Enough Sympathy: Stop Antisemitism
PRESIDENT Biden’s State of the Union notably ignored America’s tidal wave of antisemitism and the May 2023 launch of the first-ever National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism. Doing so would’ve forced an acknowledgment that that strategy’s been utterly ineffective. More recent responses have also failed. It’s high time for meaningful action against this scourge.
We don’t need more hearings on campus antisemitism or expressions of admiration for the “courage” of Jewish students who’ve not gone into hiding. We don’t need more statements of sympathy for a Jewish community stunned by the unchecked hatred and violence directed toward it.
We need effective responses. We need this hatred and violence to stop.
People often ask what makes the current situation different from Germany in 1933 or 1938? Shouldn’t we recognize the ominous signs of where things appear to be headed?
We do worry, but we also note a significant difference. In Germany, the authorities were the problem, whereas in the United States today we’re blessed with government and law enforcement who share our horror. But that horror will only be meaningful if it translates into an effective response.
It is time — now — for the government, specifically the departments of Justice and Education, to clarify the rights and obligations of university administrators and law enforcement to contain the violent antisemitic incitement masquerading as political speech, beginning with the rallies.
Jews across the country are confronted regularly with mass chants and public gatherings calling for “globalizing the intifada” and other thinly veiled threats of violent actions against Jews, against them.
These events are especially disturbing on campuses, where both the public and those affiliated with the university participate. Students watch faculty and fellow students celebrate and express support for the murderous attacks of Hamas, a US-designated terrorist group that proudly declares its genocidal intent to kill Jews. Hamas supporters and opponents of Israel chant phrases including “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free.”
While some may claim this is a legitimate call for political independence for the Palestinians or even for the end of Israel, this phrase, in the context of the protesters’ express support for Hamas, is nothing short of a call for Jewish genocide.
Law enforcement and campus administrators rarely intervene. Every day since Oct. 7, menacing anti-Israel protesters confidently do and say as they wish knowing there will be no police intervention until they physically attack someone.
The FBI has acknowledged with a resigned shrug that it operationally treats this speech as protected, while, thanks to increased scrutiny of police and their handling of public protest, law enforcement is effectively powerless to go beyond attempting to convince rallying crowds to avoid violence.
No doubt, there are critical challenges to both laying down and enforcing the law on public protest. Free speech is a core American value we share. But the status quo is not viable. Meeting these violently antisemitic movements with silence or toothless statements threatens not only the Jewish community but America’s future.
To stop the hate, the Justice and Education departments must issue guidance that: 1) defines the limits of free speech in the public square and on campus, 2) provides clarification on the rights and responsibilities to enforce those limits and 3) provides effective tools of enforcement and support for their use.
Anti-war protests are legitimate free speech. Opposition to the Gaza war is not per se antisemitism. Whatever one’s opinion of the war, the images of civilians harmed are horrific to all, and no one should be forbidden to peacefully protest them.
But there’s no place for the encouragement of murder. There is also no place for speech that includes intimidation and incitement of immediate violence.
Yet the ongoing rallies, often including masked protesters and menacing slogans, have prompted those visibly identified with Israel or the Jewish people to be fearful for their physical safety.
Such speech is not protected anywhere, especially on campuses. Addressing the situation at universities is both more essential and more limited than in the larger public square. Places of learning must be open markets for the exchange of ideas, but universities have both the right and responsibility to limit hateful speech and behavior.
Academic freedom is harmed by words and deeds that intimidate, silence debate and make those attacked feel unwelcome.
In addition, the Civil Rights Act stipulates that educational institutions that receive federal funding (almost all universities) must provide students an environment free from discrimination based on race, color or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. What is allowed on the street may not be allowed on campus.
On Dec. 5, the world watched in shock as the presidents of America’s leading universities testified before Congress, exhibiting cluelessness about their obligations and rights and the principles governing inciteful speech on campus and equivocating over whether calls for genocide of the Jews violate their school’s codes of conduct, their Title VI obligations or the boundaries of legitimate free speech. They remain clueless today, three months later.
It is time for more than sympathy. What will determine the difference between Germany 1933 and America in 2024 is not good intentions, but an effective response.