Havard, Princeton, Yale - "Nerves are on edge": A Harvard professor explains how the Middle East war is dividing elite universities
Professor Risse, posters of kidnapped Israelis are being torn down at American universities, Jewish students are being threatened and attacked. At the same time, there are Islamophobic attacks. These are not isolated incidents, they are happening at universities all over the country. Do you have an explanation?
Nerves are on edge. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that many people can relate to. The Jewish population in the USA makes up less than three percent, but is very present at many universities, including Harvard. We have few Palestinian students here, but many from a wider Arab context. So we have large groups with completely different perspectives on the Middle East conflict. Each side feels that it is not getting enough attention. It is against this background that such attacks occur.
There are many reported cases of anti-Semitism at US universities. Has this always been the case, but has it simply gone unnoticed until now?
I'm still not quite sure myself. We are basically experiencing two things: anti-Semitism and strong criticism of the policies of the state of Israel. Some people become anti-Semitic through their strong criticism of Israel's policies. And at the same time, there is a certain tendency among those who show solidarity with Israel to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. It is good that the events are being reported and discussed. But in my view, it is not yet possible to make a final assessment.
At the rallies for Palestine, you see people with a Palestinian or Arab background, supporters of Black Lives Matter and people from a more left-wing, white milieu. What is the unifying element?
On the one hand, it's about direct solidarity with the Palestinian civilian population, which is experiencing enormous suffering. On the other hand, it is about the colonialism debate. One position on the left is that the existence of the state of Israel is a remnant of the colonial era. This idea goes back to the return immigration of Jews to this part of the Ottoman Empire from the 1880s onwards. It continued with the Balfour Declaration in 1917...
...at that time, Great Britain supported the Zionist movement in its goal of creating a "national home" for the Jewish people.
Yes, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there was more and more Jewish migration to the British Mandate. From the point of view of the people who lived in the area at the time, the arrival of the Jews was an act of colonialism.
Jewish Israelis see it completely differently.
For them, the area is their ancient homeland, from which they were expelled in the second century due to a failed uprising in the Roman Empire. The Jews have always regarded the area as their homeland, to which they have returned. And part of the later immigration to the already existing state of Israel is based on the fact that Jews were expelled from Arab countries. This is not classic colonialism, such as in 1830, when the French conquered Algeria and henceforth regarded it as their territory. Israel is not a colony of Europeans; the country's history is much more complex.
When Israel is referred to as a colonial power at pro-Palestinian demonstrations these days: Is that a legitimate political expression or anti-Semitism?
When someone uses such terms, you can quickly recognize the political context from which it comes. I don't talk like that and I can't do anything with such bold words because the differences to actual colonialism are quite obvious. I would put it like this: The Palestinians live in a dependency on another political group, the Israelis. This dependency has existed for decades and varies greatly depending on the territory. The political situation in the West Bank is different from that in Gaza. Gaza's borders and airspace are controlled by Israel. The United Nations therefore also speaks of an occupation in Gaza, even though Israel withdrew there in 2005. So you can understand why some people talk about colonialism here - but it does more harm than good.
At universities and demonstrations, you often see and hear the phrase "From the River to the Sea - Palestine will be Free". The Israelis see this as a call for the destruction of their state. Are they right?
This slogan is intended to convey certain territorial claims from the Palestinians' point of view. Not everyone who says or writes this sentence has the destruction of Israel in mind. But anyone who adopts such a slogan should not be surprised if they are put in a corner with the worst anti-Semites. I don't think it's particularly wise to use such words to express your own concerns. We fundamentally need a different attitude at universities. You make peace with your enemies, not your friends. We need to be open to other perspectives.
Do we have to tolerate slogans like "From the River to the Sea" as part of freedom of expression?
For around 100 years, there has been a very broad understanding of freedom of speech in the USA. In principle, you can say what you want as long as it doesn't directly incite violence. I can't stand in Harvard Square and say these people there are hateful, I'm not allowed to incite others against them. But you can deny the Holocaust and say things that are factually wrong and also disproven. At universities, the reality of life differs from this understanding of the law. Students have increasingly said in recent years that they want to be protected from offensive words and that there must be safe places, including the campus.
Protection from extreme language is a demand that comes mainly from the left-wing spectrum. Now Jewish students feel threatened, often from the left.
In fact, this demand originally comes more from the left - and it is about the fact that statements from the right-wing spectrum should tend to be restricted. But the other side naturally picks up on this and says: We are also under attack. Jewish groups say we don't feel safe. Palestinians and people with darker skin say the same thing. It is absolutely clear that physical attacks on students should never be tolerated.
"I think the criticism of our president is now completely out of proportion"
How can debates about the Middle East conflict work at universities?
That depends very much on who is in the room. I attended an event with supporters of the Palestinian cause who declared that the return migration of Jews since the 1880s was the great moral evil. I try to talk people out of thinking that way about history. There is no single date on which everything can be pinned down. These are decades of developments that you have to look at as a whole. I also took part in an event where the impression was given that only terrorists live in the Gaza Strip. From time to time there are also events that recognize that two groups lay claim to a region for different reasons.
There is a lot of criticism of the crisis management of the new Harvard President Claudine Gay. How do you perceive this criticism?
I would have liked the University's initial statement to have been different. The attacks on October 7 should have been condemned immediately and unequivocally - without ifs and buts. And at the same time, the moral complexity of the Middle East conflict should have been addressed, because decisions are now being made that will influence world politics for many years or decades to come. Unfortunately, the university did not do this and instead made a deliberately weak statement. And that was a mistake, because from that point onwards, the university has only ever lagged behind.
The conservative camp says that Claudine Gay is too weak, too woke, that she tolerates anti-Semitism.
I think the criticism of our President is now completely out of proportion. She is now being accused of being almost solely responsible for the many cases of anti-Semitism. That is absurd. An incredible amount has happened at universities in recent years: Black Lives Matter and MeToo were big social debates - and now the Middle East. Perhaps that's why rectors are becoming a little too risk-averse. They know that they may have to do damage limitation for a whole week or more.
Gay clearly condemned anti-Semitism in a statement at the beginning of November. She is now being sharply criticized for this in a letter from 100 Harvard employees.
We are experiencing ripples. First, her response to the attacks of 7 October seemed too weak, for which she was criticized. Then she responded unequivocally and was criticized for that too. Rectors are only human and there are fewer and fewer of them who still want to do this job. This development worries me.
What will happen at the universities now? This war could last a while.
We have to see exactly how the situation develops. In principle, it could escalate at any time. We live here from day to day and try to do our best.
Should there be disciplinary proceedings for anti-Semitism?
We have a set of rules for that. Physical violence is unambiguous, such cases must be clearly condemned. Anyone who attacks a fellow student must leave the university. Certain statements could also violate the university rules. But how do you deal with someone who speaks out in favor of Hamas? That would be a difficult procedure in which you would have to prove accusations in detail.
But doing nothing is not an alternative.
No, we insist that people treat each other with respect and accept the opinions of the other side. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. The problems can't be solved overnight. But you don't have to lose hope either.
Read also:
- The Middle East conflict, a topic that divides elite universities in the USA, is a significant issue in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- Anti-Semitic incidents have been reported at numerous American universities, often linked to strong criticism of Israel's policies.
- The Harvard professor mentioned in the article suggests that the colonialism debate plays a role in the Middle East conflict, with some viewing the existence of Israel as a relic of the colonial era.
- The controversial phrase "From the River to the Sea - Palestine will be Free" is used at pro-Palestinian protests, causing tension due to its perceived call for the destruction of Israel.
Source: www.stern.de
