Uncategorized
CUNY chancellor denounces anti-Israel law school graduation speech as ‘hate speech’
(New York Jewish Week) — The chancellor and board of trustees of the City University of New York have denounced a May 12 graduation speech at CUNY School of Law in which a student harshly criticized Israel.
Fatima Mousa Mohammed’s speech, in which she praised the law school as, in her view, a rare place where students could “speak out against Israeli settler colonialism,” was “hate speech,” according to a statement released Tuesday by Chancellor Felix Matos Rodríguez and the board of the public university system.
While the system cherishes free speech, the statement said, Mohammed’s remarks “unfortunately fall into the category of hate speech as they were a public expression of hate toward people and communities based on their religion, race or political affiliation.”
The statement went on, “The Board of Trustees of the City University of New York condemns such hate speech.”
The statement comes more than two weeks after the law school graduation ceremony where Mohammed was selected by her classmates to offer a commencement address. The ceremony was widely watched in part because part of the graduating class turned their backs on and booed Mayor Eric Adams, another speaker.
“As Israel continues to indiscriminately rain bullets and bombs on worshippers, murdering the old, the young, attacking even funerals and graveyards, as it encourages lynch mobs to target Palestininan homes and businesses, as it imprisons its children, as it continues its project of settler colonialism… our silence is no longer acceptable,” Mohammed said in her speech.
Later in her speech, she encouraged “the fight against capitalism, racism, imperialism and Zionism around the world.”
Pro-Israel advocates have long accused CUNY of tolerating antisemitism in part because of student and faculty expressions of anti-Israel sentiment, and the speech quickly drew criticism. The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York called the speech “incendiary, anti-Israel propaganda” in a statement on May 12.
“Unfortunately, this particular commencement speech cast aside the principle of seeking truth in a shameless attempt to vilify CUNY’s constructive engagement with Israel and the New York Jewish community and to denigrate Israel’s supporters on campus while trading in antisemitic tropes,” the statement said.
On Monday, the New York Post, a right-wing tabloid, put Mohammed on the cover, identifying her as “stark raving grad.”
Ritchie Torres, a pro-Israel Democratic congressman from the Bronx, tweeted about the speech on Sunday, writing that it was “anti-Israel derangement syndrome at work.”
“Imagine being so crazed by hatred for Israel as a Jewish State that you make it the subject of your commencement speech at a law school graduation,” he wrote.
And Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, whose New York congressional district includes the heavily Orthodox city of Monsey, tweeted in response to the video that he is “finalizing legislation to strip universities of their funding if they engage in and promote anti-semitism.”
“CUNY should be ashamed of itself — and should lose any federal funds it currently receives,” Lawler wrote.
CUNY’s law school has been a target of pro-Israel advocates for some time because of student activism against Israel. In December 2021 and May 2022, respectively, student and faculty associations each voted in favor of a resolution to support the Palestinian-led movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, known as BDS.
The law school enrolls about 700 students at its Queens campus and is known for attracting left-wing students who are interested in public service legal work. Last year’s commencement ceremony ignited a similar controversy after Nerdeen Kiswani, who is part of a group that has called to “globalize the intifada,” was the student-selected speaker. The term “intifada” generally refers to two violent Palestinian uprisings in the late 1980s and early 2000s, and the group’s call is widely seen by pro-Israel advocates as calling for violence.
The law school’s Jewish students’ association has been a vocal supporter of pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus, saying in a May 21 statement backing Mohammed that criticism of her speech had come from “external zionist organizations” that were spreading lies about her.
“The organizations currently attacking Fatima and the rest of CUNY Law’s student body, with absurd and false claims of antisemitism, are doing so against the wishes of the majority of CUNY Law’s Jewish students, who wholeheartedly stand with Fatima and have been grateful to have her as our classmate throughout law school,” the group said in the statement, which was also signed by 18 other student groups.
CUNY, which operates 25 undergraduate and 15 graduate schools, has recently signaled that it is committed to fighting antisemitism on its campuses. In September 2022, the system allocated $750,000 for initiatives to “counter antisemitism” with the JCRC-NY and in May, launched a social media campaign in partnership with the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism, an organization launched by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft in 2019.
In their statement condemning Mohammed’s speech, the system’s chancellor and trustees noted that CUNY is and always has been a diverse institution.
“This speech is particularly unacceptable at a ceremony celebrating the achievements of a wide diversity of graduates, and hurtful to the entire CUNY community, which was founded on the principle of equal access and opportunity,” the chancellor and trustees’ statement said.
