|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
View this post on Instagram
The group’s hardline stance was highlighted on the anniversary of the October 7 attack on Israel, when it distributed a newspaper using Hamas’s terminology to commemorate the event. The headline read, “One Year Since Al-Aqsa Flood, Revolution Until Victory,” and featured an image of Hamas fighters breaching the Israeli security fence. The New York Times reported that this was accompanied by an essay lauding the attack as a “moral, military and political victory,” quoting Ismail Haniyeh, the former political leader of Hamas. In a post on Telegram, the group emphasized, “The Palestinian resistance is moving their struggle to a new phase of escalation and it is our duty to meet them there. It is our duty to fight for our freedom!”
The New York Times report pointed out that this increasingly militant rhetoric has presented a dilemma for university administrators, who must decide how to address these student positions. While such statements are generally protected under the First Amendment, they could potentially trigger federal investigations into campus anti-Semitism or disciplinary actions if they create a hostile environment for Jewish students. Columbia University spokesman Ben Chang made it clear that “Statements advocating for violence or harm are antithetical to the core principles upon which this institution was founded,” according to The New York Times report.
This shift toward more extreme positions at Columbia mirrors similar developments at other universities. Pro-Hamas student groups across multiple campuses have expressed support for the October 7 attacks, reflecting an alignment with more radical off-campus protest organizations. One such group, Within Our Lifetime, also advocates for violent resistance against Israel. Its leader, Nerdeen Kiswani, recently posted on social media, “Long live October 7th,” in apparent celebration of the attack, as was reported by The New York Times.
Oren Segal, vice president of the A.D.L. Center on Extremism, remarked to The New York Times that the Anti-Defamation League has tracked over 100 protests across the country, both on and off college campuses, commemorating the anniversary of October 7. Many of these protests included chants and messages that “were filled with support for terrorist organizations.” This rise in radicalized rhetoric is being seen as part of a broader challenge universities and authorities face as pro-Hamas groups become more outspoken in their support for violent resistance.
In a statement reported by The New York Times, a student at Columbia University highlighted the imagery of paragliders and chants glorifying the resistance during protests on campus, referring to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. That attack resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people, according to Israeli authorities, and the abduction of around 251 hostages. Many hostages have since been killed or have died as a result of the conflict.
The conflict’s toll has been staggering. Since the war began, over 40,000 people in Gaza have been killed, according to local health officials. Most of the casualties have been civilians, and hundreds of thousands more are now facing starvation, as The New York Times reports. While the loss of life and humanitarian crisis in Gaza fuel student protests, there is growing discomfort among some students who initially supported pro-Palestinian actions but now feel alienated by the more hardline direction of the movement.
Several students at Columbia University and Barnard College expressed their unease with both the radicalization of the protests and the university’s administration’s reactions. Bellajeet Sahota, a Barnard senior, shared her frustrations with The New York Times, stating, “I think this whole situation and the way that it’s been handled on my campus has absolutely no eye for nuance.” Sahota, who admits to feeling reluctant to protest, also expressed concerns about the increasingly harsh tone of her fellow student activists. “I also think my fellow students, as much as I love them, also have no eye for nuance,” she added.
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), one of the more prominent pro-Hamas groups active on hundreds of campuses nationwide, has been at the forefront of endorsing these hardline stances. In an Instagram post, the Brown University chapter of SJP called the October 7th attack a “historic act of resistance against decades of occupation, apartheid, and settler colonial violence.” The New York Times highlighted how this growing radicalization within pro-Palestinian student groups reflects an internal shift towards adopting the principles of the Thawabet, outlined by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1977. These principles include the right of Palestinians to armed resistance and self-determination across the entire territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which had initially focused its efforts on encouraging Columbia University to divest from Israel, has undergone a similar evolution. According to The New York Times report, CUAD described its journey in a series of Substack posts, transitioning from an organization that saw itself as a “continuation of the Vietnam antiwar movement” into one that now fully supports armed resistance by Hamas and other Iranian-backed terrorist proxies. This shift from advocacy for divestment to the endorsement of violent resistance underscores the broader internal push within pro-Palestinian student organizations to adopt more revolutionary ideologies and strategies.
As these groups embrace increasingly extreme positions, universities are grappling with how to respond. Many of the statements made by student groups are protected by the First Amendment, as The New York Times noted, but the growing support for armed resistance and the glorification of violence raise questions about the potential impact on Jewish students and whether these protests create a hostile environment on campus. The tension between free speech and campus safety continues to pose a significant challenge for university administrators, as they attempt to navigate an environment where student activism is both a deeply personal and highly politicized issue.
The pro-Hamas movement at Columbia University has continued to intensify its rhetoric, citing revolutionary thinkers such as Vladimir Lenin and Frantz Fanon to justify its support for the so-called Axis of Resistance. This alliance, which includes Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas, has been embraced by the group for its opposition to imperialism, according to the report in The New York Times. The group’s ideological shift shines a proverbial spotlight on its increasing radicalism, and in recent months, it has openly praised violent acts of resistance, including attacks targeting civilians in Israel.
On October 1, the group hailed an attack by Palestinian terrorists in Tel Aviv that left seven people dead at a light rail station. Among the victims was a mother who died while shielding her 9-month-old child. As The New York Times reported, the group also praised Iran’s subsequent missile strikes on Israel that same evening, calling the assault a “bold move” in its ongoing support of violent resistance against what it views as Israeli imperialism. The celebration of such attacks marks a stark contrast from the more moderate voices within the movement, reflecting a growing division among activists on campuses.
The group’s increasingly hardline stance was further demonstrated on Tuesday when it rescinded an apology it had made in the spring regarding Khymani James, a Columbia student who faced disciplinary action for his incendiary statements. During a hearing, James had stated, “Zionists don’t deserve to live,” and added, “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.” Following significant backlash, the group initially apologized, but it has now reversed that position. In a public statement reported by The New York Times, the group declared, “We let you down,” in reference to James. The group vowed to no longer “pander to liberal media to make the movement for liberation palatable,” signaling a refusal to moderate its language or tactics.
Khymani James, the Columbia student who infamously said that “Zionists don’t deserve to live, has set the record straight: he has no regrets and makes no apologies for wishing death upon Zionists (i.e. most Jews) and giving voice to hate. He meant every word.
What does it… pic.twitter.com/KBtbH9wPQo
— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorres) October 10, 2024
James, who is currently suing Columbia University over his suspension, expressed his gratitude to the group for its support. The New York Times report that on social media, he reaffirmed his controversial remarks, stating, “I will not allow anyone to shame me for my politics. Anything I said, I meant it.” This defiant posture, along with the group’s endorsement of violent rhetoric, is indicative of the broader radicalization taking place within certain pro-Hamas circles on college campuses.
Both Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), two prominent pro-Hamas organizations, remain suspended at Columbia University, according to The New York Times. However, despite their official suspension, members of these groups continue to operate through social media and informal channels. Many of them have gravitated toward Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a group that is not formally recognized by the university but continues to be a focal point for organizing and activism, as was explained in The New York Times report. CUAD’s increasing alignment with revolutionary and terrorist ideologies has fueled a growing controversy over the limits of free speech and the role of student activism on campus.
As The New York Times highlighted, the actions of these groups raise critical questions for university administrators who are tasked with balancing the protection of free speech with the need to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students. The glorification of violence, particularly when directed at a specific group, risks creating a hostile atmosphere on campus, especially for Jewish students. The university’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly shape the future of student activism at Columbia and other institutions facing similar tensions.
