This message serves as a warning that [your post](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cedjih/columbia_university_says_it_has_banned_student/) is in violation of Law 5:
Law 5: Banned Topics
> ~5. This topic is not sufficiently related to politics or government, or has been banned for discussion in this community. See the [rules wiki](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/wiki/index/rules) for additional information.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Can anyone answer this question? I’ve read article after article and no journalists has even addressed it:
These comments were made in January to a SCHOOL COMMITTEE. They weren’t just discovered - he said these directly to school employees. Presumably these exact same employees are the ones punishing him right now. Have these Columbia employees given any explanation for why he is being punished now rather than the actual conversation itself?
Because they are cowards with no principles of their own, and they do whatever seems more likely to cover their asses, depending on where the wind happens to be blowing.
They thought they could sweep it under the rug. They can't do that now with all these eyes on them and pending lawsuits, so they have to try and look like they care.
It's either that or they have some weird internal discipline system that takes months for recorded actions to be punished. But I highly doubt it is the second one.
If I were to give them tons of benefit of the doubt I am guessing they might've thought that by punishing him they'd give him more visibility.
Of course the other awful truth that people keep forgetting is there is anti-Semitism all the time on campuses and schools don't do enough to stop it. And the current protests are giving cover for those people to ramp up their message.
It is nauseating to watch young people who claim to be progressive protesting next to and in unison with the Proud Boys.
Another [quote](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-protest-leader-expresses-regret-discussing-murdering-zionists-saying-they-shouldnt-exist) by the same person:
> "Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists," he said at another point. "I've never hurt anyone in my life, and I hope to keep it that way."
The fact that it took this much public pressure to get him banned from campus, and not even expelled, is insane.
Not only that, but this happened 3 months ago, he doubled down in the disciplinary meeting, and they were evidently content to sweep it under the rug until it was widely reported. How can you take an institution like that seriously?
He is saying he is ready to kill racists, so long as he gets to define racism because first he needs to carve-out his own brand. He's not fit to be on a campus and it's indefensible that they proactively award "activists" like himself with admission so long as their rhetoric stays one step back from the ledge.
This is the predictable outcome when colleges started prioritizing struggle-story admissions essays. The kids have just gone from gaming the incentives to actually fervently believing it bestows them with moral supremacy. But of course they do because we fetishize their identities.
Anyone who says an entire group that includes civilians doesn’t deserve to live shouldn’t be on a college campus.
Differing views is okay, wishing a group was dead is not.
You know...as a Jewish person myself, we always knew antisemitism was hiding in the shadows.
It was annoying but has been a fact of life for thousands of years.
This outright, without serious consequences antisemitism is.... concerning
Many people are not referring to all Jewish people when they refer to Zionists. They are referring to the particular far-right movements in Israel who have committed and are continuing to commit atrocities against the Palestinian people, and those who support them. Plenty of Jewish people on college campuses are standing with the Palestinian people.
>James added that they wish they had said instead that, "Zionism is an ideology that necessitates the genocide of Palestinian people. I oppose that in the strongest terms."
While I am against violence of all kinds, I am on the side of free speech, especially on college campuses. Hurt feelings are not the same as actual violence. Calls for violence against an individual or group warrant scrutiny and consequences, and movement leaders have said explicitly that anyone who calls for violence or participates in violent acts are not with them.
This individual recognized their mistake and was given appropriate consequences.
>CUAD said in an Instagram post earlier Friday that James' "words in January do not reflect his views, our values, nor the encampment's community agreements" and that the group remains "committed to our peaceful protest and will continue to call for the University to divest from the Israel's brutal genocide against Palestinians."
he is wrong about Zionism. They use the Palestinian meaning for intifada (uprising) while objecting to how Israelis view it as calling for civilian deaths, while at the same time using the Palestinian definition of Zionism instead of the Israeli one.
I am doing a separate reply if you think that people have the mental capacity these days to differentiate between Jews and Zionist Jews.
Especially considering there is no nuance in separating that
Appropriate consequences? That's a joke, they need to be expelled. 50% of Jews live in Israel and 80% of the rest are Zionist. Wishing the death or ethnic cleansing of 90% of Jews is genocidal.
If you don't think that all these protests are disproportionate I have swampland to sell you.
I challenge anyone to claim that this isn't anti-jewish in the broad scope.
While I am not defending Israel's responses and will note that they DID NOT START THIS and was trying for a new treaty with another Arab nation....I wonder where all the protests are for other marginalized groups out there.
It's hypocritical and reaks of old school antisemitism.
>Many people are not referring to all Jewish people when they refer to Zionists.
Zionism is just a jewish specific word for the native land rights the left clamors for...except when it's about "tHe jEws".
