The war on Gaza has earned Palestinians a broad-spectrum of new supporters and friends, especially from anti-war, anti-Zionist Jewish organizations in the United States. Young progressive Jews calling for a ceasefire in Gaza spent weeks since October 7 shutting down U.S. train stations, highways, and government buildings. Their rallying cries included “Not in our name,” “never again for anyone” and “ceasefire now.”

These messages of solidarity ring loud, but can they reverberate beyond these demonstrations to cause change within government and Congress, especially as criticism of Israel is being increasingly shut down and classified as anti-semitism by US officials.  

I am joined by Lara Friedman is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), a nonprofit organization working to promote peace between Israel and Palestine/peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis. 

Nadeen Shaker: Lara, thank you so much for being on the podcast with me today. I have so many questions for you. But first, I’d like to ask you about how things are in the US right now. I mean, we’ve been seeing a lot of protests, a lot of, perhaps shift in public opinion. So I wanted to ask, is that true? And how has public opinion shifted, if at all? 

Lara Friedman: Yeah, it’s a great question. I think it’s sort of a moving target. But I think we can say, very clearly right now, this is unprecedented. What we’re seeing now in terms of support for Palestinian rights, in terms of people coming out in the streets, with people lobbying their members of Congress, the sort of activism we’re seeing in universities, you know. There have been, obviously, previous wars on Gaza, previous incidents, previous rounds. And there’s a core of the grassroots that cares deeply about Palestine. But what we’re seeing this time is an upsurge and broader, progressive support, particularly from younger Americans. And it’s very cross cutting. It’s not just Palestinian Americans, it’s not just Arab Americans, it’s not just Muslim Americans, it’s not just brown and black Americans. I mean this has become for particularly a younger generation, which, and here I’m going to quote a really brilliant woman named Rania Batris whom I know, this is a generation that is motivated by concerns about people and planet, right. And this moment, and seeing what the US, what their government is supporting, is implicated in, is really bringing out a level of engagement and activism and awareness, like nothing we’ve seen before. And the longer this goes on, one might think that people get tired and stop being engaged. And that’s not happening. The longer this goes on, the more we’re seeing engagements and activism.

NS: And I want to talk about the young generation of activists that you just referenced. And we’ve been seeing massive ceasefire protests from groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, other anti-war, anti-Zionist organizations. I want to ask you, how was this generation’s voices shaped? And how is their movement being perceived in the US, especially among the American Jewish community?

LF: Look, when I think about my nieces and nephews, and my god-daughter, you know, that generation, this is a generation that is shaped by the, I want to say maybe the mistakes, the harms of their parents. They’re very much aware of their parents, their grandparents, that are aware of that when it comes to climate change, for example, they’re very much aware of that. They have come of age in the era of Black Lives Matter and COVID and the legacies of the Iraq War. 

It’s a generation which, you know, from my own engagements—and this isn’t speaking about everyone, there are obviously, different cohorts and there’s a cohort in this generation that is very right wing conservative MAGA, there’s a cohort that’s deeply supportive of Israel, it’s the whole gamut—but it is in general, I think what we’re seeing in universities, it is a generational cohort that is suspicious of being told what to think, that is determined to find their own path, that is comfortable and in fact, insists on self educating and they listen to each other, and they want to see original sources, which is why, you know, I sent to a journalist recently, you know, you can put whatever you want in an article in the paper, this is a generation that’s getting online and looking at the videos of what’s happening in Gaza, and that feels that they have not just a right, but an obligation to draw their own conclusions. And that doesn’t mean all their conclusions are going to be right. Nobody’s right all the time, right. But you know, they’re not going to read an article saying, well, Israel had to do this in Khan Yunis, and therefore it’s okay. What they’re looking at are pictures of pancaked buildings with legs sticking out of them, with children’s legs, you know, and they’re saying, I don’t care how you frame that, that’s, not okay. And it’s not as simplistic “that’s not okay” when here’s a simplistic answer. But it is an answer which says, first and foremost, stop the killing. And if you can’t get behind a ceasefire, stop killing children, then you’re the problem, not my analysis.

NS:  And I’m sure as well that not everyone agrees with them. So I’m sure there isn’t consensus, you know, about that particular point of view. So I did want to ask you about the different Jewish American responses to the war, and in what ways are they leaning? 

LF: Look, the Jewish American, there’s always been a joke long before this current crisis, that within any Jewish American family, within my family, if you’ve got four people, you’ve got five opinions. And that’s not a specifically Jewish thing, right. This is, you know, people have their views. There is not unanimity within the Jewish American community. I think if you look at what’s happening at the grassroots and JVP and If Not Now, a lot of the loud voices coming out standing with Palestinian Americans are Jewish American voices. And it’s not for nothing that the mainstream, we like to think of as like the legacy Jewish American organizations, the leaders who say they speak for the Jewish community are in some ways most incensed about the Jewish American groups and kids that are standing with Palestinians. Like, the biggest problem isn’t Palestinians, the biggest problem is these Jewish kids who are legitimizing them. And we saw that actually in the last election as well, in the US when APAC’s super PAC worked to bring down a very popular Jewish member of Congress, because I would argue they took him down, in part because he had been legitimizing the more progressive members of the Squad. 

