Latest news with #pro-Hamas
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Stefanik's latest battle doesn't fight antisemitism; it attacks due process
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) became the scourge of university leaders on Dec. 5, 2023, when she baited the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT into seemingly tolerating calls for 'genocide of the Jews.' Their tepid responses cost two of them their jobs. At subsequent hearings of the House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee, Stefanik scorched other university presidents for giving equivocal answers about campus antisemitism. Stefanik's latest target has been a legal clinic at the City University of New York School of Law, called CUNY CLEAR, an acronym for Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility. At a hearing last week, Stefanik berated CUNY Chancellor Felix Matos Rodriguez for CLEAR's representation of Mahmoud Khalil, whom she called 'the chief pro-Hamas agitator that led to the antisemitic encampments at Columbia.' Whatever the merits of Stefanik's other accusations, she is absolutely wrong about CUNY CLEAR. Representation of a controversial client is in the best tradition of legal education. Khalil was a leader of the pro-Palestinian occupation at Columbia, advancing inflammatory claims and demands. He was also a lawful permanent resident — a green card holder — married to an American citizen. Last March, Khalil was arrested by agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Although he was not charged with a crime, the Department of State asserted that Khalil's green card had been revoked under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, because his pro-Palestinian advocacy posed serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the U.S. Khalil was whisked to a detention facility in central Louisiana. He was held for 104 days until his release was ordered by a federal judge. He is still facing deportation. Outraged that CUNY CLEAR had played a key role in Khalil's representation, Stefanik called upon Rodriguez to fire the CUNY professor who coordinated the defense. Rodriguez was non-committal, promising only to investigate the situation. That was the tactful response, but he missed a teachable moment. The mission of CUNY CLEAR is to support clients and communities 'targeted by local, state, or federal government agencies under the guise of national security and counterterrorism.' Although that may never be acceptable to Stefanik, Rodriguez should have explained that representing unpopular clients is what lawyers are supposed to do, and what law students should be taught to do. CLEAR helped return Khalil from detention in Louisiana to his family, including a newborn son, in New York. That also allowed him greater access to his attorneys, which is essential if he is to have any chance of challenging his deportation. I agree with almost nothing Khalil stands for, but I believe strongly in due process and fair trials. There is no right to appointed counsel in immigration cases, so Khalil's representation could only come from organizations such as the ACLU and CLEAR. In my years as a lawyer in Northwestern's Bluhm Legal Clinic, from 1975 to 1987, I represented plenty of unpopular or outcast clients. Some were obscure, including a lesbian mother seeking to regain custody of her daughter from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (which was hardly a foregone conclusion in those days). Others were notorious, such as the Ukrainian parents who wanted to take their 12-year-old son back to what was then the Soviet Union. I also represented Jews for Jesus who had been arrested picketing American Nazi Party headquarters, and Jewish Defense League members for the same thing. I represented Jewish leftists who had been prevented by a police cordon from protesting at a Nazi rally in a Chicago park. I worked with the Illinois ACLU during the Nazis-in-Skokie controversy. There were surely Northwestern trustees, and local politicians, who were unhappy with some aspects of my client list, which included accused gang members and assorted criminal defendants, along with members of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Nobody ever told me that representation should be withheld due to unpopular associations or opinions. There is indeed antisemitism at CUNY, and throughout academia, which I have documented. The representation of Khalil is in an entirely separate category. It is grist for a grandstander like Stefanik, but it is not an example of antisemitism. Among my most rewarding experiences as a clinic lawyer was obtaining the dismissal of charges against a 12 year-old girl accused of murdering her own baby. In 1976, I could not convince prosecutors to treat my client as an abused child herself, rather than a criminal. The only evidence against her was a confession, extracted by police, which my students and I succeeded in suppressing as involuntary. Decades later, I told the story in class. 'So you got her off,' remarked a student. 'No, we got her justice,' I explained. That is what legal clinics do.
