RSS
Why Are Ivy League Schools Quietly Rewarding Student Anti-Israel Protest Leaders?
Pro-Hamas demonstrators at Columbia University in New York City, US, April 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs
The past academic year saw an unsettling rise in antisemitism on American college campuses, as anti-Israel protests swept through some of the Nation’s most prestigious universities.
Initially, college administrations, seemingly paralyzed by indecision, justified these disruptions under the guise of protecting students’ rights to express themselves — even as protesters commandeered campus spaces with “anti-Zionist” encampments that effectively ostracized and attacked Jewish students.
The situation reached a breaking point after disastrous Congressional hearings led to the resignations of Harvard President Claudine Gay and UPenn’s Liz Magill, casting a harsh light on university leadership’s ineffectual handling of protests.
At institutions like Harvard and Columbia, these demonstrations escalated into aggressive actions, prompting reluctant administrators to call in police and impose disciplinary measures on some student protest leaders.
While these resignations and official responses might have signaled a potential turning point, evidence suggests that little has truly changed.
Harvard University, for example, has long grappled with allegations of campus antisemitism, from the Cornel West tenure controversy to recent scenes of blatant hostility toward Jews. Last year, one of the most disturbing incidents unfolded at the Harvard Business School during a “Stop the Genocide in Gaza” protest, where a pro-Israel student attempting to film the event was reportedly surrounded and assaulted by a crowd chanting, “Shame, shame, shame.”
While Claudine Gay’s resignation marked an official acknowledgment of the crisis enveloping Harvard, other troubling signs remain.
The university has quietly backtracked on some disciplinary measures imposed on student agitators. A prominent example is Prince Aviunce Williams, a Harvard class of 2025 student and co-founder of the African American Resistance Organization (AFRO), who received a full academic scholarship to attend Harvard. After leading campus rallies where the Hamas slogan “From the River to the Sea”—a call for Israel’s destruction — was chanted, Williams faced suspension.
However, he announced in July that Harvard had reversed its decision, releasing a video in which he declared, “Make no mistake, the reversal of these charges is not a reflection of the good nature of the institution but a demonstration of the power of our organizing. When I rejoin my peers this fall, we must understand our movement is working, that our momentum is growing, and that Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.”
At Columbia University, there was a similar surge in antisemitic incidents with even faculty joining in. Among the most disturbing was tenured professor Joseph Massad’s article for Electronic Intifada, in which he lauded Hamas’ October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians as “astonishing” and “incredible.”
This appalling endorsement of terror sent shock waves through Columbia’s Jewish community, yet the administration chose not to act, signaling a worrying tolerance for such extremism.
The administration’s stance toward faculty echoes its inaction on student-led protests. Johannah King-Slutzky, a doctoral student and prominent activist, epitomized protesters’ sense of entitlement when she led a press conference demanding “humanitarian aid” for students occupying campus buildings.
King-Slutzky, despite her role in leading the disruption, now teaches a required undergraduate course, “Contemporary Western Civilization,” in Hamilton Hall — the very building she helped occupy, leading to the arrest of 22 students.
And while Columbia had promised firm disciplinary action, an August Congressional report reveals that 18 of those arrested remain in good standing, underscoring the administration’s reluctance to impose meaningful consequences.
Columbia student Khymani James made headlines after he was banned from the university for inciting violence against “Zionists,” declaring that they “don’t deserve to live.”
However, just six months later, the coalition of anti-Israel groups that initially apologized on his behalf reversed course and doubled down on support for violence against Israel.
Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) posted a statement on Instagram retracting their previous apology: “Last spring, in the midst of the encampments, [CUAD] posted a statement framed as an apology on behalf of Khymani James,” the post read. “We deliberately misrepresented your experiences and your words, and we let you down.” CUAD’s message reaffirmed its endorsement of armed “resistance.”
Now, James is suing Columbia University, seeking to overturn his suspension and regain his campus standing.
Yet, nothing illustrates how some of the most antisemitic student leaders have reveled in their notoriety, building careers from the infamy, quite like The New York Times’ recent piece about the extremist group Within Our Lifetime, led by former CUNY law student Nerdeen Kiswani.
Published earlier this month, the article paints the group as one that “galvanized pro-Palestinian activists,” while reducing well-documented antisemitism to mere “accusations.”
The article even romanticizes Kiswani’s arrival at a Columbia University encampment “on her wedding day in April, still wearing her traditional red and white dress,” while downplaying the more troubling aspects of her “activism” for Within Our Lifetime, a group frequently linked to aggressive and violent anti-Israel protests.
But these high-profile cases reflect a deeper, more pervasive trend within these universities. Institutions like Harvard and Columbia seem more intent on appeasement than on confronting the root issue of antisemitism.
So, has anything truly changed? With quiet reversals of disciplinary actions and selective inaction, it seems that higher education is simply poised to look the other way when it comes to the safety and rights of Jews.
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 Why Are Ivy League Schools Quietly Rewarding Student Anti-Israel Protest Leaders? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
In a warning sign for the campaign of Democratic nominee for mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani, a majority of city voters in a new poll say the candidate’s hardline anti-Israel stance makes them less likely to vote for him.
In the survey of likely city voters conducted by American Pulse, 52.5 percent said Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada” coupled with his backing of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement made them less likely to vote for him in November. Just 31% of city voters polled were more likely to support him because of these positions.
