I Don’t Think That CEU is Inherently a Political University Any Longer

Written by Marlene Massen & Jakob Kayser

In response to recent tensions on campus, The Stand organised a debate between a student and a professor to address how the Israel-Palestine conflict affects our community. It explores the conflict's impact on students, faculty, and campus dynamics, aiming to provide a platform for open discussion on these pressing issues.

Tom is a 2nd-year student of Culture, Politics and Society and a member of the pro-Palestinian movement. The person's name was changed for political reasons.

Hanoch is an Israeli professor of philosophy and has been teaching at CEU since 2005. He would like to remark that the nature of an interview as well as the necessary selection involved resulted in an only partially accurate representation of his views. Although it represents many of them, it cannot be considered an authoritative representation.

TS: Universities are home to freedom of intellectual inquiry. The aspiration to harbour discovery, information dissemination and free inquiry entails being hospitable to conflict and dissent. Should CEU, as an inherently political university, have issued a statement on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and its recent escalation?

Tom: The fact that CEU is an inherently political university is very important. There has to be a reasonable amount of engagement with political topics that the students are in correspondence with. I personally do not find it necessary for CEU to have issued a statement. I will say that there is a difference between solely publishing a statement and real engagement with political issues. I do think it‘s necessary to divest from (Israeli institutions) and to cease communication and collaboration with them, but I do not think there is a necessity for a specific statement.

Hanoch: I don‘t think that CEU is an inherently political university any longer. It was founded as such and it had what it called a mission until not too long ago. But I don‘t see anything political in CEU‘ s actions. I didn‘t expect it to issue any political statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or on any other political conflict. Perhaps there can be exceptions but I did n‘ I think this is an exception. What I expected CEU to do is to express shock and compassion following the massacre of October 7th, as was done by other universities, for example UniWien, TU Wien and the WU. The Jewish studies program at CEU issued such a statement, signed by the three professors there and they did not take a political stand. They just expressed shock and compassion in the face of the horrors of October 7th, and they also mentioned the suffering in Gaza. This is what I expected. One can also say that the silence of CEU was a statement. It was a statement saying that such an expression of shock in the face of barbarism is not needed. This is the message that went out.

TS: Tom, you just said that you did not expect CEU to issue a political statement. What is your opinion on the sort of statement Hanoch hoped for?

Tom: I have nothing against CEU issuing a statement in solidarity with civilian victims of the massacre on October 7th. But what other universities in Vienna and a lot of other Central and Northern European universities did and said totally disregarded what was following (October 7th). It is harmful that Uni Wien issued such a statement, but then continued to prosecute students expressing solidarity with victims of the genocide in Gaza. It is a very unfair power dynamic that this creates. I do not believe that if CEU had issued such statement, there would be a statement on the victims of the genocide following as well.

Hanoch: Just one comment on what Tom said. There is no genocide in Gaza. Anybody who claims that is either ignorant or stupid or corrupt.

Tom: I have a lot to respond to, but I don‘t think it‘s directly relevant to the topic of our discussion.

TS: Do you want to give an explanation? Is there a definitional reason?

Hanoch: Yes. If you check the definition of the genocide, the intention is crucial for the classification. But even putting this aside, the number of casualties in Gaza is uncertain. According to what the Hamas authorities report it‘s just over 40,000 and I‘ll remind you that in May, the estimate of children casualties by the UN was cut in half because they discovered that the Hamas was distorting the data. Similar for female victims. So we actually do not know what the exact proportions of Hamas soldiers to civilians are. We should take into consideration another thing. Hamas is deliberately using the civilian population as a shield in order to survive. So much so that when the IDF opened paths for the civilian population the Hamas tried to stop them by shooting at them initially. Now, they are too weak to do that. Their only way to survive is by having a high number of civilian casualties. The IDF creates safe zones in various areas in the Gaza Strip, and Hamas tries to act from within these safe zones. They shot from there to force the IDF to shoot back on them and have civil casualties. This is all a highly cynical project of Hamas and Iran. In addition, I‘d like to say that, according to the numbers we have now, the estimates we have now, not only of the IDF, but of other bodies as well, the ratio of militant to civilian casualties is between 1 to 1 and 1 to 1.5. So, the IDF manages, despite all chances, to keep an impressively low ratio of civilian to militant casualties. The IDF stopped fighting in several areas in order to allow for vaccinations to take place. So I think it‘s completely wrong to talk about genocide in several ways. Having said that, I don‘t want to imply that I support everything that Israel or the IDF does, not in Lebanon or in Gaza.

