Image courtesy of Texas Tech Hillel.
By Reece Nations
Julian Cohen is a senior kinesiology major with a minor in military history from El Paso. He is president of Texas Tech Hillel, an on-campus organization for students who identify as either Israeli, Jewish or both. Cohen sat down with The Hub@TTU to discuss his thoughts on Israel’s ongoing military response to the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack and other related topics. His remarks were made on his own behalf and not on behalf of Texas Tech Hillel.
This transcript has been condescended and lightly edited to ensure the accuracy of the remarks made during the conversation.
RN: Could you maybe explain what Texas Tech Hillel is for those who are not familiar with the organization?
JC: For those who aren’t aware, Texas Tech Hillel is basically an organization for both Jewish and Israeli students on campus, and it can be anyone specifically who self identifies as Jewish or Israeli– whether they have one Jewish parent or one Jewish grandparent, we don’t take anything into consideration. Anyone who’s interested, even if they’re not Jewish, is more than welcome to attend our events or get involved with our organization. We serve as a conduit for Jewish life on campus.
RN: On a personal note, I was wondering if you have any family that are either from or still live in Israel?
JC: I do, yes. On my mother’s side – I have several cousins who live in Israel. I also have other family members who live in Israel, whether it’s Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, along with some of the surrounding areas. I also have some friends who live there. And many, many of our members do as well. Actually, as an organization, half of our members are Israeli, or their parents are Israeli. So, there’s a huge Israeli-Jewish presence here. And that’s also something we try to keep in consideration when planning events or when we put out anything public.
RN: So with that in mind, hearing news of the attacks last year on October 7 must have really hit home hard for you. What were your thoughts? What are your feelings about it now that some time has passed? I know it’s very difficult, but could you summarize your takeaways on what happened and how you’re feeling about it now?
JC: It was definitely a very traumatic time for many of us – myself included. It was very scary. I woke up on Oct. 7, not knowing if some of my family or friends were still alive. But with many in our community, even if some of our family members weren’t affected, we know someone who was. It was a very personal event that really hit home for the majority of us. And for me, it was something that caught me off guard. It happened on the Jewish holiday Simchat Torah, which is a very important holiday in Judaism. But basically, as far as your time goes by… time heals all wounds, [but] it‘s definitely there. It’s definitely something where I still personally have a lot of anger behind. And it‘s still something where it‘s very difficult for many of us to talk about without personally feeling pain behind it.
RN: I feel like a lot of the things that have sort of been said and talked about on campus since then have largely focused on the military response that followed. You mentioned that you feel a lot of anger in response to that. … How do you feel about the Israeli military’s response after what happened? Do you feel like it’s been a response of equal measure? Do you understand how people with Palestinian sympathies would feel a lot of the same anger that that you described?
JC: I can definitely see how many individuals with Palestinian backgrounds could feel a similar anger. I think it’s difficult for people who don’t have direct family or ethnic ties to the conflict to understand on a human level the pain, and I think many of them try to go in a positive direction of healing for many for many people, not just Jews, Israelis, Arabs or Palestinians. I can understand how Palestinians in our community are hurting by this. On a personal note, as far as the Israeli response… I am somewhat conflicted personally. On one hand, it’s difficult not to respond to an act that was, quite frankly, unprovoked. There are many people who have many different opinions on that. But, from my standpoint, there was a prior ceasefire before Oct. 7 that helped, and it had helped for two years… at least between Hamas and Israel. And the way I see it is – we had to do something, especially since there still are hostages being held in Gaza.
Personally, there are things I am critical about the Israeli military response. For example, I’ve heard that in many cases, white phosphorus has been used. It’s something I do condemn, but by the same token, I also feel that when you’re fighting an insurgent campaign… when we’re fighting Hamas, we’re not fighting the Palestinian people. It’s something where every civilian death pains us, and it’s not something that we actively seek out, but it’s very difficult to strike at an enemy that is almost invisible. I think it’s a difficult situation, especially since Gaza is a very densely populated area. I do think that there are many strategies that could be augmented – especially since the fighting has now changed in scope from being purely air assaults to more of a ground operation.
