A few months ago, I went to hear Linda Sarsour speak at the Princeton encampment. She had garnered considerable attention, and I was curious to hear what she had to say. Her speech was, in a word, inspiring. She called for justice, equality, and human dignity, urging students to stand on “the right side of history.” She made listeners feel fired up and energized to do something.
But to do what? The more I listened to her, the more I wondered what her proposal was to end the Israel-Hamas war.
As a Princeton student, I share a deep commitment to improving the world. I like to believe that I, too, pursue justice for people everywhere. I understood why many in the audience found the speech to be moving. But as I stood at the encampment, I waited in vain to hear Sarsour’s idea to end the conflict in Gaza. Maybe she wanted renewed calls for a cease fire? But that seemed at odds with protestors’ calls for “no justice, no peace” that followed her speech. Maybe she wanted a two-state solution, or a unified state for all people? But she never mentioned that, and — importantly — she never gave suggestions to replace Hamas’ leadership.
There lies the main problem with movements to divest from Israel, at Princeton and beyond. In Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest (PIAD)’s 66-page proposal for divestment, there is not a single mention of Hamas, unless you count the titles of articles in the footnotes (which I don’t). The proposal references “Israel’s response,” but never explicitly mentions the horror of the Oct. 7 attacks that Israel is responding to or the fact that the terrorists who carried them out are deliberately hiding in places of worship, schools, and private homes. Israel is currently fighting a war against a terrorist organization that indiscriminately killed, raped, tortured, and kidnapped over 1400 people of many nationalities. That sentence should break your heart.
After Hamas took Israeli hostages on Oct. 7, they embedded themselves in a dense civilian population. Israel has pursued and killed thousands of these Hamas terrorists, but in doing so killed thousands of Palestinian civilians along with them. That sentence should break your heart, too.
But the PIAD proposal gives no indication as to how boycotting or divesting from Israel will lead to a better future for Palestinians, because it never addresses what that future will actually look like. By erasing facts that are inconvenient for their narrative, PIAD attempts to paint a black-and-white world in which Israel and everything it touches are evil, acting aggressively for no reason rather than fighting a war with terrorists. PIAD paints a simpler world of right and wrong, but not a true one.
The moment requires that we enter the fall semester asking real, urgent, and important questions: Can the need to eliminate Hamas justify the civilian casualty count, low in proportion relative to other urban warfare examples, but still tragically high? Does targeting the Hamas masterminds of the Oct. 7 massacres and the rogue actors who support them risk escalating conflict, or does it promote accountability and justice? Can we find a non-military path to oust Hamas, identify Israeli and Palestinian leaders for true negotiations, and maybe even take steps toward an ultimate peace? Who will lead it, and what will that look like?
Unfortunately, PIAD is not alone in refusing to confront the truth of Hamas’ brutality. On Oct. 9, when I was on the board of the Princeton College Democrats, I co-drafted a statement condemning the attacks. The majority of the board declined to put the statement forward.
On Oct. 10, one of the same groups, now arguing for divestment, put out statements condemning Israel, not Hamas, while their victims’ bodies were still being identified. And at repeated events since then, I have spoken with protestors — friends who I trust and respect — and I have asked them: what would it look like to end the occupation in a way that would promote safety and peace for all people? They didn’t have an answer.
This isn’t a rhetorical question. It’s a hard one, and I don’t fault those who don’t have an answer. I’m not sure that I have one, at least one that would really work in practice. But it is a fundamental question that we cannot ignore.
We must consider that question with all of the facts, taking into account all of the realities of the Middle East and the multidimensional nature of the current war. Failing to do so eliminates the chance at productive dialogue in search of a better reality for all who live there. It feeds into a growing world of mis- and dis-information, the scary world of alternative facts and denial of blatant truths.
As we return to campus, I truly hope that we can ask ourselves and each other: what would we do if we were the Israelis? The Palestinians? What practical, detailed courses of action can we push forward to bring real justice?
Whether you feel personally invested in this conflict or not, we can raise the level of real discourse on our campus. That starts with rejecting the idea that Israel is an evil force of one-sided violence.
I’ll end on a personal note: I’ve been frustrated by the limited campus opportunities for true dialogue across differences of opinion. If you’re reading this and want to talk, especially if you disagree with what I’ve said, please reach out. Send me an email, and I’d love to get coffee.
Judah Guggenheim is a COS BSE major from the Class of 2025. He can be reached at judahguggenheim[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
Reform first-year orientation: Less structure, stronger connections
Cathleen Balid“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
“Core and FYRE Events make it difficult for freshmen to explore campus or forge connections among their new peers. To address this issue, Princeton should restructure orientation programming to prioritize building freshman peer-to-peer engagement.”
We must dispel the myth of Princeton’s economic diversity
Raf Basas“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
“Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.”
Pathologizing men is unproductive. We should invest in better men-focused spaces
Nicholas Manetas“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
“The lack of avenues for men to talk about masculinity is not an excuse for problematic behavior. But when discussing the challenges facing men involves pathologizing them and blaming their struggles on their own toxic masculinity, we suggest that masculinity is inherently problematic and cannot be expressed in a healthy way.”
