President Pines and his administration have openly acknowledged the erosion of our campus culture since October 7 of last year. This is a shock to no one who is involved with this issue. Every week, there seems to be a new story about an anti-Semitic incident on campus or a report of anti-Israel sentiment surfacing. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around for why this happens. I believe the behavior of UMD’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter has obstructed any meaningful conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the point that trying to start a conversation with them is futile. This is principally a consequence of their anti-normalization strategy, which means they refuse to talk to Zionist organizations.
When a group espouses inflammatory beliefs—such as the notion that a sovereign country, recognized by over 80% of the international community, should not exist—it carries a moral obligation to foster dialogue with those who may be affronted. SJP’s anti-normalization policy with both the Jewish Student Union and pro-Israel groups often leads them to communicate through auxiliary organizations like the Student Government Association. We have Israeli Americans on campus being told they are not supposed to be upset when told their state should not exist. Are they not allowed to face their accusers?
I have not encountered anyone in the Jewish community who harbors ill will towards Palestinians. On the contrary, every student I know desires to engage with SJP. However, these requests are consistently brushed aside by SJP’s leaders, demonstrating a lack of willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. The Jewish community at UMD has been the most hospitable and diplomatic group I have worked with on campus. They have played a fundamental role in my college experience. To suggest that this community desires to harm Palestinians is a blatant untruth. Their goal is not to perpetuate conflict but to promote coexistence and support Israel as a Jewish state.
If SJP genuinely cares about Palestinian statehood, it must engage in open discussions about its views. As a secondary education major, I take the significance of open dialogue seriously. No-contact policies are precisely why so much misinformation about this issue percolates in America’s cultural water table. I worry that increasingly bombastic rhetoric will eventually lead to the same incidents seen at other universities.
SJP has created a paradox that undermines its credibility as a legitimate purveyor of information. On one hand, SJP positions itself as a source of enlightenment on the Palestinian cause, claiming to advocate for justice. However, it enforces policies that prevent engagement with opposing viewpoints. This refusal contradicts basic pedagogy and educational principles.
By isolating information, SJP limits accurate information flow and fosters misinformation, raising concerns about its commitment to education. This is troubling as I prepare to become a teacher. In a classroom, fostering critical thinking and open communication is essential for nurturing informed citizens, the purpose of social studies. If organizations like SJP thrive where dialogue is stifled, it sets a more-than-concerning precedent for our educational systems.
Disinformation among youth is particularly alarming. The responsibility to provide accurate and balanced perspectives must be equalized in an age where young minds are bombarded with information from countless sources, whether reliable or not. As future educators, we are taught to understand the critical role of open discourse in shaping informed, empathetic, and critically thinking individuals in a democratic society. The perpetuation of misinformation only excavates divisions and nurtures hostility, making it ever more indispensable for organizations like SJP to commit to fruitful engagement. If students are exposed to polarized narratives without opportunities for constructive dialogue, it can lead to entrenched views that hinder their ability to think critically and engage with others respectfully.
As educators, we must strive to create an environment where students can explore diverse perspectives and learn to question critically. This is about fostering intellectual growth and cultivating a sense of community and shared understanding. Organizations prioritizing open engagement contribute significantly to this mission, allowing students to navigate complex issues thoughtfully and compassionately. Therefore, SJP and similar groups must recognize their role in this broader landscape.
Anti-normalization has been a tactic employed by those seeking to delegitimize Israel on the international stage for over 75 years. Support for Israel’s legitimacy is contingent upon recognizing it as a veritable national actor—an outlook that SJP discards.
