Endorsing Hamas violence isn’t just anti-Israel, it’s antisemitic
No reasonable person can adopt that position, which draws on the same impulses as Holocaust trivialization.
One of the more troubling aspects of the reaction by some Americans to Hamas’ terrorism in Israel are videos of young people parading through the streets of New York, San Francisco, and other cities chanting “resistance is justified” and “globalize the intifada.”
This response isn’t just anti-Israel, it’s antisemitic.
This is not merely an expression of a political view about the complex Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, Chicago’s Black Lives Matter chapter proudly promoted the image of a Hamas terrorist paratrooper on social media, accompanied by a message that they “stand with Palestine.”
In the moment, the BLM chapter was celebrating terrorism committed against Jews. The same is true of white supremacist organizations that have supported Hamas’ barbarism. “Come on guys, it’s time to dance! Get those Jews!” cheered one of those bigots.
College campuses have seen a goodly share of antisemitism — even though episodes of bias at universities may be more informed by politics than Jew-hatred.
A coalition of 35 Harvard University student groups signed a letter that declared, “[Israel’s] apartheid regime is the only one to blame.” These sorts of statements purposefully avoid mention of terrorism, and instead assign all guilt to Israel.
Despite the gruesome video evidence to the contrary, these statements perpetuate Hamas’ narrative, namely, that Israel’s military response to the terrorist attacks are “massacres committed by the Zionist forces against our people in cold blood.”
No reasonable person, we submit, can adopt that position. Social media, horrifyingly, testifies to the brutality of the violence perpetrated by Hamas — any claims otherwise draw on the same impulses as Holocaust trivialization.
Sometimes, reactions are more insensitive than antisemitic, driven by a deeply held political sentiment. We fear, however, that insensitivity enflames bona fide antisemitism.
Take, for instance, the recent statement by Trinity College president Joanne Berger-Sweeney, with the subject line “Conflict in the Middle East” emailed to the college community and alumni.
Her letter makes no mention of Hamas or terrorism by name, and therefore can’t censure it. Instead, Berger-Sweeney wrote, “[W]e especially grieve the loss of life and the destruction of families and homes as the violence persists.”
Her statement equates the actions of a nation forced to respond to the mass murder of its citizens with a terrorist organization that seeks the genocide of the Jewish people.
The mass murder of Jews on Oct. 7 was not merely another chapter in a cycle of violence across the Middle East.
The mass murder of Jews on Oct. 7 was not merely another chapter in a cycle of violence across the Middle East. The recent terrorist campaign doesn’t warrant immediate politicized examination. Such responses aren’t just tepid, they’re callous, arrested by the perceived political context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It’s sometimes very hard to reverse course and check politics at the door — but it does happen.
Consider the about-face of the Association for Jewish Studies, a learned society of Jews and non-Jews who teach and write about Jewish subjects.
In its initial statement, the AJS expressed “deep sorrow for the loss of life and destruction caused by the horrific violence in Israel over the weekend.” Members were quick to protest the omission of those who caused the “loss of life.”
A day later, the AJS executive committee thought better of it, admitting to its members that the earlier iteration was “inadequate” and issuing a new statement that “unequivocally condemn[ed] Hamas for killing and kidnapping hundreds in Israel, targeting civilians, and perpetrating horrific atrocities.”
Likewise, Harvard president Claudine Gay took some time, to the chagrin of some, before she denounced Hamas. Then after that, amid pressure from alumni, reissued a statement that rebuked Harvard’s student leaders for piling the blame on Israel rather than Hamas. (A handful of Harvard student groups also withdrew their support of the statement blaming Israel in response to the backlash.)
Happily, the prevailing position of heads of state has separated politics from terrorism. The best example is President Joe Biden, someone whose politics are not in concert with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet Biden’s position was unequivocal: Hamas’ attack was “an act of sheer evil.” The leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and others, no matter the preexisting political context, expressed categorical condemnation of the terrorists.
The situation isn’t over. As a historian and a political scientist, we recognize that there will be a time, later on, to assess the historical antecedents of current events and the political impact on the future of the Middle East.
Now, however, with tears and prayers, we mourn the thousands of deaths brought about by Hamas terrorism and hope for peace in short order.
Zev Eleff is president of Gratz College and Ayal Feinberg is director of the college’s Center for Holocaust Studies and Human Rights. The college, in Melrose Park, is the oldest independent Jewish college in North America.