Connect with us

RSS

With US campuses roiled by Israel-Gaza war, college presidents must speak up for what’s right

Like many Jews, I am watching with a mixture of horror and grave concern as college campuses around the United States convulse with anti-Israel demonstrations and, in many cases, overt antisemitism and vocal support for terrorism.

More, as a university president, I have been especially dismayed by the failure of college and university leaders to respond adequately.

University presidents have been slow to condemn Hamas’ terrorism and disavow expressions of support by students and faculty for violence against Israelis, equivocating statements have ignored the real problem by calling on “both sides” to exercise restraint, and colleges are failing to take appropriate measures to protect their Jewish students.

The school I lead, Touro University, is unique. As America’s largest Jewish-sponsored educational institution, our campuses are safe havens not only for Jewish students but also for students from all faiths. Amid the upsurge of antisemitism on campus since Oct. 7, we’ve heard from numerous students interested in transferring to Touro. But universities like ours must not become the only safe places in America for Jews to attend college. Students everywhere must feel safe.

Feeling safe starts with faith in leadership. College presidents must clearly denounce violence, support for terrorism and antisemitism, especially at fraught moments like these. How can there be any confusion about the wrongfulness of murder, rape and torture?

People of good faith can disagree about politics and the Palestinian-Israel conflict. But evil deeds, like Hamas terrorists’ beheading of babies and the taking of civilian hostages, need to be denounced in clear, unambiguous language. Failure to do so portrays either cowardice or a glaring lack of moral leadership; it implicitly suggests that it’s okay to extol terrorism (so long as only Jews are the targets).

President Biden set an example when the White House issued a statement denouncing “antisemitic messages being conveyed on college campuses” and condemning student groups that have praised Hamas’ attack on Israel or called for “the annihilation of the state of Israel.”

Several days ago, I was one of 18 college presidents who joined in the founding of a coalition to express our support for Israel and for Palestinians suffering under Hamas’ repressive rule in the Gaza Strip. So far, over 100 institutions of higher education have signed on to our statement of support, including public and private universities, faith-based schools and historically Black colleges. But making statements is just a beginning.

Colleges must implement measures to undo the decades-long slide that has transformed many campuses into places where groupthink and intersectionality falsely link Israel’s existence to a narrative of colonial oppression that hails Palestinian terrorists as “civil rights heroes” and dismisses the rights of Jews to live securely in Israel. We must restore college as a place where Jewish students do not feel threatened wearing Jewish symbols, speaking up about Israel in the classroom or simply being Jewish.

How do we do this? Start at the top. Presidents and boards of directors must not tolerate violence or support for terrorism on campus. We can preserve students’ right to free expression while adopting and enforcing codes of conduct that make clear that threatening other students or endorsing violence is out of bounds — whether in the classroom, at a literary festival or in student demonstrations.

In the long term, colleges should strive for faculty who reflect the breadth of American life, rather than the predilections of a radical fringe disassociated from truth and American values. While entitled to their political opinions, professors should be taken to task when their advocacy denies the truth or, worse, endorses murder and terrorism. There are limits to academic freedom, and college leaders should not let political correctness render them silent.

When it comes to accommodating students, we too often confuse comfort with safety. It’s okay for students to feel uncomfortable, disturbed or offended — that’s part of the process of education and resilience-building. Certainly, Jewish students may be exposed to views on Israel with which they disagree. But when these students feel physically unsafe because students or faculty members are advocating terrorism, the line has been crossed.

I know that the line isn’t always clear, and people of good faith sometimes will disagree. But when Jewish students are forced to shelter in a library for safety while an angry mob bangs on windows and doors chanting anti-Israel slogans, the line has been crossed. When the mantra “From the River to the Sea” — a recognized dog whistle calling for Israel’s destruction — is projected onto the façade of a campus library, the line has been crossed. When Israeli or Jewish students are assaulted by someone ripping down posters of kidnapped civilians, the line has been crossed.

Since the events of Oct. 7, we at Touro have worked especially hard to ensure that all of our students, including approximately 500 students in Israel, have the academic, psychological and practical support they need in this difficult time. Some of our students have been called up for Israeli military service, and we’re accommodating them as best we can.

Jewish students on all campuses across America need to have basic protections. Nobody should stay silent when they are threatened, harassed and assaulted. It is our obligation as American Jews, and my duty as a university president, to stand up for what is right.

Dr. Alan Kadish is the president of Touro University.


The post With US campuses roiled by Israel-Gaza war, college presidents must speak up for what’s right appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives

FILE PHOTO: Boulder attack suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman poses for a jail booking photograph after his arrest in Boulder, Colorado, U.S. June 2, 2025. Photo: Boulder Police Department/Handout via REUTERS

A suspect in an attack on a pro-Israeli rally in Colorado that injured eight people was being held on Monday on an array of charges, including assault and the use of explosives, in lieu of a $10-million bail, according to Boulder County records.

