The editorial board of the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper at the nation’s oldest university, called for a boycott of Israel for alleged “crimes against humanity,” and demanded a “free Palestine,” meaning the destruction of the State of Israel.
The phrase “free Palestine” is typically used to mean the creation of a Palestinian state on all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including not only Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, but all of Israel itself.
The editorial says nothing about Israel’s right to exist, or what the boundaries of a “free” Palestine would be. It also fails to condemn Palestinian terrorism; it just offers “sincere support” to “any and all civilians affected by the region’s bellicosity.”
The editorial states, in part:
When oppression strikes anywhere in the world, resistance movements reverberate globally. The desire for rightful justice spreads, like wildfire, moving us to act, to speak, to write, and right our past wrongs.
…
In the wake of accusations suggesting otherwise, we feel the need to assert that support for Palestinian liberation is not antisemitic. We unambiguously oppose and condemn antisemitism in every and all forms, including those times when it shows up on the fringes of otherwise worthwhile movements. Jewish people — like every people, including Palestinians — deserve nothing but life, peace, and security.
…
Two decades ago, we wrote that divestment was a “blunt tool” that affected all citizens of the target nation equally and should be used sparingly. Yet the tactics embodied by BDS have a historical track record; they helped win the liberation of Black South Africans from Apartheid, and have the potential to do the same for Palestinians today. Israel’s current policy pushes Palestinians towards indefinite statelessness, combining ethnonationalist legislation and a continued assault on the sovereignty of the West Bank through illegal settlements that difficults [sic] the prospect of a two-state solution; it merits an assertive and unflinching international response. The arguments made against BDS could have been and indeed were once made against South Africa, and we are no longer inclined to police the demands of a people yearning to breathe free.
The editorial does not explain why destroying the one Jewish state in the world, and the only guaranteed refuge for Jews facing persecution, would not be antisemitic. It claims, instead, that antisemitism is a shield against criticism of Israel.
The “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement is regarded by many critics as antisemitic, since it singles out Israel for condemnation, while doing nothing to pressure Palestinians, and doing nothing about human rights abuses elsewhere.
Elsewhere on the opinion page, the Crimson published a somewhat dissenting view of a student who is critical of Israel but opposes the use of the “apartheid” analogy. There was no editorial published that represented a pro-Israel point of view.
Separately, Harvard University reported this week that it had benefited from slavery, both through the ownership of 70 slaves by individuals associated with the university, and the receipt of donations from those who made fortunes in the slave trade.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.