BY JOE LOCKARD
I am not a stranger to protests on behalf of the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination. I have attended numerous protests in Israel and the occupied territories, including the 1983 Peace Now rally where a far-right murderer threw a hand grenade that killed the Israeli teacher and activist Emil Grunzweig.
At the end of the 1970s, I was with a small group of Israeli peace activists who, stopped en route by police to prevent us from attending an event in Hebron, sat down on the highway. That protest gave rise to an impromptu, hugely noisy sympathy demonstration by as many as one thousand Palestinian workers. Workers descended from a long line of buses carrying them home in the late afternoon, surrounded us, and prevented police from clearing us off the road.
During the three hours we sat there, traffic backed up for tens of kilometers toward Jerusalem in the north. Palestinians gave speeches, and one of our group, a reserve Israel Defense Forces officer nicknamed Musa, read a statement in Arabic into a bullhorn. A truck driver unloaded crates of large, sweet, dark Hebron grapes as a gift for the crowd to enjoy. Well after dark, the demonstration ended by general consent amid cheers as people returned to their vehicles.
That protest expressed Israeli-Palestinian amity and mutuality, the opposite of the encampments we have watched wax and wane on US campuses. It is deeply wishful thinking to assert that college and university encampments are “purposeful spaces of collective effort and inquiry,” as Rachel Ida Buff claimed in her May 17 Academe Blog post. These are not educational idylls that make better “people’s universities” than universities themselves. The encampments are spaces of unacceptable demands, threats, and ideologically bordered enclosure, not the shared goodwill I witnessed between Israelis and Palestinians on the road to Hebron.
At Arizona State University, where I teach, the encampment in late April comprised a few tents on the Old Main lawn. Administrators moved quickly within one day to end the encampment after repeated warnings that arrests would be made if people did not move. Of seventy-two people arrested for trespassing, only fifteen were affiliated with the university. Students received suspensions and campus bans, causing a few to miss final exams and not graduate. Free speech is not to be confused with a free campground.
Calls for the elimination of the Jewish homeland, Israel, or the deprivation of an equal Palestinian right to self-determination are equally abominable. It is exactly this eliminationism that gained voice at our university and many others where protesters chanted, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” There are frequent defenses that this slogan refers to civic equality. That is neither factual nor truthful. Hamas states openly in both its original and amended charters that liberating Palestine “from the river to the sea” would entail the liquidation of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state. The October 7 pogrom should leave no doubt that this means the liquidation of Jews together with the state.
When a crowd on a US campus begins chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” they are repeating words endorsed by Hamas and the death threat embodied in them. For anyone aware of and sensitive to the history of massacres threatened and enacted against the Jewish people, this chant is the functional equivalent of the Nazi salute, “Seig heil!” Encampments have lent both indirect and direct political support to the theo-fascist movement that is Hamas.
The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement—in which all the encampments participate—is no less problematic. With a history of over a millennium, boycotts and sanctions against Jews and Jewish communities are perhaps the oldest form of organized racism in the western world. BDS, today’s version of this ancient and much repeated call to separate and isolate Jews, requires a rejection or renunciation of Jewish self-determination. It demands a boycott until the “occupation and colonization of all Arab lands” ends—that is, until Israel no longer exists. BDS organizer Omar Barghouti has stated repeatedly that the “decolonization” process that the boycott represents can end only in the elimination of Israel. Despite the presence in the encampments of a few Jewish students, who attempt to provide a veneer of Jewish approval, Jewish communities throughout the United States overwhelmingly and emphatically reject BDS calls as antisemitism.
The antisemitism that has flourished in campus encampments has spread throughout the US educational system. A schoolmate in Arizona called my sixth-grade daughter a “Zionist terrorist”; her best friend in Massachusetts got labeled a “Zionist baby killer”; and Jewish children in Maryland report numerous hate incidents. Schoolchildren learn epithets from social examples in online media. Rhetoric from the encampments and their signage have flooded the media and provided models of how to insult Jews rather than work for mutual respect and empathy.
Colleges and universities achieve their best when we encourage open dialogue, when we seek justice for all, and when we serve peace rather than war. Sitting on the highway to Hebron, we found solidarity and shared protest by Israelis and Palestinians, much like that found recently in this year’s Joint Israeli-Palestinian Memorial Ceremony. Such mutuality lies beyond the blinkered rejectionism of US campus encampments.