—
The post CUNY chancellor denounces anti-Israel law school graduation speech as ‘hate speech’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Car Torched in Antwerp in Suspected Antisemitic Attack, Says Belgian Official
A Jewish man rides past Belgian army personnel patrolling a street as part of a deployment of soldiers outside Jewish institutions in Antwerp and Brussels following attacks at Jewish sites in Belgium and other European countries, in Antwerp, Belgium, March 23, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman
The torching of a car overnight in Antwerp, for which two minors were arrested, is being treated as a suspected antisemitic attack, a Belgian official said on Tuesday.
European countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, and Britain have witnessed incidents targeting the Jewish community since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran on Feb. 28.
Belgium on Monday deployed soldiers on the streets of its biggest cities to bolster security at Jewish sites including synagogues and schools.
A spokesperson for the Antwerp prosecutor said an investigation was under way, and that the two suspects had been arrested shortly before midnight on Monday, moments after the attack.
They said a video circulating on social media that purportedly showed the arson attack appeared authentic and was part of the investigation. Reuters did not independently verify the video.
Over the past two weeks, synagogues have been attacked in Liege, Belgium, and in the Dutch city of Rotterdam, as well as a Jewish school in Amsterdam. In Britain, counter-terrorism officers are leading an investigation into an attack on Jewish community ambulances.
“There must be a thorough investigation and decisive action to put an end to this climate of intimidation before it spirals further,” Israel’s ambassador to Belgium, Idit Rosenzweig-Abu, said on X.
The SITE Intelligence website said an Iran-aligned multinational militant collective called Islamic Movement of the People of the Right Hand had claimed responsibility for the attack near a synagogue in Golders Green, London.
It said the group had been behind the fires in Liege, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam.
Mark Rowley, London’s police chief, said the claim was one of the lines of inquiry being pursued.
Uncategorized
Iran Toughens Negotiating Stance Amid Mediation Efforts, Sources Say
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a press conference following talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramil Sitdikov/Pool
Iran’s negotiating posture has hardened sharply since the war began, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exerting growing influence over decision-making, and it will demand significant concessions from the United States if mediation efforts lead to serious negotiations, three senior sources in Tehran said.
In any talks with the US, Iran would not only demand an end to the war but concessions that are likely red lines for US President Donald Trump – guarantees against future military action, compensation for wartime losses, and formal control of the Strait of Hormuz, the sources said.
Iran would also refuse to negotiate any limitations to its ballistic missile program, they said, an issue that had been a red line for Tehran during the talks that were taking place when the US and Israel launched their attack last month.
Trump said on Monday that Washington had already had “very, very strong talks” with Tehran more than three weeks into the war, but Iran has publicly denied this.
The three senior sources said Iran had only had preliminary discussions with Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt over whether the groundwork existed for talks with the United States over ending the war.
A European official said on Monday that, while there had been no direct negotiations between Iran and the US, Egypt, Pakistan, and Gulf states were relaying messages. A Pakistani official and a second source also said on Monday that direct talks on ending the war could be held in Islamabad this week.
Pakistan‘s prime minister said on Tuesday he was willing to host talks between the US and Iran on ending the war in the Gulf, a day after Trump postponed threats to bomb Iranian power plants, saying there had been “productive” talks.
However, the US was expected to deploy thousands of troops from the elite 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday, adding to the massive military buildup in the region and fueling fears of a prolonged conflict.
In a post on X, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Pakistan welcomed and fully supported ongoing efforts to pursue dialogue to end the war.
“Subject to concurrence by the US and Iran, Pakistan stands ready and honored to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement,” he said.
A Pakistani government source said discussions on a meeting were at an advanced stage and if it did happen, “a big ‘if,’” it would take place within a week. Pakistan has long-standing ties to neighboring Iran‘s Islamic Republic and has been building a relationship with Trump.
If any such talks were arranged, Iran would send Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi to attend, the three Iranian sources said, cautioning that any decisions would ultimately lie with the hardline IRGC.
Iran’s use of ballistic missiles and its ability to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas usually flows, have been its most effective responses to the US-Israeli strikes.
It could not agree to give these up without leaving itself defenseless against further attacks, analysts say.
Inside Iran, domestic concerns are also constraining Tehran’s maneuvering room in negotiations, the senior Iranian sources said.
These concerns included the greater clout of the Revolutionary Guards, uncertainty at the top of the system, with the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei having not yet appeared in photographs or video since his appointment, and a public narrative of resilience in the war.
