On March 21, a coalition of representatives from FUYDSA, FUMENA (Middle East and North Africa Club), and FUEAG (Environmental Action Group) met with senior Furman administrators to demand that Furman (1) put out a statement recognizing and condemning the genocide of the Palestinian people, with Israel as the perpetuator of this genocide, (2) disclose Furman’s financial investments and subsequently divest from all Israeli firms, as well as complicit firms such as U.S. weapons manufacturers, and (3) prohibit all future study away and May X trips to occupied Palestine. The administration refused all three demands.
On March 18, the SGA voted on a similar proposal from the coalition. This proposal, if passed, would have had the SGA put out the same statement as described above and further called on them to pressure the administration into accepting the same demands they had previously refused. The SGA voted it down in a secret ballot.
Since this campaign began, the coalition and our demands have received numerous critiques. Each of these is riddled with holes. The purpose of this article is to respond to the major criticisms of our campaign and lay their weaknesses bare.
Critique 1: The coalition is calling for a statement without action.
Opponents of the resolution have repeatedly claimed that we are demanding a statement that starts and stops at denouncing Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people. This is categorically false. The statement we demand calls for specific actions, aimed at leveraging Furman’s power as a wealthy, American academic institution.
Our resolution calls for Furman’s divestment from Israeli firms and any organizations directly contributing to Israel’s genocide (such as U.S. weapons manufacturers) as well as for the prohibition of all future study away and MayX trips to Israel until Israel ends its genocidal assault. These are tangible actions that would end any material contributions Furman makes to Israel’s arsenal of destruction and would increase pressure on the U.S. and Israel for an immediate ceasefire.
Critique 2: A statement has no power.
Opponents of our proposal have repeatedly referred to a statement condemning Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people as “virtue signaling” and “performative.” These accusations fail to acknowledge two key things.
Firstly, both accusations forget that our statement is inseparable from the actions connected to it. These actions include demanding Furman’s divestment from any organizations and institutions directly or indirectly participating in Israel’s genocide, as well as the prohibition of study away and MayX trips to Israel. These steps would end Furman’s financial contributions to the Israeli economy, which are subsequently used to fund the ongoing genocide.
Secondly, dismissing our proposed statement as “virtue signaling” robs it of its symbolic power. We as a student body have power in our collective voice. Furman has power in its money, prestige, and connections. And, critically, we would not be operating in a vacuum, but joining a growing number of colleges and universities across the globe in taking a stand against genocide.
We’ve never been under the illusion that our demands, if met, will initiate an immediate ceasefire. That would be ludicrously naive. Our campaign is focused on building mass power within and between communities like Furman’s. A statement, or even the possibility of one, sparks widespread discourse on the issue it addresses. We can see this in real time on campus. The statement has not been made, and yet Palestine has been thrust into the limelight of Furman discourse because of the debate surrounding our proposal.
If SGA makes a statement, it will make other student bodies less hesitant to make similar ones and to make similar demands of the institutions they belong to. If Furman makes one, it will have a similar effect on other academic institutions throughout America. A statement itself can play a powerful role by sparking discourse and inspiring others to join the cause.
Critique 3: The coalition should focus on other forms of tangible action.
A common argument against our resolution is that the coalition’s efforts would be much more effective if geared toward fundraising and sending aid to Gaza, lobbying our congressional representatives, or helping Palestinian refugees in our community. The common fault in each of these points is that they fail to address the root of the problem: the continuation of Israel’s U.S.-funded genocide. Each of these arguments ignore the context in which the type of aid they advocate for exists.
Fundraising on its own is ineffective because Israel prevents all aid from entering Gaza. Since the onset of the current genocide, Israel has blocked aid trucks from entering Gaza through the Egyptian border. The aid is there, but it can’t get in. Throwing money at a closed door helps no one.
Additionally, on multiple of the rare occasions that aid has gotten past Israel’s blockade, the Israeli army has massacred the Palestinian civilians who attempted to collect it. On February 29, in what has been aptly coined the Flour Massacre, Israel killed over 100 Palestinian civilians as they awaited aid in Gaza City. On March 23, Israel targeted civilians awaiting flour and other forms of aid, killing 19. In addition to attacking civilians seeking aid, Israel has continually targeted aid workers. The most recent example of this was on April 2, when an Israeli strike killed seven World Central Kitchen workers who were providing food to starving Palestinians.
What about lobbying our representatives? The effectiveness of grassroots lobbying largely depends on how much our elected representatives care about what we have to say. Ours, unfortunately, do not. Shortly following October 7, Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. On November 8, Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib was censured by the House of Representatives. The reason? In each case, Omar and Tlaib had condemned Israel’s bombing and invasion of Gaza, as well as the role the U.S. has played in unconditionally supporting Israel’s crimes. The criticism of both came from Democrats and Republicans, and few of our representatives have since condemned Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people.
