An explosion caused minor damage to a Jewish school in Amsterdam early Saturday morning, which the city’s mayor described as “a targeted attack against the Jewish community.” The blast occurred in an upscale residential neighborhood in the southern part of the city. Mayor Femke Halsema stated in a press release that the damage was limited and that police and firefighters responded swiftly. No injuries have been reported.
An investigation has been launched, as this incident follows recent nighttime assaults outside synagogues in Liège, Belgium, and Rotterdam, Netherlands. After an arson attack at a Rotterdam synagogue on Friday, security measures at Jewish sites in Amsterdam had already been increased.
In Belgium, a synagogue in Liège was set on fire following an explosion earlier this week. Halsema condemned the act, calling it “a cowardly attack on the Jewish community,” and noted that police possess CCTV footage of a suspect placing the explosive device.
She emphasized that antisemitism is increasingly confronting Jews in Amsterdam, calling such acts unacceptable. Rising concerns about potential attacks on Jewish communities worldwide follow recent escalations between the US, Israel, and Iran, and Iran’s retaliatory response.
Families impacted by the Bondi Beach mass shooting have called for an independent national investigation into antisemitism in Australia, citing failures in law enforcement, intelligence, and policies that they believe allowed the attack to happen. Sajid and Naveed Akram, a father and son duo, are accused of targeting a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on December 14, resulting in 15 deaths and dozens of injuries. Authorities described the incident as an antisemitic terrorist attack.
Seventeen families presented an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, urging the government to establish a Royal Commission to address the surge in antisemitism across the country and scrutinize what went wrong in law enforcement and intelligence agencies leading up to the tragedy. The families emphasized the need for answers and solutions, questioning why warning signs were ignored and extremism was allowed to escalate unchecked.
Albanese has opposed the call for a federal inquiry, advocating instead for action now and pointing to a Royal Commission led by New South Wales, where the attack occurred, which he assured would get full support. The government has proposed reforms to gun laws, hate speech regulations, and investigations into police and intelligence efforts.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke expressed concern that a national commission might serve as a platform for some of the worst antisemitic rhetoric, which he believes could undermine national unity and security. Meanwhile, the families argue that the federal response is insufficient and that antisemitism remains a persistent threat that must be addressed decisively.
The victims’ families described their loss—parents, children, spouses, and grandparents—while mourning in a space that should have been safe and joyful. They insist that the government owes them transparency and accountability, warning that the rise of antisemitism constitutes a national crisis that needs immediate and strong action to prevent further tragedies.
During the attack, Sajid Akram was shot and killed by police. He entered Australia on a visa in 1998, originally from India. His 24-year-old son Naveed, a naturalized Australian citizen, remains in custody on multiple charges, including terrorism-related offenses, multiple murders, and planning a terrorist act with explosive devices.
Most gun owners in Australia will be limited to owning no more than four firearms, while farmers will be permitted up to ten. The main opposition Liberal party has expressed support for the proposed amendments. A recent poll shows that about 75% of Australians favor implementing stricter gun laws.
Following the tragic mass shooting at Bondi Beach, New South Wales’ lower house moved quickly to pass new legislation in an emergency session, with plans for the upper house to review it soon. The proposed laws aim to tighten gun ownership restrictions, ban the display of terrorist symbols, and restrict certain protests.
The government’s plan includes capping most individual gun licenses to four firearms, with a maximum of ten for those in agriculture. The attack at a Hanukkah celebration resulted in 15 deaths and numerous injuries, renewing calls for stronger gun regulations and increased action against antisemitism.
Police confirmed that the suspect, Sajid Akram, 50, who was shot and killed by officers, owned six guns. His 24-year-old son, Naveed, faces multiple serious charges, including murder and terrorism. Despite Australia’s gun law reforms since a 1996 tragedy that claimed 35 lives, some in New South Wales still own an excessive number of guns—over 70 individuals hold more than 100 guns, with one licensee owning 298.
A poll indicates that the majority of Australians advocate for tougher firearm regulations. However, opposition from the rural-focused National Party has arisen, with concerns that the reforms could negatively impact farmers. The federal government is also working on measures such as improved gun controls and a gun buyback program, though they have resisted establishing a royal commission to investigate the attack. Instead, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced an independent review of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to address the issues more swiftly.
