There’s an adage among observers of American Middle East policy that suggests the Arab world can’t have democracy because it would be bad for Israel. Arab publics favor the Palestinians, the thinking goes, and will vote in governments that act accordingly — and that is a no-go zone.
Now, with discontent in the U.S. boiling over amid Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip, the framing might need a small update: The U.S., it seems, can’t have democracy either, lest an American democracy end its support for everything and anything Israel wants to do to the Palestinians.
Recent weeks saw violent crackdowns on protests, the passage of bills severely curtailing American free speech rights, and lawsuits seeking to effectively outlaw student groups hostile to Israel.
A serious red line has been crossed: America’s democratic freedoms, expansive on paper, will simply not tolerate serious dissent on the U.S.–Israel relationship. As criticisms of Israel have become more mainstream, the attempt to shut them down entirely has become more extreme.
In pursuit of this blank-check relationship with an Israeli government that is becoming ever-more intransigent with each passing year, pro-Israel forces in the U.S. are attacking our own democratic freedoms in order to suppress public outcry about apartheid and potential genocide 6,000 miles away. And, if the recent campus crackdowns are any indication, these forces are winning their battle.
With tens of thousands of Palestinians left dead and the Israeli assault on Gaza ongoing, the U.S. protests targeting university ties with Israel over the last month — voluble and outspoken — have been overwhelmingly nonviolent.
Yet these nonviolent protests have met with the full brutal force of the U.S. security state. Dispersing the protest encampments, police have viciously beaten protesters, fired rubber bullets, and enveloped students in dense clouds of tear gas.
Much of the focus has been on the crackdown in New York City, where Columbia University students established the first major encampment the day its president testified at a House antisemitism hearing — but these incredible scenes of police attacking students have played out across the country. By recent count, over 2,300 people have been arrested on campuses in the U.S. since April 18.
It’s not the Middle East, but it is the same anti-democratic suppression of dissent. And one could be forgiven for noting that the crackdown sometimes resembles the suppression in dictatorships like Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain.
In one stateside case, the squashing of a campus protest even involved what could be called “baltagiya”: the signature Egyptian tactic where unofficial state-aligned militias armed with clubs attack demonstrators before the police swoop in.
This wasn’t, however, Cairo in 2011. It was Los Angeles. At the University of California, Los Angeles, a pro-Israel mob videotaped itself descending on a protest camp and brutally beating protesters, including journalists.
The violence at the UCLA raged on for three hours before police intervened to restore order. Roughly two dozen people were reportedly hospitalized for injuries. It is not clear whether the gangs that attacked the encampment were students of the school.
The following day, police came to tear down the protest camp, firing rubber bullets and arresting some of the same demonstrators who had been attacked by thugs the night before.
Anti-Democracy in D.C.
While brutal suppression is being carried out on the street level, the ground is being prepared for even more disfiguring restrictions on democratic freedoms in Washington.
Last week, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill called the Antisemitism Awareness Act. While on its face the bill simply seeks to express Congress’s view in favor of tackling anti-Jewish bigotry, in reality its provisions would encode a controversial definition of antisemitism geared at inoculating Israel from criticism.
Drawing from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, the bill would categorize acts of speech as antisemitism. The IHRA definition states that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” are all prima facie antisemitic speech.
The photo is credited to Ashraf Amra/Anadolu via Getty Images.
The IHRA standards, which are vague and open to interpretation, have been criticized for potentially labeling any criticism of Israel as antisemitism.
In Europe, where free speech laws differ, the IHRA definition of antisemitism has been used to criminalize critical speech about Israel.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act, while not directly challenging the First Amendment, sets the “sense of Congress” regarding the IHRA language, paving the way for more stringent statutes in the future.
Rep. Mike Lawler’s bill is just one of several proposed measures that aim to crack down on antisemitism, including creating a new congressional body to subpoena individuals over vague allegations and criminalizing nonviolent protest.
Efforts to suppress dissent on Israel extend beyond campuses to state legislatures, courts, and other arenas, with proposals in states like Florida, Indiana, and Arizona targeting pro-Palestinian activism.
Survivors and families of those affected by the October 7 attack in Israel are filing lawsuits against pro-Palestine activist groups, accusing them of collaborating with Hamas.
The crackdown on Americans’ rights to speak, organize, and debate about U.S. foreign policy in relation to Israel could effectively limit public discussion on the topic.
International human rights organizations have expressed concern over the crackdown on U.S. campuses, likening it to suppression of civil society activism in other countries.
A free and open debate on U.S.-Israel ties is crucial, especially in light of potential annexation of the West Bank or escalation of conflict, but political and legal support may hinder such discussions in the future. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link