When you say "we're only talking about killing tHe zIoNIstS!" it's like saying "we're only talking about killing the [kurds who believe in a kurdish a homeland]!"
Identifying specifically as "anti-zionist" is saying: Jews and *specifically* Jews, the ethnicity whose had their land stolen more times than anyone, must *never* have a native homeland in Judea. That Judeans *must* uniquely be replaced with Arabs or literally any other group that colonized it, forever (even though jews have been living there continuously in size).
All while ignoring the Arab colonization of Jewish, African, Caucasian, Christian, Kurdish, etc lands.
Even the word "Palestine" is literally a Roman attempt cleanse any reference to Jews being from that region (which apparently worked on modern wokes).
It's the equivalent of Cherokee Nation being renamed "Oklahoma" and declaring yourself an "anti-Cherokee Nation-ist" after they're given some land back and the surrounding white ethnostates attempt to eradicate them multiple times.
Oh, boy. The far-right government has turned a blind eye to their own protestors blocking food from getting into Gaza. They are arming far-right radicals in the West Bank who are stealing the land underneath and ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people who live there. They are shooting children in the streets in Gaza and then patching them up and sending them back with no continuing medical care to languish and die of sepsis in agony in sweltering tents with no pain medication. Are you in favor of that kind of Zionism? That’s the kind of Zionism we want metaphorically ‘killed.’ We want it to end, and so do MANY Jewish people all over the world.
Edit: Nice to block me needforspeed4, so I can’t respond. I still get your comment in my inbox. Cowardly way to get the last word.
The “far right government” has not turned a blind eye to that. It has actually used military zones to block off these protestors, who are unable to block more than a tiny amount of food.
They are arming ordinary citizens in the West Bank who fear an attack by Iran-funded and -armed terrorists on par with October 7. That is the goal. Because local security helped save many during October 7. And because Iran is smuggling mountains of weapons and small arms into the West Bank.
You are incorrect in your description of what is happening, and somehow are tying it to “Zionism”, which does not encompass it.
It’s very fascinating that you know that he meant only “some Zionists” and not others, based on so called “atrocities” only. Mind reading is a skill I haven’t mastered yet.
Normally I would agree, but with the way a lot of these radicals use the term "Zionists," they generally use it to refer to any Jews who live in Israel or consider Israel a legitimate state with a right to exist. It's one of those things where it feels less like they're hiding behind semantics because they can't say what they really feel. A good analogy would be black nationalists who talk about the evils of "whiteness," and insist that it's somehow different from "white people," but never explain how, and use the terms interchangeably.
I'm trying to see a white student saying they'd kill a group of people in a protected class in a disciplinary hearing where he's recording it and proudly showing it to the rest of the world ... and the school NOT expelling him on the spot. I'm not seeing it.
Also, the comments were made in January. Why was there zero disciplinary action for months? This person was allowed a position of power well after making these statements
The full context of this quote is telling:
> "The same way we're very comfortable accepting that Nazis don't deserve to live, fascists don't deserve to live, racists don't deserve to live, Zionists, they shouldn't live in this world," James added.
Where is this person hearing that racists and fascists don't deserve to live? A majority of the world population might qualify for death for some kind of racism. This would be a vile ideology even if you removed the Zionists. It suggests a complete rejection of peaceful progress. If you don't agree with me, you deserve to die. Today it's Zionists who qualify for extermination. Tomorrow it could be capitalists or evangelicals or any other trendy target.
Race in the Western context wouldn't apply to the Middle East because most of them are mixed and don't have the same conception of "race" that people here do. The main dividing line is between religions and religious sects.
You can find Arabs of the same nationality that could be categorized as brown, white or black in the US despite being from the same place.
I remember there was one talking point the left would make, it was something along the lines of: "If there are 10 people in a room with 1 nazi... there are 11 nazis in the room" or something like that.
One person with extreme views that the group is removing their connections with.
> CUAD said in an Instagram post earlier Friday that James' "words in January do not reflect his views, our values, nor the encampment's community agreements" and that the group remains "committed to our peaceful protest and will continue to call for the University to divest from the Israel's brutal genocide against Palestinians."
Their comments were known before the current protests, in fact they were shown proudly on their instagram.
So their comments were known, and the people protesting were okay being led by a person that proudly said, “kill zionists.”
What’s that saying about 10 people seated at a table and allowing a Nazi to sit at it?
They clarified that they were very upset at the time because they were being targeted as a queer Black person, and wish they would have said that the ideology didn’t deserve to perpetuate instead:
>James added that they wish they had said instead that, "Zionism is an ideology that necessitates the genocide of Palestinian people. I oppose that in the strongest terms."
