On college campuses across the country, conversations about Israel are louder and more emotionally charged than ever. And amid the protests, student government resolutions and classroom disputes, it may be easy to miss a fundamental disconnect: Not everyone is having the same conversation.
In fact, I believe there are three different conversations about Israel playing out in parallel and unless we name them clearly, we risk misunderstanding each other entirely.
The first is what I call “the 1948 conversation.” This is not a debate about borders or policies; it’s a debate about Israel’s existence. It centers on the very legitimacy of a Jewish state, and whether Israel should have been created in the first place. This discussion is rooted in the events surrounding Israel’s founding and it’s where many of the most hostile anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric manifests. Here, false and offensive terms like “settler-colonialism,” “globalize the intifada,” and “genocide” replace facts and nuance. The conversation is not about how to achieve peace; it’s about denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.
The second is “the 1967 conversation.” This is where most American Jews and most people committed to peace tend to focus. It’s a conversation about what a lasting resolution to today’s conflict could look like, acknowledging the Jewish people’s right to a homeland and affirming the Palestinian people’s right to one too. Students and faculty engaged in this topic ask hard questions about borders, security, and coexistence. This conversation is informed by decades of peace negotiations, from the Oslo Accords to Annapolis. It’s a conversation about how to move forward, not whether Israel should exist.
Too often, Jewish students and even Jewish professionals on campus assume they’re entering a 1967 conversation. They believe they’re participating in a good-faith debate about two states, peace processes and the future. But many of their peers are actually having a 1948 conversation, one that fundamentally denies the basic premise of Jewish self-determination in their ancestral home. That mismatch can leave students feeling blindsided, confused and alienated.
We see it when students are accused of “supporting apartheid” simply for identifying as Zionists. We see it when calls for a ceasefire are wrapped in slogans like “from the river to the sea.” We see it when Jewish students are told that their history, identity and presence on campus are offensive or illegitimate.
These aren’t just misunderstandings, they’re misalignments that can have real consequences for how students develop their identities and navigate campus life. These disconnects also point to a deeper challenge: If we want productive, respectful dialogue about an Israeli state and the future of the Palestinian people, we need to be honest about which conversation we’re actually having.
For much of the last two decades, the debate on campus oscillated between 1967 and 1948, between questions of policy and questions of legitimacy. But since Oct. 7, 2023, a third conversation has emerged. I call this one “the 10/7 conversation.”
This is not a conversation about Israel’s borders or even its existence. It is about American Jews being targeted because of their real or perceived connection to Israel. It’s a conversation rooted in blame, in guilt by association, in the dangerous idea that Jews anywhere are responsible for the actions of Israel’s government or military. And it has led to an alarming rise in hate: Jewish students blocked from going to class, faculty using classroom power to shame Jewish identity and synagogues and Jewish institutions under threat.
The 10/7 conversation is less about discourse and more about demonization. It’s what happens when policy positions cross the line into antisemitism, and when Jews are made to feel unsafe on campus, on public streets and attending an event at a Jewish museum. And the consequences are deadly.
To bridge these divides and offer clarity amid the confusion, Hillel International is providing students with the tools, support and confidence to engage in these conversations thoughtfully and knowledgeably. We are helping students distinguish between bad-faith attacks and real opportunities for dialogue. And we are creating spaces where nuanced, courageous conversation can thrive even in the face of hostility.
The Jewish community must not shy away from difficult issues. We need to talk about the future of peace from a place that affirms the legitimacy of Israel and the dignity of both peoples. That’s the only foundation on which real progress can be built.
Naming the 1948, 1967 and now 10/7 conversations for what they are can help all of us better support college students and ensure we’re equipping them with the insight and resilience they need.
Not every discussion about Israel is the same. Some are about how to build a better future. Others are about the existence of the Jewish state. And some are about whether Jews anywhere are safe at all. As we prepare to support students navigating these questions in the new school year, let’s be clear about which conversation we’re having, and why it matters.
Jon Falk is the vice president of Hillel International’s Israel Action and Addressing Antisemitism Program. He leads teams that support campus Hillels in navigating and responding to antisemitic incidents and anti-Israel activity as well as celebrating, advocating and educating about Israel.