The posted list of felony charges against suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, in the attack on Sunday also includes charges of murder in the first degree, although police in the city of Boulder have said on social media that no victims died in the attack. Authorities could not be reached immediately to clarify.

Witnesses reported the suspect used a makeshift flamethrower and threw an incendiary device into the crowd. He was heard to yell “Free Palestine” during the attack, according to the FBI, in what the agency called a “targeted terror attack.”

Four women and four men between 52 and 88 years of age were transported to hospitals after the attack, Boulder Police said.

The attack took place on the Pearl Street Mall, a popular pedestrian shopping district near the University of Colorado, during an event organized by Run for Their Lives, an organization devoted to drawing attention to the hostages seized in the aftermath of Hamas’ 2023 attack on Israel.

Rabbi Yisroel Wilhelm, the Chabad director at the University of Colorado, Boulder, told CBS Colorado that the 88-year-old victim was a Holocaust refugee who fled Europe.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Soliman had entered the country in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023. He filed for asylum in September 2022. “The suspect, Mohamed Soliman, is illegally in our country,” the spokesperson said.

The FBI raided and searched Soliman’s home in El Paso County, Colorado, the agency said on social media. “As this is an ongoing investigation, no additional information is available at this time.”

The attack in Boulder was the latest act of violence aimed at Jewish Americans linked to outrage over Israel’s escalating military offensive in Gaza. It followed the fatal shooting of two Israel Embassy aides that took place outside Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum last month.

Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, said after the shooting there was a question of how far security perimeters outside Jewish institutions should extend.

Boulder Police said they would hold a press conference later on Monday to discuss details of the Colorado attack.

The Denver office of the FBI, which is handling the case, did not immediately respond to emails or phone calls seeking clarification on the homicide charges or other details in the case.

Officials from the Boulder County Jail, Boulder Police and Boulder County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to inquiries.

The post Colorado Attack Suspect Charged with Assault, Use of Explosives first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi attends a press conference following a meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, April 18, 2025. Photo: Tatyana Makeyeva/Pool via REUTERS

Iran is poised to reject a US proposal to end a decades-old nuclear dispute, an Iranian diplomat said on Monday, dismissing it as a “non-starter” that fails to address Tehran’s interests or soften Washington’s stance on uranium enrichment.

“Iran is drafting a negative response to the US proposal, which could be interpreted as a rejection of the US offer,” the senior diplomat, who is close to Iran’s negotiating team, told Reuters.

The US proposal for a new nuclear deal was presented to Iran on Saturday by Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, who was on a short visit to Tehran and has been mediating talks between Tehran and Washington.

After five rounds of discussions between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, several obstacles remain.

Among them are Iran’s rejection of a US demand that it commit to scrapping uranium enrichment and its refusal to ship abroad its entire existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium – possible raw material for nuclear bombs.

Tehran says it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

“In this proposal, the US stance on enrichment on Iranian soil remains unchanged, and there is no clear explanation regarding the lifting of sanctions,” said the diplomat, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Araqchi said Tehran would formally respond to the proposal soon.

Tehran demands the immediate removal of all US-imposed curbs that impair its oil-based economy. But the US says nuclear-related sanctions should be removed in phases.

Dozens of institutions vital to Iran’s economy, including its central bank and national oil company, have been blacklisted since 2018 for, according to Washington, “supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.”

Trump’s revival of “maximum pressure” against Tehran since his return to the White House in January has included tightening sanctions and threatening to bomb Iran if the negotiations yield no deal.

During his first term in 2018, Trump ditched Tehran’s 2015 nuclear pact with six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the pact’s limits.

Under the deal, Iran had until 2018 curbed its sensitive nuclear work in return for relief from US, EU and U.N. economic sanctions.

The diplomat said the assessment of “Iran’s nuclear negotiations committee,” under the supervision of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was that the US proposal was “completely one-sided” and could not serve Tehran’s interests.

Therefore, the diplomat said, Tehran considers this proposal a “non-starter” and believes it unilaterally attempts to impose a “bad deal” on Iran through excessive demands.

NUCLEAR STANDOFF RAISES MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS

The stakes are high for both sides. Trump wants to curtail Tehran’s potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and perhaps threaten Israel. Iran’s clerical establishment, for its part, wants to be rid of the devastating sanctions.

Iran says it is ready to accept some limits on enrichment, but needs watertight guarantees that Washington would not renege on a future nuclear accord.

Two Iranian officials told Reuters last week that Iran could pause uranium enrichment if the US released frozen Iranian funds and recognized Tehran’s right to refine uranium for civilian use under a “political deal” that could lead to a broader nuclear accord.

