Last Tuesday an American congressional hearing was convened by the American Committee on Education & the Workforce in Washington. D.C.

Entitled “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism”, the hearing opened with chair of the committee and Republican congressperson, Virginia Foxx, stating: “Each of you will have a chance to answer to and atone for the many specific instances of vitriolic, hate-filled antisemitism on your respective campuses that have denied students the safe learning environment they are due.

“As you confront our questions in this hearing, remember that you are not speaking to us, but to the students on your campus who have been threatened and assaulted and who look to you to protect them”.

This was mainly addressed to three university presidents – Claudine Gray (Harvard University), Liz Magill (University of Pennsylvania), and Sally Kornbluth (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) – who were each invited to the hearing.

In addition to commenting on the alleged antisemitism described by Foxx, the presidents spoke to what extent their universities have ensured the safety of Jewish students – particularly since October 7, when American campuses regularly saw demonstrations against Israel's aggression in Gaza.

Throughout the hearing, being pro-Palestininan was closely (and of course dishonestly) associated with being antisemitic. This is apt to persuade those, unfamiliar with relations between Israel and Palestine, to wrongly view allies of Palestine as hateful or racist.

Admittedly the hearing got something about the pro-Palestinian demonstrations on American campuses right: they’re characterised by anger. But that’s not itself bad and is in fact understandable.

Reflecting our moral nature as human beings, demonstration participants are deeply upset about the senseless and indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, over 7000 of whom are children, at the hands of Israel.

If they were not we’d have reason for concern. Accordingly, music legend and pro-Palestinian activist Roger Waters, speaking recently with TRT World, rightfully suggests that “anyone with a heart” ought to be emotionally bothered by Israel and not Palestinian solidarity.

In contrast, however, and rather disappointingly the hearing demonised such solidarity. More specifically, it did so through a video montage where demonstrators – at the aforementioned universities – are chanting “intifada”, as if that meant violently targeting Jewish people.

In reality “intifada” means uprising in Arabic. And given the genocidal character of Israeli violence against Palestinians, people should be rising up – regardless of cultural, religious, or ethnic background – to both decry and ultimately stop it.

This in no way entails being menacing, much less violent, towards Jewish people. In fact, as we’re seeing throughout the world and represented by progressive groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (United States) and Independent Jewish Voices (Canada), sizable numbers of Jews themselves are rising up as described.

Contrary to the offensive rhetoric of Israeli ideologues, such admirable individuals are not “self-hating Jews”. They are rather people of conscience, act so as to prevent our shared humanity from being further compromised – as unfortunately is happening through the wholesale Israeli slaughter of defenceless Palestinians, their families, and communities.

The hearing hardly touches on any of this. Instead – woefully exaggerating pro-Palestinian demonstrations as “dangerous” – resembles more a moral panic than an impartial inquiry, as congressional hearings are expected to be.

According to UK scholar Stanley Cohen, recognised as being the pioneer of the term, a moral panic is a “condition, episode, person or group of persons [that] emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests” and – as reflected by the misrepresentation of pro-Palestistinain demonstrations at the hearing – is often misleading.

This is what the hearing aimed to do. Had it taken seriously not only what the language of Palestinian resistance, such as but not limited to “intifada”, and constructive ways of voicing opposition to Israeli violence it would have stayed clear of suggesting that being pro-Palestinian is tantamount to being antisemitic.

Troubling also is that nowhere during the hearing was there any significant discussion about the merits of being anti-Israel. The mere idea of that would rile many in the West, accustomed to public discourse (e.g. within mainstream media) that, on the one hand, falsely presents Israel as an exemplary “democracy” and, on the other, implies that to oppose Israel is to oppose Jewish people.

Underlying this is the obvious fallacy that Israel and Jewish people are inseparable. Arguably this is to draw attention to what Israel is in essence: a violent state rather than a people. And one at that which shows total disregard for human life, engaged – through military and other means – in ridding Gaza of Palestinians. To suggest this is somehow “Jewish” is terribly antisemitic.

Further, Israel commits violence against the Palestinian people with relative impunity, as other states – from Canada and the United States to France and Australia (recently criticised by UN special rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, for presently being too lenient with Israel) – fail to hold it accountable, such as through sanctions.

Allowing any state this “liberty” (and to be clear, Israel is by no means the only one that acts heinously) is to effectively say: “Some lives don’t matter. They are, if not contemptible, at least disposable”. Israel would like us to believe this about Palestinians but thankfully, like students on American campuses, growing numbers of people internationally reject the hateful notion.

It also reflects the larger truth to which they subscribe, namely that all have value and there’s certain things you never, under any circumstances, do to anyone. To do so is to violate their humanity.

Aristotle astutely observes that “anybody can become angry - that is easy.

“But to be angry with the right person,” he continues, “and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy”.

Likewise, we find ourselves at a time where, despite all that’s happening in Gaza, there are still those – at the hearing and beyond – who are wrongfully angry with pro-Palestinian demonstrations on American campuses. They also, by misframing those demonstrations (and others like it) as antagonistic towards Jewish people, seek to incense others about anything pro-Palestinian.

This detracts people from fully appreciating the severity of harm Israel inflicts against Palestinians. In turn people are prevented from being angry for the right reasons, which Aristotle also thought to be a virtue or form of moral excellence.

Such anger – sometimes referred to as “indignation” – can be effectively channelled into contesting Israeli oppression. As a matter of justice that’s necessary.

Unchecked, Israel will pulverise Palestine.