Uncategorized
The JCPOA’s Sunset Has Arrived — and Iran Just Proved It
Deputy Secretary General of the European External Action Service (EEAS) Enrique Mora and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani and delegations wait for the start of a meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna, Austria December 17, 2021. EU Delegation in Vienna/EEAS. Photo: Handout via REUTERS
On the night of March 20-21, 2026, Iran launched two ballistic missiles at the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean nearly 4,000 kilometers from Iranian territory. One failed in flight; the second was intercepted. Neither struck the base.
Iran’s Foreign Minister had stated weeks earlier that Tehran had deliberately capped its missile range at 2,000 kilometers. The gap between that claim and this week’s launch is not merely a military story. It is the story of the Iran nuclear deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and a direct answer to the question dividing Western foreign policy for a decade: what happens when the world tries to engage diplomatically with Iran?
On July 14, 2015, President Obama announced the JCPOA, and declared: “This deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. We will be in a position to know if Iran is violating the deal.”
In 2026, that verification looks like a missile fired at a base 4,000 kilometers away, when Iran claimed its range limit was half that distance.
The Iran nuclear deal rested on a core assumption: that Tehran had come clean about its military history. The exposure of Iran’s nuclear archive by the Mossad, presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2018, proved otherwise. Tehran had transferred its ambitions to a classified track, preserving its knowledge base intact and waiting for the restrictions to expire.
The JCPOA’s sunset clauses tell the story plainly. In October 2020, the UN arms embargo expired, allowing Iran to legally purchase tanks and aircraft from Russia and China. In October 2023, all restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs expired. In October 2025, the nuclear file was removed from the UN Security Council’s agenda.
Obama acknowledged this in an April 7, 2015 NPR interview with Steve Inskeep: in years 13 through 15, breakout times would shrink toward zero. The deal bought time. The question was always what that time would be used for.
The financial consequences were immediate. Iran gained access to over $100 billion in frozen assets. EU-Iran trade peaked at 20.7 billion euros in 2017. Airbus signed a $19 billion aircraft deal. TotalEnergies signed a $5 billion energy contract. Iran’s GDP grew 12.5 percent in 2016, per IMF data.
When asked in April 2016 whether this windfall would empower the Revolutionary Guard Corps, President Obama, speaking to Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic’s “The Obama Doctrine,” argued that Iran’s infrastructure needs were too vast to leave room for IRGC expansion.
The evidence did not support that premise. The precision-guided munitions transferred to Hezbollah, the drones supplied to the Houthis, and the missile program that reached Diego Garcia were not funded by a government that ran short of money for domestic investment. The capital was fungible, and a revolutionary government proved capable of allocating it accordingly.
In that same interview, Obama called on Saudi Arabia and Iran to share the neighborhood, treating their rivalry as symmetrical rather than as a confrontation between a US partner and a state committed to violently reordering the region.
Within the administration, JCPOA preservation had become the flagship foreign policy achievement, generating a powerful institutional logic: any action risking Iranian withdrawal had to be weighed against losing the agreement. Governments in Jerusalem and Riyadh did not need to be told that escalation carried costs in Washington. Tehran read the architecture with precision. The years between 2015 and 2018 were among the most consequential in the construction of Iran’s regional proxy network.
The deal’s defenders argue, correctly, that it extended Iran’s nuclear breakout time from roughly two months to approximately one year, and that the 2018 withdrawal accelerated the nuclear advances it was meant to prevent. Iran today enriches uranium to 60 percent, a level prohibited under the agreement. These are factual claims.
The harder question is whether the framework was ever capable of a durable outcome. The sunset clauses suggest it was not designed to be. It was designed to buy time. In effect, it risked enabling Iran to reach a nuclear arsenal with international legitimacy. In such a scenario, the Middle East would face a new reality in which Iran possesses nuclear capability and reshapes the regional balance of deterrence. The missiles fired at Diego Garcia offer one answer.
Obama said in 2015 that the best outcome was to place Iran inside a box. The execution rested on assumptions that the nuclear archive, the proxy wars, and the Diego Garcia launch have each challenged in turn.
The next framework will need a different foundation: one that does not schedule its own obsolescence, does not assume capital flows moderate revolutionary ideology, and does not treat military responses to Iranian aggression as threats to diplomatic progress. Building it, before the current conflict forces the question under far worse conditions, is the most urgent task in Western foreign policy today.
Sagiv Steinberg is the CEO of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA), a leading Israeli research institute. He has an extensive background in senior leadership positions across the Israeli and global media landscape.