Middle East Eye
4 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
How the BBC obscures UK complicity in Gaza genocide
After months of a confected furore over a BBC documentary supposedly demonstrating pro-Hamas bias, followed by the shelving of a second film on Gaza, an independent review recently found that the broadcaster did not breach impartiality guidelines. A long list of complaints against Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone - pushed for months by pro-Israel lobbying groups, and amplified by the British establishment media - were dismissed one after another by Peter Johnston, director of the editorial complaints and review body that reports to the BBC director general. Not that you would know any of this from the eagerness of BBC executives to continue apologising profusely for the failings the corporation had just been cleared of. It almost sounded as if they wanted to be found guilty. The row is now set to drag on for many months more after Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, announced it too would investigate the programme. All of this is exactly what pro-Israel lobbying groups and the billionaire-owned media had hoped for. The aim of manufacturing this protracted storm in a teacup was twofold. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Firstly, the furore was designed to distract from what the documentary actually showed: the horrors facing children in Gaza as they have had to navigate a tiny strip of land where Israel has trapped them, bombed their homes, levelled their schools and hospitals, exposed them to relentless carnage for 21 months, and starved their loved ones. Secondly, it aimed to browbeat the BBC into adopting an even more craven posture towards Israel than it had already. If it was reluctant before to give Palestinians a voice, it will now avoid doing so at all costs. True to form, executives hurriedly removed How to Survive a Warzone from its iPlayer catch-up service the moment the lobby went into action. Dangerous consequences The BBC's ever-greater spinelessness has dangerous real-world consequences. Israel will feel even freer to intensify what the International Court of Justice already suspected back in January 2024 was a genocide, and what leading genocide and Holocaust scholars have subsequently concluded is a genocide. There will be even less pressure on the British government to stop partnering with Israel in its genocide by supplying weapons, intelligence and diplomatic cover. This is about Israel - and the Starmer government - dictating to the BBC the terms of what can be said about Israel's treatment of Palestinians The enduring row will also hand a bigger stick to Rupert Murdoch and other media moguls with which to beat the BBC, making it cower even further. Signs of the BBC's defensiveness were already all too evident. While it was waiting for the Johnston report, the corporation ditched a separate documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, on Israel's systematic destruction of Gaza's hospitals and killing of some 1,600 health workers. It has since been shown by Channel 4. The BBC argued that - even though this second programme had passed its editorial checks - airing it risked contributing to a 'perception of partiality'. What that bit of BBC gobbledygook actually meant was that the problem was not 'partiality'. It was the perception of it by vested interests - Israel, its apologists, the Starmer government and British corporate media - who demand skewed BBC coverage of Gaza, so that Israel can carry on with a genocide in which the British establishment is utterly complicit. In other words, truth and accuracy be damned. This is about Israel - and the Starmer government - dictating to the BBC the terms of what can be said about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Caving to pressure This brings us back to the Johnston report. The only significant finding against the BBC was on a single issue in its documentary on Gaza's children, How to Survive a Warzone. The film had not disclosed that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of an official in Gaza's Hamas-run government. Even in the current febrile atmosphere, Johnston found no grounds to uphold the manifold accusations of a breach by the BBC of impartiality rules. Nothing in the film, he concluded, was unfair to Israel. Instead, he stated that it was a breach of 'full transparency' not to have divulged the child narrator's tenuous connection to Hamas through his father's governmental work. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Paradoxically, the BBC's coverage of Johnston's findings has been far more inaccurate about the child narrator than the original documentary. But there has been no uproar, because this particular inaccuracy from the BBC squarely benefits Israel. The News at Ten, reporting on the Johnston findings, asserted that the film's narrator was 'the son of an official in the militant group Hamas'. He is nothing of the sort. He is the son of a scientist who directed agricultural policy in Gaza's government, which is run by Hamas. The graver Israel's atrocities in Gaza, the quieter the BBC grows Read More » There is zero evidence that Ayman Alyazouri was ever a member of the militant wing of Hamas. He doesn't even appear to have been a member of its political wing. In fact, since 2018, Israel had set up a system to vet most officials in Gaza, like Alyazouri, to ensure they did not have such links before they