Iran’s arch-foe Israel sees Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and says it would never allow Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons.

Araqchi, in a joint news conference with his Egyptian counterpart in Cairo, said: “I do not think Israel will commit such a mistake as to attack Iran.”

Tehran’s regional influence has meanwhile been diminished by military setbacks suffered by its forces and those of its allies in the Shi’ite-dominated “Axis of Resistance,” which include Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iraqi militias.

In April, Saudi Arabia’s defence minister delivered a blunt message to Iranian officials to take Trump’s offer of a new deal seriously as a way to avoid the risk of war with Israel.

The post Iran Poised to Dismiss US Nuclear Proposal, Iranian Diplomat Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron after a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, May 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stephanie Lecocq/Pool

The dramatic fall of the Assad regime in Syria has undeniably reshaped the Middle East, yet the emerging power dynamics, particularly the alignment between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, warrant profound scrutiny from those committed to American and Israeli security. While superficially presented as a united front against Iranian influence, this new Sunni axis carries a dangerous undercurrent of Islamism and regional ambition that could ultimately undermine, rather than serve, the long-term interests of Washington and Jerusalem.

For too long, Syria under Bashar al-Assad served as a critical conduit for Iran’s destabilizing agenda, facilitating arms transfers to Hezbollah and projecting Tehran’s power across the Levant. The removal of this linchpin is, on the surface, a strategic victory. However, the nature of the new Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa — a figure Israeli officials continue to view with deep suspicion due to his past as a former Al-Qaeda-linked commander — raises immediate red flags. This is not merely a change of guard; it is a shift that introduces a new set of complex challenges, particularly given Turkey’s historical support for the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization deemed a terror group by Saudi Arabia and many other regional states.

Israel’s strategic calculus in Syria has always been clear: to degrade Iran’s military presence, prevent Hezbollah from acquiring advanced weaponry, and maintain operational freedom in Syrian airspace. Crucially, Israel has historically thought it best to have a decentralized, weak, and fragmented Syria, with reports that it has actively worked against the resurgence of a robust central authority. This preference stems from a pragmatic understanding that a strong, unified Syria, especially one under the tutelage of an ambitious regional power like Turkey, could pose much more of a threat than the Assad regime ever did. Indeed, Israeli defense officials privately express concern at Turkey’s assertive moves, accusing Ankara of attempting to transform post-war Syria into a Turkish protectorate under Islamist tutelage. This concern is not unfounded; Turkey’s ambitious, arguably expansionist, objectives — and its perceived undue dominance in Arab lands — are viewed by Israel as warily as Iran’s previous influence.

The notion that an “Ottoman Crescent” is now replacing the “Shiite Crescent” should not be celebrated as a net positive. While it may diminish Iranian power, it introduces a new form of regional hegemony, one driven by an ideology that has historically been antithetical to Western values and stability. The European Union’s recent imposition of sanctions on Turkish-backed Syrian army commanders for human rights abuses, including arbitrary killings and torture, further underscores the problematic nature of some elements within this new Syrian landscape. The fact that al-Sharaa has allowed such individuals to operate with impunity and even promoted them to high-ranking positions should give Washington pause.

From an American perspective, while the Trump administration has pragmatically engaged with the new Syrian government, lifting sanctions and urging normalization with Israel, this engagement must be tempered with extreme caution. The core American interests in the Middle East — counterterrorism, containment of Iran, and regional stability — are not served by empowering Islamist-leaning factions or by enabling a regional power, like Turkey, whose actions have sometimes undermined the broader fight against ISIS. Washington must demand that Damascus demonstrate a genuine commitment to taking over the counter-ISIS mission and managing detention facilities, and unequivocally insist that Turkey cease actions that risk an ISIS resurgence.

The argument that Saudi Arabia and Turkey, despite their own complex internal dynamics, are simply pragmatic actors countering Iran overlooks the ideological underpinnings that concern many conservatives. Turkey’s ruling party, rooted in political Islam, and its historical ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, present a fundamental challenge to the vision of a stable, secular, and pro-Western Middle East. While Saudi Arabia has designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, its alignment with Turkey in Syria, and its own internal human rights record, means that this “new front” is far from a clean solution.

The Saudi-Turkey alignment in Syria is a double-edged sword. While it may indeed serve to counter Iran’s immediate regional ambitions, it simultaneously risks empowering actors whose long-term objectives and ideological leanings are deeply problematic for American, Israeli, and Western interests. Washington and Jerusalem must approach this new dynamic with extreme vigilance, prioritizing the containment of all forms of radicalism — whether Shiite or Sunni — and ensuring that any strategic gains against Iran do not inadvertently pave the way for a new, equally dangerous, Islamist crescent to rise in the heart of the Levant.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx 

The post The Islamist Crescent: A New Syrian Danger first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News