TS: Following the 7th of October, labels such as pro-Palestine and pro-Israel have become slogans to express group affiliation. Once propagated as the official stance in this conflict, it seems as if individuals hide behind these identity slogans, assuming all political opinion is entailed within. Do these slogans catalyse political division, or are they a useful prerequisite to engage in dialogue? What does pro-Palestine and pro-Israel mean?

Tom: I like this question because I find it relevant. It is very hard to contain a vast number of beliefs and values in such statements. And it is also important to say that these kinds of political affiliations are not homogenous. There are a lot of things that I, as a person who would claim myself to be pro-Palestinian, do not agree on with a lot of other people who would claim themselves to be pro-Palestinian, too. But I do think that it is a useful prerequisite to engage in dialogue. I think that the general understanding of “Pro-Palestine” circles around “I believe that Palestinians should have the right to the land they‘ ve been living on for a very long time and there is no colonial entity that has a right in claiming that land and redistributing it as it wishes”.

TS: Do you think that if a person describes themselves as pro-Palestinian that this implies being anti-Israel?

Tom: No, I don‘t think so, it depends. Its important to highlight the power dynamic in the rhetoric here, because when you say pro-Palestinian, or use a slogan such as ‘Free Palestine’, you need to ask ‘Free Palestine of what?’ Free Palestine of Israel. While it is a very radical statement to make, Israel is a colonial project in my opinion. There is also a difference to believing Israel needs to cease to exist, which would not be a very realistic or desirable conclusion to draw. Using these slogans is an attempt to rhetorically empower the oppressed. So I think in this regard, it is a very relevant category to apply.

TS: Why do you think it is especially this case, amongst all other humanitarian crises, that has, ever since the 7th of October, sparked so much controversy and dissent and conflict?

Tom: The pro-Palestinian movement since October 7th is evolving into an anti-colonial movement. The visibility of the conflict in the past year has evoked in a lot of people the feeling and the need to engage in anti-colonial discourse and activism, because it is representative of a lot of issues neocolonialism and neoliberalism brings. I don‘ t believe that some conflicts are more important than others.

Hanoch: I think the labels pro-Palestine and pro-Israel are inappropriate here. I wouldn‘ t call myself pro-Israel. We have the worst government in the history of Israel with a corrupt prime minister, a failed statesman, who is at the mercy of the extreme right in his government that is awful in many ways. They are responsible for the actual oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank. I can‘ t say I‘m pro-Israel. I‘m against the occupation of the West Bank. I‘m against the settlers‘ movement. I think the settlements inside Judea and Samaria should be evacuated. So in some more abstract sense, I think that I‘m pro-Israel. But I’m against the Israeli policy of the current government. So I don‘t see that “pro-Israel” fits me just like that. Also, I‘ m more pro-Palestinian than this activist movement. This activist movement, the nucleus of the movement, is coordinated and guided by Iran and funded by Qatar. Its aim is to weaken the international support so that Iran can achieve the collapse of Israel. I‘m not saying this is everybody in this activist group. Many people participate because others do, because of social pressure. Because they get wrong information. Pro-Palestine would mean getting rid of Hamas. Only if Hamas is out of the Gaza Strip and something like the PLO, supported by Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt, and the EU, UK and US, takes hold of the Gaza Strip and it prospers, showing that the billions of dollars don‘t go into building tunnels but into bringing about prosperity in Gaza, the extreme right in Israel would be weakened. Then we shall see that Palestinians can have a state and entity of their own and we can live in peace with them as we have been doing for 40 years with Egypt, as we have been doing for 30 years with Jordan, as now we are doing with the Emirates and other places in the Arab Peninsula. So, this would be pro-Palestine. And the activism is not pro-Palestine, it‘s anti-Israel, full stop.

Tom: I do agree with your statement about the meaning of the elimination of Hamas, because I do think Hamas is an inherently harmful organisation, especially for the Palestinians themselves. Also, as you said, it would weaken the far right in Israel, because it heavily relies on Hamas as a dividing power. I have to respond to your claims about activism. I cannot agree or disagree with what you said about direct financial support of Arab states of pro-Palestinian activism, because I can only speak from my own experience with organizing politically here in Vienna. I also don’t see how it could be productive to say any pro-Palestinian action is inherently antisemitic and therefore we should just forget about it.

Hanoch: I didn’t say that. Activists which we see on campuses and elsewhere are motivated by a variety of reasons. But there is a nucleus, which is coordinated with Iran, and its aim is to weaken the international support of Israel in order to bring about the collapse of Israel.

TS: Even if that would be true, activists would probably argue that this doesn‘ t take away from the point. I can state something which is right, even though the people that back me are awful people and maybe I don‘t even know about it, but in what I‘m doing, I‘ m in a rightful position.