A man strolls along Bondi Beach’s promenade, gazing at a floral tribute honoring the victims of a mass shooting that targeted a Hanukkah celebration on Sunday at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, December 16, 2025. — Reuters
– Prime Minister Albanese states the suspected shooter will be charged within hours.
– Authorities investigate links between the shooters and Daesh; interviews are anticipated.
– The family of a wounded police officer reports he lost an eye.
One of two men believed to have carried out Australia’s worst mass shooting in thirty years is expected to face charges later Wednesday, as funeral services for the Jewish victims of Sunday’s attack commence. The alleged father-and-son team opened fire during a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s renowned Bondi Beach, an event that shocked the country and raised concerns about increasing antisemitism and extremism.
Sajid Akram, 50, was shot and killed by police at the scene, while his 24-year-old son, identified by local media as Naveed, emerged from a coma on Wednesday after also being shot by officers.
Albanese mentioned in a podcast interview Wednesday morning that charges are imminent: “He will be formally charged, if not already, in the coming hours.” Authorities plan to question the son once he is off medication and his legal counsel is present. He remains hospitalized in Sydney under tight police supervision.
The suspects traveled to the southern Philippines weeks before the attack, a region known for ongoing militant activity. Australian police indicated the assault was likely inspired by Daesh, also known as ISIS.
President Donald Trump, speaking at a White House Hanukkah event late Tuesday, expressed his thoughts for the victims and condemned the attack as “horrific and antisemitic terrorist violence.”
Funeral services have begun for the victims. Rabbi Eli Schlanger, an assistant rabbi at Chabad Bondi and father of five, was laid to rest Wednesday. Schlanger was noted for his dedication to Sydney’s Jewish community, traveling to prisons and connecting with Jewish residents in public housing, according to Jewish leader Alex Ryvchin.
A photo shows mourners gathering at Chabad of Bondi synagogue during his funeral in Sydney, December 17, 2025. — Reuters
Albanese faces criticism that his center-left government did not do enough to curb antisemitism during the recent two-year Israel-Gaza conflict. He assured the community: “We will work closely with the Jewish community to eliminate antisemitism from our society.”
Questions remain about how Sajid Akram legally obtained high-powered rifles and shotguns used in the attack, prompting calls for comprehensive gun law reforms. In 2019, Akram’s son was briefly investigated over alleged Daesh associations, but authorities found no evidence at that time linking him to threats.
Albanese also paid tribute to Ahmed al-Ahmed, 43, who tackled one of the gunmen to disarm him despite being wounded himself. Al-Ahmed’s family in Syria said he left Idlib nearly 20 years ago seeking work in Australia. His uncle, Mohammed, expressed pride: “We learned about his bravery through social media. We called his father, and they told us that Ahmed is a hero. Australia and Syria are proud of him.”
The police officer wounded during the attack, Jack Hibbert, 22, who had been on duty just four months, lost sight in one eye and faces a lengthy recovery, his family announced Wednesday. Despite injuries, Hibbert acted with urgency and selflessness, continuing to assist others until unable to do so.
Twenty-two individuals remain hospitalized across Sydney. Among the victims was a Holocaust survivor, a couple who confronted the gunmen before they started firing, and a 10-year-old girl named Matilda, whose father emphasized the importance of remembering her as a symbol of resilience. The family of the young girl, who came from Ukraine, asked that her legacy not be forgotten, highlighting her Australian identity.
In Bondi, local residents gathered on the beach to observe a moment of silence, expressing unity and collective mourning. A young man, Archie Kalaf, reflected, “This week has been very impactful. Everyone’s grieving and processing in their own way, but there’s a strong sense of community coming together.”
LOS ANGELES: President Donald Trump called for a hefty $1 billion fine against the University of California system on Friday amid ongoing disputes over alleged antisemitism linked to UCLA’s handling of student protests related to Gaza in 2024.
The proposed amount, which is five times higher than what Columbia University agreed to pay to resolve similar federal antisemitism allegations, would have a devastating impact on the publicly funded university system, according to a senior official.
James Milliken, president of the UC system overseeing ten campuses including UCLA in Los Angeles, announced that the university management received the $1 billion demand on Friday, and they are currently reviewing it.
“As a public university, we are responsible for taxpayer resources, and such a massive fine would effectively cripple our nation’s leading public university system, causing significant harm to our students and all Californians,” Milliken explained.
