At 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 21, Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of one of the founders of Hamas, addressed a crowd of 350 in McCosh 10.
Yousef, a brash, outspoken supporter of Israel, rejected the idea of Palestinian ethnicity, stating that the notion was “psychological” and rooted in “a narrative of victimhood.” Yousef was greeted with raucous applause.
“Many people mix between Arab and Palestinian, and within the Palestinian is indoctrination. It’s not an ethnicity, it’s not a race, it’s not a religion, it’s just indoctrination, a political ideology,” he said.
Hosted by Chabad House at Princeton, B’Artzeinu, and Tigers for Israel (TFI), the room of 350 was overwhelmingly filled by members of the public.
At the same time, approximately 980 feet away, an event constructing a case for the legal recognition of Palestinians was underway. Rabea Eghbariah, a human rights scholar and legal expert, was introduced by an applauding audience in Robertson 002 as part of the Princeton Palestinian Studies Colloquium. The event, sponsored by multiple departments on campus including Near Eastern Studies and African American Studies, packed the room of about 120.
Neither event saw protests or any other form of disruption inside or outside the venues, and both proceeded without incident, merely a few hundred feet apart.
Even so, opposition to the “Son of Hamas” event circulated quietly. Days prior to the “Son of Hamas” event, leaders of the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP) had called on community members to boycott the event in an open letter with over 170 signatories. “By allowing speakers like Yousef on campus, Princeton is serving nothing but the perpetuation of hateful rhetoric,” the letter read. “Free speech is important, but so are its limitations.” The group presented the colloquium event as counter-programming to Yousef’s event.
The Center for Jewish Life reportedly declined to sponsor the Son of Hamas event, although the talk was sponsored partly by CJL-affiliated organizations B’Artzeinu and TFI.
These parallel events, isolated and sparking brief controversy without chaos, reflect a broader campus climate on Israel and Palestine that students engaged on multiple sides of the issue described as relatively civil, yet ideologically siloed.
For Associate Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Andy Guess, who studies polarization, dialogue between conflicting perspectives is essential for a thriving University campus, and on a larger scale, for a thriving democracy.
“You’re likely to be able to collectively come to a fuller understanding of something by sharing knowledge and perspectives,” he said. “We learn from each other and we can help each other get past our own blind spots and flaws in each other’s reasoning.”
In an interview on C-SPAN on Wednesday, University president Christopher Eisgruber ’83 touted what he views as the University’s success in effectively providing opportunities for dialogue for students.
“We had a number of different events that allowed people to explore these issues in more detailed ways,” he said, citing speaker events held by Amaney Jamal, the Dean of the School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA).
“We’ve got to take those conversations on tough issues that are happening on our campuses and elevate them,” he added. “I think we’re doing a good job with that.”
Yet, students across the aisle on the issue reported to The Daily Princetonian that conversation over this one issue is nonexistent among the undergraduate body.
“I don’t really believe there is much opportunity for opposing sides to engage in conversation,” said Mariam Elawady ’26, the former president of the Princeton Arab Society.
A siloed campus climate
To students on both sides of the issue, the weight of the conflict makes such dialogue deeply challenging, and even unbreachable.
For TFI President Maximillian Meyer ’27, the question of whether or not to engage with pro-Palestine groups reflects deeper fundamental differences in perspective. In a statement to the ‘Prince,’ he expressed that it is “difficult to have true conversations with those who refuse to condemn Hamas terrorists.”
At the same time, Meyer is not necessarily opposed to engaging with pro-Palestine activists, but he is not optimistic that they will engage back.
“Siloization has a simple solution. End it. I am ready to talk and am waiting for anyone who is pro-Palestinian to take my offer.”
When asked if he or TFI has made attempts at dialogue with pro-Palestine groups, Meyer said that the “anti-Israel groups on campus have a proven history of being anti-intellectual and anti-engagement. It’s a shame, really.”
Hiba Siddiki ’25, a pro-Palestine supporter, argued that dialogue across different ideological communities is insurmountable, considering the scale and stakes of the current war, invoking the loss of life.
“There are people on one side whose family members, whose people that look like them, are dying by the hundreds of thousands, and you have another side, saying that they feel very apathetic to this, or that they have been supportive of this,” Siddiki said.
“I think that many times when people are very strong-willed in their beliefs and their views, it can be difficult to come to a point where dialogue can exist,” she added.
“You don’t go around asking oppressed people why they don’t have conversations with their oppressors,” Siddiki said.
For students advocating for action from the University, dialogue may be necessary.
The inquiry to divest from Israel currently before the Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) requires broad campus “consensus on how the University should respond” to the issue at hand for any divestment proposals to be taken into consideration.
But not everyone agrees that discourse is productive. For the pro-Palestine cause, discussion validates the other viewpoint, which they view as a fundamental wrong.
For Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest (PIAD) organizer Aditi Rao GS, a year’s worth of discourse has “to some extent, naturalized genocide as an activity.” While students are more aware, Rao believes that this awareness has produced normalization, not outrage.
