Last month, King’s College London (KCL) drew attention from the press over its decision to revoke student visa sponsorship of a 21-year-old International Relations student, Usama Ghanem, over “pro-Palestine” activity. Activists and public figures, including Jeremy Corbyn and Greta Thunberg, quickly condemned the decision, claiming Ghanem was being targeted solely for “pro-Palestine” activity. Corbyn even called the situation “deeply disturbing.” But this narrative is profoundly misleading.
Disrupting academic events, confronting speakers, intimidating Jewish students, and taking part in unauthorised overnight occupations do not advance the cause of Palestinians. Instead, such actions undermine the academic environment and damage the reputation of one of London’s leading universities.
It reduces several violations of university regulations and disciplinary cases to a political slogan and misrepresents how British universities handle disciplinary matters. As affirmed by KCL, no student loses their visa for expressing a political view or engaging in lawful protest. What does trigger university intervention are behavioural breaches and clear violations of university policy.
Ghanem’s suspension was not the result of political expression but followed a series of clear and documented breaches of King’s College London regulations. In June 2024, he joined the pro-Palestinian encampment on the Strand Campus, erecting tents in direct violation of university policy, which prohibits overnight sit-ins and encampments on university grounds. On 11 June 2024, he then forced entry into the King’s Alumni Awards ceremony, disrupting the event while demanding that the university sever ties with Israel. A formal disciplinary process was initiated after this incident.
Despite that ongoing process, Ghanem later participated in the disruption of a campus event in February 2025, a discussion intended to foster dialogue between Iranians and Israelis. The talk featured guest speaker Faezah Alavi, a Muslim Iranian woman speaking about life under the Iranian regime. Twenty minutes into the talk, protesters stormed the room, chanting “Shame!” and “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,” ultimately shutting down the event and forcing both Alavi and the event chair to be escorted out by security. I witnessed what went from heckles to blatant harassment that day. Protestors didn’t stop, they continued until every last person had left the room.
The chanting was endless, leaving the Jewish event chair to seek refuge in a university chaplaincy room. As the incident gained traction on social media and the concerns of Jewish students at King’s grew, British charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) wrote to King’s College London’s vice chancellor and President Shitji Kapur, describing the behavior of the protestors as “antisemitic”, demanding the university take concrete action to ensure a “safe and inclusive environment” for its Jewish students. The university swiftly opened an investigation.
Just months later, as King’s was still investigating Usama’s actions, he joined a large protest against the London Defence Conference (LDC) being held on KCL’s Strand Campus in May 2025. As leaders, such as Keir Starmer, announced an increase in defence spending, masked anti-Israel protestors occupied and blocked entrances. Despite numerous warnings, the protestors refused to leave, shouting at each individual entering the building. As police and security arrived, the protest turned violent. When security attempted to move the protest, Usama allegedly assaulted one of the KCL security guards. This incident led to Usama undergoing a third disciplinary hearing for, once again, breaching institutional rules on protest.
Ultimately, after concluding their three-month-long investigation, KCL decided to indefinitely suspend Usama, therefore, ending the sponsorship of his student visa.
Even after his suspension from King’s, Ghanem continued escalating his activism beyond the KCL campus. He helped lead a campaign calling for the removal of Michael Ben-Gad, an Israeli economics professor at City St George’s, University of London, targeting him largely because he had completed mandatory service in the Israeli Defence Forces over four decades ago. During one of the professor’s lectures, Ghanem invaded the classroom while wearing a keffiyeh and chanting slogans, disrupting the session and leaving students and staff visibly unsettled. One of the students even threatened to behead the professor, calling him a war criminal and a Nazi.
Days away from his court date where he is expected to be deported, Usama continued to show no regard for university regulations and the law. He has taken advantage of his suspension by escalating his protests and terrorising more students and staff. Ironically, during this incident, masked anti-Israel protestors intimidated Professor Ben-Gad, calling him a “terrorist” and a “criminal,” despite external protestors conducting an unlawful and unpeaceful protest.
For weeks, various media outlets have promoted a narrative portraying Usama’s suspension as an act of political repression. The story has been distorted, reduced to a simplistic claim that King’s targeted him for expressing pro-Palestinian views. King’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) asserted that he was “silenced for speaking out,” while Usama himself described the university’s actions as “Trumpian-style repression.”
In reality, Usama repeatedly refused to take responsibility for a pattern of behaviour that violated multiple university regulations and, in every instance, went far beyond what any institution could reasonably classify as protected activism.
Across the span of a year, Usama faced three separate disciplinary hearings. Each time, he was given due process under King’s College London’s formal procedures. Yet he continued to escalate, engaging in conduct that the university found incompatible with its rules, its duty of care toward students, and its responsibility to maintain a safe campus. His indefinite suspension, and the immigration consequences that followed, were not the product of “Trumpian-style repression,” as he claims, but the direct result of KCL policy operating in conjunction with standard UK visa regulations.