RN: I’m wondering if you take any issue with what you’ve seen on campus, perhaps in response to this… Statistically, incidents of antisemitism have risen nationally since Oct. 7, so I am also wondering if you’ve seen, heard or felt any of that in the time since it happened.
JC: We’ve definitely witnessed antisemitism on campus– both before, but most notably after Oct. 7. As far as groups or individuals who perpetrated [it], the way we see it is… in many of these cases, many of these individuals could make salient points, but I think that oftentimes – in part because of some of the information they might be getting – they don’t realize the harm that they’re causing. For example, Al Jazeera is a very popular news media outlet. And they publish several hundred stories in the span of a couple of days in relation to Israel and Palestine, yet the country they are headquartered in – which is Qatar – is thousands of miles away. What I’ve noticed with several of these articles, and with several of these people who use these articles as a source, is that they fail to realize that it’s a government sponsored news outlet. So, there’s going to be inherent bias there. From what I’ve read with many different sources – not just from Al Jazeera but also several other Middle Eastern sources – in many cases they contain libel or antisemitic tropes, which are extremely unacceptable. A lot of people may not know a whole lot – not only just about the conflict, but about Jewish people and our history. It may be easy to run with these sources [since] there’s hundreds of them out there. It may be difficult for them to critique it into to catch instances of antisemitism, especially if it’s embedded alongside fair criticism, which ultimately is self–defeating.
Hillel, an on-campus organization for students who identify as either Israeli, Jewish or both. Image courtesy of Texas Tech Hillel.
RN: How do you feel that this has been represented by the media either locally or nationally? Do you think that they’re doing a good job of providing the nuance that you seem to feel at your core? Or do you think that it’s come off as one sided?
JC: From a national standpoint, I think it’s been a very mixed response. In many instances, I think that certain coverage has been taken from areas or individuals who may have a skewed perception – and that can be equated to both sides. With a lot of these big news corporations, from what I’ve seen, is that in many, many instances, they’re getting secondhand information. And it’s difficult to rely on the accuracy of secondhand information when you don’t have boots on the ground. That said, as far as how the coverage [has gone] in the community– it’s been fair. There have been multiple news outlets that have reached out to us and they’ve also been discussing similar topics with the Palestinian community and their supporters. From my standpoint, I don’t see it as biased. I think it’s been very fair coverage up to this point.
RN: Something that set off this firestorm, in part, at least was an article by the Texas Scorecard that unequivocally characterized [professor] Jairo Fúnez-Flores‘ post on his personal social media as antisemitic. How do you feel about that? Do you equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism? And if not, then how do you draw that distinction?
JC: With anything, I think it depends on the frame with criticism of Israel. I think that in many cases, it’s pretty simple to criticize Israel if you limit it to the government and its policies, and you don’t basically implicate the people themselves. With that being said, I’ve noticed what many individuals, including faculty within this community, have said on Oct. 7… I’ve personally found their comments to be antisemitic. In any case where there is demonization, double standards, or de-legitimization — I think that those are ripe opportunities for antisemitism to occur, regardless of intention. And I think the most common one that I’ve seen is demonization. I’ve seen this from tweets from individuals on our campus where, in some cases, they had gone as far as to suggest that there’s no such thing as an Israeli civilian. And that is demonization. And it’s because it’s basically implying that there should be no distinction between military targets or individual civilians. … Many individuals disregard that when critiquing the State of Israel, and it also conveniently opens the door to becoming a double standard if you’re not critiquing one nation as you are the others. I think that is a clear form of antisemitism and it should be rejected. My suggestion to many of these groups is to confine their criticisms purely to the military policies that are instituted by the government or government officials, and to not superimpose those criticisms onto an entire people. There are definitely other examples of antisemitism out there, but for the most part – when it comes to critiquing Israel – I don’t think that Israel should be critiqued any differently than other nations are being critiqued.
RN: The main question I had was whether you have personal support for a ceasefire in Gaza and whether that also implies that you have support for a two-state solution.
