Uncategorized
Feds to investigate NY college where an assault survivor group booted a Zionist student
(JTA) – The U.S. Department of Education has opened an investigation into the State University of New York at New Paltz surrounding an incident in which a student-led group for sexual assault survivors kicked out one of its co-founders for sharing a pro-Israel Instagram post.
Pro-Israel legal groups filed a complaint with the department last year alleging that the school did not respond forcefully enough to the incident, which they characterized as antisemitic discrimination. They are calling on the school to improve its training on antisemitism, which they define as including targeting students for a “connection to Israel.”
Announced Thursday, the investigation is taking place under the auspices of the department’s Office of Civil Rights, which looks into allegations of discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funding. It is the latest in a series of investigations opened into allegations of campus antisemitism since the Trump administration broadened the office’s mandate to include certain kinds of anti-Israel speech in 2019.
It is also the first antisemitism investigation to be opened since the Biden administration unveiled a plan last month to combat antisemitism that includes a section on higher education. The 60-page document outlining the plan notes that “Jewish students and educators are targeted for derision and exclusion on college campuses.”
“No student should ever be excluded from campus because of facets of their Jewish identity, let alone survivors of sexual assault,” Julia Jassey, a recent University of Chicago graduate who is the co-founder and CEO of the college antisemitism watchdog group Jewish on Campus, said in a press release celebrating the investigation.
Jewish on Campus brought the federal complaint in partnership with the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a pro-Israel legal group that often involves itself in campus conflicts over speech about Israel. The complaint was filed on behalf of two Jewish students at the school, which is located in upstate New York.
A spokesperson for SUNY New Paltz said the university does not comment on pending investigations, adding, “We unequivocally condemn any attacks on SUNY students who are Jewish, and we will not tolerate anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation on campus.” In the immediate aftermath of the controversy, the school’s president condemned antisemitism but indicated that, because the student group was not formally recognized by the university, administrators were limited in their ability to respond.
The federal investigation will focus on two claims: that SUNY New Paltz did not respond appropriately to the exclusion of a Jewish student from a student group, and that students were being harassed on the basis of their Judaism.
The investigation itself does not mean the department believes the claims have merit — only that they fall under the purview of its Office of Civil Rights under a section of the law known as Title VI.
The complaint focuses on an episode that CNN featured as part of a prime-time special on antisemitism in the United States last year. It was filed on behalf of Cassandra Blotner, a Jewish student who was, according to coverage by the campus newspaper, removed from the student group New Paltz Accountability over her pro-Israel Instagram post. It was also filed on behalf of another Jewish student, Ofek Preis, who quit the group in solidarity with Blotner. Blotner was a co-founder of the group, which seeks to pressure the university to adopt greater transparency in its sexual assault investigations.
As reported last year by the New Paltz Oracle, a student newspaper, Blotner shared an infographic on Instagram in December 2021 from pro-Israel influencer Hen Mazzig reading, in part, “Jews are an ethnic group who come from Israel,” and, “Israel is not ‘a colonial state’ and Israelis aren’t ‘settlers.’ You cannot colonize the land your ancestors are from.”
Shortly afterward, Blotner said, her fellow group leaders messaged her to request a conversation about her views on Israel. One wrote, “Personally, I think Israel is a settler colonial state and we can’t condone the violence they take against Palestinians.”
Blotner at first refused to have a conversation with other members of the group, then later suggested they talk to the school’s Jewish Student Union — at which point, she said, the group kicked her out. Preis then decided to resign from the group (administrators said she had only been a prospective member).
“They told me that because I’m a Zionist, that that means I’m an oppressor, and that means I’m not against all forms of oppression, which means that I’m not against sexual violence,” Blotner told CNN’s Dana Bash in the antisemitism special.
One day after the publication of the student newspaper article detailing the allegations against the group, New Paltz Accountability appeared to defend its opposition to Zionism in an Instagram post.
“Being against sexual violence but indifferent to colonialism are conflicting ideologies,” the post stated. “Justifying the occupation of Palestine, in any way, condones the violence used to acquire the land. This does not mean we do not support survivors or students with different political beliefs.”
According to the Brandeis Center and Jewish on Campus, Blotner requested that university administrators provide her with a security escort because her interactions with the group left her feeling unsafe on campus, but they declined her request. She graduated last month, thanking the Brandeis Center, Jewish on Campus and Mazzig in an Instagram post that said they “lifted me up when I was down.”
In response to the incident, SUNY New Paltz’s president met with Jewish students and issued a strongly worded condemnation of antisemitism, saying, “Excluding any campus member from institutional events and activities on the basis of differing viewpoints on such matters is a traditionally defined form of antisemitism.”
