Aepi- Campus Protests

The opinions expressed in this interview are not reflective of AEPI as a whole

In the wake of a controversial statement posted on the AEPI UO Instagram, I sat down with the new AEPI chapter president, Seth Cohn, to address the fallout. The statement in question made claims about the nature of Palestinian resistance, specifically targeting phrases like "From the River to the Sea" and "Intifada," which it inadequately categorized through a Western lens. This lens often invalidates the legitimate meaning of connoting peaceful resistance to imperial and colonial occupation. The statement also equated many of the protesters against the genocide in Gaza to terrorist sympathizers and alienating Jewish students participating in the protests.

Understanding the Statement

The discussion began with an exploration of the statement's content, particularly its assertion that “most encampments… are rooted in anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.”

 Cohn clarified that while the AEPI national fraternity supports Israel, it is not a monolith. The organization comprises of Jewish and non-Jewish students ranging from Zionists to Antizionists. He explained that some more aggressive pro-Israel members played a leading role in the statement's wording. Cohn argued this mainly reflects an alignment and the fraternity's need to adhere to national financial and structural support values. But this exclusion of anti-zionist Jews, engaging with harmful and dehumanizing narratives about Palestinians, and denying the genocide of tens of thousands has severe and tangible impacts on our community. 

"I personally would not word it saying that all encampments are rooted in anti-Semitism," Cohn noted. "I think that there is definitely anti-Semitism that occurs at encampments, but I don't think that the act of doing an encampment is inherently anti-Semitic."

Seemingly recognizing the flaws in the statements claims. 

Cohn emphasized the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, acknowledging that while AEPI holds a Zionist stance, the statement's conflation of the two was problematic.

Cohn shared his connection to Zionism, describing it as the belief that Jewish people should have a state. He highlighted the varying interpretations of Zionism, noting that for him, Zionism does not preclude Palestinian freedom or statehood. "I think that's just human rights," he stated. Cohn appeared to empathize with Palestinian Students having their memorial for Nakba Day removed by the administration. He remarked on the similarity to the prisoner memorial, which was allowed to stay up for several days though sustaining damage and harassment, speaking of both with an air of disappointment. He even expressed regret over some students who had been harassing the encampment, which he was able to confirm were, in fact, frat members (not AEPI-associated) as speculated by the camp.

However, as nice as his acknowledgments were, his admittedly Zionist institution does not seem to reflect the same sentiment toward Palestinian rights and dignity or students' right to protest. The official statement condemning Jewish students participating, equating their action against genocide to supporting terrorism and being rooted in antisemitism while also failing to mention the genocide, apartheid, and occupation, and also falsely accusing Hamas of breaking a ceasefire on October 7th with its internationally condemned attack; this is incorrect.

The ICC has submitted a request for a warrant on the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu and another Israeli official for their War Crimes as well as a recent call for a complete halt of the invasion into Rafah after the case brought against them by South Africa.

With Israel ruthlessly murdering more than 35,000 people and displacing more than a million in less than six months, in addition to official calls for a “Nakba 2023” by some Israeli officials, genocide is an undeniable reality in Palestine.

Amnesty International has concluded that Israeli authorities are enforcing a system of apartheid against ALL Palestinians under their effective control, whether they reside in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), or live as refugees in other countries. Their report provides new evidence of the standardized nature of Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, illustrating how Israeli laws and policies are specifically designed to deprive Palestinians of their rights.

An international analysis of the apartheid conducted by Palestinian, Israeli, and international human rights organizations supports this conclusion. Most notably, Israeli human rights organizations Yesh Din and B’Tselem, along with Human Rights Watch, stand among those condemning Israel's policies. Human Rights Watch conducted research, finding that the Israeli government demonstrates an intent to maintain the apartheid conditions across Israel and the OPT. Yesh Din reached this conclusion specifically regarding the West Bank. B’Tselem also found that Israel is maintaining a system of apartheid over Palestinians both in the OPT and within its own borders.

 Additionally. before the October 7th attacks, the Guardian reported Palestinian protesters being deliberately shot in their ankles by the Israeli Occupation Force; in September, the IOF spent three days hitting Gaza with airstrikes and raiding a refugee camp, according to AP News. Hundreds of Palestinians had already been killed in the West Bank by Israel before October 7th, with settlers being responsible for the murder of at least 9 Palestinians, according to Doctors Without Borders.

The Misinterpretation of Palestinian Chants

The statement's condemnation of chants like "from the river to the sea" was another focal point.

