On the morning of February 19, I had the displeasure of waking up to more than 100 messages from the University of East Anglia (UEA) Jewish Society detailing how the university’s campus had been completely vandalized, including on the main sign at the UK school’s entrance.
Throughout campus, students found spray painted antisemitic phrases such as “Zionism = Colonialism,” “Judaism opposes Zionism,” “End Apartheid,” and “Bank with Barclays finances genocide of Palestinians,” to share a few. This was done the night before a prospectus day, which was clearly a message to all potential UEA students and their families, warning of social alienation and potentially violence to anyone who disagreed.
Every single one of the “claims” listed above is completely false.
Zionism is a core belief of the overwhelming majority of Jews; it started out as an indigenous Land-Back movement, and had nothing to do with colonialism. There is no Israeli apartheid, as has been firmly documented.
When it comes to the current war, the IDF has gone out of its way to save as many innocent Gazans as possible while waging a war against a genocidal terror group. Furthermore, approximately 20% of the Israeli population is Arab and over 19% of the population are Muslim with full rights and safeties.
But aside from the graffiti’s brazenly dishonest antisemitism, the tokenizing of anti-Zionist Jews to legitimize these aggressive acts should be beyond the pale for a community that considers itself an “accepting” society. And yet, this is exactly what UEA’s Palestine Solidarity Society (Palsoc) thought was appropriate after the display of antisemitism was condemned by university leaders.
Thankfully, our school’s Vice Chancellor quickly condemned the vandalism as antisemitic and had it removed immediately (the least he could do, mind you). Unfortunately as of this writing, no consequences have been handed down to the perpetrators, who have still yet to be identified. This, coupled with Palsoc’s angry response to the Vice Chancellor that essentially doubled down on the graffiti’s antisemitism, shows that incidents like these will keep happening, leaving Jewish UEA students scared and vulnerable.
So what did Palsoc say, you ask? It would take up too much time refuting every distortion and lie used to justify the newest chapter of UEA hosting antisemitism, so here’s the gist:
After falsely claiming Israel is committing a genocide, the statement says that, “The Vice Chancellor has contributed to a repressive atmosphere in which those who wish to speak out against the unfolding genocide in Gaza are afraid do so,” and “[the letter shows] that calling out Israel’s genocide against their people will be treated as tantamount to a crime.” For a group worried about being targeted for their political views and that acknowledges how “anonymous graffiti can be perceived as intimidating,” it seems odd that the rest of Palsoc’s message attempts to defend such a blatant attack on the community.
The most appalling bit of nonsense in their response claimed that the vandals and their statements were not antisemitic because some Jews agree with them. It’s the classic, “I can’t be bigoted, some of my best friends are Jews,” response. It’s as if Palsoc believes it can justify its position by defending the right for some Jews to incite violence against other Jews.
Unfortunately, many student groups supported the Palsoc statement.
The point of all these cultural or religious societies is supposed to be educating people about their cultures, and defending their members against injustice. However, when Palsoc completely negates all the work that the community has done for social justice by defending what amounted to be a flood of anonymous threats targeting another marginalized group, there is little else to do other than question their motives.
It is an awful shame to see so many societies get behind such a hateful and targeted statement, which has made Jews like me feel so isolated and despised. For Palsoc to then claim that they are striving for coexistence and peace is pure gaslighting.
This article was originally published in the Algemeiner.