Sharona Muir ’78

1 Month Ago

More Dangerous Than ‘Just Advocacy’

I enjoyed Harrison Blackman’s article about Princetonians for Free Speech but respectfully disagree with Stuart Taylor that protected speech should include advocating for “the destruction of Israel, if it’s just advocacy.” Just as we need to understand systemic racism to define, say, racist lending practices, so antisemitism requires understanding. Calling for Israel’s destruction is never “just advocacy,” because it incites violence. Sen. Chuck Schumer has stated that attacks on Jews in Colorado, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania all “cited anti-Israel sentiment as a justification for their violence …” Schumer explained that “collective blame is traditionally one of the most nasty, dangerous forms of antisemitism …” and is different from peaceful protest of the Israeli government. In his words, “there’s a profound and dangerous difference between criticizing a government and condemning an entire people.” (Jewish Insider, June 6, 2025). 

Please reflect on what the “destruction of Israel” actually means. Hamas’ 2017 charter states, “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” (“Doctrine of Hamas,” Wilson Center, Oct. 20, 2023).  “Liberation” here means Israel’s total nationwide massacre, as Yahyah Sinwar implied when he announced that Oct. 7 was “just a rehearsal” (JNS, Nov. 30, 2023). The FBI and DHS have warned that American Jews like me are facing an “elevated threat.”  

When I marched against South African apartheid at Princeton in the ’70s, we chanted “End apartheid now!” We did not chant “Kill the Boer!” Please reflect.

Join the conversation

Plain text

No HTML tags allowed.

Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.