RSS
Why the Pro-Hamas Demonstrations Are Different and More Dangerous
People take part in pro-Hamas protest in Brussels, Belgium, Nov. 11, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
JNS.org – Over the last eight months, Jewish communities around the world have been both intimidated and repulsed by the surge in pro-Hamas demonstrations.
We’ve all seen the signs and heard the slogans variously telling us to “return” to Poland, that Zionism is the root of all the evil and cruelty in the world, that Israel has no right to exist, that Jews cry “antisemitism” to divert public attention from Palestinian suffering and Israel’s alleged crimes. We’ve pretty much gotten used to our schools, synagogues, restaurants and community centers being targeted by protesters, to seeing stickers and posters damning Israel’s so-called “genocide” as we walk to the subway or the grocery store, to hearing the endless drumbeat of media pundits rounding on the Jewish state and its leaders. We hold up our hands resignedly at the indifference of these protesters to the real genocides that are taking place right now in Ukraine, Congo, Sudan, Burma/Myanmar, China’s Xinjiang province and so many other countries. We feel, in short, that the world is against us.
Much as it might feel that way, we aren’t alone. The apologists for rape and murder who clog up our city streets every weekend or vandalize our university campuses with pro-Hamas encampments—and notice, by the way, how the plight of Palestinians in Gaza has been utterly overshadowed by the insistence of this mob in portraying itself as the victim of police brutality and “Zionist” influence!—have managed to alienate and irritate large swathes of the general public. Imagine paying a six-figure sum to have your children educated at university, only to have that precious graduating ceremony wrecked by the boorish chanting of “Free Palestine,” “From the River to the Sea” and all the other anti-Jewish chants the protesters recycle endlessly. That’s been the experience of too many American parents over the last few weeks.
Since the Hamas atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7, each day has been akin to a wrestling match with the principle of free speech attributed (wrongly, by the way) to the French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Free speech essentially means giving bad speech a pass on the grounds of individual conscience. That is not a principle that any democracy can compromise on because doing so sets us on the path to becoming Russia, China, Iran or any other authoritarian state where words are regulated and restricted.
Yet the challenge with the pro-Hamas protests is that they can’t be reduced to free speech or peaceful rallies alone. The violence that lies at the heart of Hamas’s program has been duplicated by its followers in the West. And that should worry us, not least because there is a historical precedent as well.
In the wake of the global student uprisings of May 1968 and their consequent failure, many activists on the far left turned to political violence as a response. Arguably, the most well-known example emerged in Germany, where the Red Army Faction (RAF)—more commonly known as the “Baader Meinhof Group” after its founders, Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof—threw in its lot with radical Palestinian groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The wannabe urban guerillas of the RAF traveled to Lebanon, where they were trained by Palestinians in the use of weapons, as well as the planning and execution of terrorist operations.
In 1976, a joint RAF-PFLP operation resulted in the hijacking of an Air France flight from Tel Aviv, which was diverted to Entebbe Airport in Uganda, where the hostages enjoyed the dubious protection of the then-dictator of that country, the mass murderer Idi Amin. During the ordeal, the terrorists—like good Nazis—separated the Israeli passengers from the non-Israeli ones. Once again, the order “Jews to the left!” was heard, only three decades after the liberation of German Nazi concentration camps. As is well known, the passengers were rescued in a daring operation mounted by the Israel Defense Forces; otherwise, there would likely have been a massacre described, much as Oct. 7 is now, as the worst act of violence targeting Jews since the end of World War II.
There is a justifiable fear that such violence, zeroing in upon defenseless Jews, could once again rear its head. Last week, the British government’s adviser on political extremism, John Woodcock, issued a report that examined the prospects for the aggressive rhetoric found in the furthest corners of far-left and far-right movements to mushroom into actual violence. The report observed that “activism around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stands out as being a focus of incitement and intimidation, as well as the use of law breaking by some activists. There is a distinction here between mainstream campaigners who primarily focus on promoting the Palestinian cause through legal means and those that focus their activism on hostility towards Israel.” The latter group is riddled with antisemitism, which is “often presented in connection with anti-capitalist conspiracy theories, such as the antisemitic trope of Jewish bankers controlling the globe.”
“It is this movement,” the report continued, “that has proven most willing to use law breaking, intimidation, and at times, violence.” Much of Woodcock’s analysis focused on the activities of a group called Palestine Action—a collective of anti-capitalists and anarchists who have engaged in “direct action” targeting Israeli companies with interests in the United Kingdom. As Woodcock noted, Palestine Action has devoted its efforts to Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of the Israeli defense technology firm Elbit Systems, vandalizing its offices, intimidating its employees, and preventing Elbit from fulfilling its contracts with the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense.
