In 2020, the Israel Religious Action Center (IRAC), the legal arm of the Reform Movement in Israel, filed a lawsuit against Gett, a popular Israeli taxi-hailing service. The offense was offering a “Mehadrin” option for riders who wanted drivers who observed Shabbat. The IRAC said the offering discriminated against Arab drivers who didn’t qualify under that label, and ultimately, the case was settled in June 2023. Gett paid out $1.6 million (NIS 6 million) in compensation to Arab drivers and to two NGOs that promote Jewish-Arab coexistence.
The clear message was that religious preferences in ride-hailing services are a form of discrimination. No special preferences would be tolerated.
Yet, here we are, in the United States.
Uber, the global ride-hailing behemoth, has quietly introduced a service in various markets that allows female drivers to opt into picking up only female passengers. It’s being billed as a safety measure—one that empowers women to feel more comfortable driving and riding in liberal cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Detroit. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees: this is gender-based discrimination, plain and simple. A man hailing a ride and seeing it canceled because the driver opted for a woman-only ride is, quite literally, being excluded based on sex.
How is allowing female drivers to exclude picking up male riders making life “better for everyone?”
Where is the outrage from liberal groups? Where is the Jewish Reform Movement? Why hasn’t a lawsuit been filed on behalf of male riders who must be put in the back of the line to get home? Why no amicus brief filed in solidarity with equality under the law?
The silence is telling. Discrimination only seems to bother rights advocacy groups when it’s associated with religious practice or victims of preference. If Arab drivers are excluded from rides, liberal groups in Israel convinced the courts that it’s discrimination. But if male passengers in the United States are excluded to create a woman-only safe space? That’s empowerment.
The hypocrisy is glaring. If the principle is equality, then apply it. If the standard is fairness, then be consistent. And if the cause is justice, then justice should not be contingent on whom it implicates.
Is there a red line of equality under the law that differentiates between religion and sex? Or is Israel more progressive regarding equality than the United States?
Weekends in the Hamptons Synagogue are times to hear from politicians but infrequently a political war room. That changed on July 20. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo, political veteran and bruised warrior of Albany, came down from the bleachers and into the pit—this time, to describe the battle with far-left ideologue who had somehow captured the heart of New York City’s radical alt-left: Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani.
Cuomo stood before a predominantly older, anxious crowd—not in his home borough, but in the summer home of hundreds of Manhattan’s Jewish residents. Rabbi Marc Schneier introduced him warmly, a gesture that symbolized more than courtesy. It was a call for a lifeline from a community watching its city slip into madness.
From Apology to Attack
Cuomo opened with an apology for his lackluster primary campaign, acknowledging what everyone in the room already knew: Mamdani’s young, radical left had shown up to vote, and Cuomo hadn’t shown up at all. But that was going to change. Cuomo pledged to fight between now and November—and then made a pledge to follow the suggestion of former New Jersey Senator David Paterson, that if trailing Mayor Eric Adams in the fall polls, he would step aside in September to avoid splitting the anti-Mamdani vote. He implied Adams should do the same.
Former Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed crowd at the Hamptons Synagogue in Westhampton Beach, on the dias with Rabbi Marc Schneier, on July 20, 2025 (photo: First One Through)
“fueling antisemitism”
In responding to a direct question, Cuomo refused to label Mamdani an antisemite because “I cannot see into his heart,” but was clear that the 33-year old very much “fuels antisemitism,” and further “engages in hate speech.”
Mamdani’s platform is a direct threat to Jewish safety.
Eli Beer, founder of Hatzalah in Israel, asking a question of Andrew Cuomo at the Hamptons Synagogue on July 20, 2025 (photo: First One Through)
A Plan for the City
Cuomo laid out his blueprint:
Enforce the law and prosecute hate crimes.
Hire 5,000 new police officers.
Build housing in a supply-starved market.
Attract businesses and jobs to the city.
He didn’t let the crowd forget what they lost: 15,000 jobs from Amazon’s Long Island City project—killed, he reminded them, by Mamdani’s comrade-in-ideology, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Cuomo said that he had worked hard to win that competition, only to be foiled by a Democratic-Socialist. When the city and state were not blocked by terrible ideologies, Cuomo was able to accomplish a lot, including the Second Avenue subway, a new Laguardia Airport and a replacement to the Tappan Zee Bridge.
He was a Democrat who accomplished tangible results, while the Democratic-Socialist wing of the party impeded any progress with “stupid ideas.”
Desperation and the Wounded Gladiator
When Cuomo finished, the crowd didn’t roar—it exhaled. One person whispered into the microphone that the speech needed to be given in every synagogue in the city. Cuomo responded that he will do what he can but you need to get and be messengers. If you don’t organize, Mamdani wins.
Cuomo offered data: Mamdani won the primary because the activist class under 30 turned out en masse. But the general electorate was different: 70% Democrats, 15% Independents, and 15% Republicans. With Adams or Sliwa out of the race, Cuomo insisted, the math would work and recent polls show he is correct. He could win. If the others dropped out.