So I mean, there’s a lack of unanimity. What you see, though, and this is very clear in the sort of organized pushback that we’re seeing, and I don’t know if people in Egypt are watching the debate in Congress and more broadly about education, right, that there seems to be this campaign—doesn’t seem to be, it’s been publicly declared in press releases—there’s a campaign basically to get, quote unquote, anti-semitism, and I’ve put it in quotes on purpose, out of academia. The argument being that allowing these kinds of protests on campus is anti-semitism, because it makes Jewish students uncomfortable. The argument there being that support for Israel and Zionism is intrinsic to Jewish identity, and therefore making people uncomfortable for their support for Israel and Zionism is anti-semitic. Now, the irony in that framing, is that when critics of Israel say “support for Israel and Zionism is intrinsically Jewish” people say, oh, you’re an anti-semite because you’re not distinguishing between Israel and Judaism. But at the same time, we’re saying if you don’t conflate them, you’re also an anti-semite. But you have this absolute, you know, it’s an incredibly focused and energized campaign to basically say universities must shut this all down, or they are supporting anti semitism. And we’ve had an escalation no  in the rhetoric and accusations, arguing it’s not just for anti-semitism, but to argue that Palestinian rights discourse language, like you know, anything using the term “river to the sea”, let’s note that that language is in that as part of the Likud platform, that “the river to the sea”, it will be Israeli sovereignty. But if you say “river to sea” for Palestinians, it is a call for genocide. So you have to shut that all down or you are supporting genocide and anti-semitism. 

And on top of that, we have had this framing and there have been several letters in Congress going after academia, even down to like the kindergarten through 12th grade level, children’s teaching, basically arguing that the fact that the younger generation isn’t as pro-Israel and pro-Zionist as its predecessors proves that the educational system is anti-semitic. The only explanation for why kids are not more pro-Israel is because teachers are teaching them from kindergarten to be anti-semites. So there’s definitely a very strong concern on, you know, we’re losing the minds of the next generation.

NS: So going after that, I did want to build on what you said. I did have a question. About anti-semitism, and I know you dedicate a lot of your work to the, I know there’s a section called “Lawfare” that’s dedicated to the legislation used to quell pro-Palestinian voices. And I had a specific question about, if there have been developments in that regard since October 7, you said there was an escalation. But if you can point out, you know, specific ways, you know, laws and courts have been targeting Palestinian voices. 

LF: So I mean, the courts is a long process. So you can’t really start by October 7, anything that’s happening now would have started long before October 7. And there are more, you know, there’s more cases being raised by pro-Israel lawfare actors challenging various universities, some of this may show up in court down the road. But what we’re seeing really right now is a doubling down of energies in Congress. So there was a resolution introduced, which basically states that using the term “river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, or any derivation of that is automatically anti-semitic and a call for genocide, even if the person using it doesn’t know it. Like you’d have a Senator who wants to, who has that inner resolution he wants the Senate to adopt, we had a resolution adopted in the House, so we could go that explicitly says anti-Zionism as anti-semitism. We’re sort of rushing towards some sort of legislating. 

And I have to say, there’s a broader context here, which is, there has been a campaign going on now for a number of years around the world, led by an organization called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA, which is promoting the adoption of a definition of anti-semitism, which explicitly conflates criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, and which explicitly, it’s got a set of examples attached to it. And according to those examples, virtually any meaningful activism or criticism of Israel or Zionism can be defined and dismissed as anti-semitism. 

And you know, if you look at the framing around that definition, people are like, oh, it’s non binding, it’s fine. It’s a non-binding definition when it just sits out there in the ether on somebody’s website. But the campaign is the habit adopted and enforced. And this is what we’re seeing in Germany, where it’s having absolute catastrophic impact on free speech. And that’s the effort across the US, we have a number of US states that have adopted it. Well, many US states have adopted it already, by proclamation where it doesn’t necessarily have the force of law. But in at least two US states, it has been adopted as part of a hate crimes law. As I understand the law, if you were, for instance, arrested in the process of a sit-in at a university, and you are arrested for trespassing, and malicious vandalism for painting Free Palestine, based on that law, because the IRHA definition has been woven into the law and is not part of the sentencing structure, they could argue this was a hate crime and have enhanced sentencing. So instead of getting, you know, a probation or fine, you could go to jail. So it’s very clear what the pathway is here. We fundamentally, what this is about is saying we cannot win the argument on its merits. So we’re going to go after the people making the argument and shut it down. 

