Newsletter
Newsletter Support JNS

George Washington U bans SJP one year for hosting ‘unapproved events’

The decision came after SJP was issued a temporary suspension ahead of a planned “Palestine Liberation Week.”

George Washington University
Professors Gate on the George Washington University campus in Washington, D.C. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

George Washington University has banned the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine until May 2026 for hosting “unapproved events,” reported the student newspaper, The GW Hatchet.

The suspension forces SJP to cease activities on and off campus until May 18, 2026, and not to associate with GW in “any capacity.” Members are allowed to meet only to complete sanctions, including serving disciplinary probation, or talk with their academic advisor.

The decision came after SJP was issued a temporary suspension ahead of a planned “Palestine Liberation Week” for allegedly blocking university officials from attending programming, the Hatchet reported.

In 2023, SJP was issued a three-month suspension after projecting anti-Israel messages on the school’s library, including “Glory to our Martyrs,” less than one month after the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

SJP also took part in the university’s pro-Palestinian tent encampment in 2024 and was subsequently placed on probation by the university.
During one of the protests, more than 100 demonstrators chanted, “Hitler, Hitler, go back home, Palestine is ours alone.”

“It’s yet another example of the Wikipedia editors’ anti-Israel bias,” Alyza Lewin of the Combat Antisemitism Movement told JNS.
Israeli troops carried out several counterterror operations during the holiday, confiscating weapons, drones and other military equipment.
“The charging documents help show how social media applications have lowered the bar to facilitate money and support to Hamas,” Seamus Hughes, a University of Nebraska terrorism expert, told JNS.
In her ruling, Katharine Hayden wrote that the alleged victims may have interfered with one of the defendant’s right to protest.