By Richard Laub​

I’ve recently returned from an extended visit to Israel to encounter news of eroded support for the Jewish nation among some groups of our fellow citizens. This impelled me to share a recent personal experience and what it taught me. Interestingly (but not surprisingly) our Jewish heritage proved to have something important to contribute to this. 

On April 14, I attended a talk at UB presented by two Israelis – a reservist soldier and a border policeman. It was sponsored by Students Supporting Israel, a group recognized by the UB Student Association. Anticipating trouble, a large contingent of campus police was assigned for security, and this proved to be prescient. There was a sizable and noisy crowd in front of the campus building where the event was held. The apparent ringleader used a bullhorn, standard equipment for such groups, as they shouted insults and slogans at people arriving to attend the talk. The police kept this crowd corralled behind a barrier next to the entrance to prevent physical confrontations.

Approximately 25 of the demonstrators came into the talk, dressed up in keffiyehs with their faces covered in the manner of Hamas fighters. Once the talk began, they engaged in disruptive behavior, initially talking and laughing loudly, and eventually standing up in groups to shout accusations at the speakers. The campus police did an excellent job of removing each disruptive group in turn, until eventually they were all gone. It was obvious that their actions were rehearsed and highly organized. 

One news source suggested that the demonstrators succeeded in derailing the presentation. However, this was not quite true. The disruptions lasted perhaps a half-hour, followed by an obviously complete and very effective presentation. Through it all, the two soldiers did not lose their cool, and courageously faced down the disruptors with calm dignity.

There are a few takeaways from this experience:

First, on this occasion the heavy security presence left attendees with no reason to fear for their physical safety. However, I thought of the Jewish students at Columbia University who had to navigate among hostile people and barriers at the so-called protest encampment without such support. Similarly, those intimidated at “Apartheid Week” and other such events on campuses across our country. I suspect they felt less safe, and indeed the news reports from these events often made comments to that effect. Clearly, a goal of the demonstrators, including those at UB, is to instill fear in supporters of Israel.

Second, the protestors who entered the building, ostensibly to attend the talk, sought to deny freedom of speech for the two speakers, and the freedom of the audience to listen to and evaluate what was said. They would have had the opportunity to express their opinions in the inevitable question-and-answer session following the talk. Instead, they opted for “guerrilla theater” and meticulously recorded each or their acts on their cellphones. Clearly the university has not succeeded in setting a tone that is effective in discouraging such conduct.

Third, I wonder if allowing people to mask their faces while attending a talk at an American university supports an atmosphere conducive to the free and honest exchange of ideas that should be expected of such an institution.

Who won this round?  That depends.

In my opinion, those who came to hear what the speakers had to say benefited from the talk, and from the extensive opportunity for questions that followed. Fortunately, the removal of the disruptors left adequate time for both these components. The demonstrators clearly left a bad taste in the mouths of the attendees, and the conduct of the security personnel was highly professional and in accord with that was needed to secure the rights and safety of those attending. In this sense, Students Supporting Israel, the speakers, and the (genuine) audience all won.

However, if the disruptors’ conduct and tactics intimidated members of the university and wider community, discouraging them from attending future events, if it cowed them into silence and non-participation, then they will have won the day.

It falls on each of us, personally, to answer this question. Guidance on this matter has come down to us through the millennia from two of our greatest sages, and also from an Austrian antisemitic street thug:

Hillel the Elder (Ethics of the Fathers 1:14) asked, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” Put simply, if we don’t do it for ourselves, we can’t count on others to do it for us. As the saying goes, “G-d helps those who help themselves.”

Rabbi Tarfon (Ethics of the Fathers 2:21) said, “You are not required to complete the task, yet you are not free to withdraw from it.” The challenge may seem overwhelming, but if the cause is a just one we each have an obligation to do our best to overcome that challenge – for ourselves, and for those who come after us.

As for that street thug, an Austrian “skinhead,” he was asked a few years ago in a radio interview why he hated and attacked Jews. He answered, “because they are… victims,” meaning that Jews don’t stand up for themselves. It’s instructive to see that such perceived behavior on our part is both cause and effect.

One might be forgiven for feeling alone and helpless against Antisemitism in view of the almost daily drumbeat of negative world and local events. However, though G-d gives burdens, he also gives shoulders. We are not without resources of our own if we chose to use them – our pens, our voices, our time, our money, our community organizations, and our allies in the broader community. We also have the guidance of our sages. And if we need a call to courage, there is the example of those two Israeli soldiers, and the words of that Austrian.  

Richard Laub, a retired paleontologist, is a member of the Young Israel of Greater Buffalo.