Elawady believes the student body, more broadly, has become increasingly “complacent,” despite activists on both sides continuing to pursue dialogue. In a statement to the ‘Prince,’ she described how, this semester, “There was an uptick [in discussion] after the invasion of Lebanon … but it quickly died down for many.”
Guess said that this type of divided atmosphere “is not necessarily an unusual dynamic.”
He explained that with any contentious issue, activists will employ “rhetorical strategies … designed to mobilize and energize their members,” but these very same strategies may also “alienate people.”
Opportunities for dialogue
Even during past periods of political upheaval abroad, the campus climate was similarly tense and charged, but discussions were not always so isolated.
In 2014, a 50-day-long conflict erupted after Israel launched an offensive into Gaza, citing Hamas rocket fire and threat of attacks. According to a UN Human Rights Council report, 2,251 Palestinians (including 1,462 civilians) and 67 Israeli soldiers (and six civilians) were killed.
The afternoon following the collapse of an October ceasefire between Israel and Palestine in the Gaza Strip in 2014, over 500 community members marched down Nassau Street, chanting slogans of “Not another nickel, not another dime, no more for Israel’s crimes” and “Killing each other is a crime, free, free Palestine.”
Community members also called for direct negotiations between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups. “Peace cannot be imposed. It can only be reached through dialogue, negotiation and compromise,” a 2014 op-ed reads.
In response, Jamal and SPIA professor (and former US ambassador to Israel) Daniel Kurtzer together created “conversations about peace,” a term they coined, Kurtzer said in a recent interview with the ‘Prince.’ This was intended for student activists on conflicting sides to engage in constructive dialogue and “open their minds to ideas that they had not thought about.” Kurtzer recalled an hours-long dinner at his home that Jamal and about 12 student leaders attended, and how, “it worked to a certain degree.”
“If I had one wish now, after October 7, is that we would have done, or could have done, the same thing,” he said. “There haven’t been that many opportunities to translate October 7 and the protests and so forth into a learning opportunity,” he added, although he did note events that Jamal has hosted.
Jamal, who is Palestinian, did not respond to requests for an interview. She and Keren Yarhi-Milo, her counterpart dean at Columbia University, held an event last November to discuss the conflict and its implications for college campuses — repeatedly held up by Eisgruber as an example of model discourse. Yarhi-Milo is Israeli and served in the Israeli Defense Forces during mandatory military service.
“If you care about this conflict, we need to be dialoguing with one another,” Jamal said at a similar event held virtually over the summer. “At the end of the day, university campuses shouldn’t be social media algorithmic outcomes where you only are in your echo chamber.”
University administrators, including Jamal, also discussed student dialogue at a panel in November, highlighting initiatives such as the Rose Castle Society and a mandatory discussion prior to the election about conversations on difficult topics as part of the First Year Residential Experience (FYRE) program. The discussion took place at a meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) — a gathering of top administrations often sparsely attended by undergraduate students.
“I resonate with the sentiment that things are siloed,” Emanuelle Sippy ’25, the president of the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP), said. “And I do think that is a negative thing, in large part because there’s a lot of misinterpretation that happens.”
However, Sippy noted that progressive Jews — especially those who are practicing — “may be a bit outside the paradigm of things just being siloed.” Though Sippy does not identify as a Zionist, she noted that her identity as a practicing Jew “necessitates engaging with the wider... Jewish community, which often means engaging with Zionist institutions and individuals.”
Other Jewish student leaders agreed.
“I would pretty passionately reject the notion that any kind of conversation around Israel or Palestine within the Jewish community has stagnated, or that it’s reverted into echo chambers,” Center for Jewish Life (CJL) student president Stephen Bartell ’25 said.
For Bartell, the event held commemorating the one-year anniversary of Oct. 7 is an example of healthy discourse between Jewish groups. In the lead-up to the memorial event, Bartell described how representatives from J Street, B’Artzeinu, Chabad House, and TFI held weekly meetings with the CJL that sometimes became contentious.
“What kind of things would we choose to recognize or not emphasize?” Bartell recalled discussing with the event’s organizers. As a result, these weekly meetings often ended in “aggravating frustration for some of us,” Bartell recalled.
Despite this, Bartell said that organizers were able to hold a memorial that was “really meaningful for our community.” This sentiment was echoed by Meyer, who acknowledged that there were disagreements in the meeting, but still wrote to the ‘Prince’ that he was ultimately “proud of the event that we produced and of the many voices who took part.”
At the memorial, an emotional Bartell shared memories of his friend, 22-year-old Omer Neutra, who was taken hostage by Hamas. “All human beings deserve the kind of safety, dignity, and hope for a better future that Omer and so many others have been tragically denied this past year,” he stated.
The Israeli military said on Dec. 2 that Neutra, previously believed to have been alive and held in Gaza, was killed in fighting on Oct. 7.
Sippy, alongside those from Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and Hindu groups, spoke at an interfaith vigil the following day to grieve “all those killed in the last year in the Middle East.” Sippy remembers the vigil she organized in a similar fashion to Meyer: “We were able to engage people across differences in that event, because we had hard conversations and were honest with each other about what it was that we were trying to do,” she said.