The university, according to the Brandeis Center, also said that it should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. That definition has been endorsed by dozens of U.S. universities, according to the American Jewish Committee, but has drawn criticism for saying that certain criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.
The Brandeis Center has frequently called for universities to adopt the IHRA definition, yet in this case it said SUNY New Paltz had not gone far enough and called on the school to change other policies in response to the incident. Some previous investigations into schools accused of antisemitism violations have resulted in universities pledging to make tangible changes to their diversity training programs and other initiatives.
That was the case recently at the University of Vermont, which was the subject of a federal civil rights complaint that also partially revolved around a student group for sexual assault survivors excluding Zionists. In 2020, the University of Illinois pledged to take steps to combat antisemitism days after the Department of Education opened up a Title VI investigation into the school.
But other campus communities faced with Title VI antisemitism investigations into Israel-related matters have seen the investigations prompt division and distrust. George Washington University faced its own investigation days after clearing a professor of antisemitism allegations brought against her by pro-Israel groups.
And the University of California, Berkeley saw an investigation opened into its law school after the Brandeis Center’s founder, a former Trump administration official, alleged in an op-ed that it was propagating “Jew-free zones” because an alliance of student groups at the law school pledged not to invite Zionist speakers. The Jewish dean of the law school vehemently denied the charge.
—
The post Feds to investigate NY college where an assault survivor group booted a Zionist student appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk
The Iran war is strategically sound yet politically unsupported — an unstable foundation for a gamble that could reshape the Middle East. That creates danger for Israel, which needs the support of an American public that is rapidly drifting away.
For decades, the country’s greatest strategic asset has not been its military technology or intelligence capabilities — spectacular as these are — but rather the political, diplomatic and military backing of the United States. That relationship has not been merely transactional. It was supposed to rest on shared values and deep public support across the American political spectrum.
If that support erodes or disappears, Israel’s strategic environment will fundamentally change. To be blunt: it will not be able to arm its military. This creates a paradox. A campaign that has so far demonstrated extraordinary value for the Jewish state also stands a risk of fundamentally weakening it.
An alliance at its strongest
The conflict has showcased the depth of the current U.S.–Israel alliance. To many observers, and critically to Israel’s enemies, the operation has underscored not only Israel’s capabilities but also the reality that it stands alongside the world’s most powerful state.
The strikes have projected deep into Iranian territory, revealed astonishing intelligence penetration, and destroyed or degraded key threats. Israel’s enemies across the region have already been weakened by previous rounds of fighting since Oct. 7, and the current operation has reinforced the impression that Israel can reach its adversaries wherever they operate.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has managed to isolate itself to the point where most Arab countries are in effect on the side of Israel and the U.S. That projection — of an unbreakable and strong alliance – may ultimately be the most important strategic element of this war.
But therein lies the rub.
The political foundations of American support for Israel are eroding, which means the very element that currently strengthens Israel’s deterrence — American participation — may also be the one most at risk.
A just war, unjustified
Americans do not understand why their country is at war.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted at the start of the conflict found only 27% of Americans supported the U.S. action, while 43% opposed it. Other surveys show similar results, with roughly six in ten Americans against the military intervention.
In modern American history that is highly unusual. Most wars begin with a “rally around the flag” moment when public support surges. Even conflicts that later became controversial — from Afghanistan to Iraq — initially enjoyed majority backing.
This one did not — in part because the case for it has not been made clearly to the public.
That error is compounded by years of polarization in American politics; declining trust in institutions and leadership; and the record of President Donald Trump, who has spent years spreading conspiracy theories and demonstrating a remarkable indifference to factual truth. It is no exaggeration to say that many Americans do not believe a word he says – which is perhaps unprecedented.
When a president with that record launches a war, at least half the country assumes the worst. Even if the strategic logic is sound, the credibility deficit remains.
The tragedy is that the war is, in fact, eminently justifiable. The Islamic Republic has long since forfeited the moral legitimacy that normally shields states from outside force. It brutally suppresses its own population, jailing and killing protesters, policing women’s bodies, and crushing dissent with an apparatus of repression. Its foreign policy is not defensive but revolutionary. Through proxy militias it has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian areas, in some cases for decades.
The regime has pursued nuclear weapons through a series of transparent machinations, deceptions and brinkmanship. Negotiations have repeatedly been used as delaying tactics while enrichment continued. Any deal that relieved sanctions would not simply reduce tensions; it would also inject new resources into a system dedicated both to repression at home and aggression abroad — one that is despised by the vast majority of its own people, as murderous dictatorships inevitably will be.
There is a doctrine in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect — the principle that when a state systematically brutalizes its own population, the international community may have the right, even the obligation, to act. By that standard, the Iranian regime has been skating on thin ice for years.