He added, “UCLA and the UC system provide essential innovations and medical breakthroughs that save lives, support the US economy, and safeguard our national security.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who serves on the UC Board of Regents, responded to Trump’s demands during a press conference, stating, “We will pursue legal action.” He also accused Trump of attempting to silence academic freedom.
“He’s trying to extort us with a billion-dollar penalty unless we comply with his demands,” Newsom declared. He emphasized that the UC system is a major contributor to California’s economic strength, citing its numerous scientists, engineers, and Nobel laureates as evidence.
Sources indicate the federal government prefers to receive the payout in installments and is also requesting the university contribute $172 million to a claims fund aimed at compensating Jewish students and others affected by alleged discrimination.
The UC system, home to some of the top-ranked public universities in the nation, is already facing a more than $500 million freeze on grants for medical and science research at UCLA alone, imposed by the Trump administration.
This move appears to echo tactics previously employed against Columbia and possibly aimed at pressuring Harvard University into compliance as well.
Columbia’s settlement included commitments to follow regulations preventing race-based considerations in admissions and hiring, among other stipulations, which drew criticism from Newsom.
“We refuse to be complicit in these attacks on academic freedom or the integrity of this esteemed public institution. Unlike some other universities, we are committed to upholding the principles of free inquiry,” he stated.
Throughout 2024, numerous U.S. campuses, including Columbia and UCLA, experienced protests supporting Palestine, often met by police interventions and clashes. Former President Joe Biden urged for order to be maintained.
Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement views academia as an elitist, overly progressive force hostile to the ethno-nationalist sentiments favored by many of his supporters.
I’m unable to display or manipulate content directly from external URLs as requested. However, I can help you rewrite the provided content in American English and make it unique. Here’s a rewritten version of your text:
Image Caption: A visitor strolls through Harvard Yard at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on December 7, 2023. — Reuters
Key Points:
The Trump administration is urging Harvard to implement policy changes.
Harvard has rejected these demands and is suing over a $2.3 billion funding reduction.
Much of Harvard’s $53 billion endowment is earmarked for specific purposes.
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Education notified Harvard University that it would be freezing billions in upcoming research grants and other forms of assistance until the prestigious institution agrees to several demands from the Trump administration, according to a senior official.
This action marks another step by the Trump administration, known for leveraging federal financial resources to compel organizations, including law firms and universities, to make substantial policy revisions or face significant cuts to federal funding.
In her correspondence with Harvard, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasized that the university must tackle issues related to antisemitism on campus, re-evaluate policies that take student race into account, and respond to grievances regarding the lack of conservative faculty members, which detracts from its pursuit of "academic excellence."
"This letter is to notify you that Harvard should cease seeking federal grants as they will no longer be accessible," McMahon declared.
In response, Harvard criticized the demands in McMahon’s letter, labeling them as an unprecedented and improper attempt to exert control over the university while simultaneously posing threats to vital research funding.
"Harvard will persist in its legal defense against unlawful governmental overreach aimed at suppressing research and innovation that contribute to the safety and security of Americans," stated a university representative.
The decision to suspend future funding represents a slight shift in strategy from the Trump administration, which previously faced legal scrutiny for attempting to freeze existing funds at top institutions.
Trump has particularly focused on Harvard regarding allegations of antisemitism stemming from pro-Palestinian protests, which he characterized as "antisemitic," amid ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
Protesters, including some Jewish organizations, argue that the government conflates their critiques of the regional strife with antisemitism and their advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremist views.
Recently, the administration initiated a thorough review of nearly $9 billion in federal funding allocated to Harvard, mandated the university to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, and pressured it to impose stricter measures on protesters.
Harvard has rebuffed many of Trump’s demands, citing them as attacks on free speech and academic freedom. In retaliation, the institution has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the suspension of approximately $2.3 billion in federal funds, while also vowing to confront discrimination on campus.
In its lawsuit, Harvard warned that the cuts to funding would have severe "real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, and researchers," potentially jeopardizing essential medical and scientific advancements.
Despite having a $53 billion endowment—the largest of any university in the U.S.—most of these funds are earmarked for specific uses such as scholarships and financial aid.
Feel free to let me know if you need any further modifications or additional information!
Harvard University Under Threat of Federal Funding Cuts from Trump Administration
Image Caption: A view of Harvard University’s campus on John F. Kennedy Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, captured on December 7, 2023. — Reuters
NEW YORK: Former President Donald Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status after the institution declined to comply with what it described as unlawful demands from the government regarding its academic programs. The university warned it would risk losing federal funds if it didn’t acquiesce to these demands.
