Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
For decades, the phrase “Globalize the Intifada” has echoed across Europe and the Middle East, signaling a clear and alarming call for violence against Israelis and Jews. In recent years, this unsettling message has gained momentum, resonating now within the United States. What began as campus demonstrations has escalated into acts of vigilante violence.
This past week, in Boulder, Colorado, a man shouting “free Palestine” threw Molotov cocktails at peaceful protesters who were advocating for the safe return of Israeli hostages, igniting chaos and terror. In a chilling reminder of the stakes involved, two young staff members from the Israeli Embassy lost their lives outside a Jewish museum, with the assailant proclaiming, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza.” Even the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro became a target, as it was set ablaze with his family inside, motivated by the perception of his Jewish background and his stance on Palestinian issues.
These incidents are connected, reflecting a broader violent agenda orchestrated by Hamas. The same radical ideology underpinning these attacks reveals itself through recent uprisings on college campuses, which have morphed into orchestrated efforts of anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment. It is crucial to distinguish these events from the peaceful demonstrations of the past. Contrary to media portrayals, these gatherings are far from being mere expressions of student activism.
Recent lawsuits filed by my organization unveil the troubling reality behind events at prestigious institutions like Columbia University and UCLA. There, an organized plan was set in motion, not by students, but by seasoned activists intent on executing Hamas’s vision of violence and terror against Jews and Israelis.
At UCLA, an alarming lawsuit details how a rabbi, a physician, and a law student confronted National Students for Justice in Palestine and other anti-Zionist groups. This legal action surfaced following a series of protests infused with hostility, where rows of group members formed a human barricade armed with improvised weapons and serious threats of violence.
Notably, twenty-four hours after a police-enforced dispersal of the UCLA encampment, over forty protesters were discovered with metal pipes, bolt cutters, chains, and extensive manuals on how to execute campus occupations.
The situation at Columbia University mirrored this worrisome behavior. A well-coordinated mob unleashed violent tactics reminiscent of hate groups from history. Masked assailants invaded Hamilton Hall wielding ropes, zip ties, and Crowbars, wreaking havoc as they confronted unsuspecting workers, who were not even Jewish, in their path. These unfortunate janitors took legal action against the aggressors, having been subjected to violent mockery and intimidation.
These are not innocent students seeking peaceful change. What we witness is an expansive network exploiting young activists as pawns in a larger scheme of instigating violence and disorder. It appears these actions are designed to normalize the terrorization of specific communities, deploying guerrilla tactics against those pursuing their education in a supposedly secure environment.
Understanding the Scope of the Threat
Today, we confront a meticulously organized campaign, backed by significant funding and professional management, echoing the strategies of military operations. This includes thorough planning, strategic mapping, and precise logistics, creating a new battlefront in the culture wars.
The implications of this troubling realization demand a strategic realignment in how we combat these acts. Historically, legal measures against educational institutions focused primarily on holding taxpayer-funded colleges accountable for allowing hate to permeate their environments.
The objective of this approach encompasses two critical aspects. First, it establishes that public academic institutions should not utilize taxpayer funds to endorse discrimination that obstructs educational access for students. Second, it provides motivation for colleges to proactively address the climate of hate on their campuses, thus alleviating the need for persistent governmental or legal interventions.
Previous legal challenges revealing universities’ negligence in confronting antisemitism have pressured schools into acknowledging and addressing the rampant harassment faced by Jewish students.
During my tenure as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education, I devised this dual approach, a method that mirrors the ongoing efforts by the Office for Civil Rights to engage effectively with anti-Semitic harassment in educational settings.
Adapting Strategies for a New Era
That was twenty years past, and given the current climate, a mere revival of these tactics will not suffice. We must evolve our approach to reflect the realities of the present situation.
To effectively address these threats, we must hold offenders accountable for their illicit actions on campus, involving both criminal prosecution and civil litigation. Addressing the symptoms alone will not lead to meaningful progress. It is essential to dismantle the networks providing support and resources for those instigating these calculated campaigns of hatred.
In this context, attention must be redirected towards organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which has connections to the recent violence, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which endorsed the attacks on October 7th. Students for Justice in Palestine also remains a key player, perpetuating a culture of violence on campus under the banner of justified activism.
Charting a Path Forward
The landscape of protest and activism has shifted, as has the nature of the challenges we face. To ensure safety and resilience, it is imperative that we adapt our methods and strategies in response to the changes evolving in our society.
Kenneth L. Marcus’ organization is currently representing the Columbia janitors and members of the UCLA Jewish community in ongoing legal battles.
