RUTHFULLY YOURS

It is more important than ever to remember that the right to free speech does not depend on what is being said. People have the right to make pronouncements, even if they are wrong, obnoxious or downright offensive. It should be up to the public to decide what to believe, rather than authorities outlawing ideas they deem illegitimate.

This reminder is particularly necessary given the Trump administration’s ongoing clampdown on free expression at American universities – ostensibly, in the name of tackling anti-Semitism. Most notoriously, it has arrested and plans to deport activist Mahmoud Khalil, one of the leaders of Columbia University’s Gaza encampments. One of the predictable but unintended consequences of this is that it has helped anti-Israel campus activists to portray themselves as free-speech heroes.

In reality, they are anything but. Their right to make outrageous statements should be defended, but not because what they say has any intrinsic merit. And when they engage in physical violence, as they sometimes do, a hard line must be taken against them.

A central element of the anti-Israel movement, the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, is aimed at denying freedom of expression to anyone with a connection to Israel. Yet genuine supporters of free speech must uphold the right for those they disagree with.

There is obviously a rational case to be made for Palestinian rights and self-determination. But the anti-Israel movement focusses much more on presenting Israel as the epitome of evil in the world and calling for its destruction. There are too many examples of activists on elite American campuses, including academics, who simply believe that Israel should not exist. Some have even claimed that Israel deserved what happened on 7 October 2023. Perhaps most notoriously, on the day of Hamas’s pogrom, 34 student organisations at Harvard held Israel entirely responsible for the attack against it. The same day that about 1,200 people – mostly Israeli Jews – were slaughtered and about 250 kidnapped, these organisations effectively justified the atrocities in a statement. A spurious call to ‘contextualise’ the attack was used to justify the largest killing of Jews since the Second World War. Nor was this an isolated incident. There were many instances of academics and student groups, particularly at elite universities, making such pronouncements in the wake of 7 October.

It is also striking that Hamas and Hezbollah flags have often been flown at anti-Israel student encampments. These are organisations that time and again have openly stated that their goal is to slaughter Jews. Hamas has made clear several times since 7 October that it intends to repeat such atrocities. Meanwhile, Hezbollah had planned to join the original attack, but – fortunately for Israel – hesitated before doing so.

Statements in support of these terrorist organisations have nothing to do with upholding the rights of Palestinians, but they are nevertheless defensible on free-speech grounds. For one thing, it is far better to have such sentiments out in the open, where they can be challenged by counter-arguments, rather than simmering beneath the surface. Indeed, one of the biggest challenges in fighting anti-Semitism today is that it is often expressed in coded ways.

However, it should also be recognised that anti-Israel activism often strays beyond the realm of speech. If people move from speech to violence, then the situation is entirely transformed. One key reason to support free speech is as an alternative to resolving conflicts through physical force. The flip side of this premise is that those who assault others should be met with the full weight of the law, which has often not been the case. Take just one example from an anti-Israel protest at Yale last month, as reported in the Algemeiner: ‘Protesters blocked walkways, physically intimidated Jewish students, and hurled bottles and sprayed liquids at them – all while campus police stood by and did nothing.’

Such activity was fairly common in the anti-Israel encampments that sprung up last year in elite American universities. In particular, campuses were often declared ‘Zionist-free zones’. In practice, this meant Jewish students were physically barred from entering – unless they explicitly pledged loyalty to the anti-Israel cause. All too often, the authorities did nothing to guarantee the free movement of their own Jewish students on campuses.

It should also be remembered that a core aim of the BDS movement is to deprive those affiliated with Israel of their free expression. A large part of that is a cultural boycott, which has included initiatives to deplatform Israel-funded academics, authors, actors, dancers and visual artists. Such moves represent the antithesis of free speech. It is a drive to erase Israeli voices and presence from the cultural sphere.

Anti-Israel activists may now claim to care about free speech as theirs has started to come under threat. But they themselves are all too often intolerant and censorious. They deserve the right to free speech, just like everyone else, but they do not deserve to be celebrated as free-speech champions of any kind.