The Ideological Gap Among Jews in the Mahmoud Khalil Case

The profound transformation in US policy under President Trump has alarmed green card holders and sparked a contentious debate about the executive branch’s authority to deport them without due process. The controversy has reverberated across America and has also commanded global attention.

Rather than delving into the legal intricacies, I would like to shed some light on the philosophical and ideological divide this case reveals among Jews in the US compared to their Israeli counterparts.

As a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, I find myself trying to navigate the complexities and relating to some degree with both perspectives.

As an American, I resonate deeply with the imperative to safeguard one of our Constitution’s most cherished rights: freedom of speech. Questions of whether Mr. Khalil has forfeited this right by deploying offensive and incendiary language loom large. Are his actions truly within the bounds of free speech? 

An initial arrest warrant for expressing views sympathetic to a terrorist organization – Hamas in this case – could escalate into a sweeping proscription of political dissent. Alternatively, as framed by the Trump administration, it could amount to a subversion of US foreign policy. The Jewish community need only glance back a few decades to recall the fervent battle to liberate Soviet Jews. 

Natan Sharansky’s monumental book Fear No Evil depicted the extraordinary measures the KGB took to suppress even basic Jewish religious practices. While Trump’s America is a far cry from Stalin’s Soviet Union, the specter of thought policing remains a haunting concern for many Jews.

Conversely, as an Israeli, my perspective shifts dramatically. Since the events of October 7th – and arguably even in the years preceding it – Israelis have begun to view free speech through a different lens. Nine months ago, the Israeli government banned the Qatari Al Jazeera news channel from broadcasting within Israeli territory, effectively rendering its operations illegal. What may have previously been deemed controversial or unjust now garners nearly unanimous public support within the Israeli body politic. This shift is rooted in Al Jazeera’s chronic dissemination of misleading information on the Israel-Hamas war, which contributed to increased diplomatic pressure on Israel to halt its military operations. Judge Haggai Brenner, of the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court, upheld the government’s ban, asserting that evidence established a tangible link between Hamas and Al Jazeera, turning the latter into a de facto accomplice to terrorism.

This Israeli shift does not signify an abandonment of liberal values. Israel proudly maintains a robust culture of free speech and press freedom as a fundamental component of its democracy. 

The urgency of Israel’s situation feels overwhelming in a reality where 59 hostages remain in Hamas captivity, where the combined death toll of soldiers and civilians has tragically surged past 1,840 in a population akin to that of New Jersey (roughly 9.5 million); where numerous Israelis have direct connections to individuals killed in their homes or on the battlefield, where thousands of injured veterans are striving to rebuild their lives, and where communities along Israel’s northern border are only now beginning to return to some semblance of normalcy amid ongoing rocket threats.

Even before Israel’s justified military response began on October 8th, US university campuses were hotbeds of support for Hamas, orchestrated by figures like Mr. Khalil at Columbia University, who unabashedly called for Israel’s destruction.

In this delicate discourse surrounding the limits of free speech, the threshold has indeed been lowered for most Israelis. Mr. Khalil has gone to great lengths to rationalize the unspeakable atrocities committed on October 7th, resulting in heightened anxiety among Jewish students at Columbia University, with many opting to obscure their Jewish identities out of fear for their safety. 

While I long for a future where Israelis can engage in civil discourse on these pressing issues – free from the fires that currently threaten our existence – our prime focus must remain on the immediate and paramount rights we pursue: life and security.