s actions and statements, saying it has “weaponized a sacred legacy against the very people it was meant to protect.”

“The Lemkin Institute was established to prevent genocide — not to distort its definition or fuel antisemitic tropes,” Margolin said in a statement.

Raphael Lemkin was born in Poland in 1900 and eventually escaped the Nazis to the US, where he joined the War Department, documenting Nazi atrocities and preparing for the prosecution of Nazi crimes at the Nuremberg trials. He dedicated much of his life to making the world recognize the horrors of the Holocaust and designating mass murder as a crime which could be prosecuted through international law. Forty-nine members of his family, including his parents, were killed in the Holocaust. He died in 1959.

A 2017 article by James Loeffler, who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, described what he called “the forgotten Zionism of Raphael Lemkin.” Loeffler noted that while “dead international lawyers rarely become celebrities,” Lemkin “has emerged as a potent symbol for activists and politicians across the world.”

Loeffler traced Lemkin’s work as an editor and columnist of a Jewish publication, Zionist World. “The task of the Jewish people is … [to become] a permanent national majority in its own national home,” Lemkin wrote in one such column.

“It is not enough to know Zionism,” Lemkin wrote in another column quoted by Loeffler. “One must imbibe its spirit, one must make Zionism a part of one’s very own ‘self,’ and be prepared to make sacrifices on its behalf.”

Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, founder and executive director of the Lemkin Institute, told the online news site EJewish Philanthropy that her organization was named after Lemkin to “bring his name back into public discourse” but “there was no clear person to contact” when naming the institute in 2021.

“We don’t want to cause unhappiness for anybody in the Lemkin family. We did ask to know what legal basis exists for the complaint, and we have not received any response to that specific question,” she added.

Continue Reading

RSS

China Expands Influence Campaign Targeting Israel as Way to Hurt US, Study Finds

Chinese and US flags flutter outside the building of an American company in Beijing, China, April 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Tingshu Wang

China has increasingly used state media and covert campaigns to spread anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives in the United States, according to a new study.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think tank, has released a report examining how China’s state media portrays Israel and the United States as solely responsible for the war in Gaza, depicting them as destabilizing actors while spreading anti-Israel and antisemitic messages.

“It is evident that China and its proxies play a significant role in the current wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the United States,” Ofir Dayan, a research associate in the Israel-China Policy Center at INSS, writes in the report.

According to Dayan, China’s dissemination of anti-Israel narratives is not intended to directly harm Israel but rather to undermine the US, while preserving its valuable diplomatic and economic ties with Jerusalem.

“Israel is used as a tool to advance Beijing’s claim that Washington destabilizes both the international system and the regions where it operates,” the report says.

While China’s primary aim is to target the United States, Israel ends up suffering “collateral damage” as a result, the study finds.

In advancing these objectives, INSS explains that China covertly conducts influence campaigns across the United States, promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives, including conspiracy theories about “Jewish control” of politics, the economy, and the media.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused China, along with Qatar, of orchestrating a campaign in Western media to “besiege” Israel by undermining its allies’ support.

There is “an effort to besiege — not isolate as much as besiege Israel — that is orchestrated by the same forces that supported Iran,” Netanyahu said, speaking to a delegation of 250 US state legislators at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

“One is China. And the other is Qatar. They are organizing an attack on Israel … [through] the social media of the Western world and the United States,” the Israeli leader continued. “We will have to counter it, and we will counter it with our own methods.”

According to the INSS report, China’s role in promoting anti-Israel activity in the United States is evident in the narratives it spreads — both publicly, through state-run media, and covertly, through targeted cyber operations.

For example, China Daily — the official news outlet of the Chinese Communist Party — has been openly critical of Israel since the start of the Gaza war, using its coverage to attack Washington and depict it as a destabilizing force fueling conflict worldwide.

