Israel-Hamas war: Why pre-motivated agendas should not hijack international academic debate

On 7 October, Hamas launched what most Twitter posts described as a PUBG-themed invasion, with these people seen descending with their motorised paraglider on unsuspecting people. According to The New York Times, this event has claimed more Israeli lives in a single day than any other conflict since Israel’s creation, and Donald Trump has interpreted it as a sign that the world is closer to World War III than ever before.

Exactly 50 years after the Yom Kippur War, a surprise planned and coordinated terrorist attack claimed many lives on both sides of the border, with many foreign nationalities also falling victim to such sporadic violence and social media platforms being flooded with graphic images with horrific details. The international casualties and hostages in this incident are a sobering reminder that terrorism has broader implications and should not be looked at as a problem or lens of just one state. The Middle East, already tense due to years of war and non-international armed conflict, now faces the risk of further destabilisation. Because of the Middle East’s fragile geopolitical landscape, the international community must act quickly and decisively. In this article, I won’t be painting a blueprint for global accountability or drafting academic policies against terrorism. Instead, I’ll weave my argument as a passionate student, advocating for my fellow students and shedding light on how student activism can sometimes turn sour on campuses worldwide. The historical account of student activism is closely intertwined with the intricate tapestry of societal transformation and reform. The commendable and essential nature of their role lies in their ability to catalyse transformations and challenge the existing state of affairs, ultimately contributing to the evolution of a more just and equitable society. Since its establishment in the early 17th century, Harvard College has witnessed instances of student activism, such as the protest against its president Nathaniel Eaton’s abusive leadership in 1639. This trend has continued to the present day, with student activism experiencing a notable resurgence on campuses in the United States. Alia Wong has appropriately characterised this phenomenon as a “renaissance of student activism”. The recent resurgence, specifically in the past ten years, has emphasised the lasting importance of student involvement in influencing public conversation and questioning established conventions, thereby promoting a fairer and more egalitarian society for us and future generations. The realm of student activism has undergone notable transformations, resulting in substantial societal transformations, as evidenced by the impact of movements such as Black Lives Matter, the Velvet Revolution, and various others. Nevertheless, the current surge of demonstrations and widespread public outrage in favour of Hamas, which is linked to acts of terrorism, is unquestionably concerning and necessitates meticulous examination. The current demonstrations and gatherings occurring on university campuses, which endorse acts of violence and terrorism, are undeniably disconcerting. The primary denouncement of violence, irrespective of its sources or justifications, ought to be prioritised in any conversation or academic exchange. Hamas terror and brutality instil fear and shock, prompting an immediate and understandable human reaction. Attempts to contextualise, rationalise, and relativise such actions within a historical framework or past events have been attempted, which have the potential to dilute the gravity of the current situation. It is critical to distinguish between the tendency to justify or normalise violent acts. Recent incidents at Harvard and the University of California were concerning. The act of expressing personal viewpoints and participating in constructive disagreement are integral aspects of a dynamic and democratic society, playing a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and liberties of individuals. Nonetheless, it is of utmost importance to establish a distinct boundary wherein the utilisation of these entitlements does not encroach upon the fundamental principles of tranquillity, reverence, and the safeguarding of human worth. Acts that promote or support violence have a detrimental impact on the dignity of women and womanhood, pose a threat to the safety of children and childhood, and erode fundamental principles of humanity. Such acts should not be supported or justified under the pretext of freedom of speech and expression. When advocating for the right to express opinions, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations that protect the welfare and dignity of all members of a given society. I contend that the exercise of freedom of speech and expression ought to be governed by a robust ethical framework that prioritises the preservation of human life, acknowledges the rights of individuals, and fosters a climate of reciprocal comprehension and acceptance. As constituents of the broader societal framework, students are entitled to exercise their freedom of expression and participate in peaceful protests while adhering to legal parameters. Nevertheless, the perilous inclination to rationalise acts of terrorism or violence by establishing connections, whether valid or invalid, with previous incidents undermines the fundamental ethical principles that ought to govern any discussion concerning such delicate subjects. The recent events at Columbia University, characterised by intense clashes between two opposing groups during pro-Palestine and pro-Israel demonstrations, evoked a strong sense of shock within me. In order to ensure safety, it was necessary to implement security measures on the campus, thereby limiting public access, which was done by the university administration. In the midst of heightened tension, individuals advocating for the Palestinian cause, some concealing their identities with masks, exhibited resolute messages proclaiming “Free Palestine” and “To Exist is to Resist”. In close proximity, students expressing support for Israel silently raised placards featuring images of Israeli hostages, serving as a poignant reminder of the high stakes at hand. Following the event, a sense of trepidation reverberated within the Israeli supporters. David Hilary, a 20-year-old physics major student, expressed concern over the fear that is experienced by Israeli students. He made this statement