The delegitimization of Israel allows heinous acts of violence against Israelis to be framed as resistance, misleading those not well-informed into believing they are advocating for a righteous cause. For instance, there have been reports of student groups at Columbia University admiring recent attacks that resulted in the murder of seven Israelis, including a woman protecting her baby. Similarly, SJP on our campus refers to Israel as a settler colony while repudiating Jewish indigeneity. Additionally, chapters such as Michigan’s Jewish Voice for Peace have made extreme statements calling for Israel’s destruction by atomic fury. This raises a critical question: Is this justice? At what point did our generation lose the moral clarity to justify actions that the international community condemns as terrorism in the name of social justice? Is SJP pushing to “Free Palestine” by perpetuating a genocide against half of the world’s Jewry that lives there?
Such a radical shift in stance naturally raises questions about SJP’s commitment to constructive dialogue and genuine advocacy for Palestinian rights. While legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy can and should be part of the conversation, delegitimization only serves to polarize the discourse further. For meaningful progress to occur or, at the very least, for Israelis and Palestinians to accept both sides’ generational trauma, there must be a recognition of Israel as a sovereign entity alongside a commitment to cultivating discussions that respect the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Without this balance, efforts toward a peaceful resolution become increasingly elusive.
Are there signs that SJP will ever change its approach, at the very least until our school administration begins to cave? Recent events suggest not. By choosing October 7 for their vigil—framed as a discussion about the bombardment of Gaza, which started on October 21—SJP brazenly neglected the significance of this date for the Jewish community. There is a seemingly endless opinion on the history of the Near East and the actions of the Israeli government, not infrequent among events deemed as the “news of the day”. Both sides of the political spectrum condemned SJP’s timing: Former Governor Larry Hogan and Governor Wes Moore both stated that the choice of date is strategic. Many perceived dismissing it as merely a vigil as an attempt to obscure the event’s true implications. Actions like these by SJP have made it increasingly difficult to assume they act in good faith. These behaviors instead suggest that the organization is more focused on advancing its agenda through any means necessary rather than genuinely engaging with the community. By prioritizing ideology, SJP alienates potential allies and stifles productive conversations with moderate peacemakers. This approach is not only counterproductive but also dangerous.
While October 7 is an unquestionably tragic date for Palestinians, it is rightfully recognized internationally as the day Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, resulting in the massacre of Israelis and the taking of over 300 hostages. The perception that the vigil was inconsiderate stems from this context. Are you bringing justice to Palestine by calling Hamas martyrs? True justice for Palestine cannot be achieved through the endorsement of terrorism. I do not have a solution to this conflict; many people smarter than me have tried to solve it and failed. I believe that asking SJP for open dialogue, instead of trying to have its cake and eat it too, is more than fair.
As the president of UMD’s Christians United for Israel, I am dedicated to improving the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians. Holding civil conversations was the entire impetus for the club’s creation. Recently, I felt compelled to issue a statement clarifying that my organization, which promotes Jewish allyship, is not anti-Semitic. Instead of contacting us directly, SJP used an SGA meeting to air their grievances. This illustrates the core issue: SJP’s policies create a cycle where they can dismissively engage with any group they label as undesirable.
I understand why Jewish students on this campus hesitate to engage with SJP, given that all attempts at conversation over the past year have been met with silence. This failure to engage only exacerbates tensions and hinders desperately needed empathy. As President Biden has discussed, there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel. The lack of dialogue on this campus obstructs education and raises questions about whether SJP believes this.
When I visited Israel and the Palestinian territories two years ago with this university, we were not told what to think. We visited Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv. We conversed with Arab Christians, Muslims, and individuals from innumerable backgrounds. This demonstrated that the Israeli government has flaws and changed my mind on the conflict drastically. Very few students can travel to the region and witness these nuances firsthand. Anti-normalization educational policies deprive many students of this opportunity to engage by seeking to boycott visits to the area. To do so would also call into question whether Israel Studies (which I minor in) should even exist on campus.
We just need open and honest discussions on campus. We must foster an environment where differing perspectives can be expressed, allowing students to form informed opinions. The absence of dialogue from SJP’s end perpetuates misunderstandings. It is also a disservice to Palestinians who yearn for peace. There cannot be two sides to the negotiating table if one side never comes to the table at all.
