College campuses across the United States are witnessing a surge in anti-Israel protests, with students forming encampments and demanding their schools divest from Israel. What began at Columbia University in New York has spread to campuses nationwide, from Massachusetts to California and Tennessee to Texas. These protests arise amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, which has claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives, leading to international calls for a ceasefire.

While these protests raise awareness about Palestinian suffering, there's a concerning trend of anti-Jewish rhetoric, often expressed with phrases that incite violence or promote discrimination. Criticism of Israeli policies and support for Palestinian rights are legitimate, but rhetoric that targets Jews or encourages violence must be confronted. This article explores the risks of such rhetoric on college campuses and the need for a more balanced approach.

Calls to Intifada: The Shift from Non-Violence to Violence

"Intifada" means "uprising" in Arabic, and it has been used to describe two major Palestinian uprisings against Israeli control. The First Intifada (1987-1993) was largely a non-violent grassroots movement with demonstrations, boycotts, and civil disobedience. Although there were incidents of violence, the overall approach focused on non-violent resistance. The Israeli response, however, was often harsh, involving curfews, arrests, and military force.

The Second Intifada (2000-2005) was significantly more violent, triggered by a visit from Ariel Sharon to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem. It involved suicide bombings, armed attacks, and other violent acts, leading to significant casualties on both sides. The intense violence during the Second Intifada caused a collapse of the Oslo Peace Process and deepened polarization in the region.

Calls for Intifada on college campuses can be dangerous, as they evoke memories of the Second Intifada's violence, potentially inciting aggression against Jews. This rhetoric creates an atmosphere of hostility, undermining any potential for peaceful dialogue and reconciliation.

The Phrase "From the River to the Sea": A Call for Violence?

"From the river to the sea" refers to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. It has become a slogan for some anti-Israel protestors, advocating for Palestinian sovereignty over the entire area. However, its use has sparked controversy due to its potential interpretation as a call to eliminate Israel and its Jewish population.

Critics argue that the phrase's ambiguity allows it to be used to promote violence against Jews and anti-Semitic sentiments. When used on college campuses, it can carry hostile connotations, leading to an environment where anti-Semitic incidents, hate speech, or even physical violence against Jewish students and faculty may occur.

Mark Durie's Argument on Jihad and Its Evolution

Mark Durie, an Australian Anglican theologian and scholar, has extensively studied the concept of jihad in Islam and its evolution. He points out that jihad, which means "struggle" or "striving," originally encompassed both spiritual and physical aspects. However, over time, the emphasis shifted from internal spiritual struggle to external, often violent, physical struggle. Classical Islamic texts like the Qur'an and Hadith often focus on the military aspect of jihad, providing frameworks for conducting war, distributing spoils, and governing relations with non-Muslim territories.

Durie notes that there has been a shift in the interpretation of jihad in the modern era from a collective effort organized by religious or political leaders to an individual obligation. This shift suggests that individual Muslims are encouraged to take matters of justice into their own hands, leading to a rise in extremist violence by groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Evolution of Quranic Eschatology and Its Impact on Jewish Relations

It's crucial to examine the chronology of Quranic revelations to understand how the Quran's message changed over time, particularly regarding eschatology and its influence on attitudes toward Jews. While traditional belief suggests that the Quran has eternal existence, the Oral Formulaic View argues that the Quran was composed for oral recitation over 23 years. This perspective helps explain changes in the Quran's focus, especially its warnings about divine punishment for disbelievers.

The Quran's eschatology features a two-stage punishment concept: a "nearer punishment" in this life and a "further punishment" in the afterlife. The "nearer punishment" is a precursor to the final reckoning intended to respond to disbelievers' rejection of the message. The Quran evolves from expecting divine intervention to believers themselves taking action, suggesting a transition from spiritual to military or political campaigns by believers.

The Quran distinguishes between Jews and Christians in its attitudes. While it criticizes Jews for various reasons, it speaks more favorably of Christians, reflecting different historical interactions. This distinction has influenced Islamic approaches toward Jews and non-Muslims throughout history.

Dhimmitude and Its Historical Context

As Islam expanded, a system known as "dhimmitude" was implemented to govern non-Muslim populations, including Jews and Christians. Dhimmitude granted protected but subordinate status to these groups, requiring a special tax (jizya) and adherence to specific restrictions. While the practice has evolved or diminished in many Muslim-majority countries, discrimination against non-Muslims persists.

The emergence of Israel in 1948 challenged the traditional dhimmi system, causing unease among Muslims. The success of Israel's nation-state added complexity to Islamic identity, leading to questions about what had gone wrong in the Muslim world. This change in context influences contemporary Muslim perspectives on Jews, creating a complex background for current tensions.

The Need for Responsible Rhetoric and Dialogue on College Campuses

Given the dangerous implications of some rhetoric used in campus protests, universities must promote responsible discourse and create a safe environment for all students. This includes:

  • Addressing Hate Speech and Intimidation: Universities must have clear policies against hate speech and take swift action when incidents occur. This includes providing support to Jewish students who feel threatened and ensuring accountability for discriminatory behavior.
  • Promoting Tolerance and Respect: Educational institutions should foster an environment that encourages open dialogue while setting clear boundaries against rhetoric that incites violence or discrimination.
  • Encouraging Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Universities can reduce tensions by promoting cross-cultural and interfaith dialogue, which allows for constructive conversations that bridge divides.

Ultimately, universities are responsible for creating a campus environment that is inclusive, respectful, and free from hate speech or violence. By addressing dangerous rhetoric and fostering dialogue, they can help prevent the escalation of anti-Semitic sentiment and contribute to a more peaceful and inclusive campus community.

Share this article
The link has been copied!