Protests in universities, Aime: “The debate is too polarized, but these kids should be thanked: theirs is not violence but participation”

“The protests must be measured, the words chosen with care and the boycotts aimed in the right direction, but these guys should only be thanked”. Try to organize like this, Marco Aimein the tumultuous days of Italian universities, which became the main terrain of debate (and clash) between positions on the subject of war in the Middle East.

The Turin writer and professor was yesterday at the University of Genoa, where he teaches anthropology, while the student committees challenged the rector over the collaboration agreements with Israeli universities. And to Repubblica he explains the reason behind the protest and the many risks of this phase of the country’s life.

“The polarization of the debate has killed every type of discussion, – warns the anthropologist – we need to go back to being able to criticize Israel without coming off as anti-Semitic, and to say that not all Israelis support the government and the military action it is carrying out the massacre of civilians in Gaza”.

What do you think of the student protests that have become a case in recent weeks? How do you judge students’ protests against their own universities?

“They do well, they have the right and it is right for them to express their opinion regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. The problem is ours, let’s listen to them instead. We complain about the lack of interest of young people in the political and social life of the country, they are accused of being outside the world in which they grow up, and then when they find the space to participate they are criticized and condemned, when things go badly they end up even to be beaten. I only see it as a good sign: as long as it doesn’t come to violence, they will always be right.”

How thin, however, is the line that separates dissent and violence?

“It leads to violence if you prevent someone from speaking, from discussing, from discussing, that has happened too. But at least in the university where I teach, in Genoa, I only saw great exuberance and a certain determination in supporting one’s position, certainly not violence. These kids feel involved in what is happening in Gaza, and fortunately, I would say. Also because we are all involved, and we should all feel like this.”

What do you think of the opinion of the President of the Senate Ignazio La Russa, who warned about the risk of excessive tolerance of this dissent, and of a return to the tensions of the Seventies?

“Which is idiocy. Perhaps also a good excuse to better tolerate a certain propensity for the repression of dissent, even the most civilized one. Terrorism was not born in universities, I lived in the Seventies, the battles of that time were fought over internal politics, they were more ideological on one side than on the other: at stake were changes in society, hierarchies, the class struggle, and in the same way the forms of violence into which those mobilizations degenerated always concerned political, economic and social issues of the country. In this phase we discuss the life or death of thousands of people, we protest against the indiscriminate massacre underway in Gaza and against a certain normalization of the concept of war. And the value of life should be universal, not one side or the other.”

In Italy we clash more than anything else over the use of words, even in the face of an increasing death count.

“With my students I have tried several times to clarify the appropriateness of using the term genocide, which legally indicates the desire to eliminate a people as such, and I don’t think it should also include Israel’s clear intention to evict from the territory of Gaza the Palestinians. But we shouldn’t be talking about words, let’s use the word genocide, let’s use the term massacre, little changes in terms of deaths and horror. Unfortunately there is no scale of horror, there is no better or worse.”

However, what is your position on the battle that student collectives are bringing to universities, the request to interrupt collaborations with Israeli research bodies: do you agree?

“If the collaborative projects imply obvious, possible repercussions in the war sector, in the armaments sector, or departments involved in supporting the war, I fully agree with stopping any form of agreements. Not only with Israel, however, at this point, but also with many other countries that use war. The problem is that often the issue is a little more complex, I don’t think a total boycott is right, it would be more useful to do it in a targeted way.”

And how?

“The universities are full of professors or structures who have taken sides against the violence of the bombs on Gaza, even in Israel, we need to dialogue with them, we need to support them, not burn bridges. I understand that the boycott is the only possible, non-violent and impactful tool for those who work in certain contexts and have the Palestinian cause at heart, which can also be interrupted whenever you want. it has become difficult to explain, in the phase of extreme polarization we are experiencing, but not all Israelis support the government and the military action that is destroying Gaza, and Israelis who contest the use of violence must be helped.”

The polarization of the Italian debate on Israel and Palestine, in fact, does not help.

“But the same applies to the issue of the war in Ukraine, we have reached the point where if you are not on one side, you are necessarily on the other. If you criticize the government of Israel, you are automatically pro-Hamas or you risk being considered anti-Semitic, an accusation too often used instrumentally. If you remember the 14,000 Russian deaths in Donbass before the war, you are automatically pro Putin. It can’t be like this, everything should be put on the scales, this polarization prevents discussion. There is a complete lack of real discussion between the parties at this moment. We are talking about good and bad, black and white: even in Parliament, after all, which should be the place responsible for discussing the country, there are no more nuances.”

But how did we get to this situation and how do we get out of it?

“It is due to many factors, from the inevitable simplification that the media make of extremely complex issues to the lack of knowledge of history, which for example leads to the war in the Middle East starting on October 7th, forgetting the previous decades. The truth is that we are running a great risk, that of accepting the idea that war will become part of our lives again. There are those who have said if we want peace to prepare to make war, I think like Cardinal Zuppi, who says “if you want peace, prepare for peace”. At the moment no one is really working on peace, and our debate reflects the situation. The problem is not only Israel’s, which by carrying out this indiscriminate massacre has created nothing but further hatred and further future violence, it is also ours, it belongs to everyone.”