JC: Ceasefires alone have proven to me to not be a sustainable process. I’m also conflicted, because at the core of my beliefs, I do believe in a two-state solution. But I also see the unilateral withdrawal of the Israeli government, which included civilians from Gaza and since then there’s been an increase in violence. So, from my standpoint, I think it’s difficult for many people in my community to support a two–state solution when we’ve withdrawn from land – land that we’ve gotten in defensive campaigns against former adversaries – and it’s almost as if we’ve been repaid with blood. Even throughout this war, there’s been instances where ceasefires have been implemented and fighting has resumed. Personally, I would support it if Hamas were to stop firing and if they were to return our civilians. I think there could be at the very least a ceasefire, but what I’d like to see would be a permanent peace. By the same token, it’s very difficult to normalize relations with a group that’s declared in the past that they want to eradicate all Jews. There are a lot of mixed feelings that I feel regarding this topic, and I hope that they come across in a way that it’s nuanced, and that your readers can understand the complexities of this topic. I think if they were to return every hostage, there would be increased support even within Israel for a ceasefire.
RN: Where do you think that there is opportunity to find solidarity with each other in the dialogue? What do you think both sides seem to agree on?
JC: I think both sides, at our very core, seem to agree on a couple of things. One of which is that even though there might be differences among us, many of us have similar origins religiously. I think a main issue from what I’ve seen within conversations regarding the conflict [is that] many individuals on both sides are ignorant of the history of both the Palestinian nation and the Jewish people. And I think that’s also a very good place to start up from not just discussing it within the context of 1948, but before that as well, because we both share the land and we both have a very rich history within land. I think that’s a good place to start. I also think that on both sides, there have been a lot of people that don’t have a connection to the conflict. I think it’s wonderful to advocate for people even when they are not of a similar identity to you. In many cases, there are there are people from different backgrounds who also show solidarity with the Jewish and Israeli people. If there is to be a long-term peace It needs to be discussed between Israelis and Palestinians. I’m not saying that there can’t be others who can mediate talks, but if we let other groups talk over us or talk on our behalf – I think it diminishes an actual solution. And I think it contributes to growing isolation.
RN: What else do you want to bring attention to? Is there something that you want to say directly to your fellow students, or maybe to members of the Texas Tech community in general?
JC: I don’t think that people on this campus are inherently antisemitic. I don’t think anyone on this campus personally holds malice towards the Jewish community. I could be wrong, and I’m sure I am – I’m sure there are individuals who harbor a great deal of animosity towards us. I do think that in many instances – whether regarding professors, individuals or organizations –there’s also an opportunity at play to have valid criticisms of the State of Israel. But I also think that it should be tempered with the knowledge that there are other countries that take similar actions, and the best way to go about criticizing Israel is to do it in the balanced way that really discusses the nuances and holds Israel accountable for its actions, but by the same token doesn’t use language that endangers Jewish individuals or Israeli individuals within our community. I’ve only had experiences with some individuals here and there, and I’ll say this––the majority are good people. They’re coming from a position of wanting to help others. I think [some] also inadvertently demonize and effectively racialize a conversation about two groups of people – which are very similar to each other – ethnically, religiously and culturally. I think that in any conversation about social justice that needs to be had, it must include these groups. But it also shouldn’t demonize one group over the other and those who do, even inadvertently, should be held accountable. I also think they should be given the opportunity to clarify their statement or to perhaps discuss it in a way that doesn’t retract the statement they make on specific policies. But I think they do need to take accountability when it comes to using blanket generalizations that demonized and set double standards on Israelis and the Jewish people entirely. And I hope that for those who do want to have a conversation about this issue that there can be some sort of dialogue where we can come together and sit down and talk from one group to another, and to understand the pain from both sides. Let’s also try to find a way forward. I think that’s very important as well, because when we let others speak over us or on our behalf it creates a narrative that may not exist. And for a real, permanent solution that affects in a positive way the aspirations of two groups of people for nationhood, I think that those conversations should be between them.
For more on Texas Tech Hillel and its activities, one can visit its website or follow the organization on Instagram and Facebook.
About Reece Nations
