On June 20, 2024, the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado passed a resolution in response to protests by member of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at the private residences of two members of the Board, one of whom is Jewish. The Regents noted in their resolution that the protestors called for an “intifada” and explained that such calls are calls for violence and murder against the Jewish people, are antisemitic, and are racist in nature.
Four professors at CU Boulder that identify as members of Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine wrote an op-ed in response to the Regents’ resolution that was published in the September 5 edition of The Colorado Sun. They claimed the resolution misrepresents the Arabic word “intifada.” In an obvious attempt to limit the impact of the word, they note the word translates into English as “uprising” or “shaking off.” They assert, “in the Palestinian context, ‘intifada’ refers to resistance against Israeli military occupation, including the predominantly nonviolent First Intifada (1987-93).” It is hard to understand how academics could refer to the intifada as “nonviolent” when it has been reported there were hundreds of deaths of Israelis, with more than 3,000 injured during the First Intifada.
Perhaps, the authors of the op-ed thought the First Intifada was predominately nonviolent because they were comparing it to the Second Intifada (2000-05). After all, the Second Intifada was marked by deadly terrorism that targeted Israeli civilians on buses, restaurants and on city streets with suicide bombings, shootings and other forms of terrorism. This resulted in the murders of over 1,000 Israelis, and thousands more severely injured in these horrific attacks. That said, the professors failed to mention the Second Intifada at all in their op-ed. As a result, it is much more likely they were simply attempting to strip the word “intifada” from all history, context, and use.
In addition to the professors’ failing scholarship by ignoring important aspects of the First Intifada and totally ignoring the Second Intifada, it is surprising that people who purport to care for social justice have a blind spot when the targets of their animus are Jewish. It is foundational to those of us seeking social justice that we consider the impact of statements on targeted communities over the intent of the speaker. People of goodwill know the harm that can be felt by targeted communities when racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and otherwise biased, stereotypical, and prejudicial language is used. This is even true if the person using the language claims they “were just joking” or “didn’t mean anything by it.”
The professors who wrote the op-ed failed to take any of this into consideration when attempting to justify calling for an intifada, a word that to Jewish people is extremely threatening. Even if the SDS protestors that are the subject of the Board of Regents’ resolution only intended to convey the literal translation of of the word “intifada,” they – like the professors – failed to take into consideration the impact of its use on the Jewish community given its bloody and violent history.
The authors of the op-ed also claim the resolution chills free speech. This is simply not true. The resolution does not restrict speech. Advocating for people to take into consideration the impact of their words is a good thing. There are many ways protestors can express their support for the Palestinian people without endorsing or glorifying violence against Jews.
At a time when ADL has recorded incidents of antisemitism at their highest levels, the resolution of the CU Board of Regents should be commended, not condemned. Words have power. Thought leaders and activists should strive to use language that promotes peace, understanding, and justice. Calling for an intifada does none of those things.
Scott Levin, ADL Mountain States Regional Director