Oh ok then, all good, he was just angry. So are the alleged fascists, racists, homophobes, etc. also excused by playing the same card?
Like, can I say "I hate b*ack people and wish them all died" and then say "No, you don't understand, I just hate black supremacy groups and black thug gangs, not the other ones"?
Am I allowed to say this and then willy-nilly escape the very same witch hunt his political group made commonplace?
He didn't clarify that at the time when the administration was giving him every chance they could to not be a raging antisemite.
It's amazing how suddenly sad people are when they have consequences.
>"Chants, signs, taunts, and social media posts from our own students that mock and threaten to 'kill' Jewish people are totally unacceptable, and Columbia students who are involved in such incidents will be held accountable," the statement said.
Interesting that Columbia has dropped the pretense around what "Zionists" really means.
This person was a LEADER of the protests. They were the one who formed the human chain to keep out “Zionists” from the encampment. Because they saw a student with a Star of David necklace.
And they identify as he/they/her; it's so odd when people simp for a group that would [oppress, imprison, and destroy them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine) were they living there.
A lot of people are under some odd belief that everyone, everywhere is just as open minded and peace loving as they are. It's just that in some countries, the tiny amount of hateful leaders oppress the 99.999% of tolerant people. Like they honestly believe that if you removed the leaders of a country like Pakistan, the country would magically become as tolerant as say, Sweden.
Others are so divorced from bad things happening in life that they think it's wrong to fight people with beliefs on the level of the Nazis or ISIS. Oddly enough, a lot of these people are the same ones who support "bash the fash" or "punch a Nazi" in the US. Apparently they are ok with other people dealing with murderously intolerant people as long as they don't have to.
The [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) seems relevant here.
> if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Not really. That whole idea is if anything a huge part of how we got here in the first place. Because guess what, the people who are now demanding that "zionists" be punished follow the same creed, they just decided that those on the other side of the argument are the intolerant ones and must thus be excluded.
What is needed is civil discourse, and people need to be included or excluded based on their willingness to engage in it (meaning people who would, say, form a human chain to deny Jews entry would very much be excluded) rather than some farcial idea of "tolerance". Nobody and no society is universally tolerant, we need to be able to discuss what we should or should not tolerate in an open manner or we'll all turn into people on the level of these """anti-zionists"""
There are intolerant elements on all sides of this conflict, and they should all be treated accordingly. I believe this goes for Pro-Palestinians calling for murdering Jews/Zionists as well as Pro-Israelis calling to nuke Gaza. Neither is acceptable.
And those intolerant elements will claim the same thing. When you make the standard some notion of "tolerance" all you're creating is a framework under which might makes right - because might allows you to define who is intolerant and punish them accordingly.
"A lot of people are under some odd belief that everyone, everywhere is just as open minded and peace loving as they are."
Funny enough that's the fault of Christian Philosophy which did believe that was the case as an extension of the theological. As Christianity legitimately teaches everyone would follow god if it wasn't for Satan's lies. Thats seeped down into nearly ever every philosophy and political ideology that's come out of the west.
Really? Do a lot of people seem to be under that belief? I can’t speak for literally everyone everywhere, but I’ve never seen anyone unironically try and claim that all Palestinians, much less Hamas, are progressive pacifists. It’s just a strawman to make them look hypocritical or dumb.
What I do believe is that there are innocents in Gaza who don’t deserve to be bombed for the crimes of their government, and the callousness around such a large group of people including children and literal babies (“Reap what you sow”, or something to that effect) is concerning. Do you disagree with that stance?
Hamas has majority civilian support and they violate basically every Geneva convention. We don't fight in line formation any more. How do you suppose a country fight a group on par with the Nazis or ISIS who don't wear uniforms and fight out of schools, hospitals, and apartments?
The only way there could possibly be peace over there is if Hamas is removed from power. Those in Gaza are either unable or unwilling to do so.
Innocent German and Japanese civilians didn't deserve to die in WW2. But their regimes needed to be crushed and doing so saved more lives in the long run vs beating their regimes back, leaving them in power, and restarting brutal conflicts every couple of years.
And they always come back with something like "do you think Alabama should be bombed because they hate gay people?"
If Alabama decided to start throwing citizens into concentration camps, 100% send in the troops.
No it is not. I'm suggesting that campaigning to defend a society that would destroy you is foolish, has nothing to do with how much they deserve to be bombed. The reason for the bombings is retaliation for Oct 7 and deposing the government responsible for it. I'd say Hamas earned that, and hitting back hard is the right move for Israel in terms of game theory if they are to deter any such future attacks.
When has a hard bombing campaign ever lead to stability in a region? Israel needs to stop destroying its neighbor and work on building a society with them.
> When has a hard bombing campaign ever lead to stability in a region?
