Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.
The Daily Orange has received an influx of Letters to the Editor in response to the Israel-Hamas war. Some of these submissions are featured here.
As members of our community continue to send Letters to the Editor, we will continue to update this page.
University administration is complicit in the very actions they condemn
To Gretchen Ritter and Allen Groves:
It is appalling to read your Nov. 9 communique to the Syracuse University community.
It is reckless and incendiary for you to single out and target one student speaker from the Nov. 9 protest calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, and to do so in the name of student “safety.” Student speakers, protest organizers and participants, including Jewish, secular, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist and Christian students, do not feel safer.
It is McCarthy-esque to announce you have called in FBI surveillance, also in the name of campus safety. Student-activists at SU who publicly support an end to the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, who have already been contacted by the FBI, do not feel safer.
It is outrageous to publicly censure and threaten disciplinary action against a speaker at the Nov. 9 event when, Provost Ritter, you were one of the SU community members charged at the protest with complicity in an unfolding genocide, as reported Nov. 9 by The Daily Orange. You are not a disinterested bystander to the event.
It is false and an incitement to tell the SU community that during the protest specific student organizations were named as complicit in genocide because of their “identity” when in fact, as reported in The D.O., complicity was linked to specific actions taken by those organizations; when in fact, many participants in the protest share an “identity” with students in those organizations; and, when in fact, speakers also addressed the broader university as complicit.
Speakers made crystal clear that it is not antisemitism to oppose Israel’s genocidal war and those who support it; your communications have not done so. It is manipulative and incendiary, as leaders of this educational institution in a time of ferocious state violence against Palestinians funded and protected by the U.S. government, to provide zero context in your communique for the protest and the speeches — part of a planned national walk-out on Day 34 of Israeli slaughter in Gaza.
It is a lie to close your Nov. 9 letter stating your support for academic freedom and free speech when the letter is the latest in a pattern of speech and actions by the Provost’s office and SU administrators to encourage self-censorship, fear, anxiety, silencing and political conformity and repression among SU community members.
Jackie Orr, Associate Professor Emeritus, Sociology Department
Jtorr@syr.edu
Protestors ignore the scope and depth of Jewish history
In response to “After hundreds march to support Palestine, Ritter, Groves address ‘reprehensible behavior’ from protestor.”
Last Thursday, activists on campus protested the staggering loss of human life in Gaza following in the wake of the unprecedented assault and abuse of civilians in Israel on Oct.7 by Hamas, including murder, rape and abduction. Ignoring the crimes against humanity committed by Hamas terrorists, speakers at Syracuse University claimed that anti-Zionism does not constitute antisemitism. They did so without understanding what constitutes antisemitism or how anti-Zionist activism manifests anti-Jewish animus.
Binary settler-colonial rubrics and the hostile cacophony of calls to “free Palestine from river to sea” under the banner of “resistance” mean nothing other than the elimination of the State of Israel. Israel is itself a politically and morally fraught, but a central fulcrum of contemporary Jewish life.
The State of Israel was established as a place of refuge for a long-suffering people. It became a national home for the renewal of Jewish life after the Holocaust, an in-gathering of the Jewish people from across the world, including refugees from Morocco, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere from across the Middle East and North Africa.
As reported by The Daily Orange, SU protestors chanted “Zionism has to go,” accused the SU Administration of aligning with so-called “Zionist donors” and targeted by name all the Jewish organizations at SU at a time of rising antisemitism and antisemitic violence in North America and Europe.
Calling for the destruction of a national entity is included in the very definition of genocide, as defined by the United Nations in 1948. Associating Jews with money and power is an antisemitic staple. The public calling out of Jewish organizations by name is a threatening act. It is safe to assume that most protestors know little about Jewish history or the history of Zionism. Student activists and their supporters seem unable to grasp that it is possible to be pro-Palestine and pro-Israel, anti-Hamas and anti-Netanyahu.
Students and faculty with direct contact with people in the region are reeling from the violence of the Israel-Hamas war, the loss of life in Israel and acute Palestinian suffering. In response, anti-Zionism isolates the larger Jewish student and faculty body while losing sight of principles of mutual human recognition upon which a just and peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict depends.
Zachary Braiterman, Professor, Department of Religion/Jewish Studies Program
Zbraiter@syr.edu
SU’s decision to stifle, condemn peaceful demonstrations fails its students
An open letter to administration, faculty and students.
I hope this letter finds you in a moment of reflection on the values we hold dear at Syracuse University. As a Jewish alumnus writing from California, I feel compelled to express my profound anger and deep disappointment at the university’s woefully inadequate response to the suffering imposed on Gaza. While there is much to discuss regarding the nuanced dynamics between Israel and Palestine, this letter aims to scrutinize specifically the actions, or in some cases the inaction, taken by SU, which has left me seriously questioning our institution’s commitment to inclusivity and academic freedom.
As the global spotlight focuses on the profound human tragedy unfolding in Gaza, reputable academic institutions should seize every opportunity to cultivate a safe space for all Israeli, Jewish, Muslim and Palestinian students. Furthermore, it should eagerly embrace its obligation to educate its students on unfolding real-time issues. Unfortunately, this proactive approach does not appear to align with the current stance of my alma mater.