The audience, mostly over 70, carried the unease of people who had seen this movie before. Socialist cities—Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago—were crumbling under the weight of their ideology and policies. New York had put its toe in the water in the past with Bill de Blasio and the results were terrible. A Mamdani mayoralty, Cuomo warned, could bury the city for two decades.
They wanted to believe Cuomo could win. But they also saw the crowded field ahead and Cuomo’s primary loss behind. It was like watching a wounded gladiator try to rise as the coliseum gates opened and the lions approached.
Nothing seems to animate Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as much as attacking America, Israel and Jews. Perhaps with the exception of defending those who do.
On July 15, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives Education & Workforce Committee held a hearing on antisemitism at universities. Rather than show concern for Jewish Americans facing harassment, intimidation and persecution – the point of the hearing – Omar went on the attack against those who called out the Jew hatred.
Ilhan Omar at House hearing to address antisemitism at universities, July 15, 2025
At (2:28:09) of the hearing, Omar took the microphone and started to bash Canary Mission as a nefarious, shadow organization that worked in concert with the government to “dox” students and “repress speech” of those who spoke up on behalf of SAPs, the Stateless Arabs from Palestine. She called it “McCarthyism” in which the group denied “due process” to individuals, as though this group was an arm of the government, looking to silence dissent.
It was a wild and crazy display of her hypocrisy and lies.
First, some plain facts. Canary Mission is an independent group and not part of the government. It posts public information about what people say and doesn’t share personal information like home addresses or phone numbers (the definition of doxxing). It is all covered under free speech – sharing other people’s “free speech.”
Second, Canary Mission does not silence anyone the way Omar charged. It does not intimidate. It simply compiles the vitriol of those who intend to harm America, its citizens and its allies.
Here is one clip from the site about a 2024 conference where “Palestinian” radicals threatened to tear down “empire,” the code name for the United States.
Omar doesn’t want you to see this: Canary Mission video about jihadists looking to destroy the United States
Here is a review of CM’s profile of Columbia University professor Joseph Massad, one of its longer highlights as he has long been attacking Jews and the Jewish State. It includes a long list of links to HIS comments. Nowhere does it provide his personal information.
Canary Mission video about those celebrating the October 7 massacre and seeking the destruction of Israel
Omar wants free speech for anti-American and anti-Jewish voices but not those who call out the haters. She doesn’t want there to be any ramifications for people calling to “tear down empire,” but only for those who showcase those shrill voices. She claims small private groups have power while she uses her powerful position in government to attack them.
Omar is the embodiment of hypocrisy and anti-American views, which she’s proud to broadcast while people are gathered to consider how to protect the most vilified minority-minority in America.
Omar has made her career out of playing both the victim and the defender of so-called marginalized voices—so long as those voices align with her political narrative. In Omar’s worldview, free speech is sacred when it targets America or Israel—but it’s dangerous harassment when used to expose her ideological allies.
Omar demands impunity for those who cheer jihad, but censorship for those who expose them.
Omar’s double standard is not just hypocritical—it’s dangerous. By shielding radical voices from criticism, she normalizes antisemitism and delegitimizes the right of Jews to call out hatred. Worse, she uses her platform to chill lawful speech, by mislabeling documentation as “doxxing” and criticism as “violence.”
This isn’t about protecting the vulnerable; it’s about protecting the radical. Her priorities are crystal clear:
Defend Hamas sympathizers
Smear Jewish watchdogs
Turn antisemites into victims
Turn their critics into villains
If Ilhan Omar were genuinely concerned about threats and intimidation, she would condemn the harassment of Jewish students, the glorification of Hamas, and the calls for violent uprising on American soil. But she won’t—because those voices are her own echo.
Billionaire Bill Ackman – and millions of other New Yorkers and Americans – are appalled at the victory of Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. Ackman has been vocal about an anyone-but-Mamdani campaign and willingness to put millions of dollars behind a new candidate to run against Mamdani in the general election. He’s even asked Andrew Cuomo to drop out of the race while endorsing Mayor Eric Adams.
That’s not the way politics works.
Politicians run for office. That’s what they do. They don’t care about what millions of people want outside the framework of what it means for them personally. They don’t run for office for you any more than teacher unions work for students. Each is selfish and looks after themselves.
Ackman, realizing the flaw in the logic of adding yet another person into the race, announced that he is going to back Eric Adams, sort of like Elon Musk’s backing of Trump for president: a billionaire backing an incumbent with baggage.
Unsurprisingly, Cuomo said that he is not dropping out of the race, and President Donald Trump said Cuomo should stay in the race. A recent poll has Cuomo ahead of both Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa. Yet Ackman seems to think that money alone can turn the tide towards Adams.
In the multi-horse race and deeply Democratic city where people instinctively vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is, Mamdani is likely to win in November.
Backing Mamdani is the alt-left who use Ackman’s comments to rally their comrades. Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders who thinks that capitalism is evil, sees this as yet another manifestation of it: people with money can run the table and buy the votes – and everything else that non-rich people have.
