Anti-Israel protesters on some college campuses have engaged in explicitly illegal behavior, including occupying buildings, building illegal encampments on school property (thereby denying other students the use of the property), restricting the freedom of movement of other students who disagree with their views, and even some physically Violence. Some defenders of the protests have defended themselves by calling these illegal tactics civil disobedience.
There are situations where illegal behavior is indeed justified. But the tactics used by many anti-Israel protesters do not meet any reasonable standard. The laws they broke were not unjust. Victims of violations are almost always innocent. These violations are unlikely to lead to improvements in government policy. Finally, the protesters’ goals are inherently unfair.
Martin Luther King Jr. and many others believed (correctly) that people had the right to break unjust laws. Therefore, those who violated the Fugitive Slave Act or various laws that enforced racial segregation had good reason to justify their actions. Elsewhere, I have argued that many undocumented immigrants are justified in violating immigration restrictions.
Furthermore, a person who violates an unjust law is not necessarily obligated to accept punishment. For example, members of the Underground Railroad who helped fugitive slaves escape the Fugitive Slave Act had no moral obligation to surrender to authorities. The same is true for dissidents who fight against oppressive dictatorships.
This argument clearly does not help anti-Israel protesters who break the law.Laws prohibiting campus building acquisitions and encampments, protecting student freedom of movement no injustice. Even most supporters of the protesters could easily recognize this in other contexts. For example, they might agree that anti-abortion activists occupying buildings to try to force universities to divest businesses that profit from abortion are unjustified, or that Trump supporters cannot do so to force universities to support the 2020 election. It was “stolen” from Trump.
One could argue that it is permissible to violate otherwise just laws in order to target those who are themselves the perpetrators of injustice. For example, perhaps it was reasonable for anti-slavery activists to seize the property of slave owners to force them to free their slaves. But the primary victims of campus building takeovers, encampments, and enforced movement restrictions are students, faculty, and others who have no real responsibility for any of the injustices that occur in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Simply investing in companies doing business in Israel is not enough to justify targeting people. The protesters themselves implicitly recognize this, as they will not use this tactic to demand divestment from companies operating in China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with far worse human rights records than Israel. And, to reiterate, the primary victims of illegal protests are not university officials who control investments, but students and faculty (who often have little or no such control).
If harming innocent people is the only way to achieve a greater good, perhaps harming innocent people can still be defended. But this argument doesn’t help anti-Israel protesters either. Their actions are unlikely to improve U.S. or Israeli policy. Even if some universities divest from Israel as a result (which in itself is highly questionable), this would not lead to any beneficial changes in Israeli or U.S. policy. Furthermore, the protesters’ actions may hurt their cause more than they help. Polls show that a majority of the public condemns such actions. One survey found that 71% support calling police to arrest protesters who occupy buildings or prevent others from using parts of campus.
At the very least, before taking action that harms innocent people and violates their rights, protesters should have strong evidence that doing so will actually achieve some great good that cannot be achieved any other way. Anti-Israel protesters on campus don’t even reach that burden.
The above analysis implicitly assumes that protesters have a legitimate cause, even if they pursue that goal in the wrong way. In reality, however, most of them don’t.
Students for Justice in Palestine and other groups leading the protests support Hamas’ horrific October terrorist attacks and the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state led by Hamas or other similar groups. The virtually inevitable result would be the extermination or deportation of most of the Jews. Palestinian Arabs will not benefit either. They would end up creating a country ruled by a brutally repressive dictatorship, similar to the oppressive Hamas regime that has ruled Gaza since it seized power in 2007. Policy—The alternative supported by protest leaders is far worse.
Some rank-and-file protest participants may disagree with leaders’ agenda. But if so, they have an obligation to dissociate themselves from it, or at least refuse to participate in the actions organized by such people. There is nothing stopping them from forming their own independent protest group and abandoning the horrific agenda espoused by current protest leaders.
There are many demands that protesters can make that would help the Palestinians without supporting the nefarious agenda of Hamas and other similar groups. Most obviously, they could demand that Hamas release hostages and surrender. This would immediately end the war, end the suffering of the hostages and liberate the Palestinians in Gaza from a brutal dictatorship. Furthermore, this would help prevent further conflicts that would otherwise be virtually inevitable as long as Hamas remains in power (as they promise to “repeat October 7th again and again” if given the chance).
Beyond that, they could at least require Hamas fighters to wear uniforms (as required by the laws of war) and stop their ubiquitous tactic of using civilians as human shields. This would significantly reduce civilian casualties. They can also demand – as I myself have urged – that Arab and Western countries open their doors to Gaza refugees, which would also help reduce civilian losses and otherwise alleviate suffering.
If they want to focus on Israel’s actions, they could try to focus on actual violations of the laws of war, rather than denying Israel the right to fight genocidal terrorists in the first place. Israel took extensive action to minimize civilian losses, more so than other military forces in similar situations. But there is no doubt that they should do more. Protesters can also target Israel’s questionable actions in the West Bank, such as settler land seizures, while remembering that the Palestinian Authority is also a repressive dictatorship (even if slightly less terrifying than Hamas).
This is not an exhaustive list, just an illustrative one. Protesters might also advocate for other measures that at least seem just.
Even a perfectly just cause is not enough to justify violating the rights of innocent people because there is no overwhelming evidence that some great good will be achieved by doing so. But having justification is a necessary (although in itself sufficient) moral prerequisite for such action.
Even people who support horrific ideas still have the right to protest peacefully without infringing on the rights of others. This is the essence of free speech. But if you go beyond that, you’ll need at least a very strong reason. The current anti-Israel protests do not go far enough.