Hanoch: Yes. But you see, take a look at what you see in those rallies. The fact that Israel has brought about the death of a few tens of thousands of people in Gaza is always mentioned and rightly so. That‘ s a very bad thing. What isn‘t mentioned? October 7th isn‘t mentioned.

TS: So it’s a lack of empathy from their side?

Hanoch: It‘s not a lack of empathy. They are selective in what they describe.

Tom: Acknowledgement is what you mean.

Hanoch: Acknowledgement, yes. They also don‘t mention that Hamas is using the civilian population as a shield, because this doesn‘ t serve their aims. Why doesn‘t it serve their aims? Because their aim is not to help Palestine. They should aim for Hamas surrendering unconditionally and bring about the end of this suffering, because it cannot survive this war, this continuous fighting and holding of the hostages, the few of them that are still alive. It is just bringing harm to the Palestinians. This is not your (Tom) aim. This is not the aim of, I don‘t know, 80% of the people there who have a kind of mixture of aims. And some are good people that have good motives.

Tom: A very general response: I do not think that Hamas ceasing to exist will create a more probable situation for this conflict being solved. And I do not think that Hamas is inherently the problem. It is a huge problem. But its elimination does not solve the conflict.

Hanoch: With this, I agree. The elimination of Hamas as an active force in the Gaza Strip is only one step towards the solution. And I doubt that in Israel, given its current government, there would be a willingness to take additional measures. This would be a tragedy for both sides.

Tom: On what you said about October 7th: The massacre that followed has been taking place for a long time, since before the current government came into place. It’s the policies of extermination and displacement that were applied since the very establishment of Israel. You cannot inhabit an already inhabited land without exterminating and displacing people. Tactics that were applied were violent. It is important to recognize this. It is the nature of the establishment. You cannot establish a state where there are already communities living their lives under a different entity. It‘s just not how it works. The land has to be empty for it to be possible to bring thousands and thousands of people there. So this I find to be very important. This is why mentioning the massacre of October 7th defocuses what the protests are initially about.

Hanoch: If we mentioned context then it should be mentioned that the Palestinian atrocities against Jews including murder and rape and destruction did not start with October 7th or with the zionist movement. In the 1830s there was a series of pogroms against the old Jewish population in Israel. This was before you had any real immigration to Israel. Jews did not displace Arabs until 1947.

TS: How were your personal interactions with the pro-Palestinian activism at CEU?

Hanoch: So, Tom, you were involved. (laughs)

Tom: Yeah, direct. (laughs) The Austrian Jewish Youth Association threatened to sue the Student Union for issuing a statement. And the Student Union is not a university entity, but a student association. So, unfortunately, my experience with political activism at CEU was simply not present, because there is no space for it. But I just outsourced it. Went to other places to partake.

Hanoch: My experience was obviously different. I can think of mainly two things. One, there was this talk by Nick Sitter on terrorism.

TS to Tom: Did you attend?

Tom: Yes.

Hanoch: I attended it. And because the pro-Hamas activists in the audience disturbed Nick‘ s talk, I thought it turned into a farce. I didn‘t see any point in staying there, although what he had to say was interesting. I stood up to leave. When I left, the pro-Hamas activists started to cheer and clap. One of my friends wrote to me afterwards saying “It was quite a weird scene yesterday evening. When you left amidst the jeering crowd, this could have been the University of Vienna in the 1930s.” Another experience: I‘ve learned from my current students that I‘m called a zionist. Since I‘m a Jewish Israeli, I‘m considered a Zionist. I wouldn’t mind being considered a zionist. Only zionism has several meanings, and some I adhere to and some I don’t. That‘s my only reservation. I‘m called “Zio” by students, a derogatory term. And students told me that other students, activists, tried to convince them not to take my courses. “Why do you take courses with that Zio?” So this is another experience I had with the so-called pro-Palestinian activists at CEU.

TS to Tom: What was your impression of the Nick Sitter lecture?

Tom: He was presenting very specific views. I don‘ t think it was informative or on history and the political nature of the conflict. It was one-sided. So I do not agree that those people were pro-Hamas activists. I do not think that not disturbing during a one-sided political lecture is worth the silence on a very important topic. So I think it was relevant and just.

TS: This leads to the fourth question. How should political activism be voiced at CEU? Maybe we can stick with the Nick Sitter lecture, too. (To Tom) You just voiced disapproval of how the lecture was given and the content of it and said it missed the point completely. Hanoch spoke from a perspective on how the activists actually engaged with the people there. Is there a tipping point where you need to draw a line and say, okay, activism needs to be voiced, but it‘s also a question of how it should be voiced? When does it cease to be constructive? Does activism need to be constructive?

