
The global intifada is here. Hamas-aligned networks brought terror to US soil and we need to stop it
For decades, "Globalize the Intifada" chants have rung throughout Europe and the Middle East, a blatant and unmistakable call for violence and terrorism against Israelis and Jews. But over the past two years, those chants have only intensified and multiplied, now making their way west to our United States. What started with campus protests has now turned to vigilante violence.
This week in Boulder, Colorado, a man yelling "free Palestine" threw Molotov cocktails at peaceful protestors hosting an event to bring home the Israeli hostages, setting them ablaze. Two young staff members of the Israeli Embassy were murdered outside the Jewish museum, after which the shooter said, "I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza." Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's home was set on fire with his family inside because of "what [Shapiro] wants to do to the Palestinian people," given that he's Jewish.
These are not isolated incidents. They are all organized and linked to one group: Hamas. The same terrorist ideology behind these attacks was on display on college campuses over the past two years in the form of violent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic encampments. Let's be clear, these are not the protests of the 1960s. Contrary to what the media may have reported, these were not student-driven "protests" at all. New lawsuits, filed by my organization, expose how the violent takeover of Columbia University's Hamilton Hall and the weeks-long encampments at UCLA were part of an organized, choreographed effort by career professionals to carry out Hamas' plans of violence, terror, and the eradication of Jews and Israelis.
At UCLA, a rabbi, a doctor, and a law student sued National Students for Justice in Palestine and other anti-Zionist groups over encampments that were manned with a sword and "human phalanxes." Designated teams of security personnel surrounded the area armed with wooden planks, makeshift shields, pepper spray and tasers. Members of the groups involved in the lawsuit coordinated via social media and Google Docs ways in which to plan, fund, execute, and reinforce the encampment. And just a few days after the first encampment was dispersed by police, more than 40 protestors were found with metal pipes, bolt cutters, chains and padlocks, and manuals for "occupying" campus buildings.
At Columbia University, a highly coordinated mob used violent, masked tactics reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan to storm the campus' Hamilton Hall. Armed with rope, zip ties, and crow bars, the masked invaders smashed their way through the doors and windows, and when they came across two people in their way – janitors, neither of whom were Jewish – they terrorized them, battered them, and mocked them. These two janitors sued the group behind the occupation, the People's Forum, for the assault, during which the assailants berated the janitors as "Jew lovers" for their employment.
These aren't doe-eyed kids with signs calling for a more loving and peaceful world. These protestors are part of an expansive terrorist network taking advantage of those same doe-eyed students, using them to stoke violence and create chaos. This is an attempt to legitimize the terrorization of an entire group of people. This is the use of guerrilla warfare tactics against students and faculty in an environment that is supposed to be safe.
What we are dealing with now is a highly organized, generously-funded, professionally managed campaign that has all the attributes of a military engagement – from detailed planning to careful mapping to precise logistical elements.
This new realization requires a shift in strategy in how we fight back against these attacks. Up until now, most cases against universities were based on a single strategy: to hold taxpayer-funded colleges accountable for the hate that they allowed to become pervasive at their institutions. The goal of this strategy is two-fold. First, colleges should not be permitted to use taxpayer money to fund discrimination, especially when that discrimination prevents students from attending classes. Second, colleges should be incentivized to deal appropriately with the problems on their own campuses, so that neither the government nor lawyers have to handle them one-by-one. These previous cases that held universities accountable for their deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism have worked when they have forced these schools to admit to and confront the rampant anti-Semitism on their campuses.
I developed this strategy during my time as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education twenty years ago. It underlies the ongoing congressional investigations and enforcement activities by the Office for Civil Rights, and it's similar to the strategy used by the Trump Task Force on Anti-Semitism to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools.
But a lot can change in twenty years, and this is no longer enough.
To address this current reality, it is necessary to adopt new strategies to deal with it. We must hold perpetrators accountable for their criminal actions on campus, including both criminal prosecution and civil litigation. But that alone won't be enough. We must also disrupt the perpetrators' support and resources that are helping them to carry out these calculated, coordinated campaigns. In other words, we were previously addressing the symptoms of anti-Semitism by holding universities accountable. Now, we're also getting to the root of the problem by addressing those who fund, support, plan, and enable the anti-Semitic activity. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Colorado attacker supported; the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who praised the October 7th attacks; and Students for Justice in Palestine, who continually promote violence on campus and incite "the student intifada."
Our protests have changed, just as our reality has. We must be ready to change with it.
Kenneth L. Marcus' organization is representing the Columbia janitors and members of the UCLA Jewish community in both lawsuits.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Sellers: US under Trump is ‘drifting towards authoritarianism' – full interview
CNN Political Commentators Bakari Sellers, Xochitl Hinojosa, Kristen Soltis Anderson, and Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis join CNN's Dana Bash to respond to President Trump's decision to federalize thousands of National Guard troops and deploy them to Los Angeles.


CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
GOP Sen. Johnson: Trump's bill ‘just doesn't go far enough' to cut spending
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson tells CNN's Dana Bash that "nothing's really changed" in his criticism of President Trump's spending and tax cut bill.


Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat
Los Angeles is rioting again. Mobs, amped up by professional agitators and implicit support from Democratic elected officials, have attacked federal law enforcement officers with deadly intent. This violence, which includes hurling rocks, torching cars, launching fireworks, and assaulting federal law enforcement officers, aims to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) from carrying out lawful deportation efforts. Missing the irony, the rioters enthusiastically waved the flags of nations to which they are fighting against being returned. In response, federal and some local law enforcement deployed tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the crowd in the LA suburb of Paramount. But with law enforcement lives clearly threatened and the local law enforcement response less than robust, President Donald Trump ordered up 2,000 members of the National Guard to restore order. Additional active duty troops are said to be on standby. Predictably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass clutch their pearls, whining about "cruel" immigration enforcement while the city spirals into anarchy. Newsom labeled Trump's federalization of the National Guard "purposefully inflammatory." He said it would escalate tensions—one supposes the future presidential candidate sees the ruckus as "mostly peaceful." The pro-immigration without limits group, the League of United Latin American Citizens, predictably condemned Trump's order, claiming it "marks a deeply troubling escalation in the administration's approach to immigration and civilian reaction to the use of military-style tactics." Trump isn't moved by the criticism. He doesn't want to see federal law enforcement officers killed or injured by anarchists and would-be revolutionaries for simply doing their jobs. I saw this movie before. In 1992, as a California Army National Guard captain, I patrolled LA's scorched Crenshaw District during the Rodney King riots. Looters ran wild, businesses burned, and chaos reigned until Gov. Pete Wilson called up the National Guard and President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, sending 3,500 federal troops—active duty Army and Marines—to back 10,000 federalized Guardsmen. Order swiftly returned. It worked. There's a big difference—so far—between today's unrest and that of 1992. The Rodney King riot was initially sparked by resentment over what was seen as excessive police force. Due to LA's chronically under-staffed police department and a tactical error—pulling back law enforcement from an intersection that had been taken over by a violent mob—the riot quickly spiraled out of control. By the end, some 63 people were dead, 2,383 injured, 12,111 arrested, and more than $2.3 billion in inflation-adjusted property damage was inflicted. In comparison, the 1992 LA riot equaled all the death, injuries, arrests, and damage of the 2020 George Floyd-Antifa-BLM riots of 2020 combined. In 1992, once law and order broke down, opportunistic looting and arson quickly followed. Today's riots are fueled by open-borders radicals and their enablers, not anger over police using excessive force. ICE is enforcing federal law, rounding up illegal immigrant criminals and those with final deportation orders. And the danger, so far, is more focused on federal law enforcement officers, not private property per se. Thus, there's a subtle difference in the call-up of troops, both in the size of the deployment—13,500 in 1992 vs. 2,000 today—and in their purpose. Normally, National Guard personnel, when operating on a state mission for a governor, can enforce civilian law. The post-Civil War Posse Comitatus Act which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian laws doesn't apply. But when the Guard is federalized—that is, called up to federal service—the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions apply to the Guard, just as they do to active-duty service members. But there's a big exception: The Insurrection Act. Through 1992, presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 31 times. Essentially, when local law and order break down, the president is authorized to use the military to enforce civilian law. But Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act. What he did instead was to call up the California National Guard and potentially some Marines to protect federal law enforcement officers. Thus, these military personnel will not be allowed to arrest agitators and rioters or conduct immigration enforcement operations, but they will be allowed to perform force protection missions and provide logistical support. Of course, if that's not enough. Trump can always invoke the Insurrection Act, federalize more National Guard soldiers—even from other states—and send in additional active-duty forces, just as Eisenhower and Kennedy did to smash segregationist resistance in the 1950s and 60s. Newsom and Bass are at fault here. Their failure is glaring. Californians have been voting with their feet for years, fleeing Newsom's wrong-headed policies. Now, his mismanagement of LA's violence will torch what is left of his presidential ambitions. These rioters aren't protesters—they're insurgents. Like Antifa in 2020, they're attacking federal authority, targeting ICE agents enforcing laws Congress passed. Newsom and Bass coddle them. Since they won't act, Trump must. The left will scream "tyranny," and some retired generals will fret about "politicizing" the military. But anarchy is a brutal tyranny of its own kind.