Even those who have condemned the genocide did so months after it had begun, while simultaneously voting to send billions of dollars to Israel. Too little, too late. The actions of our congressional representatives demonstrate the United States’ unilateral support, both silent and loudly spoken, of Israel’s genocidal rampage in Gaza. Those who claim to represent us will not heed our demands unless they are forced to. Only organized pressure—not impotent lobbying—will change the behavior of our representatives and our government as a whole.
Helping Palestinian refugees in the States is no doubt essential and is on our radar for future actions. Our theory of change, however, is focused on stopping the bleeding at the source, not merely putting bandages on wounds that require stitches. We can help every Palestinian refugee that flees Israeli bombs, but this does nothing to solve the problem of why these refugees are refugees to begin with. What greater aid can we provide these people than using every tool at our disposal to bring an end to the root of their suffering?
Ultimately, these arguments are focused on short-term goals that don’t result in tangible action to confront the causes of Palestinian suffering. There is also the issue of math. No food, medicine, or shelter will help a Palestinian civilian faster than an American-made Israeli bomb will kill them.
Critique 4: Issuing a statement would lead to political opposition to DEI programs at Furman.
Opponents of our proposal have argued that a statement condemning the genocide of Palestinians would cause right-wing politicians to target Furman’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. There is one glaring issue with this argument: the right wing of American politics is already dead set on dismantling DEI.
Republican-majority state congresses are consistently targeting DEI programs at colleges and universities throughout the nation, including in South Carolina. Those attacking DEI programs are vicious reactionaries who can not be talked down and can not be reasoned with. Caving to their demands will not end their attacks on DEI any more than lobbying them will end their support for Israel’s campaign of mass slaughter. Will we take their attacks lying down? Or will we stand true to our valuesdespite the opposition of fascists and their allies? We prefer the latter.
Critique 5: Issuing a statement would threaten the safety of members of the Furman community.
Instances of violence on other campuses have been repeatedly cited as damning evidence against our case. The issue with this argument is that it places the interests of (some of) us here at Furman above those of the Palestinian people. We are members of an international community, and we have a responsibility to use every avenue of change available to us in order to fight for the oppressed. Our fight is for the real, material safety and liberty of a people undergoing genocide.
We further believe that a denunciation of Israel and America’sgenocide and the demands following that denunciation are in the best interest of the safety of many Furman students, faculty, and staff. Denouncing the genocide means standing against the vicious anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic animusthat allows the engine of mass slaughter to continue running. The more we allow the profound bigotry behind the genocide in Gaza to flourish, the more danger Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim people at Furman are placed in.
Additionally, numerous Furman students, faculty, and staff have family and friends throughout the Middle East, who may well be in mortal danger, especially given the possibility of Israel and America’s genocide sparking large-scale regional war. Demanding Furman discontinue its support of the genocidaires is a way to wield our power, however limited, against these grave dangers.
Critique 6: SGA is not political/Our proposal has no base in the student body.
Opponents of the coalition seem determined to “keep politics out of SGA.” Many of our SGA members readily fell in line with our opponents’ demands. But they were misled by the deceptive sway of those who wish to uphold injustice and by the siren song of the so-called “apolitical.” After all, is there anything more political than refusing to denounce a horrific genocide?
Some members of SGA itself claim that the coalition has no base in the student body or is only composed of white students interested in bolstering their reputations. This argument is used to frame the coalition’s ceasefire campaign as one backed primarily by a loud minority of passionate but misguided students. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The groups that make up the coalition (YDSA, EAG, and MENA) are a few of the most diverse and politically active groups on Furman’s campus. Even if these claims were true, they still hold no power, because support for our campaign reaches far beyond the active membership of the coalition.
To see this in action, we need only to look at two recent developments on our campus. The first was on Monday, March 25, when SGA voted down the coalition’s proposal. They did so amidst a room of over thirty student activists present in support of the proposal. Many of these students were active members of the coalition groups, but many more were unaffiliated with the coalition and simply showed up because they supported our legislation.
The clearest indicator of widespread support is the recent “Ceasefire Now!” petition initiated by the coalition. In three days, from March 26-28, we collected 298 signatures to bring the legislation to a campus-wide vote. The students that SGA claims to represent have spoken, and they refuse to let injustice, silence, and inaction be upheld by secret ballot, under the pressure of those committed to blocking our every effort toward real justice and liberation.
What now?
So, the vote will be held, and the student body will get to decide whether we stand with the Palestinian people on the side of justice and liberation. These criticisms of the coalition and our campaign will no doubt continue, probably with increased fervor, but they hold no power, regardless of how loudly they are shouted. Until then,
Silence is complicity.
Vote yes!
Update (4-17-24): A response to this article has been published in The Paladin.
Update (4-17-24): Our response to Caroline Brawley’s article in The Paladin has been published here.
Radical Rose Collective 
Leave a comment