Tom: I do think there are certain lines. Why I do think this instance of political activism was just and relevant is because CEU is not a space where the same lecture would be given from the other side. We have to be fair about this. There is a power dynamic, when there is a side being favoured by the institution. This is tactical. So when there is no power left to the people of these opposite views, I think it is a way out. Because otherwise, nothing happens. This was not a dialogue. This was an intervention. And I do not see a problem with that.

TS: In the sense of “If we can‘ t go the conventional way we go the unconventional way”?

Tom: Yeah. If you can‘ t go the conventional way, I do think it is just.

Hanoch: It depends on your assessment of what‘s going on. Because in extreme situations, perhaps extreme reactions are justified. The question is, what‘s going on now? What does it justify? In Nick Sitter‘ s talk, they started disturbing him early on. But the great chaos, everybody shouting and him not being able to continue, erupted when he said that what the Hamas did on October 7th was an act of terrorism according to all definitions. This they couldn‘t tolerate. That‘s why I think it‘s justified to call the activists there pro-Hamas and not pro-Palestine. I don‘t think that such a claim justifies cancelling a person the way they cancelled Nick. So we don‘t disagree about principles, Tom and I, but about the assessment of what was going on. Gender Studies arranged a series of four talks to which they invited four people. At least two guests celebrated the massacre of October 7th on social media. And that‘s why Uni Wien, which initially meant to host these talks, removed its hosting. Both CEU and Uni Wien were informed of the social media activity of these two external speakers. So the event that took place was very closely monitored and only specific questions were allowed. And the speakers were not expected to respond to all questions. This was a kind of safe space for antisemites within CEU. This is how we are conceived in Vienna. Politicians and intellectuals call us an antisemitic university. It‘s not me. It‘s what you hear around Vienna.

Tom: This I am aware of.

Hanoch: We gave a safe space to people who write on October 7th, waking up in the US when it‘ s afternoon in Israel and the numbers are coming in, “beautiful sights to wake up to this morning.” Later, sociology organised a series of talks. There were what is called pro-Palestinian speakers there. I don‘t think that there is any bias towards what is called pro-Israel here at CEU. In addition, during the graduation ceremony, there were these shouts from the audience. Large number of people were shouting ‚brick by brick, wall by wall, Zionism has to fall‘, i.e., the destruction of Israel. Namely, “We want October 7th on a larger scale”. This is what these activists support. So this political activism is unacceptable. And again, CEU didn‘t say anything against the content of the actions, just that it disrupted the ceremony. CEU‘s subtext was that the content is fine. “We don‘t see a reason to object to the content. Just behave yourself. Say it in a more civilised way, and then it‘s okay.” CEU did not find it appropriate to say anything against the call for the destruction of Israel. So we agree on the principles, Tom and I, but we assess this activism very differently.

TS: What do you think would be required of both the student body and faculty to foster an environment in which everyone can openly communicate their opinions?

Tom: I unfortunately do not think that only the student body and the faculty need to take action in order to provide such an environment, because we are in Austria. Even if CEU went crazy and would stop prosecuting people for pro-Palestinian activism, there are still a number of other institutions that would. There are other universities, there are unions around Austria, that would be calling CEU out. And eventually they would sue CEU for being “antisemitic”. I do not think it‘s only student bodies or the faculty’s or even the administration’s task to provide that kind of environment. What I would like to see happening at CEU is to start hosting lectures or talks from people who identify as pro-Palestinian. That‘s not gonna happen. I understand that. But at very least, I would like to have an opportunity to have discussions in class, in my politics classes specifically. A number of professors of mine last year and this year, are literally scared to talk about this, because they know that if they say something, it‘s 15 random people in a classroom and one of them will find you antisemitic and bring you in a very unpleasant position.

Hanoch: I don‘ t know. Well, some of the actions that were taken by these activists were violent and in an aggressive tone, shouting with a megaphone and so on. This is highly unpleasant. I don‘t think it helps to promote any communication or understanding. Perhaps it even aims at blocking them. So if you are talking about being frightened to say something, this also happens in the other direction. A few weeks ago I was at a talk given by an Israeli professor, organised by the nationalism department. It was attended by several of the activists. They asked him highly critical questions about the content of his talk. That‘s absolutely acceptable. One of them was a bit disruptive at some stage, but not too much, so tolerable. If this continues, people from both sides will learn. I mentioned something there and one of the activists was surprised and asked for a reference, because she didn‘t know that such a thing happened. This helps both sides. What can be improved is not to phrase and express your views in a way that would intimidate others from expressing different views. And I think we agree about that. So again, perhaps we disagree on assessment of specific events, but not about the principle. I‘m pleased that I could express my views here, which differ from Tom’s. I think it helps.