The conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas has led to bitter debates on a number of American college campuses. Although there have been no fatalities associated with these debates, individuals on both sides claim they have received death threats and perceive themselves to be in mortal danger. How the conflict shapes the debate beyond the campuses, however, can have serious consequences for America’s capacity to influence policy in the Middle East.
That college campuses are the site of intense feelings regarding a major dispute related to US foreign policy is not surprising. Students at our country’s colleges and universities should always pay close attention to events that likely will shape their future.
When the Vietnam War was causing turmoil on America’s college campuses in the mid-sixties, my own academic career began. For many students at the time the stakes were starkly clear since the military draft was still in effect. Other students, including some who were veterans of the conflict, believed expressing opposition to war was unpatriotic.
Throughout the sixties and into the seventies, colleges and universities struggled to provide a safe environment for free and open discussion about the consequences of the Vietnam conflict for both the country and individual Americans. In my own classes there were often “teach-in” sessions during which students on all sides of the issue shared views of the war and its impact.
Some of the Vietnam protests turned violent, but generally that was the result of authorities using excessive force to contain unruly demonstrators---the 1968 Democratic Presidential Convention and the Kent State tragedy in 1970. Thus far, nothing like these events has occurred in the current situation.
There are, however, some disturbing aspects of the existing standoff.
First of all, there seems to be a concerted effort to frame the differences in absolute terms. Some pro-Palestinian groups blame Israel for the horrific Hamas terrorism on October 7, while pro-Israeli supporters argue that Hamas terrorism justifies any and all forms of retaliation against all residents of Gaza. The tendency to view any criticism of Israeli government policies as “anti-Semitic” does not bode well for sensible consideration of Palestinian grievances, real or imagined.
Another disturbing factor is the easy manner in which some “adults” have dismissed the First Amendment rights of those who express views that oppose their own. Certainly, some of the views expressed by students have been intemperate, sometime outrageous, but these are student groups with minimal power to implement policy or action. Verbally bludgeoning or doxxing individuals under such circumstances is hardly likely to persuade them of their “error.”
It is particularly inappropriate for individuals to try to use their donor status to dictate student opinions or the tenure of college administrators. In no way does this enhance an institution’s environment for healthy discussion, but it does feed the view that our society has become a plutocracy where only wealth counts. There are also legal questions. Tax deductible contributions are gifts for which nothing is received in return. Perhaps it is time for Congress to take a serious look at how wealthy donors use their contributions to influence what is taught at our nation’s educational institutions and in whose interest they are governed.
Finally, there appears to be a general misunderstanding about the use of “terrorism” in political affairs. “Terrorism” is not a new phenomenon. It is essential a weapon of the weak. Those who employ “terrorism” do so because they are not capable of challenging their opponents directly. The terrorists hope that surprise and brutality will spark fear and insecurity among their enemies or will provoke a disproportionate response that undermines the credibility of their opponents.
This explanation is not meant to be a defense of “terrorism,” and certainly, the Hamas attacks on October 7, deserve the strongest condemnation. They were unjustified and inhumane as well as unlawful, but the response must be proportionate and reasonable, not unhinged, indiscriminate violence.
The Biden administration’s approach to the current crisis does appear to reflect a basic understanding of the goal of the Hamas terrorists. It is also consistent with America’s support for Israel and its security from that country’s very beginning. The Israeli government so far, however, has shown little appreciation for the pitfalls it faces. For nearly two decades now, American attempts to promote some kind of peaceful resolution to the conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians have failed. That cannot continue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/nyregion/college-protest-israel-palestine.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/02/nyregion/cuny-law-speech-mohammed.html