Recently a Palestinian activist, Mahmoud Khalil, was arrested in New York and sent to a Louisiana immigration custody center. The government is adamant about deporting him from the United States unless the courts intervene. He was accused of identifying with Hamas, which the United States considers a terrorist organization.
He is also accused of organizing anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. The man has a green card that makes him a legal resident of this country. The United States, however, has not brought any formal charges against him, and he has not appeared in a court of law.
This case is significant because the government is trying to curb free speech. Compare this with the speech that Vice President JD Vance gave to European leaders recently in which he lectured the European countries for having to judge “hateful content and the fragility to fear speech by foreigners.”
Here is an interesting but dangerous dichotomy. Mr. Vance tells European countries to show more tolerance to hateful speech. What he was admonishing Europeans in general, and Germany in particular, was that they should tolerate the rising tide of ultranationalist politics in their countries and they, by implication, should tolerate anti-Semitism as free speech.
Back home, however, the situation is just the opposite and contradictory. While the Trump Administration wages a crusade against anti-Semitism, Trump’s sidekick Elon Musk gives a Nazi salute at President Trump’s inauguration event. Apologists, for one reason or another, interpreted the obvious Nazi gesture as a Roman salute or just an enthusiastic raising of the arm. Even the Anti-Defamation League, which is always ready to use the anti-Semitic label, backed off by calling Mr. Musk’s salute just that.
In the meantime, Mr. Khalil remains in Louisiana, and his green card has been revoked by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio without any formal charges or hearing before a judge. Unless the courts intervene, he will be expelled from the United States, leaving behind a nine-month pregnant wife who is a U.S. citizen.
The debate boils down to what constitutes free speech. And in turn, did the pro-Palestinian and anti-war protests on U.S. campuses rise to the level of free speech?
I am sure if the demonstrations were against any other country including the United States, the U.S. government and the Congress would not have cared less. It is really not about the free speech but about how Israel and its supporters take criticism by U.S. citizens. It must be noted that the majority of students demonstrating on college campuses were not Palestinians or foreigners, but U.S. citizens.
From the media report at the time, it was evident that except for a few incidents where demonstrators harassed some Jewish students, the demonstrations were peaceful and respectful of the rights of other students. There were a number of Jewish students and Jewish organizations that also were also part of the protests.
Now Trump is going against the Ivy League colleges with a vengeance because they were not protecting Jewish students from anti-Semitism. He has canceled $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University, “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” Other schools are bracing themselves for similar actions.
Such actions in the long run would do little to curb free speech but would irreparably damage research and inquiry. American universities, particularly research universities, play an important part in advancement of knowledge and scientific research.
That brings us to the definition of anti-Semitism. In simple words it is hate speech against Judaism. Somehow the term has expanded and now includes many other elements, including criticism of the state of Israel.
Israel is a political entity just like the other 194 countries of the world. Many of them are multireligious and multiethnic countries. Saudi Arabia is country where almost 100 percent of the population is Muslim. If we take the expanded definition of anti-Semitism where criticism of Israel is considered anti-Semitic, then we can say that any criticism of Saudi Arabia is criticism of Islam.
Like Israel, Pakistan was established in the name of a religion. Should we then condemn any criticism of Pakistan as anti-Islamic? That would be ridiculous and laughable.
Why, and the question begs for an honest answer, is Israel unique among the family of world countries that one must not criticize for any aberrations it exhibits or practices?
The problem with willy-nilly throwing of anti-Semitic labels is that after a while they become ineffective and don’t carry the same weight and meaning as they are supposed to carry.
S. Amjad Hussain is an emeritus professor of surgery and humanities at the University of Toledo. Contact him at: aghaji3@icloud.com.
First Published March 19, 2025, 4:00 a.m.