The correct play for Ackman is to buy Cuomo, not New Yorkers. Promise Cuomo some board seats in companies or other plum positions. Adams can win in a less crowded race but not with Cuomo still running, regardless of how much money backs Adams.
People – rich and poor – only have a single vote and millions of dollars cannot change that. Money can assist in getting out the vote, an important dynamic but not decisive for all of the candidates. Millions of dollars poured into Mamdani’s campaign from bundlers and via George Soros’s network of socialist charities like the Open Society Foundations (212-548-0600), which were effective in getting out the vote in the primary. Ackman money would have similar benefit but not enough.
In this race, the millions to be spent by anti-Mamdani people will only guarantee that Mamdani wins a plurality of votes but below a 50% majority in a crowded field. He will still become mayor.
ACTION PLAN
It is time for influential people to encourage Cuomo to accept another exciting position to drop out of the race for selfish, not benevolent reasons. Saving New York may depend on it.
Organize the vote. Make sure that older New Yorkers get to vote early.
Zohran Mamdani, a rising star of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, is a vocal critic of Israel, consistently aligning himself with those who deny the Jewish state’s legitimacy. The DSA’s New York chapter, to which Mamdani belongs, infamously demanded that candidates pledge never to visit Israel, a democratic country that has long been an ally of the United States and home to nearly half of the world’s Jews. DSA-NYC only targeted the Jewish State in its campaign; not a single American adversary was listed.
This is not policy criticism—it is ideological exclusion.
Mamdani often speaks in terms of equality for all in the Holy Land, especially being opposed to a “hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion.” But it’s worth pressing on what that actually means. In Jerusalem today, at the holiest site in Judaism—the Temple Mount—only Muslims are allowed to pray. Jews, Christians, and all other non-Muslims are banned from uttering a prayer or even moving their lips in spiritual devotion on the site where the two Jewish Temples once stood, and which remains sacred to Jews.
The Old City of Jerusalem including the Jewish Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Compound
This discriminatory policy is issued by the Jordanian-run Islamic Waqf, which holds administrative control of the Temple Mount under a decades-old, uneasy “status quo.” The United Nations repeatedly reinforces this Islamic exclusivity, often omitting any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount altogether. Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas vocally oppose any Jewish prayer there, calling it a “provocation.” Jews just visiting the site are denounced by Palestinian leadership with denunciation that Jews are “storming al Aqsa” in an attempt to rile up 2 billion Muslims to jihad Jews.
So, what does “equality” mean to Mamdani in this context?
Does he believe Jews should have the same right to worship – at their holiest site – as Muslims do at a site they consider less holy? Would he support Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount? Or would he continue the pattern of defending Islamic supremacy over Jewish heritage, consistent with the positions of his political allies?
More pointedly: would Mamdani support turning the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic shrine that sits on the very spot of the Jewish Temples, into a synagogue? And would he support giving Jews preference to the site on Saturday, comparable to Muslim access granted each Friday?
Mamdani’s party and political base support antisemitic edicts. They have increasingly mirrored the rhetoric of Palestinian leaders who call for the complete “de-Judaization” of Jerusalem. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority both deny any Jewish historical connection to the site. Any mention of rebuilding a synagogue—let alone a Temple—is immediately labeled “incitement” and met with threats of, and actual, violence.
The DSA has never condemned this apartheid of worship. Instead, it condemns Israel for even maintaining security on the Mount after violent jihadi riots. That Mamdani would remain silent or complicit on this speaks volumes.
The deeper truth is that equality in Mamdani’s rhetoric masks a goal for a radical reordering of the Middle East in which Jewish identity and history are subordinated or erased altogether. It is not about equal rights—it is about erasing Israel. Supporting open Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount would be a minimal step toward showing that his ““equality” includes Jews.
Will he denounce Hamas’s threats of violence against Jews praying in Jerusalem? Will he demand the Waqf end its ban on Jewish prayer? Will he advocate for genuine religious pluralism on the Temple Mount?
Or will he continue to chant slogans of “equality” in the language of Islamic supremacy, complicit in religious apartheid?
The newest Superman movie incarnation is out and critics and journalists have grabbed a pen even before a seat. Their reflections on modern society will inform how they view the characters and plot more than the cinematic quality of the film.
An interesting take was made in The New York Times opinion section called “My Problem With Superman.” The guest essay was written Junot Diaz, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic who teaches creative writing at MIT. One would imagine the story of Superman would resonate with this first generation immigrant but Diaz makes clear that he never liked Superman as originally presented to the world.
He recognizes that Superman was brought into the world as a story of a foreign refugee who escaped his dying world, something with which he should be able to relate. Diaz is well versed in the storyline in which Superman’s powers were used to fight for good in a mad world.
Yet it does not resonate for him. Not through his eyes when he was young, nor in looking at society today.
Because for Diaz – and possibly (presumably?) many immigrants like him, Superman is a force unlike any around him, a body of permanent power inequality. He might be a refugee but the dynamic is irrelevant in a progressive worldview obsessed with inequalities and power.