The specific targeting of Elbit has now evolved into more general targeting of Israeli interests and the British Jewish community. “Small groups of extreme activists sabotaging businesses with whom they disagree not only create a climate of intimidation for private companies and their staff, but they also have a detrimental effect on local economies and employment opportunities,” Woodcock’s report added.
In such circumstances, a ban on such groups—not because of their words but because of their actions—is entirely justified. The pro-Hamas movement has, as Woodcock argues, adopted violence as a tactic, but then seeks to hide its use of violence behind the protections of free speech. This is an approach, as the sneering social-media response to Woodcock’s report indicates, that carries a great deal of traction among progressives. But whether it’s Europe or the United States, violence and the advocacy of violence are quite separate from free speech.
As the various pro-Hamas groups, like Within Our Lifetime in America, careen towards a Baader Meinhof-like outcome, our laws need to stay one step ahead. And that begins with the acknowledgment of a basic truth: These are not peaceful demonstrators, and this isn’t about freedom of speech.
The post Why the Pro-Hamas Demonstrations Are Different and More Dangerous first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syrian Leader al-Sharaa Holds Talks With Erdogan on Surprise Istanbul Visit
Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria’s interim president, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president, met during al-Sharaa’s first diplomatic trip since the fall of the al-Assad regime. Photo: Screenshot
i24 News – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was holding talks with Syrian counterpart Ahmed al-Sharaa in Istanbul on Saturday, local media reported. No further details were available.
This comes one day after the US administration of President Donald Trump issued orders that it said would effectively lift sanctions on Syria in order to help the country rebuild after a devastating civil war.
The Treasury Department issued a general license that authorizes transactions involving the interim Syrian government led by Al-Sharaa, as well as the central bank and state-owned enterprises.
The general license, known as GL25, “authorizes transactions prohibited by the Syrian Sanctions Regulations, effectively lifting sanctions on Syria,” the Treasury said in a statement.
Syria welcomed the sanctions waiver early on Saturday, which the Foreign Ministry called a “positive step in the right direction to alleviate the country’s humanitarian and economic suffering.”
Syria is keen on cooperating with other countries “on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs. It believes that dialogue and diplomacy are the best path to building balanced relations,” the ministry said in a statement.
The post Syrian Leader al-Sharaa Holds Talks With Erdogan on Surprise Istanbul Visit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘It Was Just An Accident’ by Iran’s Jafar Panahi Wins Cannes’ Top Prize
Director Jafar Panahi, Palme d’Or award winner for the film “Un simple accident” (It Was Just an Accident), reacts, during the closing ceremony of the 78th Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, May 24, 2025. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
Revenge thriller “It Was Just An Accident” by Iranian director Jafar Panahi, who was last at the Cannes Film Festival in person more than 20 years ago, won the Palme d’Or top prize on Saturday.
Panahi, who has been arrested several times for his filmmaking and was under a travel ban until recently, last attended the festival in person in 2003, when “Crimson Gold” was screened in the Un Certain Regard category.
“Art mobilizes the creative energy of the most precious, most alive part of us. A force that transforms darkness into forgiveness, hope and new life,” said jury president Juliette Binoche when announcing the award.
“It Was Just An Accident” follows Vahid, played by Vahid Mobasseri, who kidnaps a man with a false leg who looks just like the one who tortured him in prison and ruined his life.
Vahid sets out to verify with other prison survivors that it is indeed their torturer – and then decide what to do with him.
An emotional Panahi, wearing sunglasses on stage, thanked his cast and film crew during his acceptance speech.
The Grand Prix, the second-highest prize after the Palme d’Or, was awarded to “Sentimental Value” from acclaimed director Joachim Trier.
The jury prize was split between the intergenerational family drama “Sound of Falling” from German director Mascha Schilinski and “Sirat,” about a father and son who head into the Moroccan desert, by French-Spanish director Oliver Laxe.
Brazil’s “The Secret Agent” won two awards, one for best actor for Wagner Moura, as well as best director for Kleber Mendonca Filho.
“I was having Champagne,” said Mendonca Filho after he ran up to the stage to collect his award after celebrating Moura, who previously made a name for himself in hit TV series “Narcos.”
Newcomer Nadia Melliti took home best actress for “The Little Sister,” a queer coming-of-age story centered around the daughter of Algerian immigrants in Paris.
Belgium’s Dardenne brothers, who have the rare honor of already having won two Palme d’Or prizes, took home the award for best screenplay for their film “Young Mothers.”
Twenty-two films in total were competing for the prize at the 78th Cannes Film Festival, with entries from well-known directors Richard Linklater, Wes Anderson and Ari Aster.
Saturday’s closing ceremony officially ends the glamour-filled festival that began on May 13.
The post ‘It Was Just An Accident’ by Iran’s Jafar Panahi Wins Cannes’ Top Prize first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Admin From Revoking Harvard Enrollment of Foreign Students
US President Trump speaks to the media at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Washington, DC, April 21, 2025. Photo: Andrew Leyden/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
A US judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University’s ability to enroll foreign students, a policy the Ivy League school called part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort to retaliate against it for refusing to “surrender its academic independence.”
The order provides temporary relief to thousands of international students who were faced with being forced to transfer under a policy that the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university called a “blatant violation” of the US Constitution and other federal laws, and said would have an “immediate and devastating effect” on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders.
“Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the 389-year-old school said in its lawsuit filed earlier on Friday in Boston federal court. Harvard enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in its current school year, equal to 27% of total enrollment.
The move was the latest escalation in a broader battle between Harvard and the White House, as Trump seeks to compel universities, law firms, news media, courts and other institutions that value independence from partisan politics to align with his agenda. Trump and fellow Republicans have long accused elite universities of left-wing bias.
Harvard has pushed back hard against Trump, having previously sued to restore nearly $3 billion in federal grants that had been frozen or canceled. In recent weeks, the administration has proposed ending Harvard’s tax-exempt status and hiking taxes on its endowment, and opened an investigation into whether it violated civil rights laws.
Leo Gerden, a Swedish student set to graduate Harvard with an undergraduate degree in economics and government this month, called the judge’s ruling a “great first step” but said international students were bracing for a long legal fight that would keep them in limbo.
“There is no single decision by Trump or by Harvard or by a judge that is going to put an end to this tyranny of what Trump is doing,” Gerden said.
In its complaint, Harvard said the revocation would force it to retract admissions for thousands of people, and has thrown “countless” academic programs, clinics, courses and research laboratories into disarray, just a few days before graduation. It said the revocation was a punishment for Harvard’s “perceived viewpoint,” which it called a violation of the right to free speech as guaranteed by the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
The Trump administration may appeal US District Judge Allison Burroughs’ ruling. In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “unelected judges have no right to stop the Trump Administration from exercising their rightful control over immigration policy and national security policy.”
Since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, his administration has accused several universities of indifference toward the welfare of Jewish students during widespread campus protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
Harvard’s court challenges over the administration’s policies stand in contrast to its New York-based peer Columbia University’s concessions to similar pressure. Columbia agreed to reform disciplinary processes and review curricula for courses on the Middle East, after Trump pulled $400 million in funding over allegations the Ivy League school had not done enough to combat antisemitism.
In announcing on Thursday the termination of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, effective starting in the 2025-2026 academic year, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party.”
Harvard says a fifth of its foreign students in 2024 were from China. US lawmakers from both parties have expressed concerns about the influence of the Chinese government on US college campuses, including efforts by Beijing-directed Chinese student associations to monitor political activities and stifle academic speech.
The university says it is committed to combating antisemitism and investigating credible allegations of civil rights violations.
HARVARD DEFENDS ‘REFUSAL TO SURRENDER’
In her brief order blocking the policy for two weeks, Burroughs said Harvard had shown it could be harmed before there was an opportunity to hear the case in full. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, scheduled hearings for May 27 and May 29 to consider next steps in the case. Burroughs is also overseeing Harvard’s lawsuit over the grant funds.
Harvard University President Alan Garber said the administration was illegally seeking to assert control over the private university’s curriculum, faculty and student body.
“The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence,” Garber wrote in a letter on Friday to the Harvard community.
The revocation could also weigh on Harvard’s finances. At many US universities, international students are more likely to pay full tuition, essentially subsidizing aid for other students.
“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
Harvard’s bonds, part of its $8.2 billion debt pile, have been falling since Trump first warned US universities in March of cuts to federal funding.
International students enrolled at Harvard include Cleo Carney, daughter of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and Princess Elisabeth, first in line to the Belgian throne.
The post Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Admin From Revoking Harvard Enrollment of Foreign Students first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login