I was quite disturbed to read the opinion submission written by anthropology professor Bret Gustafson on Nov. 16. Titled “Stop the killing in Gaza, and end aid to Israel,” the article accuses Israel of “genocidal intent” and “settler colonialism.” Professor Gustafson claims that the stated objectives of Israel — freeing hostages, toppling Hamas, and ensuring that Gaza will cease to threaten Israeli civilians — are merely a front for ethnic cleansing, and therefore, we all must oppose Israel’s actions and any aid it receives. 

Unfortunately, his op-ed lacks the depth needed to assess a conflict with a history that long predates Oct. 7. Gustafson simplifies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a colonizer vs. colonized framework, providing a convenient but wildly reductive perspective. As a professor of anthropology, one would expect a commitment to truth-seeking and critical thought. With a clear pattern of inflammatory statements that undermine efforts to promote peace and coexistence and without any reasonable attempt to understand these events and the parties involved, his op-ed completely misses the mark on the essential conditions for lasting peace and coexistence between the conflicting parties and advanced a zero-sum view of peace that dehumanizes the millions of Jews that live in Israel.

Regarding Israel’s claim to the land, there is no such thing as colonizing one’s own ancestral homeland. Jews have lived in the region for thousands of years, were exiled (twice), and were able to reestablish a Jewish homeland through the UN Partition Plan of 1947 (which was rejected by Arab Palestinian leadership). To be considered colonialist, a people would first need a country of their own before wresting control of another. Since our exile from Israel, after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, Jews have been a stateless people who were, more often than not, persecuted in the countries where we have sought refuge.

The first of the Jewish communities outside of Israel arrived in Babylon (present day Iraq) 2,500 years ago and faced various forms of discrimination under foreign rule, but were, nevertheless, loyal citizens who contributed to their respective countries. That is, until 1947, when the Political Committee of the Arab League drafted a law, which an article by the World Jewish Congress describes as dictating that “…all Jews — with the exception of citizens of non-Arab countries — were to be considered members of the Jewish ‘minority state of Palestine’; that their bank accounts would be frozen and used to finance resistance to ‘Zionist ambitions in Palestine; Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned as political prisoners and their assets confiscated.’” Following the enactment of this law, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, and several other Arab nations in the 1940s and 1950s. 

My grandmother was born in Iraq in 1944 when nearly 1 million Jews lived in countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa. At four years old, she, along with hundreds of thousands of Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews, left her home and possessions behind to take refuge in Israel alongside those arriving from Europe, who survived and escaped the horrors of the Holocaust. Does Professor Gustafson think my grandmother was a colonizer? 

Nowadays, fewer than 10,000 Jews remain in ten of the then most populated Arab states in the region, combined. That’s ethnic cleansing. Israel is home to 1.7 million Muslim citizens who vote and participate in democracy. The population of Arabs — both Palestinian and Israeli — is growing rapidly. The Palestinian population in Israel has grown from 1.3 million in 1948 to 5.3 million today. Misuse of charged words like “genocide” undermines honest discussion about the real suffering and mistreatment that Palestinians face.

I do not aim to delegitimize Palestinians’ deep connection to the land. The hope remains peaceful coexistence. However, Gustafson seemingly aims to undermine this goal, recklessly invoking “from the river to the sea,” a phrase taken directly from the Hamas charter, blatantly calling for the extermination of the Jewish people. By adopting such a stance, Gustafson not only challenges the possibility of peaceful coexistence, but also overlooks the complexities and realities of the conflict. This oversight becomes particularly evident as he fails to acknowledge perhaps the greatest barrier to this envisioned future.

Hamas, a terrorist organization and the ruling regime in Gaza, has explicitly stated that the destruction of the Jewish state is its primary objective. Furthermore, Hamas has demonstrated that the needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people are secondary to that goal. Hamas rose to power in 2006, and consolidated control of Gaza by carrying out massacres of the Fatah faction, its main political rival. Throughout its brutal reign, Hamas has displayed a willingness to expend its resources for terrorism rather than for its own people, more than 80% of whom are living in poverty. While the people of Gaza suffer, Hamas’ corrupt leaders live in luxury in Doha, Beirut, and elsewhere. Three of the terrorist group’s top leaders have amassed a combined $11 billion in net worth. Rather than using the billions that Palestinians receive in international aid to build infrastructure or fight poverty, Hamas has instead chosen to build a war machine, which it uses not just against Israel but also on internal dissidents. 

