With the death toll in Gaza at over 34,000 and rising, a growing number of students have felt compelled to speak out. Protests in US universities have mobilised ever since Israel launched its all-out assault on Gaza, in retaliation for the vile crimes committed by Hamas and allies on 7 October. But in recent weeks, sporadic demonstrations have given way to campus occupations and round-the-clock protests.

Students are calling for the slaughter to stop, demanding justice for gross human rights violations, urging their government – which has recently approved a further US$15 billion of funding – to stop supporting the Israeli regime and demanding their universities end investments with companies linked to Israel. While they’ve won the support of civil society groups and many university teachers, they’ve also been met with an excessive and often militarised response. This has called into question the extent to which US authorities and universities respect the US Constitution’s First Amendment, aimed at protecting freedoms of speech and assembly.

The solidarity protests have been described as this generation’s anti-Vietnam War movement. At Columbia University, New York, where the protests began, students recently occupied Hamilton Hall, famously taken over by anti-war protesters in 1968, and renamed it Hind’s Hall. They did so in memory of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old Palestinian girl who survived an Israeli tank attack on her family only to be killed during a rescue attempt.

Crackdown unleashed

The Hind’s Hall occupation and another in nearby City College were cleared by police in riot gear – invited onto private premises by university administrators – with some 300 arrests. That’s been far from a rare occurrence: as the movement has spread, the right to protest has become fiercely disputed.

Security forces kitted out in riot gear have reportedly used tasers, batons, rubber bullets, teargas and pepper spray against protesters, including academics, and journalists. They’ve arrested over 2,000 people – mostly students and faculty members. Many students have been suspended in punishment for taking part in protests.

They’re also facing a barrage of disinformation and propaganda. Protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, and isolated incidents of hatred have been firmly condemned. But political leaders, including President Joe Biden, have mischaracterised protests that cause disruption as not being peaceful. Other politicians have called for those involved to be expelled, even jailed, and demanded a strong security force response. In some cases they’ve blamed alleged external agitators – a tactic used to try to deny the legitimacy of protesters’ grievances. They’ve also pressured university administrators to take rapid action to end protests, blamed them for failing to control campuses and called for resignations.

By penalising protesters on the grounds of protecting the safety of others on campus – as Columbia and others have done – universities are misrepresenting peaceful protest as a threat. Those opposed to the protests are also slurring people taking part as extremist and antisemitic, disingenuously conflating criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Jewish hatred. The voices of supporters of Israel claiming protests have made them feel afraid and unsafe have been widely boosted. But the reality is that protesters include Jewish people appalled by Israel’s actions, and Jewish and non-Jewish protesters recently joined together to celebrate Passover.

Some very wealthy university donors have weighed in. Billionaire backers of Columbia have criticised protesters and university authorities and suggested they may retaliate by withholding funding. Millions of dollars of planned donations were stopped even before the latest round of protests began. Republican politicians have quickly got in on the act, announcing they’re investigating federal funding to universities where students have protested.

This is the latest instalment of an all-out political struggle over what can and can’t be said and taught in US universities. It echoes the pressure that saw Harvard’s first Black president, Claudine Gay, forced to quit in January over criticism of her handling of a Congressional hearing question about accusations of campus antisemitism. A campaign orchestrated by right-wing activists seeking to impose a conservative agenda on universities, led by a billionaire hedge-fund manager, also mobilised plagiarism allegations against Gay. Liz Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, also had to resign.

More of this can be expected in an election year, particularly from right wingers who claim to be free speech absolutists when it suits them, seizing on an issue Democratic voters are divided on. The House of Representatives just passed a bill to update the federal definition of antisemitism, potentially conflating criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism, and enabling the government to deny funding to universities that fall foul. There are already legal protections against antisemitic discrimination, and the bill is unlikely to be passed by the Senate, but it offers a further example of how protest opponents are amping up the rhetoric.

The sad outcome of polarisation has been outbreaks of violence, as seen at the University of California, where counter-protesters attacked a protest camp. But such violence shouldn’t be used as an excuse to restrict protests. People have a right to protest peacefully and in peace. Under international law it’s the job of the authorities to ensure this right is upheld, including by protecting protesters from violence.