Joe Lockard is associate professor of English at Arizona State University. He is a binational citizen of Israel and the United States.
Longstanding hatred, conspiracy theorists etc will of course appear & destabilize some protests – as they do most protests whether antiJewish or not. That students support the 1967 boundaries shouldn’t surprise anyone. That many Israelis do not want this issue raised, & continue to ignore harsher & harsher conditions they’ve been imposing on Palestinians who want their homeland back, and would compromise to get even some of it back, is not going to deter most protestors. Or their supporters.
“That students support the 1967 boundaries shouldn’t surprise anyone.”
It may not surprise anyone, but it is still shocking. It shows an incredible need for education. Those students would be well-advised to research just how many countries – in the history of mankind – returned land that was captured in a “defensive war.”
1967 was a war of aggression and confirmed as such by Menachem Begin in 1982. The article itself is pure hasbara.
Paul Catterson
The events leading up to the 1967 War belie your simplistic assertion.
When somebody threatens your livelihood, points a gun at you, and says he is going to kill you, you don’t have to wait for him to pull the trigger. You can preemptively act. Doing so is called self-defense.
Gamal Abdel Nasser, May 26, 1967: “The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.”
I find the moralizing of this essay both baffling and bizarre. Smearing people for chanting a slogan because some terrible people have also said it is an awful argument. If some white supremacist waves the American flag, does that mean anyone who displays the flag is guilty of white supremacy? Students camping on the quad are evil and deserve to be suspended, we are told, but the author blocking a highway is a glorious and noble adventure. I cannot comprehend anyone who thinks blocking highways is acceptable behavior but regards camping on campus as a terrible crime requiring repression.
Very incisively put. Thank you, John.
The comment is not too incisive. It contains two straw man arguments and one false analogy.
“Smearing people for chanting a slogan because some terrible people have also said it is an awful argument.” John K. Wilson
No it is not.
The meaning of words, phrases, and symbols can and do change over time. The swastika used to be a symbol of prosperity and good fortune. But once Hitler co-opted it, it became a universal symbol of evil.
While the “the river to the sea” expression has been around for years, Khaled Mashal, a former leader of Hamas turned that phrase into a rallying cry for Hamas and its genocidal aims in a 2012 speech.
His speech was unambiguous. It called for the elimination of Israel…from the river to the sea. Moreover, in 2017, the phrase was incorporated into the Hamas Charter.
Since that 2012 speech, to the present day, the distinct meaning of that phrase – as Mashal used it – has not suddenly and magically morphed into a principled call for “equal rights and dignity.”
It is breathtakingly naïve to think – given its dark history – that the “river to the sea” phrase that is now chanted by frenzied mobs (often along with “global intifada”) has shed the clear meaning that Mashal originally assigned it.
Indeed, no Palestinian leader since Mashal has given a contrasting speech that offered a more benign meaning for the “river to the sea” phrase or – in any way – challenged the malignant meaning that Mashal – so diabolically and perniciously – imprinted on the Palestinian psyche.
Khalied Mashal’s Dec 10, 2012 Speech :
https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/10/transcript-hamas-terror-chief-gaza-speech-video/
Khaled Mashal’s Jan 18, 2024 interview showing no changes:
https://www.memri.org/tv/khaled-mashal-hamas-leader-abroad-reject-two-state-solution-october-seven-prove-liberation-river-sea-realistic
“Smearing people for chanting a slogan because some terrible people have also said it is an awful argument.” John K. Wilson
No it is not.
The meaning of words, phrases, and symbols can and do change over time. The swastika used to be a symbol of prosperity and good fortune. But once Hitler co-opted it, it became a universal symbol of evil.
While the “the river to the sea” expression has been around for years, Khaled Mashal, a former leader of Hamas turned that phrase into a rallying cry for Hamas and its genocidal aims in a 2012 speech.
His speech was unambiguous. It called for the elimination of Israel…from the river to the sea. Moreover, in 2017, the phrase was incorporated into the Hamas Charter.
Since that 2012 speech to the present day, the distinct meaning of that phrase – as Mashal used it – has not suddenly and magically morphed into a principled call for “equal rights and dignity.”