In today’s environment, Superman is internalized not as an individual but a nation. For Democratic-Socialists, the United States is not a “shining city on a hill,” but a monstrous force convinced of exceptionalism which wreaks havoc on the Global South.
Diaz article in The NY Times “My Problem With Superman”
In this mindset, the “annihilating exceptionalism” of power IS the evil. It is neither a force for good nor an aspiration or inspiration. It is an unnatural entity in a society intoxicated by a mission of massive redistribution of wealth and power.
Diaz makes his point clear, quoting Frederick Douglass in a call for a revolution of “fire, thunder and earthquake” to mobilize a nation of people to combat the “world in peril” from a sick governmental order.
Diaz article in The NY Times “My Problem With Superman”
The citizens of Metropolis are voting for Democratic Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani who believe that “billionaires shouldn’t exist.” Exceptionalism is viewed as inherently racist and/or enabled by a society which is deeply corrupt. Capitalism is tarred as deeply unfair. All of the power structures are fair game for targeted assassination – whether political, financial or moral.
Superman – and many of the superheroes of the era like Spiderman, Captain America and Batman – were created by young Jews before the start of the World War II and the Holocaust of European Jewry. They were young immigrants who wanted to survive in a world which had cast them out and marked them as forever different. The creators of these superheroes wrote stories of good defeating evil in a world which saw little support for the underdog. Evil was everywhere, and the only way of balancing the world between sparks of good and an inferno of evil was to oversize the good. Good needed to be extra – extra-powerful, extra-moral, and yes, extraterrestrial – to gain the upperhand.
That narrative spoke to Americans watching Nazi Germany incinerate Europe. It continued to capture the West’s attention in the following decades.
But now?
Much of the world is not looking at morality in the plain sense of the last generation. It is defined first – no, only – by equity. In this framework, without a balancing of power and wealth there can never be a good society. DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) for progressives is the only solution, and a nation which strips those initiatives is attempting to install a permanent dynamic of inequalities. Democratic-socialists are seeking to dismantle such America via a revolution of the masses.
The two Jewish writers and illustrators who created Superman – Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster – might be amazed that their creation finally has a Jewish actor, David Corenswet, playing the part in a major movie. If alive today, they might imagine that such milestone would mark a blessed society which finally welcomed the stranger, the immigrant, the survivor of the destruction of his old world. Embraced him as someone kind and noble who fought for justice for all.
David Corenswet as Superman
Alas. Imagine their amazement, the horror, if they could time travel to today, to see the target audience for their stories – immigrants in America – turn on Superman as a grotesque to be liquidated. Not because of White nationalism of Nazism that they faced a hundred years ago, but for the sin of exceptionalism in a society hell-bent on equity.
The October 7 Hamas-led massacre by thousands of Gazans did not spark antisemitism on American campuses. It merely exposed how deeply embedded it already was. At CUNY, UC Berkeley, and Georgetown, students and professors came out to celebrate the torture and murder of Israeli victims of terror — with institutional protection, foreign funding, and a growing network of terror-affiliated faculty and student activists.
UC Berkeley protestors come for Jews
Organizations like Canary Mission have tracked and documented the alarming volume of antisemitic activity from students and professors — revealing how extremism isn’t on the fringe anymore. The Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and StandWithUs have brought lawsuits against the universities. Now, the House Education & Workforce Committee is bringing the presidents of these three universities to Washington, D.C. on July 9.
CUNY: A Campus Captured by Hate
Canary Mission has documented dozens of CUNY students and professors who:
Featured speakers from U.S-designated foreign terrorist groups like Samidoun
Praised Hamas and Islamic Jihad
Supported Intifada
Called for the extermination of Zionists and Israelis
Calls Zionists “White Supremacists”
One notable example is Nerdeen Kiswani, a CUNY law graduate and founder of Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a group which openly calls for “globalizing the intifada” and “confront Zionists” wherever they are, including their homes and workplaces. Despite – or because of – this, she was chosen as the keynote speaker for the 2022 CUNY Law commencement — a decision defended by the law school.
Professors at CUNY have supported Hamas terrorism and protect antisemitic groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. They include Saadia Toor, Eve Tuck, Danny Shaw and Lucien Baskin. They have:
Called Israelis “Nazis”
Called to “Globalize the intifada”
Posted on social media the desire for destruction of Israel
They proudly teach this in their classrooms in departments that include “Center for the Humanities,” rebranding their noxious antisemitism as a component in the fight for human rights. This isn’t just tucked into a comment during a class; there are literally classes on globalizing the intifada.
UC Berkeley: The Legalization of Hate
Influence Watch has tracked Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FLP) which was founded in the 2023-4 school year. It is a network of professors which is associated with the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) and “advocates that universities end study abroad programs with Israeli universities, and advocates that universities end disciplinary action against students involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests.” There are chapters at UC Berkeley and Georgetown, among others.
Coordinate with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)
In December 2022 – before the October 7, 2023 massacre – the Office of Civil Rights for the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) launched a formal investigation into UC Berkeley Law School over a controversial anti-Zionist bylaw adopted by several student groups in August. The groups sought to ban Zionists – individuals and groups – from campus.
