The following is a guest contribution and reflects the authors’ views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
On Feb. 19, a group of students gathered in a Robertson Hall basement classroom. On the tables before them were two poems: “The Diameter of the Bomb” by Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai and “Mimesis” by Palestinian-American poet Fady Joudah, both highlighting the long-lasting effects of war even after peace has been reached. The meeting — organized by our student group J Street U Princeton — marked one month since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect on Jan. 19.
For some present, the ceasefire came as a relief after over a year of pain and destruction; for others, the ceasefire was an unwanted solution posing new concerns. Though the students came from varying backgrounds and held differing views, the discussion was amicable and illuminating even as people disagreed.
This is the kind of dialogue that universities need in this moment: that which brings people who disagree together to have respectful conversations that generate consensus with meaningful, positive implications for people on the ground.
But heated shouting and partisan divide too often characterize discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Campus activists accuse the University administration of complicity in human rights abuses and make sweeping claims about Israel, alienating their fellow students. Meanwhile, the Trump administration and lobby groups weaponize antisemitism — often in poor faith — conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism and breathlessly depicting campuses as hotbeds of Jew-hatred.
This freighted political climate can actively scare students away from engaging in activism, advocacy, and events related to Israel and Palestine. When the loudest voices on campus come from polar opposite sides of the political spectrum, it is much easier for students whose beliefs exist somewhere between the two to stay out of campus discourse than to engage by picking a side.
Threats to colleges and universities on the federal level limit student willingness to engage even further, especially among international student protestors now at risk of deportation.
All of this results in low engagement with this issue here at Princeton, as explored in The Daily Princetonian’s December 2024 feature on campus discourse describing how Princeton students have struggled to come face-to-face with those who hold opposing views.
However, the article crucially ignores student efforts facilitating dialogue and advocating for peace in the Middle East that supports both Israel and Palestine — including any of J Street U’s initiatives last semester to encourage civil conversation and platform Israeli and Palestinian activists who are close to the conflict and actively working for peace on the ground.
This kind of exclusion reinforces the idea that there are only two sides of this conflict — you are either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine — and that choosing just one is the only way to engage with this conflict on campus. This sentiment does not help campus dynamics or organizations uplifting the voices of those suffering and seeking peace on the ground.
Only a change in the status quo among both government decision makers and local leaders in our communities will ensure Israeli and Palestinian people can live in peace, freedom, and security. As Reem Al-Hajajreh, who founded and directs Women of the Sun, said at a SPIA’s Dean Leadership Series, the division of the international community “practically encourages both sides to continue the war that they are engaged in. It would have been a better idea for those demonstrations to support the peace process in both societies.”
Dialogue isn’t as flashy or newsworthy as protest, but it is a powerful tool for students committed to justice and a necessary step in creating change. And it is increasingly under attack: The Trump administration’s recent assault on Columbia seeks to chill discourse critical of Israel and undermine academic freedom as a whole.
Despite these threats, we must persist in creating a campus environment where constructive dialogue toward a peaceful and diplomatic resolution is able to happen and encourages others to join in. We must actively create spaces for those on opposing sides to sit at the same table, and we must provide opportunities for education that push us out of our comfort zone and broaden our understanding of the complexities of this conflict.
We can support Israel’s right to exist while criticizing the Netanyahu government’s bloody war in Gaza and occupation of the West Bank. We can support a desperately needed solution to the current war and decades of crisis in which both Israelis and Palestinians have rights to self-determination and autonomy. J Street U believes that Israel’s security and survival depend on a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
At the end of our ceasefire discussion in February, we all left, maybe not with our minds changed, but with a new understanding of what leads people to hold the views they do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These kinds of discussions between people with differing opinions bring to light shared beliefs, allowing people to reach consensus on ideals and ways to act on them as a community. While the work ahead will be difficult, it will not be impossible: When we focus on depolarizing the campus conversation through dialogue, we can have effects that reach far beyond the Orange Bubble.
Elena Eiss ’28 (co-chair), Sophie Miller ’27 (advocacy coordinator), Madeline Denker ’27 (outreach coordinator), and Emmett Weisz ’27 (treasurer) are members of the J Street U Princeton board. They can be reached at ee071[at]princeton.edu, sm9036[at]princeton.edu, md8079[at]princeton.edu, and ew4950[at]princeton.edu respectively.
Read More
Women’s basketball deserves an at-large bid to March Madness
Steve SilvermanSo that means the big three Ivy teams are likely competing against each other in a game of musical chairs. And when the music stops, if it comes down to Princeton versus Harvard, the Tigers should be the choice.
So that means the big three Ivy teams are likely competing against each other in a game of musical chairs. And when the music stops, if it comes down to Princeton versus Harvard, the Tigers should be the choice.
Keep Princeton in Estonia
Astor Lu and William AepliWe strongly disagree with Veronika Kitsul’s recent Opinion piece, in which she argues that the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures must end its Russian language program in Estonia and refrain from sponsoring programs in any post-Soviet states. In attempting to cancel Princeton in Estonia, we damage access to Baltic culture, Russian language study, and ultimately, the world’s chances for peace in the region.
We strongly disagree with Veronika Kitsul’s recent Opinion piece, in which she argues that the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures must end its Russian language program in Estonia and refrain from sponsoring programs in any post-Soviet states. In attempting to cancel Princeton in Estonia, we damage access to Baltic culture, Russian language study, and ultimately, the world’s chances for peace in the region.
Princeton’s role in combating the drug crisis must start on campus
Lizbeth ReyesTo maintain a healthy and safe community, Princeton must do more to inform students of the risks of substances and substance abuse. This includes making information about drug use and use prevention accessible to students—and not just through a website.
To maintain a healthy and safe community, Princeton must do more to inform students of the risks of substances and substance abuse. This includes making information about drug use and use prevention accessible to students—and not just through a website.