Local opinion: Free speech should not excuse normalization of antisemitism under activism banner

Mr. Steller’s recent column criticizing the removal of the 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of Arizona portrayed the university’s actions as an attack on free speech. In my view, that characterization overlooks both the alleged unlawful nature of the encampment and the very real impact it had on many students and faculty members, particularly Jewish members of the campus community.

The university’s decision to remove the encampment allowed graduation ceremonies and normal campus activities to proceed safely and without disruption. It also reduced conduct that many Jewish students and faculty perceived as antisemitic, intimidating, harassing or disruptive. While peaceful protest is protected speech, universities also have a responsibility to enforce campus rules, protect student safety and preserve an environment conducive to learning.

Mr. Steller acknowledged that the demonstrations followed Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, but his column omitted the scale and brutality of those attacks. Hamas terrorists murdered approximately 1,200 people, most of them civilians, kidnapped roughly 250 hostages and committed documented acts of torture, sexual violence and mutilation. Reports and eyewitness accounts concerning these atrocities have been widely circulated and reviewed internationally.

Against that backdrop, it is understandable why many Jewish students viewed slogans such as “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the River to the Sea” as threatening rather than merely political. Supporters of those phrases may dispute their meaning, but many Jews interpret them as calls for violence against Jews or for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Universities — and journalists — should not dismiss those concerns lightly.

Mr. Steller also referenced allegations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. He gave little attention to the substantial disagreement among legal scholars, military analysts and genocide experts regarding that claim. Reasonable people can disagree about Israeli military policy and conduct during the war. However, it is inaccurate to suggest there is universal expert consensus that Israel’s actions legally constitute genocide.

For example, John Spencer, an urban warfare expert, has argued that civilian casualty figures in Gaza, relative to the density and complexity of the conflict, were lower than many military analysts would have expected in comparable urban warfare. Similarly, Leonard Hammer, an international attorney and University of Arizona professor, stated during an April 2026 lecture in Tucson that, in his view, Israel’s actions did not meet the legal definition of genocide under the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Former U.N. Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Alice Wairimu Nderitu likewise publicly stated that she did not believe Israel’s war against Hamas constituted genocide.

Casualty figures reported during the conflict have been heavily disputed. Critics of Hamas have argued that statistics originating from Hamas-controlled authorities in Gaza do not consistently distinguish between civilians and combatants. Supporters of Israel additionally point to efforts by the Israel Defense Forces to warn civilians through phone calls, text messages and leaflets before certain military operations.

The United Nations itself has long faced criticism regarding perceived bias against Israel. Whether one agrees with those criticisms or not, they remain relevant context when citing U.N. statements or resolutions as definitive authority on the conflict.

None of this means that criticism of Israel should be prohibited. Democracies depend on open debate and the ability to question government policies, including those of Israel. But honest debate also requires historical context, factual balance and a willingness to acknowledge the fears and experiences of Jewish students who felt targeted during these demonstrations. Free speech should protect discussion and disagreement — not excuse intimidation, harassment, disruption, lawlessness or the normalization of antisemitism under the banner of activism.