I am profoundly dismayed by the university’s recent decisions. The Orwellian choice to involve the FBI in response to student activism, the university’s muted response to students’ requests and instances of targeted racist acts towards faculty such as the case with Dr. Himika Bhattacharya, have not only been inadequately communicated to alumni — crucial stakeholders in the institution’s legacy — but have also raised serious questions about the motivations guiding these decisions.
From my understanding — derived from ongoing conversations with undergraduate friends due to what appears to be a lack of transparent communication from SU — there have been attempts to intimidate and censor expressions of support and solidarity with Palestine.
On Oct. 18, the Women’s and Gender Studies department bravely issued a statement in solidarity with Palestinians, condemning the excessive use of militaristic power by Israel. Moreover, on Oct. 31, Chancellor Kent Syverud and Provost Gretchen Ritter informed the student body that they canceled a peaceful teach-in initiated by students to educate the SU community on the violence happening in Gaza. The reason given was citing “safety concerns,” further stressing the need for meticulous planning to ensure free speech in a time and place deemed suitable for the safety of the community.
History, however, teaches us that during pivotal moments, such as the civil rights movement or the Vietnam War, true free speech did not wait until a convenient setting. It is especially disheartening to hear that this is happening at a time when members of your student body, who have family in Gaza, are enduring unimaginable hardships and loss and are seeking community.
A distressing reality unfolds as students and families harass professors speaking out on the Gaza crisis. Dr. Bhattacharya faced hostility for supporting the WGS department, with a petition actively seeking her removal for “Jew hatred.” Failing to promptly denounce such behavior isn’t an oversight; it endorses a toxic culture unsuitable for our institution.
As a Jewish individual, I’m profoundly disturbed by the disconnect evident in those advocating faculty dismissal. Those propelling the petition have failed to engage in substantive research or peruse the WGS department’s statement in question. Drawing from the statement itself, the WGS department asserts, “These dominant narratives also purposely and repeatedly conflate criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism. We reject these conflations and oppose antisemitism unequivocally.”
The university’s deliberate distortion of this statement raises serious questions about the motivations behind the petition. Syverud and Ritter’s silence in the face of such harassment and baseless accusations is a complicity and blatant failure to protect academic freedom and uphold the principles of a safe and inclusive academic environment.
Jewish identity is becoming intertwined with Zionist beliefs, a development that deeply concerns me. Jewish individuals are currently navigating a complex double-bind, wherein publicly rebuking the actions of Israel may invoke a sense of straying from what is perceived as “good Jewishness.”
We must reject the temptation of this false dichotomy. Opposing the ruthless and indiscriminate killings of the most marginalized does not make you antisemitic. As a Jewish individual who grew up in a synagogue that waves the Israeli flag, I understand the deep connection many have to Israel. But it is entirely possible to be Jewish and denounce the actions unfolding in Israel. The oversimplified framework surrounding discussions on Israel leaves little room for nuanced perspectives, fostering a polarized environment that stifles meaningful dialogue.
It is possible, and essential, to speak out against the actions of the nation of Israel without implicating the entire Jewish religion. Pretending otherwise creates a dangerous dogma that stifles legitimate dissent and diverse perspectives, hindering meaningful discourse on a complex issue.
On Oct. 28, United Nations Human Rights official Craig Mokhiber urgently declared, “We are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it.” However, on Nov. 9, when, a student echoed these sentiments, allegedly accusing organizations that support Israel — distinct from them being Jewish — of being “complicit” with genocide, SU’s response was glaringly selective.
The campus-wide email conveniently omitted this crucial context. The speaker’s comment was the singular aspect of the entire protest that the university chose to address, conspicuously neglecting to issue any statements regarding the safety of Palestinian and Muslim students.
The decision to escalate the situation, despite the acknowledgement that the university was “not aware of any current threats,” reflects a pattern marked by disproportionality. The university’s reliance on manipulative and intimidating language not only compromises the foundational principles of free expression but also contributes to an environment where specific demographics face marginalization and neglect.
Having graduated from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs in May, I reflect on the esteemed reputation it holds. The core of Maxwell’s acclaim lies in its dedication to nurturing a community of scholars committed to responsible citizenship and the proactive pursuit of a more inclusive and healthier society. Emphasized by Maxwell is the institution’s aspiration to “prepare new generations of leaders with an expansive foundation of knowledge and a socially responsible mindset.” How can we anticipate current students evolving into informed leaders with these morals when the university appears to actively stifle the voices of peaceful protestors?
These incidents, coupled with the university’s silence, call into question the institution’s commitment to fostering an inclusive and intellectually vibrant community. The path Syverud is currently treading stifles the very principles the university claims to uphold. It’s time for Syracuse University to bridge the gap between rhetoric and action.
Bailee Roberts, baileejaye@gmail.com
The post Letters from our community in response to the Israel-Hamas war, on-campus protests appeared first on The Daily Orange.