NS: It’s crazy. And the implications of that are obvious and dangerous. But I was really curious about how that dynamic plays out when a member of the Jewish community makes that criticism.

LF: That is an excellent question. The bottom line is those who are pushing this definition, this framing, do not I think distinguish between whose free speech they want to shut down. The Anti Defamation League, the head of the Anti Defamation League has made very clear, he views Jewish people who are anti-Zionist or crossed the lines that he has decided on the lines that should be there for criticism of Israel, they’re also anti-semitic. We’ve heard this from Israeli leaders, you know, that Jews can, it’s Jewish anti-semitism. Jewish people, I mean, I am on a regular basis attacked on social media as an “un-Jew” or “Jew in name only.” Because we have a new framing. It’s not entirely new. It’s been coming up for a few years with Barry Weiss, his book on new anti-semitism and things like that. But it’s framing that basically says, being Jewish is no longer about your religion, your religious identity, being Jewish is about supporting Israel. And you can have people, like you know, right wing non-Jewish pundits who say I’m more Jewish than this person because I support Israel. And that person claims to be Jewish but they’re not Orthodox. Apparently, you’re only Jewish if you’re an Orthodox. If you’re progressive, then if you’re not Orthodox, you can’t really claim to be Jewish anyway, see, and, if you’re not supportive of this Israel, you’re not really Jewish, you know, in this new identity.

NS: You talked about progressive Jewish identity. And we’ve seen a lot of progressive voices, Jewish voices come out in the media, and really make fabulous statements and call for the end of war and all that. I did want to ask you, you know, with all this public pressure and civil disobedience, why isn’t it translating into political gains, even with the aid package, the supplementary aid package, you know, they wanted to attach conditions to it. And everyone came out and said, oh, this is like, break from the no strings attached, you know, nature of this transaction. Then after that, the State Department circumvented Congress and approved a $106 million sale of tank ammo to Israel. So can you weigh in on why this counter movement isn’t translating over? 

LF: So here, I’m gonna maybe I’ll offer a tiny bit of maybe better news, I don’t wanna say disagree. I think it is having impact. The movement is having an impact. It’s taking longer than I wish it would, or that many people wish it would. And it certainly is not having the kind of weight of impact that maybe people would like, but it is. If you look back to the beginning of Israel’s campaign against Gaza, October 7, I think it is completely understandable and correct that members of Congress, that the administration rallied in support of Israel and Israelis. What happened on October 7, and I’m still a little baffled when I come across people who are skeptical that it happened or whatever. I mean, all of the details that happened is going to be subject to a longer investigation.

There is no question, however you feel about the right of Palestinians to resist and to have liberation, that, you know, going into civilian areas and massacring people and taking people hostage is horrific. And it was a trauma for Americans and for certainly anyone who cares about Israel. And I think it’s appropriate. When we got to October 8, it was clear almost immediately that Israel’s response was going to be far beyond trying to get the hostages back, far beyond trying to take out Hamas leadership, that this was going to be a response attacking every man, woman, and child in Gaza. And it was very clear. And this goes back to if you believe people when they tell you things, when the Israeli government says these are not human beings, they are human animals, right? The person in charge of the military says that no food, no water, no fuel. I mean, it was clear that war crimes were not going to be an issue, and that ethnic cleansing and genocide were on the agenda. 

And it took a ridiculously long time to start seeing people in Congress or the administration make any noises at all, in recognition of that change the fact that now you’re seeing and we’re seeing from Congress, I get from an activist perspective is simply insufficient, but it’s still unprecedented. We’re having members of Congress talk about, in very concrete terms, conditions on military aid to Israel. We’re having very concrete language talking about ceasefire, certainly not enough, but we didn’t have any for the first couple of weeks. We’re hearing Biden start to offer some, at least somewhat some language suggesting that Israel shouldn’t be doing everything it’s doing. That is first and foremost a reflection of elected officials seeing what’s happening at the grassroots. And the longer this goes on. And I mean, I don’t think the question is that do you need 10,000 or 20,000 people to die before you believe that this is bad. I mean, it’s horrific. But I think more than that, I don’t think it’s what’s happening on the ground that’s changing people. I think it’s the fact that we’ve had now two months of I think every day, every week, people contacting their elected officials, people in the street, this isn’t going away. Which by the way means the other side is also ratcheting up its own campaign of there shall be zero daylight between the US and Israel and any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. Right. As you have wins on the activism side for Palestinian rights and international law, you have an increase in effort to shut that all down, so it’s going to always be a push-pull.

This episode was produced by myself and the Cairo Review’s deputy senior editor Omar Auf with the editorial supervision of Firas Al-Atraqchi.