were able to receive salaries funded by Qatar. Johnston himself concedes as much, noting that the programme makers failed to inform the BBC of the 13-year-old's background because their checks showed Alyazouri was a civilian technocrat in the government, not involved in its military or political arms. The team's only failing was an astounding ignorance of how pro-Israel lobbying groups operate, and how ready the BBC is to cave to its pressure tactics. In reality, Johnston's finding against the BBC was over little more than an editorial technicality, one intentionally blown up into a major scandal. Johnston himself gave the game away when he noted in his executive summary the need for 'full transparency' when the BBC makes programmes 'in such a contested setting'. In other words, special, much stricter editorial rules apply when the corporation intends to make programmes likely to upset Israel. From now on, that will likely mean that, in practice, such programmes are not made at all. Obvious double standard The double standard is glaring. The BBC made a documentary last year offering eyewitness testimony from Israeli survivors of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack at the Nova music festival, where hundreds of Israelis were killed. Did the BBC insist that the backgrounds of the Israelis interviewed were checked and disclosed to the audience as part of the broadcast? Were viewers told whether festival-goers had served in the Israeli military, which for decades has been enforcing an illegal occupation and a system of apartheid over Palestinians, according to a ruling last year by the world's highest court? And what would it have indicated to audiences had the BBC included such contextual information about its Israeli eyewitnesses? That their testimonies had less validity, or that they could not be trusted? If it was not necessary to include such background details for Israeli eyewitnesses, why is it so important to do this for a 13-year-old Palestinian? And even more to the point, if the BBC needs to give details of 13-year-old Abdullah Alyazouri's background before he can be allowed to read a script written by the programme makers, why is the BBC not also required to give important background about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he appears in reports - such as the fact that he is wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity? Exactly how trustworthy a narrator of events in the devastated enclave does the BBC consider Netanyahu to be, that it does not think this context needs including? Both-sidesing genocide The gains from this manufactured row for pro-Israel lobbyists - and for a Starmer government desperate to silence criticism of its complicity in genocide - were recently set out in stark detail by the makers of the second documentary on Israel's destruction of Gaza's health sector. In an article in the Observer newspaper, they recounted a series of startling admissions and demands from BBC executives made in script meetings. The corporation insisted that Doctors Under Attack could not be aired so long as the award-winning investigative reporter leading the programme, Ramita Navai, was given top billing. They demanded that she be downgraded to a mere 'contributor' - her role effectively disappeared - because she had supposedly made 'one-sided' social media posts criticising Israel for breaking international law. She was considered unacceptable, according to the BBC, because she had not been 'supportive enough of the other side': that is, Israel and its military carrying out systematic war crimes by destroying Gaza's hospitals, as documented in great detail in her film. Offering apologias for genocide - as the BBC has been doing for the past 21 months - is apparently a requirement before the corporation is willing to give journalists a platform to criticise Israel In a statement to Middle East Eye on its decision to shelve the documentary, the BBC said after Navai appeared on its Today radio programme and 'called Israel a 'rogue state that's committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass murdering Palestinians'', it was impossible for the BBC to broadcast the material without risking its own impartiality: 'The BBC holds itself to the highest standards of impartiality and it would never be acceptable for any BBC journalist to express a personal opinion in this way.' Seen another way, offering apologias for genocide - as the BBC has been doing for the past 21 months - is apparently a requirement before the corporation is willing to give journalists a platform to criticise Israel. Also revealing is who the state broadcaster looks to when deciding how to apply its editorial standards. BBC executives reportedly told the filmmakers they should not reference the United Nations or Amnesty International because they were supposedly not 'trusted independent organisations'. Meanwhile, the corporation openly and obsessively worried to the filmmakers about what pro-Israel lobbyists - such as social media activist David Collier and Camera, a pro-Israel media monitoring group - would say about their film on Gaza. The team was told that BBC News executives were 'very jumpy and paranoid' about coverage of Gaza. This follows a long and dishonourable tradition at the state broadcaster. In their 2011 book More Bad News From Israel, media scholars Greg Philo and Mike Berry reported a BBC producer telling them: 'We all fear the phone call from the Israeli embassy.' If you had been wondering why the BBC has been reflexively both-sidesing a genocide, here is a large part of the answer. Skewed coverage A damning report by the Centre for Media Monitoring last month analysed in detail the BBC's Gaza coverage in the year following Hamas's 7 October attack. It found a pattern of bias, double standards and silencing of Palestinian voices. These included the BBC giving 33 times more coverage to Israeli deaths as compared with Palestinian deaths; interviewing more than twice as many Israelis as Palestinians; asking 38 interviewees to condemn Hamas, but asking no one to condemn Israel's mass killing of civilians, or its attacks on hospitals and schools; and shutting down more than 100 interviewees who tried to refer to events in Gaza as a genocide. Only 0.5 percent of BBC articles provided any context for what was happening before 7 October 2023: that Israel had been illegally occupying the Palestinian territories for decades and besieging the enclave for 17 years. BBC bias: Attack on watchdog that skewered Gaza coverage is a feeble hit job Read More » Similarly, the BBC has barely reported the endless stream of genocidal statements from Israeli political and military leaders - a crucial ingredient in legally determining whether military actions constitute genocide. Nor has it mentioned other vital context, such as Israel's invocation of the Hannibal Directive on 7 October 2023, licensing it to kill its own citizens to prevent them from being taken captive; or its military's long-established Dahiya Doctrine, in which the mass destruction of civilian infrastructure - and with it, the likelihood of slaughtering civilians - is viewed as an effective way to deter resistance to its aggression. In the specified time period, the BBC covered Ukraine with twice as many articles as Gaza, even though the Gaza story was newer and Israeli crimes even graver than Russian ones. The corporation was twice as likely to use sympathetic language for Ukrainian victims than for Palestinian victims. Palestinians were usually described as having 'died' or been 'killed' in air strikes, without mention of who launched those strikes. Israeli victims, on the other hand, were 'massacred', 'slaughtered' and 'butchered'. None of these were editorial slip-ups. They were part of a systematic, long-term skewing of editorial coverage in Israel's favour - a clear breach of the BBC's impartiality guidelines and one that has created a permissive environment for genocide. BBC 'performing PR' Journalists at the BBC are known to be in rebellion. More than 100 signed a letter - anonymously for fear of reprisals - condemning the decision to scrap the documentary about Gaza doctors, saying it reflected a mix of 'fear' and 'anti-Palestinian racism' at the corporation. The BBC told MEE: 'Robust discussions amongst our editorial teams about our journalism are an essential part of the editorial process. We have ongoing discussions about coverage and listen to feedback from staff, and we think these conversations are best had internally.' The journalists, it seems, would prefer that these discussions are had out in the open. They wrote: 'As an organisation we have not offered any significant analysis of the UK government's involvement in the war on Palestinians. We have failed to report on weapons sales or their legal implications. These stories have instead been broken by the BBC's competitors.' They added: 'All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military.' They could have added, even more pertinently, that in the process, the BBC has been doing PR for the British establishment too. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks during an interview with the BBC in London on 6 September 2024 (Benjamin Cremel/AFP) A former BBC press officer, Ben Murray, recently gave broader context to the meaning of the corporation's famed editorial 'impartiality'. His role, he wrote, had been a rearguard one to placate the Times, Telegraph, Sun, and most of all, the Daily Mail. These establishment outlets are owned by corporations and billionaires heavily invested in the very fossil fuel, 'defence' and tech industries Israel is central to lubricating. BBC executives, Murray noted, 'were rightfully fearful of these publications' influence, and often reacted in ways to appease them. Their task was to protect the BBC's funding model, and by extension, their prestigious jobs and generous salaries.' None of this went against the grain. As Murray points out, many senior BBC staff enjoyed private educations, have Oxbridge degrees, and have been 'fast-tracked up the corporate ladder'. They see their job as being 'to reinforce and maintain establishment viewpoints'. Editorial smokescreen If this weren't enough, senior BBC staff also have to look over their shoulders to the British government, which sets the corporation's funding through the TV licence fee. The government, no less than the BBC, needs to keep its main constituencies happy. No, not voters. Ministers, keen for favourable coverage, similarly dare not antagonise Israel-aligned media moguls. And equally, they cannot afford to alienate powerful US administrations that pledge an undying, unshakeable bond with Israel while projecting western power into the oil-rich Middle East. This is precisely why Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy was only too keen to jump on the Daily Mail bandwagon in calling for heads to roll at the BBC over the supposed 'failings' in its Gaza coverage. In response to the Johnston report, a spokesperson for the broadcaster told MEE: 'The BBC is taking fair, clear and appropriate action, based on the Review's findings to ensure accountability.' The BBC has not failed. It has done exactly what it is there to do: help the British government conceal the fact that there is a genocide going on in Gaza Another of Nandy's comments is worth noting. 'It makes me angry on behalf of the BBC staff and the whole creative industries in this country,' she said, apparently oblivious to the fact that many BBC journalists' fury is not over the confected scandals generated by pro-Israel lobbying groups and billionaire-owned media. They are appalled at the corporation's refusal to hold Israel or Nandy's own government accountable for the genocide in Gaza. In such circumstances, the BBC's professed commitment to 'impartiality' serves as nothing more than a smokescreen. In reality, the corporation acts as an echo chamber, amplifying and legitimising the interests of media tycoons, the British government and the Washington consensus, however much they flout the foundational principles of international law, human rights and basic decency. Anybody who stands outside that circle of influence - such as Palestinians and their supporters, anti-genocide activists, human rights advocates, and increasingly the UN and its legal organs, such as the ICC - is assumed by the BBC to be suspect. Such voices are likely to be marginalised, silenced or vilified. The BBC has not failed. It has done exactly what it is there to do: help the British government conceal the fact that there is a genocide going on in Gaza - one that the UK is knee-deep in assisting. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Al Bawaba
7 days ago
- Entertainment
- Al Bawaba
Israelis call for the boycott of Superman 2025 after pro-Palestine scene
Published July 16th, 2025 - 09:38 GMT ALBAWABA - Despite its massive box office success, James Gunn's Superman has been subjected to controversy over a specific scene depicting the superhero fighting to protect innocent civilians from a fictional occupation army backed by the US. The scene sparked widespread debate on social media, with pro-Palestine users and activists pointing out its resemblance to the ongoing Israeli aggression on Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023. In response, Israelis are calling for the boycott of Superman, further describing it as "pro-Hamas and Al Jazeera propaganda." BREAKING – Israeli audiences are calling for a boycott of the new Superman film after the superhero is portrayed as standing firmly against genocide. — Middle Eastern Affairs (@Middle_Eastern0) July 16, 2025 A social media user wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter), "I was gonna see the new Superman movie but decided to skip. If I wanted pro-Hamas propaganda, I'd just turn on Al Jazeera," following the hashtag "#boycottSupermanMovie." Ben Shapiro, a pro-Israel conservative political commentator, also shared his opinions about the movie in a 21-minute YouTube review, which received 12,000 dislikes, outnumbering the 10,000 likes. The review was flooded with YouTube users mocking the political commentator for his opinion. A YouTube user wrote in the video's comments section, "Ben would definitely say Boravia [the fictional occupation] has a right to defend itself." Another added, "Ben Shapiro disliking a film is the highest praise it could possibly receive." Superman currently sits at a respectable 7.7/10 on IMDB with over 120,000 reviews. According to IMDB, Superman has already broken even in profits after garnering $232 million worldwide in contrast to its estimated $225 million budget. Before its premiere worldwide, James Gunn told Deadline during an interview that the movie is "lighter" in some ways compared to Zack Snyder's rendition, but will also touch on heavy subjects. Additionally, Gunn revealed that he wanted to capture "the colour and the joy" of DC's classic superhero in his rendition. © 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba (
New York Post
15-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Rep. Elise Stefanik skewers CUNY chancellor, calls for his ouster over ‘failed' leadership on NYC campus antisemitism
New York Rep. Elise Stefanik skewered the head of CUNY — calling on him to resign for 'failing Jewish students' and for flunking his House testimony Tuesday on combating campus antisemitism. The Republican congresswoman zeroed in on Chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez over the hiring of a chief diversity officer who previously worked for a pro-Hamas, Israel-bashing group — saying that if the CUNY boss doesn't step down, Gov. Kathy Hochul should bounce him. 'You have failed the people of New York. You have failed Jewish students in New York State, and it is a disgrace,' Stefanik — who is mulling a run for governor against Hochul next year — told the chancellor during the House Education & Workforce Committee hearing. Advertisement 7 Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., questions the panel of witnesses during a House Committee on Education and Workforce Committee hearing on 'Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology' on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, July 15, 2025, in Washington. AP She grilled Matos Rodríguez about CUNY's hiring of Saly Abd Alla, who had previously been employed as a civil rights director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. 