Antisemitism On Campus

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

When have I ever argued that the claim of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is based on religion? I haven't. You are aware that Israel is literally strewn with archeological evidence of Jewish habitation there, and that Judaism (as a cultural legacy) is full of detailed references to the geography and natural environment of Israel (not something that Medieval Europeans living in Ghettos would have known much about), and that the historical record is clear about the roots of Judaism in Israel. 2000 years is a long time, granted, but the Jewish people didn't choose to leave their homeland, they were forced out (by the Romans, who left a record of the event). I really don't understand what you're trying to argue. This is really a perfectly clear historical fact. Israel IS the historical homeland of the Jewish people.

Not according to some historians it isn't. Either way, this spurious 2000 year old Biblical claim gives you no right to ethnically cleanse the present inhabitants of that land.

Why won't you answer my question above? I asked if you believe that the Nazis had a rightful claim to all of Europe based on some bad history which claims that all of Europe was the historical homeland of the Aryan people. It should be pretty easy for you to give me an answer.

yosi

First, you know how I'd answer, and second I'm not going to answer because your implicit comparison is vile and insulting.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

First, you know how I'd answer, and second I'm not going to answer because your implicit comparison is vile and insulting.

Your accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being Anti-Semitic is vile and insulting. (Or am I only saying this because I hold you to a higher standard than everyone else? :? )

yosi

I haven't accused everyone who disagrees with me of being an antisemite, as is clear from the multiple times I have explicitly said as much. And I have not made accusations of antisemitism BECAUSE anyone disagreed with me. I have made these accusations (and really I've tried to be clear that they are more suspicions than accusations) because I believe them to be (possibly) true.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I haven't accused everyone who disagrees with me of being an antisemite, as is clear from the multiple times I have explicitly said as much. And I have not made accusations of antisemitism BECAUSE anyone disagreed with me. I have made these accusations (and really I've tried to be clear that they are more suspicions than accusations) because I believe them to be (possibly) true.

Is this another example of the 'nuance' that you love so much?

yosi

I'm surprised (and happy) to see that "nuance" is even a word in your vocabulary.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I'm surprised (and happy) to see that "nuance" is even a word in your vocabulary.

It's actually not a word I have much use for, especially when applied to historical facts.

redrock

yosi wrote:

I haven't accused everyone who disagrees with me of being an antisemite, as is clear from the multiple times I have explicitly said as much. And I have not made accusations of antisemitism BECAUSE anyone disagreed with me. I have made these accusations (and really I've tried to be clear that they are more suspicions than accusations) because I believe them to be (possibly) true.

In the various threads, you more than 'strongly implied' that those who actually see Israel without blinkers are jew haters, anti-semite and bigots (veiled accusations: "I wouldn't be suprised if some on this thread are [antisemitic]"). Don't try to back track now. It seems that once you have been round and round (and round once again) with your arguments with nothing coming out of them, the 'hater' card comes out. Your accusations are disgusting.

OffHeGoes29

Theres a lot of hate in this thread

yosi

There always is when the topic's Israel.

fuck

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Theres a lot of hate in this thread

It's a stupid thread with a very dumb video.

TriumphantAngel

Israel can do no wrong

Following are the Twelve Golden And Infallible Truths That The Media Is Obligated To Adopt:

1. In the Middle East, the Arabs always attack first and Israel always defends itself. This defense is called "retaliation."

2. Neither Arabs, Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to kill civilians. This is "terrorism."

3. Israel has the right to kill civilians. This is called "legitimate defense."

4. When Israel massively kills civilians, the Western powers ask it do it with courtesy or politeness. This is called "reaction of the international community."

5. Neither Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to capture Israeli soldiers inside military installations with sentry and combat positions. This has to be called "kidnapping of defenseless civilians."

6. Israel has the right to kidnap as many Palestinians or Lebanese as they wish and at any time or place. Their present figures are about 10,000 imprisoned, 300 of whom are children and 1,000 women. They do not need any evidence about their culpability. Israel has the right to detain such kidnapped prisoners indefinitely, even if they are people democratically elected by Palestinians. This is called "imprisonment of terrorists."

7. Whenever the word "Hezbollah" is mentioned, it is compulsory to add in the same phrase, "supported and financed by Syria and Iran."

8. When "Israel" is mentioned it is absolutely forbidden to add "supported and financed by the United States." This could give the impression that the conflict is uneven and that Israel's existence is not, after all, at risk.

9. In any statement about Israel, any mention of the following phrases is to be avoided: "occupied territories," "U.N. resolutions," "human rights violations" or "Geneva Convention."

10. Palestinians, as well as Lebanese, always are "cowards" hiding behind a civilian population that dislikes them. If they sleep in military accommodation with their families, this has a name: "cowardice." Israel is entitled to annihilate with bombs and missiles such barracks where they sleep. This is to be called a "surgical, high-precision action."

11. Israelis speak English, French, Spanish or Portuguese better than the Arabs. That is why they deserve to be interviewed more frequently and have better opportunities to explain to the audience at large the above rules. This is called "media neutrality."

12. Any newspaper in disagreement with the above rules is to be branded a "highly dangerous anti-Semitic terrorist media source." Right?

-Gary Hupfer

yosi

What?!

Byrnzie

TriumphantAngel wrote:

Israel can do no wrong

Following are the Twelve Golden And Infallible Truths That The Media Is Obligated To Adopt:

1. In the Middle East, the Arabs always attack first and Israel always defends itself. This defense is called "retaliation."

2. Neither Arabs, Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to kill civilians. This is "terrorism."

3. Israel has the right to kill civilians. This is called "legitimate defense."

4. When Israel massively kills civilians, the Western powers ask it do it with courtesy or politeness. This is called "reaction of the international community."

5. Neither Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to capture Israeli soldiers inside military installations with sentry and combat positions. This has to be called "kidnapping of defenseless civilians."

6. Israel has the right to kidnap as many Palestinians or Lebanese as they wish and at any time or place. Their present figures are about 10,000 imprisoned, 300 of whom are children and 1,000 women. They do not need any evidence about their culpability. Israel has the right to detain such kidnapped prisoners indefinitely, even if they are people democratically elected by Palestinians. This is called "imprisonment of terrorists."

7. Whenever the word "Hezbollah" is mentioned, it is compulsory to add in the same phrase, "supported and financed by Syria and Iran."

8. When "Israel" is mentioned it is absolutely forbidden to add "supported and financed by the United States." This could give the impression that the conflict is uneven and that Israel's existence is not, after all, at risk.

9. In any statement about Israel, any mention of the following phrases is to be avoided: "occupied territories," "U.N. resolutions," "human rights violations" or "Geneva Convention."

10. Palestinians, as well as Lebanese, always are "cowards" hiding behind a civilian population that dislikes them. If they sleep in military accommodation with their families, this has a name: "cowardice." Israel is entitled to annihilate with bombs and missiles such barracks where they sleep. This is to be called a "surgical, high-precision action."

11. Israelis speak English, French, Spanish or Portuguese better than the Arabs. That is why they deserve to be interviewed more frequently and have better opportunities to explain to the audience at large the above rules. This is called "media neutrality."

12. Any newspaper in disagreement with the above rules is to be branded a "highly dangerous anti-Semitic terrorist media source." Right?

-Gary Hupfer

This would be funnier if it wasn't so true.

Byrnzie

Hmm, four Israel threads on the top of the M.T.

Me thinks this may not be wholly necessary.

TriumphantAngel

Byrnzie wrote:

This would be funnier if it wasn't so true.

that's the exact same thought i had when i first saw it.

Halifax2TheMax

This opinion is directly related to the thread title and is more appropriate here rather than the now closed thread or the Middle East thread. Like many issues, the current conflict in Gaza is multi-layered and freedom of speech and expression is but one layer, currently being played out on college campuses in the US and elsewhere.

Seems Jerry Nadler also didn’t get the memo. This topic has been around for a while now and it’s not going away, unfortunately. Some interesting perspectives in this thread, specific to protests on college campuses. This isn’t new.

Opinion 

 I’m Jewish. Here’s why I voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act.

Combating antisemitism is vital. The bill the House just passed is the wrong way to do it.

By Jerry Nadler

Jerry Nadler represents New York’s 12th Congressional District and is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

As protests over the Israel-Gaza warhave heightened the debate over the line between constitutionally protected speech and antisemitism, the House passed a bill last week that supporters say is intended to combat anti-Jewish speech on campus. On its face, the Antisemitism Awareness Act might seem like legislation that I, as an observant Jew, a proud Zionist, a strong supporter of Israel and a member of Congress who has spent a career fighting antisemitism, would easily support.

Instead, I voted against it, as did several other Jewish members of Congress. While I support the sentiment expressed by its sponsors, this bill does nothing to fight antisemitism in any meaningful way. Instead, it merely tinkers with definitions and could ultimately make investigating antisemitism on campuses more difficult in the future. In addition to trampling the free-speech rights of students and professors, this bill was disingenuously designed to split the Democratic caucus and score cheap political points.

Specifically, the bill would require the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights to use the definition of antisemitism put forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and only this definition, when investigating claims of antisemitism on campus. This might not seem like a big deal, but the IHRA definition includes examples of antisemitism that might sweep in perfectly valid criticism of the state of Israel that, alone, does not necessarily constitute unlawful harassment or antisemitism.

To be clear, I strongly disagree with the anti-Israel sentiments being expressed at certain campus protests. I do not believe Israel is a racist endeavor, nor do I think it’s appropriate to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

But categorically banning this kind of speech, as the Antisemitism Awareness Act threatens to do, is antithetical to our values as Americans — which, as a member of Congress and a lawyer who has fought in Congress to protect the right to free speech, I am bound to defend, even if I strongly disagree.As written, this bill could strip students and professors of their right to engage with others and with their college administrations on a critical matter of national importance. I want my Jewish community to feel safe on campus, but I do not need it shielded from controversial views simply because those views are unpopular.

