RSS
‘You Will Be Held Accountable’: US Congress Questions University Presidents Over Pro-Hamas Encampments
Northwestern University president Michael Schill looks on during a US House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on anti-Israel protests on college campuses, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades
US lawmakers on Thursday interrogated the presidents of Northwestern University, Rutgers University, and the University of California, Los Angeles during a three-hour hearing about their responses to pro-Hamas “encampments” which convulsed their campuses at the end of the school year.
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce organized the hearing — titled “Calling for Accountability: Stopping Antisemitic College Chaos” — after an eruption of anti-Zionist protests on college campuses in which students illegally occupied sections of school property and refused to leave unless their schools agreed to condemn and boycott Israel.
Northwestern University president Michael Schill faced the brunt of the committee’s questions, sparring with them over the meaning of antisemitism, his settlement with the organizers of the pro-Hamas encampment, and what constitutes discipline.
“I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals,” Schill told Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) when asked if he would have negotiated with Ku Klux Klan members who had threatened and uttered hate speech about Black students.
“It’s striking that you decided to negotiate a sweetheart deal with pro-Hamas students and professors who denied Oct. 7, either denied it, celebrated, or simply don’t care. I look at that as pure evil,” Burgess said in response.
They continued to exchange remarks, with Burgess inquiring into large donations that Northwestern University has received from Qatar, which, Burgess noted, harbors Hamas members. Schill insisted that Hamas’ relationship with Qatar isn’t his “area of expertise,” which prompted Burgess to suggest that he must find it acceptable.
“I really — I’m offended by you telling me what my views are,” Schill retorted, raising his voice.
Schill has been criticized for agreeing — in exchange for the group Students for Justice in Palestine’s (SJP) ending its encampment — to establish a scholarship for Palestinian undergraduates, contact potential employers of students who caused recent campus disruptions to insist on their being hired, and create a segregated dormitory hall that will be occupied exclusively by Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) and Muslim students. He also agreed to form a new advisory committee in which anti-Zionists students and faculty may wield an outsized voice.
He denied during Thursday’s hearing that he acceded to any of SJP’s demands, including their insistence on divesting from and boycotting Israel.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) said that he did, calling his agreement with SJP — which was called the “Deering Meadow Agreement” throughout the hearing — a “unilateral capitulation. She also accused him of failing to protect Jewish students from the violence of the anti-Zionist protesters, incidents that Schill described as “allegations.”
“Let’s talk about what has occurred on this encampment,” Stefanik said. “Isn’t it true that a Jewish Northwestern student was assaulted?”
“There are allegations that a Jewish student was assaulted. We are investigating those allegations,” Schill said.
Stefanik recounted several more incidents of alleged antisemitic violence — including one in which a Jewish student was spit on — and harassment, pressing Schill to estimate when the school will complete its investigations. She then excoriated the deal Schill negotiated with SJP, volleying a series of remarks which included her accusing him of pressuring Northwestern Hillel to hire an anti-Zionist Jew as its director.
Schill denied the allegation.
Rutgers University president Jonathan Holloway appeared to defend the organizers of the encampment on his campus during his testimony, comparing them to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who he said was unpopular in his time. At one point, Holloway refused to answer whether he believes Israel is a “genocidal” country, agreeing only to say that Israel has a right to defend itself. Later, he stated that he does not believe that Israel is genocidal.
About two hours into the hearing, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) questioned University of California, Los Angeles chancellor Gene Block about his handling of the school’s encampment, an opportunity she used to portray anti-Zionist activists as victims. Omar called the pro-Hamas group which amassed there “peaceful,” accusing Jewish students of releasing rats into their encampment and calling footage of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks that pro-Israel activists played near the encampment as a counter-protest “vile and disturbing.”
“You should be ashamed at the fact that you failed your students,” Omar told Block, commenting on a melee that broke out between pro-Hamas and pro-Israel activists during the encampment. “You should be ashamed for letting a peaceful protest gathering get hijacked by an angry mob. You should be ashamed for allowing such violence to take place on your campus, which will now be weaponized by Republicans on this committee. You played right into the hands in laying the ground for attacking institutions of public education, stripping students of their rights, and broader repression of movements.”
Omar also denied that pro-Hamas protesters erected checkpoints around the campus where they refused to let Jewish students cross. Video evidence of that happening was played at the hearing, however.
“Students cannot learn when they feel threatened, and it’s part of our responsibility, I think, to see that students who feel threatened are relieved of that fear,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said in concluding the hearing. “Today’s testimony certainly brought bad things to light, beyond the craven deals and shocking inaction we already knew about.”
Foxx went on to accuse Schill of “condescension” and noted that Holloway’s faculty at Rutgers have praised and celebrated Hamas’ violence.
“Today’s hearing is the beginning, not the end, of the committees investigation of your institutions,” she said. “You will be held accountable for your records. Congress will not stand by while you violate your obligations to uphold Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, fail to protect Jewish students, cut deals advancing divestment, and promote terrorism and radical antisemitic ideologies.”
On Thursday, the executive director of the Academic Engagement Network — which promotes diversity viewpoints and academic freedom — told The Algemeiner during an interview that Holloway’s handling of antisemitism at Rutgers, particularly the antisemitism of the faculty at the Center for Security, Race, and Rights (CSSR) at its Newark campus, should continue to be scrutinized during the course of the committee’s investigation.
“Holloway admitted at one point that anti-Israel political advocacy is not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, yet the CSSR at the Newark campus that he funds through the chancellor’s office is absolutely doing that,” Miriam Elman said. “CSSR is an anti-Israel advocacy academic unit in which Jewish students do not feel welcome, and even after he admitted that its conduct is inappropriate, he would not commit to shutting it down, which is a contradiction that needs to be called out.”
Elman added that a faculty group of AEN members formed the Jewish Faculty, Administrators, and Staff (JFAS) group over ten years ago to raise awareness of their concerns about antisemitism at Rutgers and were ignored.
“They have been repeatedly asking for more attention to antisemitism and more viewpoint diversity on Israel, particularly at Newark, and getting nowhere,” she continued. “I couldn’t even believe that a committee member [Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA)] actually mentioned them in their testimony, because they, like the committee, believe that there should have been no negotiations with or acceding to the demands of the protesters. Not only did doing so reward bad behavior, it allowed a radical few to determine these outcomes over the voices of everybody else.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post ‘You Will Be Held Accountable’: US Congress Questions University Presidents Over Pro-Hamas Encampments first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login