Between Home and Homeland Jewish College Students Confront the Israel-Gaza Conflict and Campus Divides

Key Findings:

The article investigates the responses of Jewish undergraduate students across American college campuses following the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the ensuing war in Gaza. This event became a political and moral flashpoint that deeply affected Jewish students, pushing them to confront not only external tensions on campus but also internal struggles around identity, loyalty, ethics, and belonging.

The researchers categorize the spectrum of responses among Jewish students to better understand the emotional, ideological, and social pressures they experienced during this period.

Six Student Typologies

The study identifies six main categories that reflect how students made sense of the war, their Jewishness, and their place on campus:

(1) Unshaken Zionists

These students expressed unwavering support for Israel, viewing the attack as a clear-cut assault on Jewish safety and sovereignty. They often came from strong Zionist or religious backgrounds, saw Israel as integral to Jewish identity, and felt campus discourse was dangerously hostile or misinformed. For them, criticism of Israel was often experienced as antisemitic.

(2) Critical Zionists

This group maintained emotional and cultural connections to Israel but were troubled by aspects of Israeli policy and the military response in Gaza. They balanced support for Israel’s right to exist with empathy for Palestinian suffering. Their stance was often isolating, as they were criticized from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian peers. Many sought spaces for nuanced conversation and ethical critique.

(3) Anguished Doubters

Students in this category experienced significant emotional turmoil and cognitive dissonance. They often grew up with pro-Israel narratives but felt deeply unsettled by the scale of violence and suffering in Gaza. These students questioned foundational beliefs about Zionism and Jewish identity, describing a sense of betrayal or loss. Their anguish came from feeling unable to reconcile personal ethics with inherited loyalties.

(4) Campus Navigators

These students primarily focused on managing campus tensions rather than engaging deeply with the conflict itself. Often student leaders or members of Jewish organizations, they felt pressure to represent Jewish students and protect their communities, even if their personal views were more complex. They were often caught between conflicting groups and institutional expectations.

(5) Disengaged Jews

This group was characterized by emotional or intellectual detachment from the conflict. Some lacked strong Jewish or political identities; others were overwhelmed or disillusioned. They often chose to step back from debate altogether, either for mental health reasons or because they didn’t see Israel as central to their identity.

(6) Solidarity Activists

These students aligned with Palestinian liberation movements and were often highly critical of Israel, viewing it as a settler-colonial or apartheid state. Their Jewish identity was framed in terms of universal justice, and they frequently participated in protests or statements condemning Israeli actions. For them, Jewish values demanded solidarity with the oppressed—even when it meant opposing mainstream Jewish perspectives.

Across categories, the authors found that campus environments were emotionally charged and deeply polarized. Many Jewish students felt unsafe, misunderstood, or pressured to adopt positions that didn’t reflect their personal views. Friendships and student group memberships were often strained or fractured. Some students reported harassment or social shunning based on perceived political affiliations, while others described feeling gaslit or silenced when trying to express pain over Israeli deaths.

Jewish students also contended with accusations of complicity or identity policing—from both Jewish and non-Jewish peers. For instance, left-leaning Jewish students were sometimes told they weren’t “really Jewish” if they opposed Zionism, while Zionist students were labeled racist or colonialist.

These events served as a moral reckoning for many Jewish students. They were forced to confront competing narratives about justice, identity, peoplehood, and nationhood—often without institutional or educational support. The authors argue that Jewish educational institutions (day schools, youth groups, synagogues, etc.) often failed to prepare students for the complexity and emotional intensity of these moments. The binary frameworks many students inherited (e.g., pro-Israel vs. antisemitic) were insufficient for engaging with real-world dilemmas.

The authors urge Jewish educators, campus professionals, and community leaders to: (1) Create non-punitive, non-polarizing spaces for dialogue; (2) Prepare students with tools for moral reasoning, empathy, and historical context, not just political advocacy; (3) Recognize the plurality of Jewish identity and responses to Israel; (4) Avoid pushing students into narrow ideological categories that alienate or silence them.