It is breathtakingly naïve to think – given its dark history – that the “river to the sea” phrase that is now chanted by frenzied mobs (often along with “global intifada”) has shed the clear meaning that Mashal assigned it.
Indeed, no Palestinian leader since Mashal has given a contrasting speech that offered a more benign meaning for the “river to the sea” phrase or – in any way – challenged the malignant meaning that Mashal – so diabolically and perniciously – imprinted on the Palestinian psyche.
If Khalel Mashad’s 2012 speech can change the meaning of a phrase, why cannot speeches in 2024 do the same?
Marlon Sherman
In the abstract, the direct answer to your rhetorical question is that they can. However, you need to give context. Exactly what 2024 speeches do you think changed the meaning of what phrase?
The slogan “from the river to the sea,” which shows a commitment to a single state in Israel/Palestine, also comes in a Zionist version: “Between the sea and the [river] Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” This language comes from a 1977 manifesto of Israel’s Likud party and represents the position of Israel’s current government. The slogan “from the river to the sea” thus rejects a two-state solution but is consistent with at least three single-state solutions: (a) the single state is a Jewish state; (b) the single state is a Palestinian state; or (c) the single state is a constitutional democracy that recognizes the equal rights of all regardless of ancestry, ethnicity, or religion.
Protestors have a right to support or oppose any of these options and to use whatever slogans they believe best express their views. But the issues of Israel and Palestine cannot be resolved by shouting slogans at each other, nor can they be resolved by censoring or punishing slogans or viewpoints we deem objectionable. In academic contexts, both faculty and students should be free to express their views but can be expected to clarify and justify those views, attend to relevant evidence, and engage in civil argumentation. Universities should respect freedom of expression but they should also encourage research and teaching about these issues in contexts of academic freedom.
Professor Moshman,
It is a given that the “river to the sea” expression has a history that technically can lend itself to different interpretations depending upon the speaker using it, as you note.
However, the mere fact that, in the universe of possibilities, there is a different interpretation of the expression “river to sea” than the one Khaled Mashal gave it, does not negate the overriding fact that Mashal’s evil version is the most commonly accepted one; nor does the existence of a different interpretation permit – after the fact – the illusory conversion of a manifest chant calling for genocide into an anodyne catch phrase.
Efforts to do so, by non-radical and well-meaning Palestinian supporters simply fall flat and are disingenuous.
Your point that “Protestors have a right to support or oppose any of these options and to use whatever slogans they believe best express their views.” is true – as a general principle – in the abstract.
However, when context is added – as in this discussion – it becomes clear that this rule has exceptions. Notably, if a protestor chooses to use the “river to sea” expression with its well-acknowledged meaning (eradicating Israel) on a college campus, then, as you well know, issues of harassment, bullying, and hostile environment present themselves in direct contravention of a school’s code of conduct.
Thanks, Bob. For anyone interested in these issues, take a look at the recent “Dear Colleagues” letter from the U. S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, which provides guidelines on matters at the intersection of civil rights (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and free speech (First Amendment law) with a focus on current issues of Israel, Palestine, and charges of antisemitism. The letter seems to me admirably clear that civil rights law can and must be enforced in a manner consistent with full respect for First Amendment rights, and provides many interesting examples of how this plays out with respect to these current issues.
The letter begins as follows:
“I write to share information about federal civil rights obligations of schools and other recipients of federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to ensure nondiscrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations (Title VI). These protections extend to students and school community members who are or are perceived because of their shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, Sikh, South Asian, Hindu, Palestinian, or any other faith or ancestry. This guidance responds to recent increases in complaints filed with the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) alleging discrimination on these bases in schools serving students in preschool through grade 12 and colleges and universities, and public reports of such discrimination. To be clear, Title VI’s protections against discrimination based on race, color, and national origin encompass antisemitism and other forms of discrimination when based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR vigorously enforces these protections.”
The letter includes the following section on First Amendment considerations (citations omitted):
“Nothing in Title VI or regulations implementing it requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. OCR enforces the laws within our jurisdiction consistent with the First Amendment.
“The fact that harassment may involve conduct that includes speech in a public setting or speech that is also motivated by political or religious beliefs, however, does not relieve a school of its obligation to respond under Title VI as described below, if the harassment creates a hostile environment in school for a student or students.