Professors like Hatem Bazian are affiliated with several antisemitic and anti-Israel groups. He regularly calls out Jews and pro-Israel advocates as the leading spreaders of “Islamophobia” who are evil manipulators of Congress. He teaches courses at Berkeley on “Islam in America: Communities and Institutions” and “De-Constructing Islamophobia and Othering of Islam.” He addresses audiences and asks why there hasn’t been an intifada in the United States.
The school has been sued over its “unchecked antisemitism.”
Georgetown: Foreign Funds, Foreign Values
Georgetown – located in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C. – is one of the most bought universities in America. It has received roughly $1.3 billion from foreign actors, with over $1 billion coming from Qatar, one of the leading sponsors of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
Robert Groves, the interim president of Georgetown, is a regular in Qatar. Georgetown opened a campus in the sheikhdom and Groves interacts regularly with the royal family, seemingly as a conduit for influence in the nation’s capital.
Though Georgetown has a more diplomatic tone, Canary Mission has documented:
Students and guest speakers who supported Hamas and BDS
Faculty like Jonathan Brown, who have repeatedly called Israel practicing “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing.” He said Jews and Christians view the Middle East through an anti-Muslim lens but Muslims do not think of the conflict as stemming from antisemitism. It’s a remarkable dynamic considering Brown is a director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. The prince is a Saudi billionaire.
Georgetown has hosted a number of people with links to jihadi terrorism:
Ribhi Karajah, affiliated with terrorist group PLFP, who was convicted in 2019 for his involvement in a bombing which killed a 17 year old girl.
Georgetown professor Badar Khan Suri with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as covered by CAMERA
Unsurprisingly, Georgetown students have rallied to the terrorist group Hamas and its supporters in the aftermath of October 7, joining in the Global Intifada against Jews.
The Middle East Forum did a 30 minute video about Georgetown’s ties to Hamas sympathizers. It is worth watching:
Conclusion: Universities Incubate And Spread Antisemitism
The picture is clear. Professors promote terror. Students celebrate slaughter. Hostile governments fund it, and administrations on the take allow it to fester.
If these universities continue to protect hate under the banner of “academic freedom,” they will soon graduate leaders who believe murder is resistance, and Jewish life is expendable.
“We are going to have an intifada on every college campus! We are going to shut down all the Zionist events!”
Husam Kaid, YouTube, Nov 15 2019
People from CUNY in Times Square in 2019 calling for an intifada in every classroom and the destruction of Israel
This is not a free speech issue. It’s a moral emergency.
ACTION ITEM
Call Rep. Tim Walberg’s office at (202) 225-6276 to thank him for holding the session on campus antisemitism.
Call your senator to support the DETERRENT Act and call Sen. Thom Tillis’s office at (202) 224-6342 to thank him for sponsoring it.
In May 2024, Time Magazine ran a story decrying “How Weaponizing Antisemitism Puts Jews at Risk.” This idea has become fashionable among progressives, Islamists, and campus radicals. According to this twisted narrative, the real threat isn’t antisemitism—it’s the accusation of antisemitism, supposedly being used to “silence” criticism of Israel. They cite the House Education Committee’s task force on antisemitism as proof, calling it a vehicle to crack down on “pro-Palestinian” protests rather than protect Jewish students. They lobby to prevent the IHRA definition of antisemitism to be accepted in government cases, because Jews shouldn’t be allowed to decide for themselves what defines antisemitism.
Who gave them such privilege?
The charge against Jews is explicit and comes from Jews and non-Jews. UC Berkeley associate professor of history and Jewish studies Ethan Katz was part of the Nexus Project which put words like “Intifada” into various buckets and grades of antisemitism, in an attempt to jettison IHRA’s widely adopted definition. Katz took aim at the House Education Task Force and said “the overarching motivation for many of these people [Republicans on the committee] is to use this as a way of attacking higher education. This means that they are using Jews as a kind of pawn to play a political game.” It’s as though antisemitism doesn’t exist or politicians (read THOSE politicians) couldn’t possibly care about Jews.
We are being reeducated: Jews aren’t victims; they’re tools. Republicans don’t care; their racists using Jews to attack minorities and liberal institutions.
Worse, Jews are no longer victims in this reading but complicit in attacks on progressive causes. The expectation (read demand) from the socialist-jihadi alliance is therefore for Jews to accept the indignities, harassment, intimidation and discrimination lest they speak up, and victims of preference possibly be held responsible or pay a price.
This inversion of reality is extreme – and deadly.
The true weaponization of antisemitism is not rhetorical; it is literal. It is found in the chants of mobs in Western capitals calling to “Globalize the Intifada“—code for bringing the murder of Jews from Israel to the streets of New York, London, and Toronto. It is etched in graffiti that reads “Gas the Jews” in Paris and Melbourne. It is breathed into masked agitators who storm Jewish neighborhoods, businesses, and houses of worship.