The Chinese news outlet has also published articles contending that neither Israel nor the United States care about Gazans or Israeli hostages held by Hamas, accusing the US of instigating wars for domestic political gain, and attempting to create divisions in American society by portraying support for Israel as unpopular.

The study also explains how China exploited the wave of protests across US universities following the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, to deepen divisions within American society.

It portrayed anti-Israel protesters as calm and peaceful defenders of free expression, while depicting pro-Israel demonstrators as violent.

“Posts on heavily censored social media in China were even more blatant, and at times antisemitic, claiming that Israel controls the United States and drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany,” the report says.

“Some referred to Israel as a ‘terrorist organization,’ while describing Hamas as a resistance organization and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories,” it continues.

In the past, the US State Department has accused China of promoting conspiracy theories and antisemitism within the United States.

China also carries out covert influence campaigns through targeted cyber operations, aimed in part at shaping Israel’s image in the United States and undermining US-Israel relations.

According to the study, China-linked cyber campaigns have used troll networks to spread malicious content about Israel, disseminating antisemitic messages to American audiences that falsely claim Jewish and Israeli control over US politics.

Continue Reading

RSS

US Lawmakers Slam Zohran Mamdani Over Pledge to Scrap IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS

Two members of the US Congress on Wednesday slammed New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani after he pledged to abandon a widely used definition of antisemitism if elected.

Reps. Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, and Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a joint statement that Mamdani’s plan to scrap the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is “dangerous” and “shameful.” The IHRA definition — adopted by dozens of US states, dozens of countries, and hundreds of governing institutions, including the European Union and United Nations — has been a cornerstone of global efforts to monitor and combat antisemitic hate.

“Walking away from IHRA is not just reckless — it undermines the fight against antisemitism at a time when hate crimes are spiking,” Lawler said in his own statement. Gottheimer echoed that concern, arguing that dismantling the definition “sends exactly the wrong message to Jewish communities who feel under siege.”

The backlash followed Mamdani’s comments last week to Bloomberg News in which he vowed, if elected, to reverse New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ executive order in June adopting the IHRA standard. Mamdani, a democratic socialist and state assemblymember, argued that the IHRA definition blurs the line between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel and risks chilling free speech.

“I am someone who has supported and support BDS [the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel] and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” he said at the time.

The BDS movement seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.

“Let’s be extremely clear: the BDS movement is antisemitic. Efforts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist are antisemitic. And refusing to outright condemn the violent call to ‘globalize the intifada’ — offering only that you’d discourage its use — is indefensible,” Lawler and Gottheimer said in their joint statement, referring to Mamdani’s recent partial backtracking after his initial defense of the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada.”

“There are no two sides about the meaning of this slogan — it is hate speech, plain and simple,” the lawmakers continued. “Given the sharp spike in antisemitic violence, families across the Tri-State area should be alarmed. Leaders cannot equivocate when it comes to standing against antisemitism and the incitement of violence against Jews.”

IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum.

According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.

In a statement, the Mamdani campaign confirmed that the candidate would not use the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which major civil rights groups have said is essential for fighting an epidemic of anti-Jewish hatred sweeping across the US.

“A Mamdani administration will approach antisemitism in line with the Biden administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism — a strategy that emphasizes education, community engagement, and accountability to reverse the normalization of antisemitism and promote open dialogue,” Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec told the New York Post.

Lawler and Gottheimer’s pushback comes as Congress debates the Antisemitism Awareness Act, legislation that would codify IHRA’s definition into federal law. Advocacy groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have urged lawmakers to back the measure, warning that antisemitic incidents have surged nationwide over the past two years and having a clear definition will better enable law enforcement and others to combat it.

For Mamdani, the controversy over the IHRA definition adds a new flashpoint to a mayoral campaign already drawing national attention. 

A little-known politician before this year’s Democratic primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the BDS movement. He has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.

Mamdani especially came under fire during the summer when he initially defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. However, Mamdani has since backpedaled on his support for the phrase, saying that he would discourage his supporters from using the slogan.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News