The tactics undertaken have included the following: the expanded use of well-funded political committees to smear and defeat progressive candidates who are critical of Israeli policies; passing legislation or securing executive orders penalizing supporters of the effort to boycott, divest, or sanction Israel over its violations of Palestinian rights, and expanding the definition of antisemitism to include legitimate criticism of Israeli policies; pressuring major corporations, law firms, and universities to accept this expanded definition of antisemitism and have their employees commit to adherence to this policy; and targeting and smearing individuals and groups that have been critical of Israel or supportive of Palestinian rights.  

Within days of the Hamas attacks, colleges and universities and organizations and major corporations were pressed to denounce the attacks and to refer to them as antisemitic. Many did. Those who hesitated were denounced. As the days wore on and it became clear how many Palestinian civilians were dying from Israeli strikes throughout Gaza, some universities or organizations sought to issue more balanced statements expressing concern for both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. They were also denounced as antisemitic by pro-Israel groups for making “false comparisons.” 

When campus student groups called out repressive Israeli policies in Gaza both before and after the Hamas assaults, pro-Israel groups painted the students as pro-Hamas and advocates for terror. In some instances, the student groups were threatened with having their charters revoked and being forced to disband. And in a few well-publicized cases, law students who were identified as participating in pro-Palestinian actions were notified that job offers they had received from prominent law firms were being rescinded. There has also been activity in Congress to pass resolutions expanding the definition of antisemitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel, despite the well-founded concern that this constitutes a violation of free speech. 

There are two social forces at work here, each pulling and pushing in opposite directions. On the one hand, there is the ongoing fracturing of the US body politic’s attitudes toward Israel/Palestine.  On the other side, there is the widespread public horror over the behavior of Hamas that is being seen by some pro-Israel groups as an opportunity to advance their agenda to silence the emerging debate over Palestinian rights. 

Three weeks after the Hamas attacks, the state of play appears to be that the initial revulsion has been somewhat offset by shock as the toll of the devastation wrought by Israel’s massive retaliation against Gaza continues to grow.  

While Hamas’ massacres did not advance the cause of Palestinians’ supporters (nor has the careless and offensive language used by some of the pro-Palestinian student groups), neither has Israel’s unrelenting bombing of Gaza served the cause of stifling debate sought by Israel’s supporters.  

Despite the huge investment in resources and political capital by the pro-Israel groups, and the number of people who have been and will continue to be harmed by their assault on free speech, they will lose. They may continue, for a time, to intimidate members of Congress and silence some debate, but changes in public opinion will continue. In fact, the very heavy-handed tactics used by the pro-Israel groups are already creating discomfort with their approach to silencing debate and defending the indefensible. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Arab American Institute. The Arab American Institute is a non-profit, nonpartisan national leadership organization that does not endorse candidates.

Note: To discuss this column with me, please register here for my next ‘Coffee And A Column’ event Wednesday via Zoom.

Arab American Institute Foundation
1600 K Street, NW, Suite 601
Washington, DC 20006
United States