'I was not directly responsible for that hire,' Matos Rodríguez, who has overseen CUNY's 26 degree-granting institutions since 2019, insisted when asked if he was aware of Abd Alla's previous employer. Advertisement CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case involving the funneling over $12 million to Hamas, Stefanik noted. 'You hired Abd Alla as CUNY's chief diversity officer, and this role includes overseeing antisemitism complaints and initiatives. Were you aware at that time that this senior administrator that you hired was previously employed by CAIR?' Stefanik asked. Matos Rodríguez said Abd Alla was hired to be the chief diversity officer 'at the central office with no responsibility over cases that have to deal with students or faculty.' 7 Pro-Palestine demonstrators wave the Palestinian flag and hold a banner outside of the office of the City University of New York. Jimin Kim/SOPA Images/Shutterstock Advertisement 'Let me remind you, CAIR was a co-conspirator in the terrorist financing case and has ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,' Stefanik continued, adding, 'Is she currently still employed by CUNY?' 'She is,' Matos Rodríguez replied. 'So, no action, just words here today,' Stefanik said. Stefanik also asked Matos Rodríguez if he knew that law professor Ramzi Kassem, the head of CUNY Law School's legal clinic, Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility or CLEAR, was representing Mahmoud Khalil, the anti-Israel Columbia University protester who was detained by the Trump administration. Advertisement 'CUNY CLEAR. I'm not familiar with them,' Matos Rodríguez said. 7 Stefanik also asked Matos Rodríguez if he knew that law professor Ramzi Kassem, the head of CUNY Law School's legal clinic. AP 'This is the chief pro-Hamas agitator that led to the antisemitic encampments at Columbia, the rioting and violent takeover of Hamilton Hall, the harassment and physical assault of Jewish students,' Stefanik said of Khalil. 'You allow the head of the clinical legal organization and a professor to be the chief legal aid to Mahmoud Khalil and do his legal defense fund?' Matos Rodríguez responded, 'Those decisions are made in the clinics and are made in the individual campuses.' In another case, Stefanik asked about delays in removing a swastika from the main building of CUNY's Hunter College campus on Manhattan's Upper East Side in the fall of 2023. 7 Protestors gather outside Brooklyn College during a âCUNY Wide Student Walkout for Palestineâ on Thursday, November 9, 2023 in Brooklyn, N.Y. James Keivom She displayed a Nov. 13, 2023 email apparently by Hunter's Interim Vice President for Administration Gustavo Ordonez telling Leah Garrett, the school's chair of Jewish Studies: 'Apologies, but it's not that simple.' Advertisement Garrett has since filed a federal workplace discrimination suit against CUNY. CUNY typically removes hateful symbols right away but there was a delay in doing so in this case because officials 'were working with the New York City Police Department' on a potential hate crime case, Matos Rodríguez told the panel. In a joint press conference after the hearing with Brooklyn Councilwoman Inna Vernikov in DC, Stefanik said Matos Rodríguez had to go, and claimed Hochul was part of the problem. 7 Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., questions the panel of witnesses during a House Committee on Education and Workforce Committee hearing on 'Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology' on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, July 15, 2025, in Washington. @RepStefanik/X Advertisement 'The scourge of antisemitism has skyrocketed on her watch,' Stefanik said of Hochul. 'She needs to call on this chancellor to resign. She needs to fire him today.' Vernikov agreed, telling reporters: 'With one phone call, she can make sure the chancellor gets removed.' 'We need competent leadership. The chancellor is unwilling and unable to address antisemitism and protect his Jewish students,' she said. Advertisement 7 Protestors gather outside Brooklyn College during a CUNY Wide Student Walkout for Palestine on Thursday, November 9, 2023 in Brooklyn, N.Y. James Keivom Hochul created a task force headed by former New York state chief judge Jonathan Lippman that issued recommendations last year to weed out campus antisemitism at CUNY. Matos Rodríguez is likely not going anywhere. He has strong support among CUNY's trustees, appointed by the governor and mayor. Overall, he defended CUNY's performance in tamping down antisemitism and said officials have learned from past mistakes. Advertisement 'Antisemitism has no place at CUNY,' he testified. 7 Dr. Félix Matos Rodríguez, Chancellor, The City University of New York, testifies during a House Committee on Education and Workforce Committee hearing. AP 'And although our response has not always been perfect, our commitment to this important work has never wavered. Our commitment to the safety of the members of our Jewish community, and to our entire community, is non-negotiable.' He noted the $3 million in vandalism caused by anti-Israel protestors who created an encampment at CUNY's City College last year. 'We learned from that experience. We now have a zero-tolerance policy against encampments,' Matos Rodríguez said, adding CUNY hired more than 150 full-time security employees and contracted with an additional 250 security personnel. 'Our approach has shown results,' he said.