“It’s important that universities serve as a safe space to discuss controversial topics. This should include controversies on both sides of the political spectrum,” SPIA professor Udi Ofer said, reiterating a sentiment shared by University administrators, as well.
“If dialogue didn’t happen on a regular basis, then universities wouldn’t function,” Guess said. “And I think the knowledge production function of universities would break down.”
The silent majority
Students who are heavily involved in either pro-Palestine or pro-Israel activism, however, do not actually constitute the majority of the student body. Additionally, the number of students attending pro-Palestine protests has noticeably abated over the past semester, especially compared to the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.” After 150 attended a protest on the first day of classes this semester, only about 60 showed at a protest on Community Care Day. 30 people at a die-in on Oct. 5, part of an International Day of Action campaign. 15 people at a protest on the anniversary of Oct. 7.
On the pro-Israel side, only a few dozen students attended a recent pro-Israel protest against United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who was giving a Dean’s Leadership Series talk.
Princeton has long been documented to be a more apathetic campus than most.
In a 2001 piece penned by David Brooks, he argues that such apathy is archetypal to Princeton students: while students are industrious, intelligent, and morally conscientious, they have no compelling reason to rebel against the status quo through protests or social movements.
Activists on campus, however, reject the notion that students are not engaged because they are inherently apathetic.
“[T]here are a lot more nuances and a lot more reasons why the student body might be nervous to show up,” Siddiki said.
According to Siddiki, part of students’ reluctance to engage can be attributed to the “active suppression and repression of one side’s view through a variety of channels” in the University community, including doxxing and blacklisting from jobs.
Sippy and others concurred with the risk of outside backlash.
“Students who are most marginalized and most visibly Muslim and BIPOC are the most frequently the victims of doxxing efforts,” Sippy said.
Others say that a charged campus environment has led them to be wary of political expression. “Though I have the right to wear my keffiyeh wherever I want, I know the way that the University has behaved, the way that certain students at this University have behaved, [and] the way that students and faculty at this University have behaved,” Rao said. “That’s no longer a safe activity for me to pursue.”
Last semester, Rao was one of 13 students arrested for participating in the Clio Hall occupation.
Faculty members involved in the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” last semester have expressed similar concerns. History professor Max Weiss, who walked his students out to the GSE last spring, was placed on probation this October for the remainder of the 2024–2025 academic year. Gyan Prakash, the Dayton-Stockton Professor of History who taught a class at the sit-in, was issued a written warning “in spite of the fact that none of my students complained.” Prakash said that he has since submitted an appeal, which is currently under consideration by the University.
“It’s fair to say that the administration of the University is meting out discipline to both students and faculty in a manner that both seeks to establish its new rules and procedures — whether or not they were enforced in the spring — and would like to see some kind of chilling effect,” Weiss told the ‘Prince.’
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’ that “the purpose of regulation and discipline at Princeton is to protect the well-being of the community and to advance its educational mission.”
“Princeton’s rules include an expansive and unwavering commitment to free speech — which includes peaceful dissent, protest, and demonstration. We held fast to that commitment last year and will continue to do so,” Morrill added.
For Meyer, pro-Israel students also face a hazardous campus environment.
“I know that there are definitely students, at least on the pro-Israel side of the issue, who just feel deeply uncomfortable, sometimes intimidated, to share their opinions in the face of a hostile and loud minority,” he said.
Ofer pointed to coming government-level threats to student safety. “I worry that organizations and students who are involved in protest movements on campus will start being the subject of unwarranted federal investigations, whether by the Trump administration or by Congress,” Ofer wrote to the ‘Prince.’ “Such investigations could have a serious impact on the willingness of students to express their views on campuses across the nation.”
“I worry that the incoming administration will begin to punish speech that is critical of Israel’s policies and practices, which will then have a chilling effect on speech and other expressive activities,” he added.
Sippy also pointed out that while students may be informed about the war, they could be choosing to simply prioritize other responsibilities.
“There’s a difference between having a critical analysis and learning about an issue — which is great, and which a lot of Princeton students are open to doing — and publicly taking action,” Sippy noted. Alongside the risk of doxxing, “people are pressed for time and juggling a lot of different priorities,” she said.
Indeed, the number of students who have publicly signed on to various petitions on the matter remains limited. While more than 30 affinity or activist student groups endorsed PIAD’s proposal to the Resources Committee, only 226 current undergraduate students had signed an open letter supporting divestment as of the end of last semester. A petition circulated by Meyer in September opposing divestment garnered nearly 1,300 signatures, only 106 of which were from current students.
Additionally, many students, Guess says, “might not feel that any of the most vocal voices are fully representing them.”
“This is not an issue where there’s literally two positions, right?” He added. “I think there are many, many, many different ideas and perspectives, and certainly more than two.”
By 6:15 p.m. on Nov. 21, both Yousef and Eghbariah concluded their remarks, each receiving thunderous applause. While some attendees lingered behind to discuss the talks with other peers, most donned their coats, filed out of McCosh and Robertson, and carried on with their evening.
“People are thinking critically, but that doesn’t always translate into action,” Sippy believes. “Saying that people are apathetic is a short change.”
Sena Chang is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’
Nikki Han is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.