Local opinion: Tolerance we can't afford anymore

British author Neil Gaiman said, “Libraries are the thin red line between civilization and barbarism.” Sadly, we’re seeing how libraries — and the universities that contain them — are enabling people who are not only crossing but stomping on that thin red line.

Protesters have been allowed to openly chant approval for the murder, rape, and abduction of Jewish people. Under the veneer of free speech, this was allowed to persist for weeks.

The United States Congress recently passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, with an overwhelming majority codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, the first time such a definition was enshrined into federal law.

The few opposed to the bill claimed that it curtails free speech. This country was built upon the premise of freedom of expression, and the same First Amendment that protects freedom of religion protects freedom of speech.

But in this instance, freedom of speech is not at risk — quite the contrary.

Jewish people have long championed free speech and care for minorities. In fact, the Torah instructs us to be compassionate to the stranger “for you know the feelings of the stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9).

But the speech here should never have been free. It should never have been protected, let alone enthusiastically cheered on. This is not a call for peace, justice, or care for the oppressed. This is an open call for the annihilation of Jewish people and of the only Jewish country in the world.

I have experienced just such hate first-hand back in 2004. I was working at the time at the Rabbinical Centre of Europe. As part of my dealings, I was invited to an interfaith conference focusing on tolerance and peace in Brussels, Belgium.

Organizers were considerate enough to order me kosher food that came packed and fully sealed for the evening gala. As the Saran Wrap covering my plates crinkled, a conversation about Jewish dietary laws and general practice was sparked. Those seated around the table found it fascinating, and I enjoyed sharing the information.

Then, the man sitting alongside me, dressed in an orange robe indicating he was a Buddhist monk, interrupted the friendly conversation about the Jewish religion.

“Don’t you think Ariel Sharon enjoys seeing the blood of Arab children being spilled?” he abruptly asked.

The table went silent. I am embarrassed to say that I was quiet as well. His question was disturbing on so many levels that I remained speechless for some long moments.

How do you respond to such an antisemitic fabrication that is rooted in the blood libels of the primitive Middle Ages? The age-old claim that Jews drank the blood of Christians was now updated to Muslims (when, in reality, Jews are prohibited from consuming even the blood of animals, going so far as to discard any egg in which a blood spot is found).

How can a religious figure make such a dubious statement during an event whose stated purpose was promoting mutual understanding?

Young at the time and not wanting to create a scene, I smiled sheepishly and engaged him in a conversation. Until today, I regret that I did not respond with the same force with which he presented his original question/statement.

Because the red line between free speech and hateful speech can be razor-thin, and the red line between hateful speech and hateful actions is razor-thin as well.

We have seen how decades of demonizing Jews allowed the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, to take place — and how that same philosophy enabled their justification and even encouragement by otherwise well-educated professors and students in the United States.