Car in Australia with antisemitic graffiti
It is not new. For over a century, Arab leaders have worked to deny the Jewish people their rights. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, incited riots in the 1920s and 1930s to prevent Jews from praying at their holiest site, the Temple Mount. In 1929, that incitement culminated in the massacre of 67 Jews in Hebron. His riots from 1936 to 1939 kept hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe to die in the Holocaust.
Fast forward to 2023 to Hamas’s October 7 pogrom—an antisemitic massacre that was a direct descendant of that same ideology. Jews, in the Hamas worldview, are not simply an occupying force—they are an infestation. Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for Muslims to fight and kill Jews wherever they may be. The 2006 Palestinian elections, in which Hamas won a majority, validated and empowered that genocidal ethos.
A majority of Gazans have always supported killing Jewish civilians in Israel, according to every Palestinian poll taken since 2000
This hatred has never been about borders or policy. It is about Jewish existence. Jewish presence.
Palestinian Arabs are almost uniformly antisemitic according to Antidefamation League (ADL) polls. They have weaponized their antisemitism and come to ethnically cleanse the land of Jews.
For calling out Muslim antisemitism, the three million-member powerful National Education Association (NEA) teacher union voted on July 6 to cut ties with the ADL. In rejecting using any materials from the ADL, the NEA stated that “despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be.” NEA delegate Stephen Siegel said “allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change.”
Only comrades of the socialist-jihadi alliance should be allowed to define antisemitism.
So when House Republicans call a hearing to investigate antisemitism on college campuses after mobs trap Jewish students in libraries and bar entry to Hillel buildings, outlets like Time spin it as a crackdown on speech. When Jewish students file Title VI complaints because professors and deans dismiss their fears and excuse calls for a new Holocaust as “political expression,” activists call it censorship.
Jewish students hide from mob at Cooper Union in New York City
The charge that “antisemitism is being weaponized” is not a defense of speech—it’s a shield for Jew hatred. It inverts the aggressor and victim and gaslights the world into thinking that Jews are too powerful, too organized, and too vocal in defending themselves.
It is not only in the Jewish Diaspora. The Islamic Republic of Iran – sworn to the destruction of the Jewish State which it calls a “cancer” – has literally weaponized its nuclear program. Not willing to be exterminated, Israel preemptively took out the infrastructure of the weapons of mass destruction. And the world came after Israel as if it were the aggressor.
Because there is a corrupt belief that Jews must accept their fate silently.
UN claims that Israel cannot defend itself from the political-terrorist group Hamas which rules Gaza and has 58% of the seats in parliament
The world has been trained that Jews have too much – whether power, money, land, rights – even pride. People believe that Jews should be stripped of those items and absorb the abuse. To demand basic human rights, dignity or protection is not considered defense but an assault on the attackers.
Are Jews hunting Palestinians on Western campuses or are Palestinian flag-wavers cornering Jewish students? Did Israel issue a fatwa against Arabs and Muslims, or was it Osama bin Laden who said that Jews will never be safe, Hamas that declared in its charter that it is an obligation for every Muslim to kill Jews, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas who demanded a land ethnically cleansed of every Jew?
The world knows that antisemitism has been weaponized but not by Jewish students or congressional investigators. It has been weaponized by Hamas with bullets, knives, and fire. By “anti-Zionists” who shout genocidal slogans and assault Jews in the the streets of the Global North. By media figures who gaslight Jews to stay silent to protect the indefensible in the name of free expression.
Antisemitism has been weaponized and Jews are dying. Hamas’s willing executioners are telling you to move along.
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), the chairman of the 45-person committee, said the “hearing will focus on the underlying factors instigating antisemitic upheaval and hatred on campus. Until these factors — such as foreign funding and antisemitic student and faculty groups — are addressed, antisemitism will persist on college campuses. Our committee is building on its promise to protect Jewish students and faculty while many university leaders refuse to hold agitators of this bigotry, hatred, and discrimination accountable.”
This Republican-led hearing will have the following witnesses:
Dr. Robert M. Groves, Interim President, Georgetown University
Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, Chancellor, The City University of New York
Dr. Rich Lyons, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley
Here we will review foreign funding of universities.
Foreign Funding
Americans for Public Trust (APT) produced a report in March 2025 focused on foreign funding to universities. It found that “$60 billion in foreign gifts and contracts have been funneled into American colleges and universities over decades.” In particular, $20 billion went to ten elite schools with transparency laws being “lightly enforced” leading many universities to not report. Alarmingly, “many of the countries that top the list of foreign gifts… are long-standing adversaries and enemies of the U.S..”
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) noted in February 2025 that “a key culprit [for so much foreign money coming into universities] is universities’ failure to comply with the provisions of Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which requires US institutions of higher education to report income from foreign countries valued at over $250,000, such as gifts or research contracts. But American universities have failed to report billions in foreign funding, which drove the first Trump administration to launch several investigations into Section 117 noncompliance.”
The databases from the Education Department Office of Federal Student Aid Section 117 compliance can be found here.