while participating in a protest where he was adorned with an Israeli flag. Discussions with individuals affiliated with Columbia University have unveiled a prevailing sense of discomfort among the students, impeding their ability to engage in open discourse and critical analysis, which are fundamental components of cultivating sincere comprehension and advancement. In the absence of meaningful conversation, the emergence of a just and lasting solution becomes challenging. How can student activism effectively facilitate transformative change while deviating from the emphasis on non-violence and peace as the primary guiding principles in the pursuit of societal progress? The inquiry at hand necessitates collective reflection. Moreover, the joint statement released by specific student organisations at Harvard University, which attributed ‘full responsibility’ for the conflict to Israel, generated significant debate. The subsequent clarification provided by the university president, which served to create distance between the institution and the statement, underscored the intricate nature of the situation. I neither endorse nor try to oppose the assertion put forth by the student group; however, it is imperative to acknowledge that oversimplifying complex geopolitical matters through contextualisation and relativisation can have adverse effects on the overarching human narrative. Given the aforementioned developments, it is imperative to critically examine the extent to which statements made by student groups affiliated with a highly regarded educational institution contribute to the cultivation of a secure and all-encompassing scholarly milieu. It is essential to ascertain whether these statements are employed as mechanisms to promote particular vested interests, thereby potentially subjecting students to the adverse consequences arising from ensuing controversies. This inquiry brings forth a pivotal concern: is it possible for specific entities to manipulate agendas, resulting in the jeopardisation of not only student’s professional and academic opportunities but also their mental well-being? The recent activities undertaken by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) group in American universities, in which they have proclaimed a ‘day of resistance’ and organised demonstrations throughout North America, have intensified existing tensions and placed a considerable burden on academic settings. They characterised the recent incident on 7/10, perpetrated by Hamas, as a momentous victory for the resistance movement in Palestine. Nevertheless, comprehending how individuals could interpret mass killings, rapes, hostage-taking, and violence against children as a victory poses a considerable challenge. In contrast, these abhorrent actions signify a major defeat for the human race, violating the ethical principles that are upheld by civilised societies. This urges us to condemn any actions that undermine the dignity of human beings. I think Palestinian and Israeli students have all the right to advocate for their issues and use the academic setup as a safe space to discuss their issues. Which is presently hijacked by certain individuals to push forth their agenda at the cost of student welfare. The utilisation of educational institutions as platforms for promoting violence and fostering hatred, as well as the normalisation, relativisation, and contextualisation of violent acts, poses detrimental consequences for the well-being of the human race. The University of Arizona’s decision to cancel the planned protest by the Tucson chapter of SJP, citing safety concerns, can be seen as a reflection of the university’s attempt to foster a secure and inclusive atmosphere. This decision was influenced by the university president’s strong opposition to the national group’s endorsement of Hamas actions. In instances of this nature, the intricate equilibrium between the entitlement to freedom of speech and expression and the obligation to guarantee a secure campus environment assumes utmost significance. It is crucial to recognise that although freedom of expression is a fundamental entitlement, it is subject to certain restrictions that are necessary for upholding harmony and fostering mutual respect. The action taken by Arizona University can be interpreted as a judicious measure within the established parameters. The primary responsibility of the university administration is to ensure the welfare and safety of all students, irrespective of their religious affiliations, nationalities, ethnic backgrounds, or racial identities. This commitment plays a fundamental role in cultivating an atmosphere that promotes open and civilised dialogue. The march for Palestine was organised by the students affiliated with the University of California Los Angeles chapter of SJP. Every group or individual should possess the right to engage in the above-mentioned ways. Nevertheless, utilising this right as a means to diminish and normalise the behaviours of Hamas by a small faction of individuals should not be acceptable. This approach not only complicates the situation but also weakens the genuine problems experienced by the Palestinian community. Given the aforementioned developments, it is imperative to critically examine whether these actions effectively promote the cultivation of a secure and all-encompassing academic environment or if they function as mechanisms to propel particular vested interests by utilising campuses as a platform to advocate for specific agendas. Consequently, this may potentially result in students bearing the brunt. Given the distressing nature of these events, it is imperative to reassert our constant commitment to the principles of humanity and solidarity. All individuals, regardless of their national affiliations, are entitled to the fundamental right of freedom of expression, which includes the right to be heard and to express their opinions with reasonable restrictions. The collective human experiences that we share extend beyond geopolitical divisions, underscoring the imperative of empathy and compassion in our interactions. The cultivation of a shared commitment to the preservation of justice, peace, and the recognition of human dignity is essential in order to navigate towards a future characterised by equity, natural justice, and the rule of law within the international academic community. The author is an Indian-origin student pursuing Masters in law at London of School of Economics (LSE). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .