editorials
Self-censorship on Campus
F irst, there were Jewish space lasers. Now there
are Jew-free zones. Neither exists. But both
urban myths are signs of our hyperbolic times.

Jewish space lasers came from the fevered
mind of Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
of Georgia. Jew-free zones refer to nine student
groups at the UC Berkeley Law School (out of
more than 100) that signed on to a statement
pledging not to invite speakers to their events that
support “Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel,
and the occupation of Palestine.” For good mea-
sure, the nine groups reiterated support for BDS.

The school’s dean condemned the pledge. So did
Jewish groups from coast to coast. Even Barbra
Streisand expressed concern.

While there are no Jew-free zones, there is fear
that there are. And this fear feeds vigilance — and
hyperbole — that can make it easier to declare
certain speech or actions antisemitic when a
more nuanced view might lead to a different
conclusion. That fear can also cause intimidated
students to not speak up at all.

Berkeley is an extreme example. But there are
others. Many college campuses are feeling the
heat of hostility to its Jewish students and their
guilt by association to Israel. What’s needed is
college leadership, including teachers, to take on
a mediating role and to encourage constructive,
respectful discussion and debate. That may not
change anyone’s mind, but it will empower those
being vilified to feel less put upon by a disturb-
ingly increasing college campus culture of exclu-
sion and derision.

Unfortunately, many of the nonstudent campus
leaders lack the interest or the skill to help ana-
lyze and critique both sides of the debate. And
worse, it is often members of the college faculty
who lead the accusatory and demeaning chal-
lenges that generate the tension and conflict.

It’s not just Jewish students who feel intimidated
and reluctant to speak up. A recent survey by the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
found that 83% of college students reported
engaging in self-censorship, up from 60% in 2020.

And according to a recent op-ed in The Boston
Globe, “The primary reason students say they
don’t express their authentic views, according
to a Heterodox Academy survey, is fear of peers
taking offense. Many even worry that sharing their
thoughts will cause others ‘harm.’”
But fear of speaking up is different from fear
of being victimized or attacked. An ADL survey
from 2021 found that one in three Jewish stu-
dents experienced antisemitic hate directed at
them in the previous academic year. The most
common incidents were offensive comments
online or in person, and damage or defacement
of property. Jewish students on campus report
that they keep their kippot in their pockets and
hide their Stars of David under their sweaters.

These concerns are real. And reports of these
problems frighten other students who may not
have actually experienced antisemitism them-
selves. This leads to a feeling of alienation on
campus. We hope wise professionals will step forward
to help shift the mood on our college campuses.

And we encourage everyone involved to work to
lower the temperature. The situation at Berkeley
is upsetting and deserves to be called out and
should be corrected. But there are no “Jew-free
zones.” JE
The Promise and Uncertainty of the
Lebanon Gas Deal
E arly last week, Israel gave a preliminary nod
of approval to a U.S.-brokered draft deal with
Lebanon to address a years-long dispute regarding
a Mediterranean gas project. The maritime border
dispute is an ongoing territorial and natural gas
dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Qana
and Karish gas fields, which are believed to contain
significant gas reserves.

Israel is reportedly poised to start extracting
gas from the area, and Hezbollah — the powerful
Lebanese Shiite militia and party — is threatening
all-out war if Israel proceeds without first resolv-
ing the territorial dispute.

At the time U.S. mediator and the State
Department’s senior adviser for energy security
Amos Hochstein presented the confidential draft
proposal for resolution to the parties, there was
hope that the deal might be accepted by both
sides. But, just a few days later, after Lebanon
presented proposed amendments to the plan
and other clarifications to Hochstein, the message
from Israel became much more pessimistic.

According to reports, Israel rejected the
12 OCTOBER 13, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
Lebanese amendments, which were deemed by
Israel to be a threat to the Jewish state’s security
and economic interests. That action was immedi-
ately followed by Israel’s defense minister, Benny
Gantz, reportedly instructing Israel’s defense
establishment to prepare for a rise in tension
with Lebanon overreaction to Israel’s rejection of
Lebanon’s demands.

In today’s Middle East environment of endorse-
ment and expansion of the Abraham Accords,
more cooperative engagement with Egypt, pos-
sible opportunities for expanded exchanges with
Jordan and even potential positive steps in rela-
tions with Saudi Arabia, the Israel-Lebanon nego-
tiations are a clear outlier.

While all of the other regional accords, treaties
and discussions are focused on rapprochement,
with an eye toward growing interdependence,
engagement and peaceful coexistence, the Israel-
Lebanon negotiations are much different. All par-
ticipants agree that the objective of the bilateral,
indirect negotiations is not for Israel and Lebanon
to be friends, and all agree that the possible gas
deal is not a normalization agreement or a peace
agreement. What is being proposed is a business
deal between two very hostile parties.

Israel and Lebanon disagree over the land
border between the two countries, and there are
ongoing tensions and clashes between Israel and
Hezbollah, the Iranian terror proxy that plays a
decisive role in Lebanon’s domestic and interna-
tional affairs. But notwithstanding those funda-
mental disagreements and related deep mistrust,
both sides see the benefit of an economic deal
that enables Israel and Lebanon to extract gas
from the Mediterranean and provide much-
needed revenue for Lebanon and an element of
stability to an otherwise threatened border for
Israel. This is not an easy negotiation. And the U.S.

and Hochstein are to be commended for their
impressive efforts to broker a deal. While the fits
and starts will continue, as will the posturing on
both sides, there is a deal to be made that can
be of significant benefit to both sides. We remain
hopeful that a deal will be reached. JE