A wider movement

It isn’t only in the USA that people are speaking out and demanding justice – or facing repression for doing so. People have taken to the streets in many European states. But authorities have banned protests in at least 12 countries, including on grounds that protests supposedly pose a risk to public order and security. In Frankfurt, Germany, police banned a protest on public safety grounds just 12 minutes before it was due to start. In some cases, including in the Czech Republic and Poland, civil society groups have taken to the courts to have protest bans overturned.

In at least seven EU countries, security forces have taken an intimidatory and violent response to protests. For example, police beat protesters with batons in Milan, Italy. Legitimate criticism has again been misrepresented as antisemitic in many European countries, and authorities have banned  Palestinian flags and the keffiyeh, the black-and-white scarf that symbolises support for Palestine.

Middle East and North African governments aren’t showing any more tolerance. Having long suppressed the right to protest and speak out, they’re making their own calculations about  international relations and the potential for protesters to voice domestic dissent.

In authoritarian Egypt, numerous protests about the conflict have been repressed. In the latest, security forces broke up a protest on 23 April outside a United Nations (UN) office, arresting several participants. In Jordan – where most people are of Palestinian origin – authorities have used teargas and batons against protesters and arrested at least 1,500 people in relation to protests since 7 October. The government is a staunch US ally and has numerous economic agreements with Israel. Moroccan authorities are also prosecuting people for protesting or criticising the state’s relations with Israel and the USA.

Spotlight on divestment

Protests will continue for as long as the killing in Gaza does. If the current wave is subdued, more can be expected when the next outrage comes. Early attempts to suppress protests only encouraged more people to join in, and demonstrations have continued to spread and take on renewed energy in other countries, inspired by those in the USA and angered at both what’s happening in Gaza and the way protesters are being treated. A series of university protests has now begun in Canada and the UK, also calling for divestment.

Calls for universities to divest from Israel will continue. These are dovetailing with demands to cease involvement in fossil fuel companies. Many of the same people, motivated by the same quest for human rights and justice, are involved in both.

Some student groups are calling for their universities to divest from companies they believe are profiting from the conflict and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories due to investments and businesses in Israel. Corporate giants such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft are among their targets. Others are targeting those companies directly implicated in enabling Israel’s military, including defence and IT suppliers.

US universities typically have large investment funds. Columbia University, for example, has a US$13.64 billion fund, and combined US university and college endowments amount to a reported US$839.1 billion – bigger than the GDP of most countries. While it’s hard to unravel how much of this is directly or indirectly linked to Israel, it’s also reported that over the last decade US universities received around US$342 million in contracts and gifts from Israel, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology students say their university has received US$11 million from Israel’s defence ministry during the same period.

It’s legitimate for people to question how this economic power is used, demand transparency and advocate for decisions to be consistent with human rights. And it isn’t unrealistic to urge divestment: some universities have managed to deescalate protests have done so by conceding at least some divestment demands.

Alongside calls for divestment, campaigners urge a boycott of companies implicated in Israel’s gross human rights violations, and this is having an impact. After one of its franchises reportedly gave free food to Israeli forces, McDonald’s faced boycott calls and recently missed its sales targets in the Middle East.

But the fast food giant is fighting back: in Malaysia it’s suing a pro-Palestine group for defamation, in what campaigners say is a SLAPP – a strategic lawsuit against public participation, a measure intended to bully critical voices into silence. Just as it’s legitimate to call for divestment, people also have a right to decide where they spend their money on the basis of their conscience, and to call for others to follow suit.

Looking ahead

Students have as much right as anyone else to speak out, protest and demand change. It’s time the US authorities listened to the concern about their heavy-handed response voiced by UN human rights chief Volker Türk. Protest organisers must of course call out anyone who spreads hate speech and antisemitism, but the many protesting shouldn’t be punished for the actions of the few.

When people rebuke the actions of the state of Israel this isn’t the same as being antisemitic. When they respond to violence by protesting peacefully, it isn’t extremism. Many argue instead that it’s Israel’s current actions that are extreme – and they’ll keep protesting against them as long as Israeli forces keep killing.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org