Why the protests for Palestine and not for the victims in Yemen, Sudan or Congo?
The motives of pro-Palestine protesters have many shortcomings, writes UvA sociologist Jeroen Bruggeman. “Cutting ties with Israel is easy and would give the protesters great satisfaction, but does it benefit Palestinians?”
Since the start of the war in Gaza, many students and staff have protested for Palestine, even though most of them do not even know Palestinians. No doubt this involvement was often sympathetic, yet questions arise.
First, why were there far more demonstrations than against other wars with far more casualties, such as Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Congo, Myanmar and Ukraine? Are Israelis and Palestinians more special than everyone else who uses and/or endures violence?
Special in this case is the perspective of decolonisation, which is popular today. It was reinforced by peer pressure: by being angry together and shouting in sync, the protesters gained collective effervescence, as sociologists say. They became absorbed in the group, which gave intrinsic satisfaction. It also led to tunnel vision and reduced empathy with others: inclusiveness is nice, but not of other opinions for now.
Ideology
The protesters apparently do not realise that decolonisation is not a theory, the truth of which is supposedly irrefutably established, but an ideology. It simplifies all the world’s problems into European colonialism (now all dictators outside Europe are laughing, even in their graves) and promotes decolonisation as a solution. However, Jews were seen as strangers in Europe, murdered en masse, and Holocaust survivors were told they were unwanted. Therefore, their migration to Palestine was not European colonialism, as with the Dutch who dominated Indonesia. Nor was there a colonial motherland. This shows that there is no single perspective that everyone would be obliged to adhere to, as the protesters want to make themselves and others believe.
The ideology was given splendour at the protests by singing Hamas battle songs about bloodshed. Radicalised protesters felt empowered to scold, intimidate and exclude random Jewish students in working groups. People walking with an Israeli flag were beaten with sticks. Most Jews at the UvA are not even Israelis, are not allowed to vote there and exercise no political influence.
Conspiracy theory
The aggression makes it clear that an old conspiracy theory has been revived, which states that Jews from all countries are conspiring. Evidence for this theory is not considered necessary by supporters at all; hearsay is already enough. By comparison, when many citizens are murdered in a Catholic country like Mexico, no Catholics are called out at the UvA; they are not suspected of conspiracy.
However, the protesters do not want to be called anti-Semites and therefore say they are not against Jews but against Zionists. Zionists are Jews who, in one form or another, recognise the state of Israel. They are in the majority but not the whole nation. What the protesters fail to mention is that Zionists have very different views on the war. So you can be a Zionist and at the same time strongly oppose the war, the Israeli government and the unjust treatment of Palestinians. Basically just like many protesters.
Despite claims to the contrary, conspiracy theories, projecting collective guilt and homogenising all Zionists, not to mention exclusion and aggression, are indeed anti-Semitic. You can tell that this is now considered normal in certain circles at the UvA by the fact that no one opposes it.
Besides Zionists, the Board of Governors would also be guilty of the war, but to what exactly? It was reported on Al Jazeera from the mouth of a well-known UvA professor that the UvA is complicit in genocide. This professor was certainly not the only one to say this, but someone in this position on a channel with half a billion viewers has more impact than a junior lecturer on AT5, the news channel from Amsterdam.
No evidence
People who accuse should also present evidence, but these critics did not. Nevertheless, all ties with Israel had to be cut immediately. These ties are all online and so far no ties have been found from which Palestinians have died. There are, however, UvA researchers working with Israelis attached to universities that also do jobs for the army. As an accusation of genocide, this vague association is untenable. Severing ties is easy and would bring great satisfaction to protesters, but does it benefit Palestinians? Perhaps these ties might actually allow more influence to be exerted in favour of Palestinian citizens. That requires knowledge of Israeli universities, which the protesters clearly do not want to bother with.
The question of blame also includes the question of proportionality of resources. According to the protesters, a few million euros worth of damage to UvA buildings is small compared to the many deaths in Gaza, but this comparison is flawed. The protesters must prove that saving Palestinians cannot be achieved with less damage and that the damage is proportional to the certainty that breaking ties will save Palestinians. This requires a scientific model with which to estimate the effect, but there is no such model. Also, the number of somewhat similar cases, such as apartheid in South Africa, is far too small and diverse to draw strong conclusions. In any case, the legitimacy of the destruction has not been demonstrated.
All in all, this war has only losers. At the UvA, relations are polarised. The demonstrating students miscalculated the amount of support they would receive from the UvA and failed to realise that most staff watched the demonstrations with mixed feelings. When they expected widespread support after the police violence, in which peaceful demonstrators also received blows, the lack of it led to deep disappointment. Some Jewish students and staff no longer dare to come to the UvA because of the anti-Semitism of the people who push for decolonisation.
The aforementioned professor said on X that it is fine if Zionists are uncomfortable. However, it is not up to individual staff and students to decide which groups are allowed to feel comfortable. The UvA and all its residents have to obey the law and make sure everyone feels at home.
Jeroen Bruggeman is Associate Professor Cultural Sociology at the UvA.