The statement's condemnation of chants like "from the river to the sea" was another focal point. Cohn explained that these phrases evoke fear in his brothers. He cited the experiences of an AEPI member whose family lived through the first and second intifadas in Israel, viewing such chants as calls for violence.

However, I countered this interpretation by highlighting the phrase's historical context. “From the River to The Sea” was originally a call for a secular, democratic state; it was co-opted by Hamas, leading to its negative connotations in the West. This oversimplification, I argued, contributes to a dehumanizing narrative around Palestinians. Additionally, It is important to note that the first intifada was largely nonviolent; however, the second intifada saw an escalation in violence.

Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, Palestinians faced restrictions and discrimination in their homeland, leading to the emergence of calls for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea" in the early 1960s. This slogan originated from secular Palestinian nationalists during the early 1960s (circa 1961-1966), advocating for a secular, democratic state across all historic Palestine. This vision encompassed the entire British Mandate for Palestine, including Israel, the then Jordanian-controlled West Bank, and the then Egyptian-administered Gaza Strip—spanning the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Initially, the phrase was rooted in the desire for democratic coexistence and freedom from both Israeli and Arab oppression. Cohn and the AEPI statement argue that a 1967 Egyptian broadcast recontextualized it to imply genocide and expulsion. Cohn explains:

“In 1967, the Egyptian prime minister, before the 6-day war, sent a radio communication through all of the Israeli Middle Eastern lands. So Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. They all received this transmission, and it basically said, we're going to expel the Jews from Israel. We are going to have their blood spilled from the river to the sea,  and that is why that's how Jews interpret that saying.”

However, there has never been any verified record of the Egyptian Prime Minister making a statement about expelling Jews from Israel and spilling blood from the river to the sea. This should be considered in all regards as an unverifiable piece of propaganda developed to demonize Arab states that opposed Israel's occupation. Historically, the slogan was used in a peaceful, secular, and democratic context even before the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the rise of Hamas.

Even today, there is no significant evidence that more than a tiny minority using the slogan supports the killing or ethnic cleansing of Jews in what is now Israel. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, endorsed by numerous scholars, clarifies that the phrase itself is not antisemitic. Misunderstanding or misrepresenting the phrase marginalizes Palestinian perspectives, and it's crucial to recognize the diverse aspirations of Palestinians for a just and lasting peace.

It's important to note that while the PLO and other Palestinian groups have not officially called for the forced removal of Jews, certain Israeli political stances have included similar calls. For instance, the Likud Party, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stated in its original 1977 platform that "between the Sea and the Jordan, there will only be Israeli sovereignty." This highlights the complexity and context-dependence of such statements regarding Israel/Palestine (to avoid calling it a conflict if wanted). Understanding and addressing these aspirations respectfully is vital for progress toward peace.

Seeking Dialogue and Ostrosizing Anti-Zionist Jews

Despite the contentious statement, Cohn emphasized his commitment to dialogue.

He recounted a meeting with Jewish Voice for Peace, including encampment members, and described it as a productive conversation.

"There needs to be more dialogue," Cohn stressed. "Instagram posts and comments are not dialogue."

We discussed the broader implications of such statements on campus relations, particularly how they might affect Jewish students involved in the encampments. Cohn acknowledged the potential for harm but reiterated the fraternity's primary goal of ensuring its members' comfort and security. 

As the interview drew to a close, Cohn expressed his hopes for the future. He emphasized the need for peaceful dialogue and understanding, recognizing the shared humanity of all involved.

"I hope the campus tension cools down," Cohn said. "We need to all talk about it and get along because we live on the same campus together. Fighting is not going to do anything. No one wants violence.”

When asked about how this statement shuts out dialogue for many students and how he thinks this will affect AEPI's relationship with the Jewish students and community within the camp, he remarked:

“I really don't want it to interfere with our relationship. I know that the statement directly counteracts what they believe in. And it could feel like an insult. It's really not meant to be an insult. It's like when we are in a national organization like this, our first priority is to keep our brothers happy.”

The interview took an unexpected turn when Cohn began posing questions of his own, one of which was, "Where are you from?" which I declined to answer before he asked again, “Where are your parents from.” This question felt out of place and hinted at underlying biases. It underscored a critical moment in the conversation. At this point, it became evident that Cohn was reading prepared questions without fully grasping the context. The question "Where are you from?" felt racially charged, as it seemed like an attempt to either discredit the opinions of someone not from the region or undermine the views of someone from a perceived "wrong" part of the region. This encounter with Cohn shed light on the complexities of navigating campus politics driven by underlying narratives and prejudice. Although AEPI's statement may have caused division, the willingness of individual members to engage in conversation provides a path toward understanding and reconciliation outside of the fraternity.