Hype Malaysia
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Hype Malaysia
Movie Tea: Julia Garner Speaks Up About Silver Surfer Controversy; 'King Of The Hill' Revival To Stream On Hulu
Get your popcorn ready, because we've got the latest news on some of Hollywood's biggest upcoming projects. From the revival of a beloved animated sitcom, to a decorated actor handling controversies with grace, here's what you need to know about two highly-awaited projects due to hit the big and small screens later this year. Julia Garner Addresses Controversy Surrounding Her Depiction Of Silver Surfer It goes without saying that July is easily one of the most anticipated months of the year when it comes to movies. As summer time kicks in in some portions of the world, studios are pulling out all the stops to get crowds in theatre halls, and 2025 is no exception. Earlier in the month alone, we saw the jaw-dropping reimagining of James Gunn's 'Superman'. Naturally, people are eager to see how Marvel's 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps' will fare in response to the growing opposition. Unfortunately, in this polarising world, people conjure all sorts of nitpicks to bash these incredible titles. One such example is the recent 'Superman' film where conservatives found it too woke, citing pro-immigration and pro-Hamas themes, among other things. Sadly, 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps' has also come under fire weeks before its anticipated release because of Julia Garner's depiction of the Silver Surfer. Having had enough of it, the Herald of Galactus has stepped forward and started addressing the controversy directed at her. In an interview with BBC, Garner was asked about the recent reaction to 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps'. At first they were positive, but as they progressed to more critical ones, Garner only said, 'The first one, I was like, I'm just still going to do my job, and also it's Shalla-Bal, so it's different. And then the second one you know, I was just happy that people are resonating with it just like any other project. So I'm just grateful to be at this dance, to be completely honest with you.' Though 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps' has been accused of gender-bending the iconic Zenn-Lavian, people forget that the MCU is creating its own canon away from the comics — and that a female Silver Surfer called Shalla-Bal already existed before in the comics. In our previous article covering Garner's debut as the chrome alien, the character can be traced all the way back to 1968, proving that her story has long been intertwined with that of the Fantastic Four and rendering all baseless hateful accusations irrelevant. Furthermore, it has been confirmed that this version of Marvel's first family of superheroes will take place in an alternate universe. So, if people are still pissed about seeing Bal rather than Norrin Radd, Bal's husband and the original Silver Surfer, they might just get their wish just to appease them. It is unfortunate that Garner has been the target of controversy simply because of her gender but it is nice to not only see her push back but also do so with such positivity! Though her role may only be limited to an alternate universe, we do hope that we get to see her duke it out in the main timeline as well in some capacity. 'King Of The Hill' Returns With Season 14 After 15 long years, the hit animated sitcom 'King of the Hill' is back! And to kick off its revival, the creator has dropped a brand new trailer to coincide with the announcement. Set years after the star of the show, Hank Hill (played by Mike Judge), moved to Saudi Arabia to secure his and Peggy's (played by Kathy Najimy) retirement, the new season sees the return of the duo to Arlen to breathe in something familiar. Unfortunately for the couple, but more specifically Hank, things have changed in their absence, and they are now taking steps to get themselves reacquainted with the world around them. Add on to the fact that our favourite patriarch is now a senior citizen; things are about to get rough for him. Naturally, some things never change, as Frank's old mates, such as Boomhauer (Mike Judge), Bill (Stephen Root), and Dale (Toby Huss, taking over after the late Johnny Hardwick's passing), are still in town! And much like Frank, they too feel out of place, kicking off a season of misadventures where they navigate this familiar yet strange place they call home. Pair this alongside Frank's son, Bobby (Pamela Adlon), who has adjusted well in Dallas; we're about to see some old folks trying their best to still stay hip and fashionable with the younger generation. As it will touch on a lot of modern subject matter that we see in social media or in person, whether they be serious or otherwise, that might lead to the series receiving the revitalised love it deserves – or be the reason for its ultimate end. We must keep in mind that the world has changed more than ever since the show's cancellation; it is up to the show's creators to decide whether to address this with the same rigour and ferocity as in previous seasons or to play it safe and avoid it as much as possible. Regardless of its choice, we just hope it does so with the wholesome heart that we all know and love. We'll only find out when the series drops on 4th August on Hulu. Source: The Verge, Screen Rant
