To the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee and the Harvard community at large,
I write today not as a particularly religious person. I rarely attend religious services. I had a Bar Mitzvah, but I have profound doubts about the existence of a God. Although I have no doubt that my religious background subconsciously shapes my perceptions of the world, it does not animate my thinking surrounding the recent outbreak of violence in the Middle East. We are dealing with human issues, not religious ones.
I write today as a fellow student, as a fellow human. I write today to implore my fellow Harvard students––and members of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee specifically––to come together and choose comprehensive dialogue instead of inflammatory rhetoric. The Harvard community still has the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue that affirms the humanity of both Palestinians and Israelis and that acknowledges the right of the Israeli state to responsibly defend itself against a monstrous tyranny.
I recognize the pain of all members of the Harvard community affected by the recent explosion of violence in southern Israel and Gaza. Many students, faculty, and community members have family members and friends killed in the recent terror attacks in Israel. Some have loved ones who have perished as a result of retaliatory Israeli airstrikes. But recognizing pain is different from truly understanding it. While I recognize the pain of my classmates, I cannot truly grapple with its suffocating weight. I have no family members who have died in the recent wave of violence in the Middle East. I do, however, have a heart. And it’s slowly rupturing both because of the violence in the Middle East and the subsequent division that this violence has stoked on our campus.
The Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC) held a rally on Saturday, October 14th to “Stop The Genocide” in Gaza. The Harvard Crimson reported over 1,000 individuals in attendance. Every rally attendee did not explicitly classify as a PSC member. Although I recognize the PSC’s legitimate distress over the historical and mounting loss of life in Gaza, I’m disillusioned by the rally’s inflammatory characterization of ongoing events in the Gaza Strip.
Invoking the term “genocide” regarding the historic and contemporary plight of the Gazan people in the wake of barbaric terror attacks mischaracterizes the nature of Israel’s response to the October 7th Hamas attacks, implicitly suggesting the illegitimacy––and, more problematically, immorality––of Israel’s attempts to defend itself. According to the United Nations, for an action to “constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.”
Israel has ordered Palestinians residing in the northern part of Gaza to migrate southward in advance of what is widely anticipated as an Israeli ground operation in the Gaza Strip. And the UN’s Secretary General has rightly pointed out the grave humanitarian consequences posed by the movement of around 1 million Gazans. While Israel’s critics may be inclined to contend that the Israeli evacuation order reflects an attempt to “disperse” Palestinians, the UN’s definition of genocide clearly states that dispersal alone is not sufficient to regard an action as genocidal. Although technicalities should in no way dictate how the public assesses the conduct of Israel, we must be wary about inaccurately labeling Israel’s self-defense as genocidal.
I recognize that PSC members believe in the shared humanity of all peoples irrespective of their ethnic identity or religion. And I also share President Biden’s position urging against the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Indeed, I am of the firm belief that Israel has an obligation to plan for a post-Hamas future of prosperity for Palestinians in Gaza. My hope is for Harvard students to unite as a community to say in a loud and explicit voice that innocent Gazans, just like their Israeli brethren, deserve to live freely and with dignity. Dismantling Hamas’ military capabilities is key to that freedom and dignity-promoting effort.
I noted how the PSC placed several demands on Harvard at the rally, one of which is an apparent need for “Harvard to call on Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Ed Markey to call for a ceasefire” in Gaza. I’m left wondering, though: Why should Harvard ask senators “to call for a ceasefire” as Israel mounts military operations to rid the Gazan people of the tyranny of Hamas? Shouldn’t a “ceasefire” only occur after the defeat of Hamas? Isn’t it a moral imperative for all Harvard students to support the dismantling of a terrorist organization that subjugates its own people and commits acts of depravity against innocents in a neighboring country?
Israel must do its utmost to abide by the rules of war and to protect as many civilians as possible as it fights against Hamas. The lives of Gazans are just as worthy as the lives of Israelis. But calling for a “ceasefire” in Gaza disregards the lives of Israelis by allowing for terrorist organizations like Hamas to kill their children without consequences. I recognize that calling for a ceasefire in Gaza may reflect the PSC’s genuine love of peace, yet terror cannot be appeased. Such appeasement would rob the Israeli people and peace-loving Palestinians of justice.
Some members of the Harvard community and the PSC in particular have sought to contextualize the recent terror attacks in Israel. The road to peace between Israelis and Palestinians has indeed been fraught and elusive with heartbreaking missteps on both sides. I condemn the forces of illiberalism that have penetrated the Jewish state in recent years. Just like the Palestinian people, the Jewish people have a context of their own, though. Hate toward Jewish people is not new. And although much has been made of the fact that October 7th was the gravest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust, less has been said about that horror, the war that ended it, and its resonance for Jews and non-Jews alike.
In a speech in the House of Commons during the dark, early days of the British people’s fight against the perpetrators of the Holocaust, Winston Churchill forcefully informed his countrymen and women of the British government’s resolve: “You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
I write today to ask my classmates in the PSC and the Harvard community at large to consider what an absence of “victory”––a submission to Hamas––would mean for the wellbeing of millions of innocent civilians in the state of Israel, for the millions of Palestinians who desire a prosperous future, and for peace-loving people around the world. How can anyone be assured of their protection from senseless violence when sovereign governments cannot launch military operations against agents of terror? Won’t failing to provide justice to the victims of terror attacks embolden the forces of terrorism and tyranny globally?
Fighting for “survival” is the context of the Jewish people. It is not a new fight. The fight to defeat Hamas ought to be waged in a just fashion that adheres to international law and shows respect for the lives of innocent civilians––yet it still must be fought until Hamas no longer represents a threat to Palestinians and Israelis alike.
History does not provide neat and tidy lessons. It does suggest, however, that appeasing hate has profound consequences.
Whether we reside in Cambridge, Jerusalem, Kiev, or Taipei, the fight against tyranny and injustice is our own. The world is watching. We can do better, together.
Sincerely,
William Goldsmith
William Goldsmith ’24 (willgoldsmith@college.harvard.edu) writes Forum for the Independent.