The NYPD’s raid at Columbia may have ended, but the antisemitic disgrace is far from over.

While the NYPD was finally given permission to take action at Columbia University, it would be a mistake to think the shameful incident is over.

The pro-Hamas individuals, complacent faculty, and treacherous administrators are still vying for control.

With graduation still two weeks away, it’s premature to declare a winner.

Starting with the radical students. They established a camp in the middle of the renowned quad and day after day, chanted slogans indicative of support for terrorists.

They targeted Jewish students, and their desire to eradicate Israel signifies the revival of an ancient hatred in a city that historically provided refuge for Jews.

What are the students reading in their rank tents – “Mein Kampf”?

Meanwhile, their demands to cease the rebellion are unlikely to shift despite the numerous arrests on Tuesday night.

Foremost among them is for the Ivy League school to divest from military suppliers and tech companies doing business with Israel’s government.

End of Amnesty

Coming from a group named Apartheid Divest, this demand, along with the students glorifying terrorists who mutilate infants and use rape as a weapon, undoubtedly confirms the activists’ severe antisemitism.

It also points to their lack of intelligence. Most of them probably own Apple products, some containing components made in Israel.

Shh – don’t inform them.

Reflecting their collective ignorance, one of the pawns stated earlier Tuesday, “We will not cease until all our demands are met, until every inch of Palestine is free.” Free in this context means devoid of Jews.

He, or his parents, should receive a refund for the tuition because he has gained no valuable lessons and is unaware of the deep-seated hatred within him.

However, one demand the troublemakers were making appears obsolete now: amnesty.

The mass arrests likely eliminated that option for many, especially those illegally barricaded in Hamilton Hall.

It was a cowardly demand from the start. These insufferable rebels without a valid cause believed they should face no repercussions for breaking college regulations and violating the rights of their peers, all while actively advocating the destruction of the Jewish state.

Consider this. They are advocating genocide, thus being guilty of the very crime they accuse Israel of committing, while denying others their right to education and physical safety.

Yet, they see no wrongdoing in their actions!

This blend of ignorance and arrogance provides sufficient grounds to expel them.

And don’t overlook the faculty members who fuelled this chaos. The indoctrination of students in a cesspool of hatred towards Israel has been part of Columbia for decades, and these supposed scholars added to their complicity by encircling the tent camp as if shielding it from the police.

They delighted in showcasing for the cameras, thus providing overwhelming self-incriminating evidence against them. Truly tenured radicals.

With all these documented facts in hand, Columbia should find it easy to view the student demands as absurd and dismiss them.

The defiance of campus regulations must be penalized, with suspensions for some and expulsions for the most severe offenders.

Faculty members who aided and abetted the lawlessness must also face consequences.

Appeal to AG Bragg

Anyone of any rank found to have broken criminal laws, including the thugs arrested for smashing windows to occupy Hamilton Hall illegally, should face the fullest extent of prosecution.

Calling Alvin Bragg. The case against the Columbia offenders is stronger and more legitimate than the political charade the Manhattan DA is conducting against Donald Trump.

Let’s see if Bragg can step away from his election meddling investigation to perform his elected duties.

As for Columbia’s leaders, their belated request for police intervention ends a period of shameful indecision. Instead of providing actual security, they shifted all classes online, partly to shield Jewish students from campus harassment and threats.

The president, Minouche Shafik, also got tangled in prolonged negotiations with the troublemakers, indicating a weakness that prolonged the occupation and intensified the violence.

That delay was her most egregious error and signified a failure to ensure peace and security for all students.

Even though the agitators believe they should sidestep consequences, a national culture supporting this notion cannot excuse Columbia from fulfilling its responsibilities.

On the contrary, it becomes imperative to impose strict penalties as this represents a teachable moment, as the left would say.

The takeaway should be that misconduct carries a price. The more severe the offense, the heavier the cost.

Leniency is not a virtue when it fosters the belief that rules are insignificant. Yet, this attitude pervades New York and the whole of America.

Therefore, Columbia must set a precedent that rules have significance and infractions will have repercussions.

Shafik seemed cognizant of this at the start of the unrest. She provided credible testimony to Congress two weeks ago on combating antisemitism and promptly called in the NYPD to dismantle the tent camp once it was set up.

However, when more students returned with more tents and the faculty criticized her for involving law enforcement, Shafik showed hesitancy. Until Tuesday, she kept the police off-campus waving the white flag.

Governing by Committee

Deadlines for tent removal passed without action, though reports suggest some students have been quietly suspended. Senior students likely won’t graduate.

Since Shafik is in her first year as president, she probably isn’t making decisions unilaterally. Two board members joined her for the congressional testimony, possibly averting a crisis like those that ended the presidencies of Claudine Gay at Harvard and Liz Magill at the University of Pennsylvania.

Following their disgraceful remarks on antisemitism in December, pressure from their boards forced both women to resign.

Shafik was invited to testify with them but cited a scheduling conflict, possibly sparing her from a similar fate.

At least for the time being.

However, she and others at Columbia have created a new problem with their protracted negotiations and collective decision-making. Reaching an agreement was time-consuming, and the counteroffer to invest university funds in Gaza instead of divesting from Israel was nonsensical.

The lengthy talks only underscored the perception that the university was hesitant to enforce its regulations.

Appeasement is the term for this. While mainly linked to international diplomacy, it never proves effective in any setting.

It didn’t halt Hitler, and it won’t stop the Nazi sympathizers on Columbia’s campus.