Benjamin A. Kleinerman is the R.W. Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University. He is the Editor of The Constitutionalist.
There was a recent proposal at my University to have a campus-wide event commemorating October 7. They proposed bringing in a “range of voices and perspectives” on the conflict since that day. First, I should make clear that I am not suggesting that such events shouldn’t occur. There is certainly a place for them. Wide-ranging discussions that bring a variety of perspectives are essential in general to a democratic people and, more specifically, to universities that should value discourse and discussion about current issues.
Insofar as they encourage healthy discussion of pressing political issues, Universities are essential to a healthy constitutional republic. We need vigorous debate about what’s going on in the Middle East and what we should do in response. But those debates are only possible if violence is entirely off the table. And so, there should, however, be no such discussions on 10/7. Again, there is definitely an important place for such discussions. But it is also important that we figure out when and how they should occur. Certain days mean certain things. Universities, in particular, should think seriously about what kinds of events should occur on those days. October 7, 2023 was nothing more, at that point, than the largest and most vicious massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. To commemorate it in any other way than by having a vigil for those whose lives were lost is, to be blunt, morally disgraceful. Certain days like 10/7 and 9/11 live in infamy because of their concentrated horror. Although there are certainly two sides to the events that have occurred since 10/7, the day itself involved a malicious and unprovoked attack on Israeli citizens. To investigate the two sides on 10/7 is to imply that such an attack could be justified by the “complications of the situation.” Any person that claims to be morally serious must reject the notion that the complications of the Israel/Palestine conflict justify the mass murder of innocent people.
This is not to suggest, however, that the situation isn’t complicated. Hamas’s mass murder has led to an Israeli response that has caused a great deal of suffering and deaths among the Palestinian people. Just as a morally serious people should lament the deaths of the Jews in Israel, so too should they lament the death of Palestinians. The situation is complicated because neither the Israeli citizens nor those who were blameless among the Palestinians deserved to die.
But those complications came after 10/7. 10/7 itself was remarkably uncomplicated. Hamas crossed into Israel and killed thousands of people who had done absolutely nothing wrong. This was not “resistance to oppression”; this was unprovoked mass murder.
For those who insist on doing something other than holding a vigil for those who died on that day, perhaps it would be appropriate to have a campus-wide discussion of the horrors perpetrated by terrorists who believe their cause justifies that you die, whether it be in burning towers or in peaceful concerts. To do anything else is to unwittingly deliver a victory to Hamas. This terrorist group carried out 10/7 in order to get the world talking about the conflict in Israel. And to provoke Israel into its inevitable response. Israel’s war in Gaza is not an unforeseen consequence of 10/7. It is precisely what Hamas intended. This is not a conspiracy theory. Hamas itself would admit as much. To spend our time on 10/7 talking about the conflict itself rather than the evil of that day is to make them successful. Rather than simply condemning them as the evil killers they are, we lend credence to their cause. 10/7 should be a day in which no one is given the opportunity to talk about “freedom fighters,” in particular on a university campus.
There simply are not two sides on this issue. Terrorism is evil, pure and simple. The morality of this question is simple. 10/7 should be commemorated, at most, by a discussion of the evils of terrorism. To use it as an occasion to discuss anything else is to imply that it is not simply evil. If we want to bring about a peaceful world in which innocent civilians aren’t killed because of some group’s fierce commitment to their cause, then we must simply reject their tactics and refuse to succumb to their intended effects.
To bring this argument around to the subject of this site, a constitutional order, the principles of our regime always require us to avoid political violence and embrace reasoned discussion and ordered processes of decision-making. Just as the assassination of political opponents must be strictly off limits, so too must be political violence in the name of what we believe to be our “just cause.” A constitutional republic requires a moral commitment to never believing that our just cause allows us to undertake unprovoked killings, no matter how immoral we might think the other side is. Even if our cause is truly just and even if we think political violence is the only way of delivering that justice, constitutionalism requires us to recognize that the injustice of such violence subsumes whatever justice we think exists in our cause. To give “both-sides” of 10/7 is to forego that commitment in favor of a kind of moral relativism that has no place in a constitutional republic.