Hamas has no concern for the lives of its citizens in meeting its terrorist ends; using civilians as human shields, blocking off evacuation routes, and hoarding fuel for ammunition while leaving hospitals depleted are just a few of the disturbing atrocities that Hamas has inflicted on its people since Oct. 7, as well as during previous wars. The tragic reality, which Gustafson willfully ignores, is that the Palestinian people are incapable of achieving their dreams of self-determination so long as they remain oppressed under the authoritarian, terrorist rule of Hamas, which values Jewish deaths over Palestinian lives.

Given Professor Gustafson’s proclamation that “[w]e should all denounce antisemitism,” I find it surprising that he fails to acknowledge war and hate crimes when they are committed against Jews. His article, laden with serious accusations, notably omits any mention of Hamas’ role in the war or rebuke of its brutality, including the murder of 1,200 Israeli civilians, rape of Jewish women, and kidnapping of innocent children and elderly. We must have broader discussions about this conflict — hard, uncomfortable, and honest conversations about how we got to this dark moment and how we can move towards peace. But these conversations cannot ignore Hamas.

Professor Gustafson’s rhetoric has gone beyond simple ignorance, including a recent direct endorsement of violence. When Michael Tuchin, president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) saw his home smoke bombed on Thursday, Nov. 25, Prof. Gustafson commented on a video of the vandalism posted on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, by journalist Peter Beinart. In response to this reprehensible act of harassment and intimidation, Gustafson replied, “I agree with pretty much everything you write but not sure you are right here. Nobody was harmed. It’s an escrache tactic. (Look it up). Pretty cool, I’d say. Let those who enable mass-murder not live in peace.” Cheering on a suspected hate crime on the home of an innocent Jewish family is not “pretty cool;” it is downright antisemitic and jeopardizes the safety and well-being of the thousands of Jewish students here on campus.

Student Life has reported that both Jewish and Muslim students have received threats and harassment since the war began. That is completely unacceptable. Each member of the WashU community has an obligation to ensure that this university is a safe place for everyone. Professor Gustafson has disregarded that responsibility. Furthermore, if we want to see this campus be a place of productive, compassionate dialogue on this issue, all students, and especially those who belong to affected communities cannot be made to feel afraid to share their feelings and their story. By cheering on antisemitic harassment, Professor Gustafson is sabotaging those efforts. To quote the man himself, “What kind of humanity — or perverse hatred, cruelty, depravity, or racism” must he embrace to trivialize the kidnapping of Jewish children or cheer on the vandalism of Jewish homes? If Professor Gustafson contends that Jews lack the right to self-determination in their homeland and supports targeting them for harassment elsewhere, it raises a troubling question: Does he embody the same brand of antisemitism that once devastated Jewish communities, like my grandmother’s in Baghdad? This is not a new phenomenon but a persistent, insidious disease — the same malignant force that motivated the mass murder of six million European Jews and centuries of massacres, expulsions, and oppression that chased us all over the world until we ended up with no safe refuge except for the place where our people began, Israel.

Today, antisemitic acts consist of 51% of the religion-based hate crimes in the United States despite Jews making up only 2.4% of the population. Since the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7, the situation has grown even more alarming — antisemitism in the U.S. has increased by nearly 400% since last year. Prof. Gustafson’s dangerous and hateful rhetoric adds fuel to the wildfire that has spread across college campuses throughout the country, where 73% of Jewish students have seen or experienced antisemitism since the start of the school year. If it is starting to feel like the safety and freedoms that American Jews have enjoyed in the U.S. are running out, that’s because there is dependable historical precedent to question our future as “strangers in a foreign land.”

As university students, we are the next generation of educators and leaders. We alone have the power to alter the course of history and break from this brutal cycle. When our institutions permit ignorance and hatred to be taught in our classrooms, it is our duty to voice our objections. Let’s avoid maximalist, inflammatory and often hateful rhetoric like “settler colonialism” which more often serves to undermine bridge-building and fuel zero-sum agendas. And we most certainly cannot condone slogans like “from the river to the sea,” used to advocate for actual genocide.

Chancellor Martin has stated that WashU “will not tolerate” any of the aforementioned hate speech and intimidation. Despite this, no action has been taken to penalize Professor Gustafson, and he remains a salaried professor at this university. If there are no consequences for violating these red lines, then we are actively setting the precedent that hate speech is tolerated on our campus. Our university thrives on freedom of expression, but we cannot turn a blind eye to hatred and misinformation. The integrity of our educational environment depends on fostering critical thinking and responsible dialogue. As aspiring leaders and educators, let’s commit to truth and respectful dialogue, shaping a more informed campus and a more peaceful future.