Don’t Buy It — Hate Speech Is Still Hate-Full Even When It’s Free

“There is only one solution: Intifada revolution!” “Globalize the Intifada!”

These chants are no longer limited to “peaceful” campus protests; Elias Rodriguez reportedly shouted “There is only one solution: Initifada revolution” after murdering Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim on May 21. Throwing Molotov cocktails into a group of Jews in Boulder (on June 1) exemplifies what  “globalizing the Intifada” looks like.

I’ve warned for years about these slogans’ incendiary nature. Let me explain why.

In 1993, I split time between left- and right-wing yeshivas in Jerusalem. Rabin had just signed the Oslo Peace Accords with Arafat. My left-wing peers were hopeful, while my right-wing peers were skeptical. They feared the PLO’s empowerment would lead to terrorism. History proved them right.

I watched as protests escalated: “Rabin is a traitor!” “Death to Rabin!” “Death to Arabs!” I cautioned my peers about their rhetoric. They insisted Jews might speak violently, but wouldn’t act. I warned that violent rhetoric begets violence. Months later, Baruch Goldstein massacred Palestinians, and the following year, Rabin was assassinated. My peers didn’t commit those acts, but the rhetoric created a permissive environment.  I decided to speak louder the next time.

This is the next time.

We must end the hate-mongering. Violent rhetoric leads to violence.

I defend free speech. A government that can silence one voice can silence all. But free speech comes with responsibility. As Justice Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California (1927), “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” That time is now.

But let’s not confuse the right to free speech with an obligation to platform speech that endangers others. Time, place, and manner restrictions are legal and necessary to protect the rights of others. My own remarks have been cut short in public forums due to time limits–and that’s appropriate.

What’s happening on campuses is not just peaceful free speech. It’s targeted demonization of Jews and normalization of violent rhetoric. At Brooklyn College on May 8th, where I teach, for example, anti-Zionist protesters chanted on the quad for hours despite violating Brooklyn College’s Rules and Events Protocol, which explicitly prohibit putting up tents without prior authorization. Our college president made several attempts to de-escalate the situation but drew the line at allowing an encampment, which has been associated with increased violence and antisemitic incidents. She only permitted police on campus after hours of negotiation, when talks broke down and protesters reconstructed tents they had briefly deflated. The administration repeatedly asked protesters to remove the tents from campus and disperse and warned them of the potential consequences. Before letting the police on campus to clear the encampment, the administration again warned the protesters that vulnerable members must leave. When police entered the campus, they walked protesters off campus without incident. The outcry against the administration from students and faculty was fast and fierce.

I share my colleagues’ concern about growing authoritarianism in Washington. I also share their distrust of the current government in Israel and their concern for the welfare of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Under different circumstances, I have protested the policies and actions of the Israeli government. But contrary to what my union claims, what unfolded on May 8th was not simply a peaceful protest—it was a well-planned series of targeted attacks on Jewish students and staff that began days before and left the administration with few options.

Earlier that week, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the group that organized the May 8th encampment, published smear campaigns against a Jewish student, an Israeli staff member, and the Jewish campus organization, Hillel. On May 8th, chants like “There is only one solution, intifada revolution!” and “Globalize the intifada!” echoed across the quad. These are not abstract slogans. In Arabic, intifada means “a violent shaking in rage.” Historically, it has involved the deliberate mass murder of Jewish civilians in cafes, buses, and schools. Calling to globalize it is a call for global violence against Jews, which is the very incitement that has now led to two murders in Washington and the attack on Jewish protesters in Boulder.

The protesters at Brooklyn College designated campus a “Liberation Zone” (see photo below), chanting “Zionists off campus!” and “We don’t want no Zionists here!” The rhetoric wasn’t just anti-Zionist. A Muslim protest leader led chants calling Jewish students “pigs,” invoking a well-documented antisemitic trope historically used to dehumanize Jews. Nor was this just verbal abuse. A Jewish student was kicked; others were taunted, called “colonizers” and “baby-killers,” as protesters got in their faces, challenging them to fight, in efforts to provoke violence.

Imagine a different scene: protesters hiding their identities behind white hoods and masks, instead of checkered ones, chanting “We don’t want no Black people here!” and yelling “There is only one solution: lynching!”  Would my colleagues still defend them?

After the protesters were removed from campus, they marched on the Hillel House, where Jewish students barricaded inside for 90 minutes while agitators mobbed the entrance and gave incendiary speeches accusing Hillel of being “dedicated to genocide.” Police struggled to protect Hillel’s entrance and clear a safe exit path.

History warns us what happens when mobs surround Jewish institutions and make inflammatory speeches about them. In 1920, my own ancestors’ synagogue was set ablaze with 2,000 Jews locked inside, all of whom perished. This is not 1920, but we’re seeing chilling echoes. In 2023, 68% of U.S. religion-based hate crimes targeted Jews, who represent just 2% of the population.

Some claim the protest was student-led and that only students could have gotten on campus. But Brooklyn College was open to the public, and protest negotiators were not students. In the spirit of a Subway Series, the same groups that called “ALL OUT TO COLUMBIA RIGHT NOW!!!” on May 7th, called “ALL OUT TO BROOKLYN COLLEGE NOW” on their social media accounts on May 8th.

Colleges like Columbia and Brooklyn are a subway ride away from one another. When citywide groups call “All out” to a protest, they can get a crowd, many of whom have no affiliation with the venue. Data from similar protests around the country suggest that as many as 75% of participants are not university-affiliated. According to college administration, a number of the protesters at Brookyn College on May 8th had participated in the encampment at City College the previous year, the same person was the lead negotiator on behalf of both encampments, and another main negotiator was a founding member of Within Our Lifetime. Both protests’ strategic planning, decision-making, and composition seem to have been directed by citywide and even nationwide agitators.

We know that Jewish Brooklyn College students were present, targeted, and are being overlooked amid calls to “stand with our students” and demand “full amnesty” for the protesters. Some have been “doxxed,” with their class schedules publicized alongside threats.

Let’s be clear: Hillel is not “dedicated to genocide,” and students’ tuition doesn’t fund Israel. But our tax dollars fund a federal government with its own civil rights violations. Why aren’t campus protesters addressing that?

This is not whataboutism. It’s a question of priorities. If protesters truly care about justice, why attack institutions uninvolved in a foreign conflict and overlook abuses at home?

We face a coordinated strategy to provoke disruption and demonize higher education. As David Leonhardt notes, if academia wants to counter political exploitation of antisemitism, we must take it seriously ourselves. As Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib argues, advocacy for Palestinians is undermined when laced with antisemitism.

That’s why I’m calling for action. Standing for free speech means standing against hate. I invite people in New York to join me this fall in Judaic Studies 2017: Jewish Perspectives on Ethical Issues, which will explore the Israeli-Arab conflict. I also invite faculty and students nationwide to join dialogues sponsored by the Academic Engagement Network. Let’s reject hate and model honest discourse. Hate speech may be free, but don’t buy it. It’s still hate-full, even when it’s free.