Kenneth Stern, meanwhile, the lead author of the IHRA definition, has opposed codifying his work for a slightly different reason. In 2019, in the face of a similar proposal from the Trump administration, Stern wrote that the IHRA definition “was never intended to be a campus hate speech code.” It is supposed to be, instead, a tool for helping us monitor antisemitism “over time and across borders.” He did not want us to freeze his definition, or any other, into law, because context matters and changes over time. What constitutes antisemitism on a college campus in New York City today might be a different sort of problem in a different setting years from now. In time, we might also come to understand that additional conduct constitutes a new kind of antisemitic threat, and that some of what is in this particular definition is no longer relevant.

Freezing a single definition of “antisemitism” into law, then, is remarkably shortsighted. The approach manages to be both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, as well as remarkably subjective. For the same reason, federal civil rights laws largely avoid codifying terms such as “racism” and “bigotry.” In practice, the flexibility to “know it when you see it” is the best defense against hateful speech and actions, which evolve along with the culture.

If Congress is serious about fighting antisemitism, there is a better way. Last year, the Biden administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. The cornerstone of this effort was a proposal to increase enforcement against antisemitism on campus by the Office for Civil Rights. President Biden proposed a 27 percent increase in funding to the office for that purpose; House Republicans countered with a 25 percent decrease in funds. Congress “compromised” by holding funding flat.

I find that unacceptable. If we are going to effectively and meaningfully protect students on campus, then we must back up existing protection by fully funding the Office for Civil Rights so it has the resources and infrastructure it needs to keep up with the rise of antisemitic incidents on campuses. The bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act by Rep. Kathy Manning (D-N.C.) does just that by codifying Biden’s national strategy into law, and I hope that the Senate will take up that bill instead.

In the face of a dangerous and disconcerting rise in antisemitism on and off college campuses, it’s easy to find comfort in quick, feel-good solutions to complicated problems. But trampling our rights and making the fight against antisemitism harder for future students will put us further from our goal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/08/jerry-nadler-antisemitism-campus-congress-bill/

tbergs

TriumphantAngel said:

Israel can do no wrong

Following are the Twelve Golden And Infallible Truths That The Media Is Obligated To Adopt:

1. In the Middle East, the Arabs always attack first and Israel always defends itself. This defense is called "retaliation."

2. Neither Arabs, Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to kill civilians. This is "terrorism."

3. Israel has the right to kill civilians. This is called "legitimate defense."

4. When Israel massively kills civilians, the Western powers ask it do it with courtesy or politeness. This is called "reaction of the international community."

5. Neither Palestinians nor Lebanese have the right to capture Israeli soldiers inside military installations with sentry and combat positions. This has to be called "kidnapping of defenseless civilians."

6. Israel has the right to kidnap as many Palestinians or Lebanese as they wish and at any time or place. Their present figures are about 10,000 imprisoned, 300 of whom are children and 1,000 women. They do not need any evidence about their culpability. Israel has the right to detain such kidnapped prisoners indefinitely, even if they are people democratically elected by Palestinians. This is called "imprisonment of terrorists."

7. Whenever the word "Hezbollah" is mentioned, it is compulsory to add in the same phrase, "supported and financed by Syria and Iran."

8. When "Israel" is mentioned it is absolutely forbidden to add "supported and financed by the United States." This could give the impression that the conflict is uneven and that Israel's existence is not, after all, at risk.

9. In any statement about Israel, any mention of the following phrases is to be avoided: "occupied territories," "U.N. resolutions," "human rights violations" or "Geneva Convention."

10. Palestinians, as well as Lebanese, always are "cowards" hiding behind a civilian population that dislikes them. If they sleep in military accommodation with their families, this has a name: "cowardice." Israel is entitled to annihilate with bombs and missiles such barracks where they sleep. This is to be called a "surgical, high-precision action."

11. Israelis speak English, French, Spanish or Portuguese better than the Arabs. That is why they deserve to be interviewed more frequently and have better opportunities to explain to the audience at large the above rules. This is called "media neutrality."

12. Any newspaper in disagreement with the above rules is to be branded a "highly dangerous anti-Semitic terrorist media source." Right?

-Gary Hupfer

14 years later and this is still dead on. Amazing. 

Halifax2TheMax

Just look at all the violence on these college campuses! Something must be done! Shut it all down! How dare they!
Why ZooMass, Amherst lost their commencement speaker, oh the horror!

The picture of the MIT campus “protest” = scenes from Gaza.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/05/08/live-updates-pro-palestinian-protests-roil-boston-area-campuses-2/

tbergs

Halifax2TheMax said:

Just look at all the violence on these college campuses! Something must be done! Shut it all down! How dare they!
Why ZooMass, Amherst lost their commencement speaker, oh the horror!

The picture of the MIT campus “protest” = scenes from Gaza.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/05/08/live-updates-pro-palestinian-protests-roil-boston-area-campuses-2/

Has Columbia fallen yet?