Following a similar backlash against Columbia University, the Trump administration has criticized various universities nationwide for their management of the pro-Palestinian protests that stirred controversy on campuses last year.
Trump has characterized the protests as anti-American and antisemitic, alleging that universities promote Marxist and “radical left” ideologies. He has vowed to withhold federal grants and contracts from institutions that do not conform to his administration’s expectations.
In response, some faculty, students, and university leaders contend that the portrayal of these protests as antisemitic serves as a guise for an unconstitutional assault on academic freedom.
Columbia University, a private institution in New York City, agreed to enter negotiations after the Trump administration announced it was terminating grants and contracts totaling $400 million, primarily aimed at medical and scientific research.
In a letter dated Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber described the administration’s demands— which included an audit to ensure “viewpoint diversity” among the student body and faculty, as well as the cessation of all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives— as unprecedented overreaches that detached from legal boundaries, thus infringing on constitutional free speech rights and the Civil Rights Act.
Garber asserted that just like Columbia, Harvard has been actively engaged in combating antisemitism and other forms of discrimination on its campus while upholding the principles of academic freedom and the right to protest.
Shortly following Garber’s letter, the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced it was freezing over $2 billion in contracts and grants to Harvard, the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university. The administration has yet to clarify which specific grants and contracts have been cut, and Harvard has not commented on the matter.
In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump hinted at the possibility of seeking to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status should it continue what he termed “political, ideological, and terrorist-inspired ‘sickness.’” He did not specify how he would execute this plan. According to the U.S. tax code, most universities are exempt from federal income tax because they are considered “operated exclusively” for educational purposes.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt conveyed to reporters that Trump demands an apology from Harvard regarding what she referred to as "antisemitism occurring on their campus against Jewish American students."
She accused Harvard and other universities of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal funding on the basis of race or national origin.
Under Title VI, the termination of federal funds necessitates a lengthy investigation and hearing process, along with a 30-day notification to Congress— procedures that have not been followed concerning the funding cuts at either Columbia or Harvard.
Protesters gather on Cambridge Common during a demonstration organized by the City of Cambridge urging Harvard’s leadership to resist federal government interference at the university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 12, 2025. —Reuters
Harvard claims federal demands infringe upon academic freedom.
Some Harvard faculty members have already filed lawsuits against the Trump administration.
The federal government has suspended funding for several universities.
On Monday, Harvard University firmly rejected multiple demands from the Trump administration, arguing that these requests would grant the government undue influence over the institution, which they believe is being misrepresented as excessively liberal.
Shortly after Harvard issued its statement, the Trump administration announced a suspension of $2.3 billion in federal funding allocated to the university.
This funding freeze follows the administration’s prior announcement that it was examining $9 billion in federal contracts and grants awarded to Harvard, part of a broader initiative targeting what it alleges is rising antisemitism on college campuses, particularly during pro-Palestinian demonstrations over the past year and a half.
A task force from the Department of Education, aimed at addressing antisemitism, accused Harvard, the nation’s oldest university, of fostering a “problematic entitlement culture” that is prevalent in elite universities, suggesting they do not view federal investment as a responsibility that includes upholding civil rights laws.
This exchange intensifies an ongoing confrontation between the Trump administration and some of the wealthiest academic institutions, raising critical questions about freedom of speech and academic independence.
The administration has withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to various universities, insisting that these institutions must amend their policies while accusing them of not adequately combating antisemitism on their campuses.
Deportation actions have begun against some foreign students detained who participated in pro-Palestinian protests, while the visas of many others have been revoked.
In a public letter on Monday, Harvard’s President Alan Garber asserted that the demands from the Department of Education would allow the federal government to “control the Harvard community” and jeopardize its “core values as a private institution dedicated to knowledge creation, dissemination, and pursuit.”
“No government—regardless of its political party—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they admit or hire, and which academic inquiries they can undertake,” Garber stated.
Nevertheless, he acknowledged the need to address allegations of antisemitism, stating, “While we stand firm in defense of Harvard, we will persist in fostering a robust culture of open inquiry on our campus, equipping our community with the necessary tools and skills to engage constructively, and expanding our intellectual and viewpoint diversity.”
