Recent attacks by politicians and others against the heads of major American universities resulting from conflicts in the Middle East are examples of how we confuse the exercise of free speech with that of hate speech. They have forgotten the history in both the U.S. and Canada of incidences where students in particular have protested against a government’s foreign policy and its subsequent actions abroad. For example, I recall in particular the student-led protests against the American government’s military operations in Vietnam and Iraq.
For the most part, protests on campuses against the war in Vietnam were peaceful. However, they were often met with violent actions by the police or national guard, as in the deadly case of Kent State, Ohio in 1970 where four unarmed college students were killed and nine protestors and bystanders were injured by gun fire. In Canada, student protests also happened in major cities, led by an organized youth movement against the war in Vietnam. Protesting the war did not suggest that these students were “anti-American” in general, but reflected on their legitimate opposition to the American government’s foreign policy at that time. There is little doubt that the growing movement became one of the reasons why the U.S. finally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, unfortunately having suffered many Vietnamese and American casualties and injuries.
The same position can be taken in the student opposition to the American occupation of Iraq. After 9/11, in a highly emotional context, there was no doubt any opposition to President Bush’s foreign policy was viewed by the average American as being “anti-American”. However, the initial rationale for invading Iraq was the false assertion that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, had ties with al-Qaeda and had “weapons of mass destruction”. All of which were proven to be false. Alone with a majority of students, I opposed Bush’s actions which ended up in devastating Iraq, destroying its infrastructure, promoting government corruption and severely punishing its people. Also, the occupation upset the political balance among the Arab countries, allowing Iran to gain a greater foothold in Iraq through the Shi’a militia. With the decision of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Canada fortunately did not participate with those U.S. allies who did so in the occupation. This was not because we were anti-American, but because Canadians had varying concerns about the objectives of the U.S. government’s foreign policy at the time. Canadian student movements and their protests reflected those concerns.
Today, it is concerns over the historical American support, both political and military, for the Israel government and its treatment of the Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank. In recent years, the Israel administration has been moving more to a right-wing position, particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In July 2023, Netanyahu’s government enacted a major change in law to weaken the judiciary, in particular the role of the Supreme Court. Throngs of protesters outside the Israeli Parliament and opposition lawmakers inside shouted that the change was a grievous blow to the rule of law, to the rights of citizens and to democracy itself. The fight over the law prompted the most widespread demonstrations in the country’s history, reflecting a deeper split between those who want a more explicitly Jewish and religious Israel, and those who want to preserve a more secular, pluralist society. In addition, the continuing growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and subsequent displacement of Palestinians in herding communities, often by aggressive methods, forced many to abandon their villages. Condemned by the United Nations, the settlement issue has caused much controversy within Israel and the world community.
While no one can support Hamas terrorism and its attacks on Israeli citizens, the fact is that for years debates have been ongoing in the U.S. and Canada over the status of the Palestinian territories. Even the American and Canadian governments believe that there has to be a two-state solution — Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in their own sovereign countries. However, Netanyahu, who is in a coalition with right-wing partners, has openly disdained the idea of a Palestinian state. Raising these issues on campuses and the current devastating state of Palestinian civilians as a result of the Israel-Hamas conflict is not being “anti-semitic” in itself.
Protests related to the current conflict are directed more at the recent policies of the Israeli regime and not at the Jewish people in general. Young people, and particularly students, in both the U.S. and Canada need to have a means to express their points of view, as long as they are done peacefully and are avoiding elements of hate speech and violent actions. Just as we survived protests on campuses in the past, we will survive them today. Simply declaring protests as being “anti-American” or “anti-semitic” doesn’t reflect the fundamental principles on which our democracies are based. Coercion to shut down free speech on our campuses doesn’t do anything to promote these principles and would actually damage them.
FROLITICKS 