“Schools have a number of tools for responding to a hostile environment—including tools that do not restrict any rights protected by the First Amendment. To meet its obligation, a university can, among other steps, communicate its opposition to stereotypical, derogatory opinions; provide counseling and support for students affected by harassment; or take steps to establish a welcoming and respectful school campus, which could include making clear that the school values, and is determined to fully include in the campus community, students of all races, colors, and national origins. OCR does not interpret Title VI to require any recipient to abridge any rights protected under the First Amendment. For instance, if students at a public university engage in offensive speech about members of a particular ethnic group and that speech contributes to a hostile environment within an education program about which the university knows or should know, the university has a legal obligation to address that hostile environment for students in school. The university may, however, be constrained or limited in how it responds if speech is involved.
“The age of the students involved and the location or forum may affect how a school can respond in a manner consistent with the First Amendment. Students of all ages have free speech rights, but courts have afforded greater flexibility to elementary and secondary school administrators as they work to ensure an appropriate learning environment considering a child’s age and maturity. Public elementary and secondary schools have more leeway to regulate student speech, for example, if it could substantially disrupt or interfere with the work of the school or other students’ rights, is lewd or indecent, or is school-sponsored speech.”
For the full letter, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/colleague-202405-shared-ancestry.pdf
Professor Moshman,
Thank you for your comments and for linking the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) letter. Their take on how and when they might enforce Title VI is interesting and informative.
Of course, the OCR goes to great length to qualify the letter’s purpose. They specifically note that the guidance they offer “[Does not] have the force and effect of law and…[does not] bind the public or create new legal standards.”
Additionally, the letter wants the public to know that Title VI does not require schools to restrict First Amendment rights. Indeed, the letter even offers “options” for dealing with troubling speech that does not offend the First Amendment.
All in all, the guidance offered seems to walk a tightrope and comes off as a bit wishy-washy and bland.
So the hard question for schools remains: When, if speech is involved, can a school discipline a student for creating a hostile environment and not run afoul of the student’s First Amendment rights?
Given the unclear application of Title VI and the questionable support from the OCR enforcers, a school might have a better chance of overcoming a student’s First Amendment defense by simply arguing that the student’s speech created an “unsafe” and hostile environment in clear violation of its code of conduct.
See comments on Marjotie Heins article
https://academeblog.org/2024/01/10/what-those-college-presidents-should-have-said/#comment-18983
Thanks again, Bob. What I like about the OCR letter is its guiding assumption that colleges must act in accord with both civil rights law and First Amendment law rather than choosing between these in cases where they seem in conflict. But I agree the letter leaves much unsettled.
I’m ambivalent about colleges applying their student codes of conduct. On one hand, if a college has a policy and practice of censoring or punishing speech that is deemed racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise hateful, offensive, or upsetting to various groups, it must similarly censor or punish speech deemed anti-Semitic. On the other hand, viewpoint-based restrictions such as these, which are very common in student codes (as has been documented for years by FIRE), violate norms of intellectual freedom and, in many cases, First Amendment law.
The First Amendment protects all points of view but permits viewpoint-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression, including rules against targeted harassment, incitement of violence, and true threats. A “frenzied mob” (to take your example) creates a dangerous environment regardless of what it is shouting, so regulating this is a viewpoint-neutral restriction and does not violate the First Amendment. I think First Amendment law provides good guidance in formulating a justifiable student code of conduct that can be applied equally to all, but the devil is in the details.
John K. Wilson: “Smearing people for chanting a slogan because some terrible people have also said it is an awful argument.”
I was unhappy when Donald Trump adopted “America First” as a slogan, because of its earlier use by “some terrible people.” I feel the same way about “states’ rights.” Some Confederate flag wavers argue that it only symbolizes Southern heritage, but I still don’t want to see it flying all across university campuses, no matter what its enthusiasts claim.
In other words, the past use of a slogan or symbol by “terrible people” is an excellent reason to criticize it today. Rationalizations aside, the students who display “River to the Sea/Palestine will be free” banners know exactly how it is received by Israelis and most Jews, but they use it anyhow.
As to the Zionist version, I would strongly object to hearing that chanted for hours on campus, precisely because it is the slogan of terrible people. Fortunately, that isn’t happening.