AEI found “US schools reported over $4 billion in Qatari funding, making it easily the largest foreign donor to American universities. Looking at Qatari money together with China and Saudi Arabia further highlights how entangled these sources are with US higher education—seven of the universities investigated under Section 117 received most of their foreign funding from these three countries alone.”
APT reported that several “foreign adversaries” have donated to U.S. education, with “China, Russia, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela and Yemen have collectively syphoned billions into American schools.”
APT raised a red flag on the number of university researchers who have been arrested for illegally collaborating with China, including the chair of Harvard’s chemistry department. AEI was alarmed by the association of these foreign funders to universities doing work in artificial intelligence (AI). The COVID pandemic and risks from AI to society are reasons enough to clamp down on this funding, before even approaching foreign money stoking antisemitism.
“influenced… the academic environment, research priorities, and faculty recruitment, particularly within the School of Foreign Service (SFS), the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS), and the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).”
created centers that mainstreamed “political Islam, minimizing the threat of Islamist extremism, and advancing anti-Israel narratives.”
Georgetown, based in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C., thereby produced a large cohort of alumni who “occupy prominent positions in the U.S. State Department, intelligence agencies, media, and NGOs, effectively introducing and reinforcing these ideological perspectives within American foreign policy-making processes.” It has also led to a spike of anti-Jewish actions on campus.
The ISGAP report specifically called out Qatar, “from being a major funder of the Muslim Brotherhood’s global operations to providing resources to Hamas—the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood—and harboring the remnants of its leadership, Qatar has consistently positioned itself as both an ideological incubator and logistical facilitator of Islamist extremism. The Muslim Brotherhood is committed to destroying democracies, including the United States and Israel, and to replacing them with a distorted version of an Islamist caliphate.”
The funding works two ways – monies flowing onto American campuses as well as building campuses of American schools in foreign countries. Six American universities maintain campuses in Doha’s Education City: Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Virginia Commonwealth, Cornell, Northwestern, and Texas A&M, although Texas A&M is scheduled to close in 2028 (bolded countries in top 10 receiving foreign money). The state-run Qatar Foundation finances the campuses and personnel in Doha.
There have been numerous studies which analyze whether funding from foreign institutions – and those from countries which might be viewed as hostile to the U.S. – have an increased level of anti-American and antisemitic activity. A comprehensive statistical study showed “consistently strong evidence that institutions that received Section 117 funding from OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) member countries or authoritarian countries had much higher levels of antisemitic/anti-Zionist activity.” Interestingly – and counter to the argument of liberals – the study added “that there is minimal evidence here that foreign funding, per se, is associated with erosion of liberal democratic norms around campus speech.”
The Jew hatred was not confined to the universities’ campuses. In additional analyses, the study found “that as campus antisemitism goes up or down, so does antisemitism in the surrounding communities.”
While the study cautioned about drawing direct conclusions about the direction of antisemitism (perhaps society has caused antisemitism to spike in schools rather than vice versa), it was clear with its conclusion:
“The present research highlights two troubling possibilities that deserve further investigation. The first is that receipt of Section 117 funding from foreign sources, especially authoritarian ones, has contributed to these [antisemitic] developments. The second is that providing massive financial support to campuses with ascendant illiberalism serves the interests of foreign actors hostile to the U.S. in particular or liberal democracy in general.”
These are profound concerns not just for American Jews but America.
Biased Think Tank Fig Leaves: Brookings Institute
There are a number of “think tanks” that offer opinions and research papers about a variety of issues, including antisemitism at universities and the impact from foreign funding. Many are deeply conflicted. For example, the Brookings Institute had a center in Doha for 14 years, until it was closed in 2021. It often works in partnership with Georgetown University which takes significant money from Qatar. It is therefore not surprising that Brookings publishes defensive reports on Qatar which paint the sponsor of terrorist groups as a partner for the United States against bad actors in the Middle East, rather than a fountain of funding for evil: “a window may still be apparent whereby Qatari policymakers would welcome inventive U.S. suggestions as to ways that they could make themselves useful to American counterparts, all in the name of firming up their U.S. partnership in the face of hostile local states.”
Considering the Brookings-Qatar-Georgetown dynamic, it is not surprising that the group published a study that the Trump administration’s efforts to root out antisemitism at universities was really about Trump attacking his critics, not combatting Jew hatred.
Recommendations
AEI recommended that the government “move the enforcement of Section 117 out of the Office of Federal Student Aid (the office that gave us the FAFSA debacle) and return it to the Office of the General Counsel, which is better equipped to investigate and address non-compliance with federal statutes. The Education Department should also audit far more universities to ensure adequate reporting of foreign funds. Finally, department investigators should work closely with their counterparts in the Department of Justice and FBI to tackle this issue—especially when foreign funding could be linked to influence campaigns, technological espionage, or other efforts to undermine national security.”
The Senate should pass the DETERRENT Act (Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act) which seeks greater transparency of foreign funding in universities, especially from a “foreign country of concern.” It was passed by the House on March 27, 2025 with a vote of 241 to 169 (with 20 abstentions). Nearly 97% of Republicans voted for the measure while fewer than 15% of Democrats voted for the bill. It is before the Senate as S. 1296, sponsored by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) with 13 Republican co-sponsors.