Concerns about campus antisemitism resurfaced prior to Trump’s second term, following pro-Palestinian protests at multiple universities last year.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields remarked on Monday that Trump is committed to “making higher education great again” by eliminating unchecked antisemitism and ensuring that taxpayer dollars do not support racial discrimination or violence.
In a letter released last Friday, the Department of Education criticized Harvard for “not meeting the intellectual and civil rights standards that justify federal investment.”
The department’s letter demanded that Harvard diminish the influence of faculty, staff, and students who prioritize activism over scholarship, and have an external panel review each department to ensure “viewpoint diversity.”
By August, Harvard must ensure that faculty hiring and student admissions are merit-based, ceasing any preferences based on race, color, or national origin. The university is also required to screen international students to prevent the admission of those who oppose American values and to report any breaches of conduct to federal immigration authorities.
Last week, a group of Harvard professors filed a lawsuit to halt the Trump administration’s review of the nearly $9 billion in federal contracts and grants received by the university.
Reports indicate that the Trump administration may also seek to compel Columbia University, another Ivy League institution, into a consent decree binding it to observe federal guidelines regarding antisemitism. Similar to Harvard, some Columbia professors have taken legal action in response. The government has already suspended $400 million in funding and grants for Columbia.
President Garber emphasized that the federal government’s request for Harvard to “audit” the perspectives of students, faculty, and staff to identify leftist thinkers opposed to the Trump administration represents a clear violation of the university’s First Amendment rights.
“The university will not compromise its independence or surrender its constitutional rights,” Garber asserted.
He reiterated that while Harvard is taking measures to tackle antisemitism on campus, “these objectives cannot be realized through the exertion of power devoid of legal basis to control teaching and learning at Harvard and dictate our operational approach.”
Garber concluded, “Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s long-standing commitment to respect and uphold it, have allowed universities to contribute significantly to a free society and improve the lives of people globally.”
In January, Harvard agreed to enhance protections for Jewish students as part of a settlement addressing two lawsuits claiming that the university had become a center for antisemitism.
To mitigate any financial strain resulting from potential cuts to federal funding, Harvard is considering borrowing $750 million from financial markets.
Protesters demonstrate against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and deportations conducted by President Donald Trump’s administration, in New York City, February 13, 2025. — Reuters
Trump’s administration is intensifying its response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
Advocacy groups claim the government is infringing on free speech rights.
Officials assert that supporters of terrorism are not welcome in the U.S.
WASHINGTON: On Wednesday, the U.S. government announced plans to start reviewing the social media activities of immigrants and visa applicants for what it labels antisemitic behavior. This decision sparked immediate backlash from various advocacy organizations, including some Jewish groups, who voiced concerns regarding free speech and surveillance.
The Trump administration has been actively attempting to suppress pro-Palestinian protests following the devastating military operations in Gaza by the U.S. ally Israel, which began in October 2023.
According to a statement from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), “Starting today, the agency will evaluate applicants’ antisemitic activity on social media and any acts of harassment against Jewish individuals as valid reasons to deny immigration benefits.”
This move will have immediate implications for those applying for lawful permanent residency, international students, and individuals associated with educational institutions engaged in antisemitic activities, USCIS indicated.
“This country cannot accommodate those who sympathize with terrorists from around the globe,” they added.
The Trump administration has frequently labeled pro-Palestinian voices as antisemitic and sympathetic to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, both designated as “terrorist” organizations by Washington.
In light of these developments, some foreign students are facing deportation, while numerous visas have been revoked. Additionally, the administration has warned educational institutions of potential cuts to federal funding if pro-Palestinian protests continue on their campuses.
Demonstrators, including members of Jewish organizations, argue that the Trump administration is misinterpreting their critiques of Israel’s actions in Gaza and their support for Palestinian rights as expressions of antisemitism and endorsements of extremism.
Human rights advocates and experts have expressed strong objections to the Trump administration’s latest measures, condemning them as threats to free speech and equivalently likening them to surveillance and targeted discrimination against immigrants.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has criticized the administration for “formalizing censorship practices.” They stated, “By monitoring visa and green card holders and targeting them solely based on their protected expressions, the administration is prioritizing fear and silence over America’s commitment to free and open discourse.”
The Nexus Project, an organization combating antisemitism, claims that the administration is attacking immigrants purportedly to combat antisemitism while treating the issue as one imported from abroad.
Moreover, advocates have raised alarms about potential Islamophobia and anti-Arab discrimination, yet the Trump administration has yet to announce any measures addressing these issues.