But with this clear rationale left uncommunicated, the politically dangerous perception has spread that the U.S. was reacting to Israel rather than acting on its own strategic judgment.
A perilous future
If Americans come to believe that Israel caused a costly war that they did not support in the first place, the backlash could be severe.
For centuries, one of the most persistent antisemitic tropes has been the accusation that Jews manipulate powerful states into fighting wars on their behalf. The suggestion that Israel can pull the U.S. into conflict feeds directly into that mythology. Once such perceptions take hold, they can be extremely difficult to reverse.
Even people who reject antisemitism outright can absorb a softer version of the same idea: that American interests are being subordinated to Israeli ones. In a political environment already marked by growing skepticism toward Israel, that perception risks deepening the erosion of support that has been underway for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to inadvertently feed such notions by suggesting in recent days that the U.S. had to attack Iran because Israel was going to do so “anyway,” and then America would have been a target. It was a short path from that to conspiracy theorists like Tucker Carlson blaming Chabad for the war.
A future Democratic president, facing a base that appears to have abandoned Israel, may feel far less obligation to defend it diplomatically or militarily. Even a Republican successor could prove unreliable if the party continues its drift toward isolationism.
That likelihood is compounded by studies showing that a large part of the U.S. Jewish community itself no longer backs Zionism. That process is driven by Israel’s own policies, including the West Bank occupation and the deadly brutality of the war in Gaza.
So the very war that is showcasing the best the U.S.-Israel alliance has to offer is also at risk of fundamentally damaging that partnership. Particularly if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the rightful object of much American ire — manipulates the Iran campaign into an electoral victory this year, the alliance’s greatest success could also be its undoing.
The post War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran’s New Military Plan Is Regime Survival Through Regional Escalation
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – After last year’s devastating conflict with the United States and Israel, Iranian leaders have reportedly adopted a major strategic shift aimed at expanding the war across the Middle East to secure the regime’s survival, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Previously, Iran responded to foreign strikes with limited, targeted reprisals. The new doctrine abandons that approach, aiming instead to escalate the conflict regionally, particularly against Gulf Arab states and critical economic infrastructure. The goal is to disrupt the global economy and pressure Washington into shortening the war.
This decision followed the twelve-day war with Israel in June 2025, during which Israeli and US strikes eliminated senior Iranian military leaders, destroyed key air defense systems, and severely damaged nuclear facilities. In response, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—before his elimination early in the current conflict—activated a strategy designed to maintain continuity even if top commanders were neutralized.
Central to this approach is the so-called “mosaic defense” doctrine: a decentralized military structure in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates through multiple regional command centers. Each center can conduct operations independently, allowing local commanders to continue fighting even if national leadership is incapacitated. This makes the military apparatus more resilient to targeted strikes.
Analysts cited by the Wall Street Journal suggest that Tehran’s calculation is to make the conflict costly enough for all parties to force the US and its allies into a diplomatic resolution.
However, the plan carries enormous risks. By escalating attacks on regional states and international economic interests, Iran could provoke a broader coalition against itself. Despite prior military losses, Iranian forces retain the capability to launch drone and missile strikes, maintaining their influence over the ongoing conflict.
For Iranian leaders, the immediate priority remains unchanged: the survival of the regime, even if it requires a major regional escalation.
Uncategorized
Katz Warns Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah or ‘Pay a Heavy Price’
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday warned Lebanon’s leadership that it must act to disarm Hezbollah and enforce existing agreements, cautioning that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences for the Lebanese state.
Speaking after a high-level security assessment with senior military officials, Katz directed a message to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying Beirut had committed to enforcing an agreement requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament but had failed to follow through.
“You pledged to uphold the agreement and disarm Hezbollah — and this is not happening,” Katz said. “Act and enforce it before we do even more.”
The meeting took place in Israel’s military command center and included Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials, as Israel continues operations on multiple fronts.
Katz emphasized that Israel would not tolerate attacks on its communities or soldiers from Lebanese territory.
“We will not allow harm to our communities or to our soldiers,” he said. “If the choice is between protecting our citizens and soldiers or protecting the State of Lebanon, we will choose our citizens and soldiers — and the Lebanese government and Lebanon will pay a very heavy price.”
The defense minister also referenced Hezbollah’s leadership, warning that the group’s current chief could lead Lebanon into further destruction.
“If Hassan Nasrallah destroyed Lebanon, then Naim Qassem will destroy it as well,” Katz said.
Katz stressed that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said it would not accept a return to the years in which Hezbollah launched repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory.
“We have no territorial claims against Lebanon,” he said. “But we will not allow Lebanese territory to again become a platform for attacks against the State of Israel.”
He concluded with a warning to Lebanese authorities to take action against Hezbollah before Israel escalates its response.
“Do and act before we do even more,” Katz said.