At the same time, a significant share of young New York City voters support Mamdani’s anti-Israel positioning, a striking sign of shifting generational views on Israel and the Palestinian cause.
Nearly half of voters aged 18 to 44 (46 percent) said the State Assembly member’s backing for BDS and “refusal to condemn the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’” made them more likely to support him.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist from Queens, has been under fire for defending “globalize the intifada,” a slogan many Jewish groups associate with incitement to violence against Israel and Jews. While critics argue it glorifies terrorism, supporters claim it’s a call for international solidarity with oppressed peoples, especially Palestinians. Mamdani has also voiced support for BDS, a movement widely condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations as antisemitic for singling out Israel.
The generational divide exposed by the poll comes amid a broader political realignment. Younger progressives across the country are increasingly critical of Israeli policies, especially in the wake of the Gaza war, and more receptive to Palestinian activism. But to many Jewish leaders, Mamdani’s rising support is alarming.
Rabbi David Wolpe, visiting scholar at Harvard University, condemned the phrase with a sarcastic analogy.
“‘Globalize the intifada’ is just a political slogan,” he said. “Like ‘The cockroaches must be exterminated’ was just a housing authority slogan in Rwanda.”
Jewish organizations have reported a surge in antisemitic incidents in New York and across the U.S. since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last fall. The blending of anti-Zionist slogans with calls for “intifada,” historically linked to violent uprisings, has deepened fears among Jewish communities that traditional red lines are being crossed.
Whether this emerging coalition reshapes New York politics remains to be seen. However, the poll indicates that among younger voters, views that were once considered fringe are quickly moving into the mainstream.
The post New Poll: Majority of NYC Voters ‘Less Likely’ to Support Mamdani Over His Refusal to Condemn ‘Globalize the Intifada’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events
A Jewish gay pride flag. Photo: Twitter.
The research division of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) released a report on Wednesday detailing incidents of hate against Jews which took place last month during demonstrations in celebration of LGBTQ rights and identity.
Incidents reported by the group include:
- At a Pride march in Wales, the activists Cymru Queers for Palestine chose to block the path and show a sign that said “Profiting from genocide,” an attempt to link the event’s sponsors — such as Amazon — to the war in Gaza.
- A Dublin Pride march saw the participation of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which labeled Israel a “genocidal entity.”
- In Toronto at a late June Pride march, demonstrators again attacked organizers with a sign declaring, “Pride partners with genocide.”
CAM also identified a recurring narrative deployed against Israel by some far-left activists: so-called “pinkwashing,” a term which the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement calls “an Israeli government propaganda strategy that cynically exploits LGBTQIA+ rights to project a progressive image while concealing Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies oppressing Palestinians.”
The report notes that at a Washington DC Pride event in early June Medea Benjamin, cofounder of activist group Code Pink and a regular of anti-war protests, wore a pair of goofy, oversized sunglasses and a shirt in her signature pink with the phrase “you can’t pinkwash genocide.”
Other incidents CAM recorded showed the injection of anti-Israel sentiment into Pride events.
A musical group canceled a performance at an interfaith service in Brooklyn, claiming the hosting synagogue had a “public alignment with pro-Israel political positions.” In San Francisco before the yearly Trans March, a Palestine group said in its announcement of its participation, “Stop the war on Iran and the genocide of Palestine, stop the war on immigrants and attacks on trans people.”
CAM notes that this “queers for Palestine” sentiment is not new, pointing to a 2017 event wherein “organizers of the Chicago Dyke March infamously removed participants who were waving a Pride flag adorned with a Star of David on the grounds that the symbol ‘made people feel unsafe.’”
In February, the Israel Defense Forces shared with the New York Post documents it had recovered demonstrating that Hamas had tortured and executed members it suspected of homosexuality and other moral offenses in conflict with Islamist ideology.
Amit Benjamin, who is gay and a first sergeant major in the IDF, said during a visit to New York City for Pride month that “All the ‘queers for Gaza’ need to open their eyes. Hamas kills gays … kills lesbians … queers cannot exist in Gaza.”
The post Report: Jews Targeted at June’s Pride Month Events first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2025. REUTERS/Elisabeth Mandl/File Photo
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff over their return to the country’s nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel deepens.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran’s facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran’s parliament has now passed a law to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency’s inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
“An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,” the IAEA said on X.
Diplomats said the number of IAEA inspectors in Iran was reduced to a handful after the June 13 start of the war. Some have also expressed concern about the inspectors’ safety since the end of the conflict, given fierce criticism of the agency by Iranian officials and Iranian media.
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said he stands by the report. He has denied it provided diplomatic cover for military action.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday Iran remained committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“[Grossi] reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible,” the IAEA said.
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran’s three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran’s nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400 kg enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
That is enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. Iran says its aims are entirely peaceful, but Western powers say there is no civil justification for enriching to such a high level, and the IAEA says no country has done so without developing the atom bomb.
As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its enriched uranium, which normally is closely monitored by the IAEA, the body that enforces the NPT and verifies countries’ declarations. But the bombing of Iran’s facilities has now muddied the waters.
“We cannot afford that … the inspection regime is interrupted,” Grossi told a press conference in Vienna last week.
The post IAEA pulls inspectors from Iran as standoff over access drags on first appeared on Algemeiner.com.