Published: 26 March 2025
Last updated: 26 March 2025
The recent controversy surrounding the threatened deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia University, has thrust the complex and highly sensitive issues of free speech, national security, and immigration policy back into the international spotlight. Khalil, who openly expressed support for Hamas, has become a lightning rod in a fierce debate about the limits of free speech, the nature of academic freedom, and how liberal democracies ought to respond to extremism within their borders.
At the heart of this heated debate lies the fundamental question: Can a democratic society, committed deeply to principles of free expression and robust debate, legitimately deport individuals whose expressed views align them closely with active terror groups, and designated as such by numerous democratic states?
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio argues that Khalil’s deportation was not an infringement upon free speech. Khalil’s alignment with Hamas, an organisation officially recognized as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, and other democratic nations. threatens national security and undermines the very fabric of democracy itself, he said.
“If you apply for a student visa and tell us upfront that you support Hamas—a group that kidnaps children, commits atrocities against women, and threatens our fundamental values—we would rightfully deny your entry,” Rubio argued passionately. He continued, “Why, then, should we allow you to remain when your actions actively support this organisation and undermine our institutions from within?”
Mahmoud Khalil (Writers Against the War on Gaza)
Rubio's perspective finds strong support from Jake Wallis Simons, former editor of the UK Jewish Chronicle, who argues that allowing extremists sympathetic to groups like Hamas to operate freely within liberal democracies erodes social cohesion, emboldens antisemitism, and undermines public safety.
Simons noted recent UK experiences, lamenting how extremist groups exploit open societies’ tolerance to disseminate hateful propaganda under the guise of human rights activism or anti-Zionist sentiment. The result, he argued, is a morally compromised society—one unable or unwilling to confront the spread of hatred effectively. Such tolerance, he warned, comes at the expense of community safety and democracy itself.
Simons could equally have been talking about Australia because that is the experience of the minority Australian Jewish community since October 7.
On the other side of the debate stand numerous civil rights and free speech advocates who insist that deporting individuals like Khalil dangerously erodes cherished democratic values. They argue that political dissent—even when offensive, provocative, or deeply disturbing—is precisely the kind of speech that liberal democracies must protect. Deportation, in their view, sets a dangerous precedent, potentially stifling debate on critical international issues and undermining the democratic process.
Social democracy cannot tolerate the presence of individuals or groups actively promoting an ideology that endorses terrorism, violence, and antisemitism under the guise of political activism.
Khalil’s defenders argue vehemently that he is a victim of politically motivated persecution, targeted not for supporting terrorism but for expressing unpopular political opinions. They fear that such deportations could lead to a chilling effect across universities, silencing legitimate criticisms of governments, including Israel, and stifling the healthy discourse essential to democratic societies.
The deeper fear is the argument that this is the thin edge of the Trumpian wedge, that non-citizens of the US can be thrown out if the autocrats do not like what is being said.
The debate rests on a clear and necessary distinction between legitimate dissent and the active promotion or endorsement of violent extremism. Khalil’s actions—such as distributing leaflets bearing Hamas logos, explicitly aligned with a terrorist organisation known to engage in grotesque acts of violence, targeting Jewish students in class and campus, and being an active member of a group that declares "We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization” —cross a fundamental moral and legal boundary.
From a social democratic standpoint, there is a strong and principled argument to be made in favour of deportation. Social democracy cannot tolerate the presence of individuals or groups actively promoting an ideology that endorses terrorism, violence, and antisemitism under the guise of political activism. Tolerating extremist activities under the banner of free speech fundamentally betrays both the democratic tradition and the Jewish communities disproportionately victimised by such hate.
The recent reports from both the Australian Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities and US House Committee on Antisemitism on College Campuses show how extremist ideologies exploit academic spaces, escalating hostility and violence against Jewish students and staff.
The silence or equivocation of many political leaders in the face of such threats is deeply troubling. Such hesitancy represents not strength or nuance, but moral cowardice. It represents an abandonment of responsibility and a betrayal of both democratic values and the Jewish communities profoundly impacted by antisemitism.
The deportation of Mahmoud Khalil is a symbolically powerful statement. It sends an unmistakable message to extremist groups and their sympathisers: democratic societies will not tolerate ideologies that actively promote violence and undermine pluralism. It reaffirms that genuine democratic solidarity, inclusiveness, and respect for diversity can only thrive when all communities, especially historically marginalised and victimised groups like Jewish communities, feel genuinely protected and valued.
This controversy thus serves as a critical moment of reflection for all democracies. The path forward must clearly and unequivocally reject extremism in all its forms, ensuring the security and dignity of all citizens, particularly those most vulnerable to hate and violence. Deporting Mahmoud Khalil is therefore not merely permissible—it is morally imperative, a necessary step in preserving the integrity and resilience of democratic societies.
Comments3
Kevin Judah WHITE27 March at 06:38 am
Larry Stillman – spot on! Well put.
Adam Slonim27 March at 06:25 am
Larry Stillman’s comment beneath my article demonstrates a troubling reliance on selective outrage, misinformation, and a persistent double standard that unfairly singles out Israel. Citing the deeply flawed and widely discredited figure of “50,000 casualties” reveals not only a lack of genuine research but also an eagerness to amplify inflammatory tropes deliberately engineered to harm Israel’s reputation.
Firstly, the figure of 50,000 casualties is a perfect example of propaganda parroting. Organisations with clear anti-Israel biases inflate and manipulate casualty statistics without independent verification. Credible independent sources have repeatedly exposed Hamas-controlled health authorities in Gaza as sources of unreliable data, routinely exaggerating numbers and obscuring the distinction between combatants and civilians. Yet, despite ample evidence demonstrating this pattern, Stillman accepts such figures uncritically, choosing outrage over accuracy.
Moreover, the apparent obsession with Israel’s actions contrasts starkly with the deafening silence Stillman and his ideological compatriots maintain about the Syrian civil war—a humanitarian disaster tenfold greater. Over half a million Syrians have died, with millions more displaced. Yet, where was Stillman’s impassioned critique then? Where was the outrage, the calls for accountability, and the moral grandstanding? Evidently, it only arises when Israel can be conveniently targeted.
This hypocrisy exposes a troubling truth: Israel is not held to a “higher standard,” as many critics like Stillman insist, but rather to a “double standard.” No nation facing relentless terrorism, existential threats, and rockets raining down on its civilians would tolerate what Israel has endured. Yet when Israel responds proportionately, carefully, and defensively, Stillman and his ilk immediately label these actions as “disproportionate,” conveniently ignoring context and reality.
Furthermore, Stillman’s claims entirely overlook Hamas’s intentional strategy of embedding within civilian populations—a war crime explicitly designed to maximize Palestinian suffering for propaganda gains. Hamas leaders openly admit to using their population as human shields, deliberately ensuring civilian casualties to exploit Western sympathies. Ignoring this reality and casting all blame on Israel reflects a moral inversion that undermines legitimate humanitarian concerns.
Ultimately, Stillman’s selective moral outrage and unquestioned repetition of Hamas talking points do little to advance genuine peace or protect human rights. On the contrary, such misguided narratives embolden terrorist groups, perpetuate the suffering of innocent Palestinians used cynically as pawns, and hinder genuine dialogue and resolution.
If critics like Larry Stillman truly care about human rights and peace, they must abandon selective outrage and engage honestly with facts. Only then can meaningful dialogue—and lasting peace—be achieved.
Larry Stillman26 March at 04:36 pm
Hang on. Khalil has committed no crime. The Regime has resurrected old legislation to leap frog over process. Adam Slonim is truly ignoring the crisis of democracy in the US ( I am there at the moment). This is one step in turning the country into an authoritarian regime with all sorts of terrorists/Marxistsradicals under the bed rhetoric.
Ant discussion of how to deal with allegedly unacceptable people must be subject to the rule of law, not subjective political judgement. There is dispute over what Khalil has said and done. This should not be subject to politicized definitions and ‘guidelines’ like IHRA.
In any case, and Slonim misses this completely, there is now good social science research showing that but for a contemptible minority, real antisemitism is absent from Palestine protest as distinct from deep moral outrage. It’s a peculiarly American thing.
,lPalestine already has had a long and strong history of advocacy in the US. Of course has an element of anti-colonial romance that attaches itself to some people being schooled in critical theory, post colonial students and/or popular versions of it. Lots of good graphics and noise). In fact, on reflection, it reminds me of the intensity of campus protests in the 1980s against apartheid and what America was doing during its support for dirty wars in Latin America and authoritarian regimes. This was the period of what was known as the Kirkpatrick doctrine – from google AI – According to Kirkpatrick, totalitarian regimes were more stable and self-perpetuating than authoritarian regimes, and thus had a greater propensity to influence neighboring states. Israel is seen as a client state playing this role, now moving into colonial genocide.
There is nothing like an evil foreign policy going against ideals to stir up students.
The pure outrageousness of Israeli action and American support/complicity has overridden any empathy for the shock to Israel’s sense of security and business as usual. Whether or not the student (and general non-student, progressive) response in general is layered in, or influenced by antisemitic tropes is hotly debated and obviously varies from place to place. For various Zionist organisations and academics, the intensity of protest is due to the infiltration of the Council on American Islamic Relations, various Palestinian groups and foreign money that have engineered an antisemitic shockwave.
But given my experience in the past, there is a strong streak of morality on the American left on foreign policy issues, There is idealism. I think many people are just driven by revulsion at where Israel and its supporters have gotten to (not great English here). For people of colour, conscious of oppression, it’s an immediate cause.
So there is this huge passion over Palestine, now also be played out in the culture war attacks by the Trump administration on higher education in particular. It won’t go away. And it’s not all about support for Hamas.
I quote bits of new Yorker articles. Jay Caspian Kang March 14, 2025
“ Minority Leader Chuck Schumer posted a statement about the Khalil case that started with a reprimand: “I abhor many of the opinions and policies that Mahmoud Khalil holds and supports, and have made my criticism of the antisemitic actions at Columbia loudly known.” But, despite this almost perfunctory dressing down, Schumer still concluded that if the Trump Administration “cannot prove he has violated any criminal law to justify taking this severe action and is doing it for the opinions he has expressed, then that is wrong, they are violating the First Amendment protections we all enjoy and should drop their wrongheaded action.”
And amazingly, the conservative commentator Ann Coulter in another article – There’s almost no one I don’t want to deport,” she wrote of the protesters, “but, unless they’ve committed a crime, isn’t this a violation of the first amendment?”