Conclusion
Billions of dollars are seeping into American universities from countries which are undermining American society and values. Qatar and China are particular actors which deserve heightened scrutiny regarding their potential nefarious efforts in artificial intelligence, biochemical research and promoting antisemitism.
ACTION ITEM
Call Rep. Tim Walberg’s office at (202) 225-6276 to thank him for holding the session on this important matter.
Call your senator to support the DETERRENT Act and call Sen. Thom Tillis’s office at (202) 224-6342 to thank him for sponsoring the bill.
On October 7, 2001, Osama bin Laden released a speech just hours after the United States began airstrikes in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The message wasn’t veiled nor political. It was explicitly religious: a jihad.
Bin Laden declared, “America struck by God Almighty in one of its vital organs, so that its greatest buildings are destroyed. Grace and gratitude to God,” praising Allah for the 9/11 attacks. He wasn’t waging war over oil, sanctions, or American foreign policy. He was answering what he believed was a divine command to wage jihad—to rid Muslim lands of infidels.
“God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims, the forefront of Islam, to destroy America. May God bless them and allot them a supreme place in heaven.”
Osama Bin Laden on October 7, 2001, praying for the Islamic terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks on the United States
This was a war incumbent upon “every Muslim,” not Afghanis or Iraqis. It was a battle against “infidels,” not just Americans. Bin Laden cast western values as “paganism,” stoking a religious war. He was incensed about American troops in the “Peninsula of Muhammad” (Saudi Arabia) and Jews living in “Palestine.”
Osama Bin Laden speech on October 7, 2001, just after America began to respond to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
Exactly 22 years later, on October 7, 2023, the radical Islamist group Hamas unleashed an unprovoked massacre against Israeli civilians, murdering babies, burning families alive, raping women, and taking hundreds hostage. The attack was ideological, theological, and genocidal. And the date was no coincidence. It marked a continuation of the same jihad that bin Laden declared in 2001—a war against Jews and the West, justified not by grievances, but by scripture.
The Global Jihad Doctrine
The doctrine of jihad—holy war in the path of Allah—is foundational to groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State. It is not merely an internal spiritual struggle, as modern apologists in the West often portray it. For these groups, jihad is a call to arms against unbelievers, to expand the domain of Islam and purify it of non-Muslim presence.
Bin Laden was clear in 2001: the “world [is divided] into two camps, the camp of the faithful and the camp of infidels… Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing and the wind of change is blowing to remove evil from the Peninsula of Muhammad, peace be upon him.”
It was an echo of Hamas’s foundational charter: “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people (Article 28) and “the spread of vice on earth and the destruction of religious values… fight with the warmongering Jews.” (Article 32) Their twisted view of Islam is that a religious jihad is a clash of good Muslims versus evil non-Muslims that can only be resolved through violence: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time.” (Article 13)
On the anniversary of America’s war on terror, Hamas launched what it called the “Al-Aqsa Flood”, naming the massacre after an Islamic mosque in Jerusalem. The Arabs slaughtered civilians in their homes and at a music festival as an offering to Allah. Dead women were paraded through Gaza to the cheers of the crowd, a spectacle with no military purpose other than to rile up Gazans to scream “Allahu Akhbar” God is greater – than you.
Murdered Young woman paraded through streets of Gaza to cheering crowds which spat on her body on October 7, 2023.
The enemy, in their eyes, is not just Israeli or US policy—it is the very existence of Jews, Christians, and secularism in lands they define as Islamic.
The War the West Refuses to Recognize
Despite the clear intent, the West continues to deny the religious nature of this war. Politicians, academics, and media pundits try to cast Hamas as a localized “resistance movement,” or claim it’s a response to the Israeli government. But Hamas’s founding documents and speeches speak for themselves. Their goal is not statehood. It is the total eradication of the Jewish people from what they view as purely Islamic land, or as Bin Laden calls it, “dar al-Islam.”
Radical Islamists believe that Israel is a temporary entity, just as Russian and American presence in Afghanistan was short-lived. American troops fleeing Kabul in 2021 was a confirmation of their beliefs, much like Israel’s abandoning Gaza in 2005. Allah rewards perseverance. Time is on their side.
Jihadists in the Islamic Republic of Iran call America the “Big Satan” and Israel the “Little Satan.” Perhaps it is time to state the obvious inverse: Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the “Big Satans” and Hamas and Hezbollah are the “Little Satans.”
Until the West acknowledges that jihad is not a grievance but a theology, it will continue to lose the war it refuses to name. October 7 was not an aberration; it was a declaration. It is being repeated on western streets under the banner “globalize the Intifada,” and excused by radical politicians to secure power to defeat capitalism and Judeo-Christian values.
Unless the west answers with moral clarity, military resolve, and promotes moderate Muslims, the tidal wave of jihadists will drown us before long.
First One Through 