Two People Banned From Haverford College Campus After Disrupting Talk by Jewish Journalist
“When Gaza has burned, you will all burn too.”
Two people masked in keffiyehs disrupted a talk by Jewish journalist Haviv Rettig of The Times of Israel at Haverford College this week, prompting the school to ban the two non-students from campus.
In the video below, you can hear Rettig noting that they were calling for people’s deaths. He asks the crowd if that is protected speech.
The College Fix reports:
Haverford College bans 2 from campus after disrupting Jewish journalist’s talk
Haverford College, a small, private institution in Philadelphia, “indefinitely” banned two individuals from its campus last week after one of them used a bullhorn to disrupt a Jewish journalist’s guest talk.
Neither was a student or employee of the college, Director of Campus Safety Jerry Fayette stated in a message to the campus Wednesday. He did not name the individuals.
“We have gathered sufficient evidence to identify both the individual who used a bullhorn and the audience member who initiated physical contact with them,” Fayette stated.
Both are banned from the college “indefinitely,” he stated. “If they are found to be on Haverford’s campus, their presence will be considered trespassing, and the College will contact local police.”
The college took action after a crowd of masked anti-Israel protesters showed up at a guest talk by The Times of Israel journalist Haviv Rettig Gur on Feb. 1.
Gur’s topic was “Roots, Return & Reality: Jews, Israel, and the myth of settler colonialism.” The college’s Chabad chapter sponsored the event.
Here’s the video:
Antizionist protesters disrupting @havivrettiggur during his talk at Haverford College Sunday. The protester shouting over Haviv then declared to the audience-
“You will all burn too.”This hallmark tactic of the antizionist movement of shouting over targeted individuals,… pic.twitter.com/BeDZvkiBLg
— Kristin Reid (@KristinMReid11) February 3, 2026
More from Algemeiner:
As seen in footage shared on the X social media platform, one of the individuals, who concealed her face with a keffiyeh scarf in the style popularized by the Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, screamed “When Gaza has burned, you will all burn too.”
“Shame! Shame! Shame!” she continued while being escorted out. The individuals continued to scream unintelligible statements outside the lecture hall while banging on its door, prompting Rettig to comment on the incivility of political speech in contemporary higher education.
“It amazes me that this happens most intensely at institutions in America,” he said.
On Wednesday, a public relations official for Haverford College shared with The Algemeiner a statement the college issued to signal that it is not hesitating to respond to actions it described as “clear violations of Haverford’s Policy on Expressive Freedom and Responsibility.” The statement noted that there was also violence during the disruption, noting “at least one physical altercation between attendees.”
Do you think this is what the Quaker founders of Haverford had in mind?
Featured image via Twitter/X video.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
i’ve started to think it is a shame that the only allowed legal response to people like this is to tamely escort them off campus. I think more vigorous methods might deter these clowns. Such actions wouldn’t change what little mind these losers have but it might put sufficient fear into them that they would never repeat their actions.
What we know is that a fair number of the agitators at a “campus demonstration” are in fact NOT students, faculty or staff. They’re outsiders, many times paid, who come with the express intention of disrupting the event. That is exactly why they are there.
After all, you don’t need a bullhorn to voice your thoughts in a campus lecture hall.
Universities must deal with this —
1) serve that person with a “no trespass” order
2) enforce those orders without exception
Until then, the outsiders will continue to disrupt events on campus.
You forgot the important step of applying less than lethal force to compel immediate compliance with lawful commands such as; cease interruption, face away, hands up, kneel, don’t look back, interface fingers top of head, cross ankles, shift weight to ankles….plenty of opportunities to compel compliance via pepper spray, taser and compliance strikes if they refuse to voluntarily comply before being handcuffed, escorted out for transportation to jail.
But that doesn’t help the narrative that the campus elites want to perpetuate.
“It amazes me that this happens most intensely at institutions in America,” he said.”
Yeah, really amazing — given that most other “institutions” don’t bother to inflict even the tepid level of response you did on such agitators.
Maybe colleges should start instituting a “show ID” policy to attend such lectures. If only that weren’t wacist.
And no more face coverings.
so they do in fact allow the jewish students community to come under attack
but like bullies do ,,if they know they will get a beatdown,,they will submit
and of course the bullies are the schools who would allow this but nor for djt
maga
Yes, it is, actually. That doesn’t mean they can come on to private property and disrupt an event, and it certainly doesn’t mean they can assault people, but if they’re standing in the street, or on property where the owner allows them to talk like this, they are certainly allowed to say these things.
I replied to the question on X thusly:
“Can you call for people’s deaths?” Yes, you can. What you can’t do is issue credible threats of imminent death, or threats of death that cause those threatened to fear for their lives. A general call for death is not the same.
Amend that to “that would cause a reasonable person to fear”. It’s neither necessary nor sufficient that the target actually did experience fear; the person making the threat can’t be expected to predict that. What matters is how a reasonable person would react, because the person making the threat is expected by the law to be capable of predicting that.
For a reasonable person to experience such fear from a threat, it must be reasonable for him to suppose that the person making it has both (1) the means and (2) the intent to carry it out. If it’s obvious that he lacks at least one of these then it’s not a true threat.
None of which is relevant here, because there was no threat as such.
On the other hand the bulky clothing could conceal a suicide vest. Taken in full context:
1. Refusal to adhere to basic civility
2. Intentionally create a disturbance at a Univ lecture
3. Shouting Crazy threats
4. Shouting similar slogans used by terrorist orgs
5. Wear of a keffiyeh to conceal identity and to show solidarity with ‘palestinians’ and in particular Hamas.
What NPCs like this chick forget is that the people you choose to provoke are also able to choose how they react to the provocation. No whining from NPCs when they get dropped on their head and curb stomped or worse.
Taken in the context of a mob of lefty students on a US campus, no reasonable person would assume, simply because one of these lunatics is wearing bulky clothing, that they are concealing a bomb and mean to blow themselves up. A reasonable person here would not be put in fear by the mere presence of the bulky clothing in combination with the ranting. So legally it wouldn’t be a threat, even if it were phrased as one, which it wasn’t quite.
In a country where suicide bombers are a thing, that might escalate it to the level of a threat, though it would still not justify deadly force unless the person made a move as if to set a bomb off. But it could be enough to charge the person with making a threat (assuming US law applied in that country, or it had the same law).
Muslim supremacism/Islamofascism are a cancer, in all their myriad manifestations, and that includes the dishonest, revisionist propaganda mythologies alleging that descendants of Arab invaders from Arabia who’ve appropriated the name of an ancient Roman province (coined 600 years before Islam’s founding), are victims, and alleging that Jews who’ve resurrected their ancient homeland, are oppressors/colonizers/settlers.
Meh. Even though the two were non-students I would not be surprised if a #Resistance judge prevented the school from banning them.
We’ve come a long way from when a protest consisted of posting 99 Theses on a Cathedral door in Wittenberg.
Some force lay-down by LE at this point would get the point across, along with filing a law suit against these 2 performance clowns; icing on the cake: deport their behinds to Gaza!