For the past five or so years, Jewish students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have been silenced and virtually outcast for their support of the State of Israel.
There is surely something deeply amiss when, in order to feel safe, they have to conceal their Jewish identity, simply because they hold certain political convictions.
To be sure, criticism and open discussion should be the life-blood of a vibrant university culture, indeed of democracy itself. But this is possible, and can be considered legitimate, only when done in a genuinely reciprocal manner and all sides can be parties to the conversation. We are witnessing, however, an increasingly intolerant delegitimizing political culture (both on the left and the right) in which the boundaries of what constitutes “acceptable” opinions are being increasingly constricted.
It should not be necessary to state that no student — be they Jewish, Christian or Muslim — should be made to feel marginalized. Surely, this applies especially to academic institutions that pride themselves upon freedom of expression and a culture of civility.
Make no mistake — criticism, when called for, is indeed healthy and necessary in democratic politics. No one is disputing the right to criticize the governmental policies of the State of Israel. The question before us, however, is at what point does this turn into, and serve as a fig leaf for, an anti-Semitism that in the post-Holocaust world we believed was a thing of the past?
We are not even going so far as Martin Luther King Jr. who, some 50 years ago, proclaimed that “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” Not all departures from Zionist positions are based on bad will and racist animosity, but at what point does this turn, this linkage, occur?
Context provides one clue. Political attitudes and statements do not take place in a vacuum. And over the past few years there is no doubt that there has been a palpable rise in overtly threatening anti-Semitic sentiment, a rise that by no means has been limited to college campuses. This sentiment has also, alarmingly, metamorphosed into action.
This is the context, a fraught atmosphere, in which anti-Semitism is becoming increasingly acceptable and, for some, easily translated into virulent anti-Israel attitudes. Israel becomes the easily available vessel into which long-repressed, traditional, anti-Jewish attitudes can be poured.
This applies to the question of double standards. Some consistently portray Israel in demonic, evil terms ignoring its democratic parliamentary system and the increasing integration of its Arab citizens into the life of the country. It is a lie to accuse Israel of engaging in apartheid, racism and ethnic cleansing. It is this special venom, this single-minded animus, this double-standard that masks an anti-Zionism that is no less than an anti-Semitism repackaged.
The best way to address anti-Semitism is to understand it. In order to understand it one needs to be able to define it. Adoption of the complete International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition and examples of anti-Semitism is a critical first step to stopping Jew hatred in its tracks. If the United Nations, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates can do it, so too should any American institution be able to.
All this is taking place in a self-righteous, moralistically indignant “cancel culture’” intent on demonizing and delegitimizing the other. Thankfully, the First Amendment permits free speech, which also permits hateful speech, whether racist or anti-Semitic. The answer to hate speech is more speech, not silencing other viewpoints or excluding individuals because of their race, ethnicity or religion.
Universities properly condemn all forms of injustice and they need to begin to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination, a right of all peoples. No student should feel that there is a conflict between standing up for social and racial justice and compromising their identity; no Jewish student should feel that they should conceal their identity because they feel a connection to the State of Israel (or out of fear abandon that connection).
Both faith and their historical experience have rendered Jews particularly sensitive to discrimination of all kinds. Either when it is explicit or when it is in the form of dog whistles, these exclusionary measures are unacceptable. As Lauren Nesher, a senior at UIUC said: “The answer to anti-Semitic speech is never to do nothing. Just like the answer to racist speech is never to do nothing.”
Aviv Ezra is consul general of Israel to the Midwest.
Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.
