Dear Students,
I am a middle-aged college professor now, but I was an undergraduate like you once, and passionately involved in student activism. In my day there were two issues that moved us most to action: the campaigns to divest from South Africa and to oppose the US government’s sponsorship of the Nicaraguan “Contras.” I participated in both, and in one protest during my freshman year was arrested for sitting in at the office of the Governor of Rhode Island (who had ordered a contingent of the Rhode Island Air National Guard to Honduras, to participate in military exercises widely perceived as an act of intimidation against the Nicaraguan government).
I respect your passion, and I sympathize with your cause. Like you I feel that there should be a cease fire in Gaza. I understand and admire your efforts to put pressure on those in power to achieve that goal.
Much of what I see in your movement, however, distresses me. The rhetoric being used by some of the leaders of your movement is offensive (for example, “Burn Tel Aviv to the ground,” a chant that I saw on video being intoned by a crowd of students outside of the gate to Columbia University). But if the problem were purely rhetorical, I would not be so concerned.
There are substantive complexities of the situation for which your movement as a whole is not, to the extent that I can see, accounting. The fight for divestment in South Africa and against “Contra Aid,” respectively, put my generation of activists at least tacitly on the side of the African National Congress and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. This was a moral choice that we made with open eyes. Both the ANC and the Sandinistas had engaged in political violence, but neither group, from the perspective of their international supporters, had forfeited the authority to advocate for the people of South Africa and Nicaragua against those who oppressed them.
The same cannot be said about Hamas. The atrocities of 10/7 involved a level of nihilistic cruelty and gratuitously obscene violence that cannot be justified by any appeal to the rights or interests of “the people.” Hamas are among the worst kinds of criminals: those who justify their obscenities in the name of God. The people of Gaza themselves know this. In surveys only 38% of Gazans express support for the continued leadership of Hamas when this war finally ends. It is truly remarkable, given all the Gazans have suffered, that Hamas enjoys less support in Gaza than either major political party does here in the US.
These facts are crucial for you to consider, because your movement has no hopes of making a positive impact if you are in any way “pro-Hamas.” This does not operate as a matter of perception…I am not asking you to consider what politicians or university administrators or even the general public “thinks” of you. Hamas is at the root of the problem that you are confronting. The people of Gaza need to be free of Hamas as much or more than the citizens of Israel do. Unless your movement is as much “anti-Hamas” as it is “pro-cease fire” or “anti-Netanyahu government (a conviction that I share with you most ardently),” your chances of aiding the people of Gaza are very slim.
Another problem I perceive in your movement is the use of the word “Zionist.” It is very common to hear those speaking on behalf of the movement characterize their opponents as “Zionists.” This is a mistake. For example, I am a Zionist, and I am not your opponent. But the problem runs deeper than that.
Much attention is paid to the question of what will happen to the people of Palestine in the wake of this war. That concern is absolutely legitimate, and advocates of a cease fire are right to point out that the lack of any plan for the future of the Palestinian people has delegitimized the campaign being conducted by Israel in Gaza. But such questions apply equally to everyone concerned with this problem. What will happen to the Jews of Israel-Palestine in the wake of this war?
Such a question might seem odd, but it arises naturally from any contention that the opponents of your movement include all “Zionists.” Do you see a future in which the more than seven million Jews who live in Israel-Palestine continue to live there? If so, you are effectively a “Zionist.” There is as much diversity of political opinion among Zionists as one may find among “Democrats” or “Republicans.” Some Zionists have insisted that Jews must have a sovereign state in which they are the majority. But other Zionists (such as Albert Einstein or Henrietta Szold, the founder of Hadassah) have advocated only for a Jewish “homeland” in Israel-Palestine, where Jews would gather in large numbers but in which they would share power equally with the non-Jewish Arabs who would be their co-citizens. Though such Zionists are in the minority in Israel today, they continue to participate in Israeli politics. Thus, any scenario in which Jews remain in their current homes is effectively a “Zionist” future…the only question being “Zionism of which kind?”
This is important because anyone who says that they oppose all Zionists risks being interpreted as advocating for the expulsion of all Jews from Israel-Palestine, which of course would be a form of obscene antisemitism. A movement built on such shaky foundations stands little chance of political success. For your efforts to really bear fruit for the people of Gaza, it is imperative to clarify that you do not support Hamas, and you do not view all Zionists as your opponents.
I am left in an ambivalent position. I have seen counter-protestors waving Israeli flags in opposition to your movement. I cannot join them, because like you I believe that the Netanyahu government has forfeited all legitimacy in their conduct of this war. At the same time, however, I cannot in good conscience come stand with you. Until it is made clear that you stand against Hamas, and do not view all Zionists as your opponents, I cannot add my voice to yours. Instead I offer this letter as my contribution to your cause. I hope, if you read it, that you perceive in it my earnest hope to be of help to your work.
Sincerely,
Andrew Meyer
Professor of History
Brooklyn College
2 comments:
Well said!!
Thanks.
Post a Comment