While we were hopeful that local, statewide, national, and international opposition to the war in Gaza and to the starvation of its citizens that resulted in the October 10, 2025 ceasefire would make peace, since then both sides have broken the deal and war continues to ravage an already decimated population. Because the firing has not ceased, and because peace was within reach, it is more important than ever that everyone be able to speak freely to achieve a calm resolution to an almost impossible impasse.
In Illinois, Governor Pritzker joined a wide swath of Democratic governors and lawmakers in insisting that aid be allowed to enter Gaza. World leaders increased their calls for peace. The United Nations has called on Israel to abide by UN rules and international law. And yet, at many universities, including the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, criticizing Israeli policies is considered antisemitic.
We believe it is crucial that everyone, whether citizens or non-citizens, be allowed to voice opposition to deadly and genocidal policies. The pain of the families of the victims of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack is unimaginable and unambiguously horrendous. But starving children, some of whom were not even born when the attacks took place, will neither bring back the dead nor solve the political crises in the Middle East. What this mistreatment will surely do is create more anger and more terror, and make long-lasting peace an ever more distant mirage. These actions take us further from a future where everyone is able to live with freedom, safety, and self-determination.
We are concerned with rising levels of antisemitism all over the globe, but strongly maintain that it is crucial to separate acts of hatred against Jews from criticism of the choices of the Israeli military and government. How antisemitism is defined and how it is combated are still hotly debated topics [see the discussion by Walter Feinberg in the October Public i]. Some universities have adopted definitions of antisemitism that brand any criticism of Israel as antisemitic. These definitions are weaponized into policies that punish student activists and thus create a chilling effect on free speech. The disastrous results of this weaponization are disproportionally felt by students of color who organize around Palestinian rights, particularly Palestinians themselves. This has the effect of putting all our campus community members at risk. The confusion does nothing to protect Jewish students, staff, and faculty. It silences academic free speech in- and outside the classroom for everyone, but particularly for vulnerable groups with precarious legal status. And it drives a wedge within our communities, undermining solidarity and democratic principles. We should be particularly concerned about the impact this has on a university system that has previously been considered one of the best in the world. The stakes for our community are social, political, and economic.
The most common definition of antisemitism in use currently is that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The IHRA definition, however, is dangerous to not only Jewish people but also broader democratic processes. Many universities have formally adopted this framing, even as genocide scholars have urged university administrators to refuse it. As of November 1, 2025, 1,115 scholars have signed an open letter from the Genocide and Holocaust Studies Crisis Network (GHSCN), originally published on July 4, 2025. The letter, which has been widely circulated, was designed to shift these dampening characterizations and encourage free speech. The text of the letter describes the GHSCN as “those with expertise in histories of antisemitism, genocide, the Holocaust, the history and sociology of fascism, and hate speech.” The IHRA definition was conceived of as a nonbinding definition, yet it is being adopted into law by many states, the federal government, and many universities.
The IHRA definition discriminates against Jews who are critical of Israel. The definition denies the large and crucial history of diasporist, non-Zionist, post-Zionist, and anti-Zionist Jewish thought. One could file a Title VI discrimination complaint against UIUC on the grounds that its adoption of that definition treads on beliefs held by a significant number of people who identify as Jewish. Arguing about living in diaspora versus immigrating to the land of Israel is part of Jewish history. Denying post-Zionist or other Jews and their allies the right to criticize current Israeli policies, or even Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, constitutes repression of belief and is covered under the understanding of Title VI protections that allow “any specific class of persons” to file a complaint when the right to free expression has been curtailed. Many Jews and allies who want peace feel unfree and that they do not have the right to express their views.
The campaign to use antisemitism as an excuse to repress protest, decrease free expression, and attack universities has been directly mapped out by Project Esther, the Heritage Foundation’s plan to combat antisemitism by eradicating what it describes as the “Hamas support network.” By designating any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic, this definition allows protesters to be labeled as terrorist supporters and fired, expelled from school, have their visas revoked, or be detained. The use of the fear-mongering term “Hamas support network” by such far-right thinkers falsely equates all pro-Palestinian activists (who include many Jews and Jewish groups such as Urbana-Champaign Jews for Ceasefire, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews for Economic and Racial Justice, and many more) with undermining “American values.” This is simply not true. This falsehood was replicated when pundits on the right incorrectly labeled many of the No Kings protesters “Hamas supporters.” In sharp contrast, the seven million people who protested on October 18, 2025, were peacefully exercising their right to speak out against multiple oppressions, including the starvation of and destruction of Gaza. This call for peace was joined by hope for better health care in the US, women’s rights and abortion rights, greater access to voting, fairer housing, and an easing of the plight of the unhoused.
The danger of the IHRA definition was shockingly demonstrated by the detainments of activists including Rümeysa Öztürk, Mahmoud Khalil, and Badar Khan Suri. At the time of writing, Öztürk and Khalil have been freed amid huge media coverage and multiple legal cases that demonstrate they were unfairly detained. That these activists were treated this way for simply speaking out in favor of peace is a grievous wrong. We must be able to exercise our fundamental right, codified in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
There are definitions of antisemitism which do not conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism, such as the Jerusalem definition. This definition was developed in response to the IHRA definition and makes room for criticizing Israeli state policies freely without fear of being falsely labeled antisemitic. New definitions are being developed that specifically examine the relationship between antisemitism, Israel, and Zionism, such as the Nexus Document.
Accepting the right-wing logic of criminalizing speech, even speech we may disagree with, undermines the free exchange of ideas that democracy requires. Trump’s authoritarian power grabs should be resisted by universities, who hold positions of influence and strong economic capacity to fight back.
We expect and hope that university campuses will feel emboldened to join the growing global voice for peace for Gaza, and for all Palestinians, and will not have their rights to protest and free speech impeded by false equations between antisemitism and critiquing the Israeli state. When students fought against the war in Vietnam, it took a long time, but finally, peace prevailed. Protest movements are commonly vilified in their time and celebrated after their demands have come to be seen as a new common sense. As the title of Omar El Akkad’s book succinctly phrases it, one day, everyone will have always been against this.
Clara Belitz is a doctoral candidate and community organizer. She is a member of UC Jews for Ceasefire and a former copresident of the Graduate Employees’ Organization at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Jessica Greenberg is professor of anthropology at UIUC. She researches human rights, social movements, and democracy in Europe.
Brett Ashley Kaplan directs the Initiative in Holocaust, Genocide, Memory Studies and is professor in the Program in Comparative and World Literature at the University of Illinois. She is the author of Rare Stuff, a novel, among other works.