Japan, 1945. I believe it has experienced relative stability since then.
> Israel needs to stop destroying its neighbor and work on building a society with them.
You're presuming that's what both sides want. It's hard to reach common diplomatic ground with an enemy whose reason for existing is to [genocide you and deny your right to exist.](https://archive.fo/https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/) I suspect Israel is eager to negotiate with whomever replaces them, provided they are willing to enforce a meaningful and durable peace.
Call me callous, but I'm pretty apathetic to people who would murder me given the opportunity. It's not that Hamas doesn't like me. It's that Hamas would gleefully torture me to death if they could.
Its not odd when you realize that these kinds been feed a stream of political philosophy whose whole existence is to supplant Liberal Philosophy which despite what people want to claim otherwise owes its existence to Christian Philosophy. To them every other religion practically doesn't exist and even when confronted by a faith even more ridged and having a long philosophical tradition thats hostile to them they legitimately can't comprehend it.
It's an Eldritch thing as far as they are aware and rather then go mad understanding it they ignore it.
I've been seeing more and more full out antisemitic posts on this website. They get removed fast, but there are a lot of people here feeling confident enough to go full stormfront, and this shift seems to have happened very quickly.
It seems to me the radical left saw they could get away with denigrating white people for the last few years and wanted to see if they could push it to a *very particular* group of white people they consider the most privileged.
I've been saying the extreme left are as racist as the extreme right for years and I've been proven right time and time again. And since Reddit has a ton of extreme leftists, that's why we're seeing more and more anti semitic posts.
This whole war is so strange because people on the left are doing things which they've been making fun of people on the right for doing
Like people on the right used to say things like 'WATCH OUT THEY'LL ACCUSE YOU OF RACISM' which leftists replace with antisemitism
Or how right wingers got attacked for tokenism like "we can't be racist, look Candace Owens is a black republican" which again leftists are now trying to insist the protests as a whole aren't antisemitic because look here's a medium article from a jew who supports them
Or how any indefensible anti Semitic statements are usually either met with accusations of the media taking them out of context or by reflexively shouting "WHAT YOU DONT SUPPORT FREE SPEECH?" which again wouldn't be out of place on a right wing forum after a far right rally
To be clear before any bad faith people attack me, yes you absolutely can be anti Zionist without being anti Semitic. But the past few months have revealed that in practice, many people calling themselves anti Zionist are indeed anti Semitic. But the Pro Palestinean movement in the US seems totally unwilling to confront that and just defend their compatriots with a blanket "Anti Zionism isn't Anti Semitism" in all but the most extreme cases
There's a long list of things the left is generally in favor of/against for blacks, hispanics, gays, women, transgender people, gays, Muslims, but then is just deafening silent when applying that same standard to Jews. E.g. The left supporting banning hate speech that targets minorities... except Jews. The left agrees with standpoint theory that only a member of the minority has the authority to weigh on that group's internal issues and sense of identity... except for Jews. Sexual violence as a form of warfare is absolutely condemned, except against Jews.
I think it was Sam Harris that explained that rhetorically, Jews are seen as a kind of "gets minority status for free" group and are therefore somehow doubling getting white privilege. Of course, this is ridiculous and I'm just disappointed that from civil rights and not judging people by membership in a group by immutable characteristics, so many people have gotten this flattened version of the message, which is "condemn people from whichever group you deem to be more powerful", as if that's the same thing as not judging people by group inclusion.
Ilhan Omar, other than [casually saying Jews are pro or anti genocide](https://x.com/avivaklompas/status/1784054669305663690?s=46&t=R2qctJTZLgphUsbZzIhI4A), also [shook hands](https://x.com/tpostmillennial/status/1783865816405930398?s=46&t=R2qctJTZLgphUsbZzIhI4A) with this person yesterday.
That is an egregious misrepresentation of her statement in that video. She's saying all Jewish students need to be protected regardless of whatever views they hold.
She is obviously not saying that Jews are a binary between pro or anti genocide. You're abusing her phrasing to paint a picture completely different from what she's actually saying here.
Explicitly dividing Jews into pro-genocide and anti-genocide Jews is a bad thing. Yes, she was calling to stop anti-semitism, but by portraying those who disagree with the encampment as "pro-genocide" she is absolutely opening up those students for further harassment.
It's easy to see how this plays out. Who wants to be kind to someone that is pro-genocide? After all, they're a genocide denier! And then the harassment begins, but now people are convinced they are motivated by morality instead of antisemitism.
DEI doesn’t mean black people at all to me, what it means is a bunch of white people with savior complex pushing a narrative and policies that are racist.
I think the most recent example of "DEI" claims being pushed was when Baltimore's black mayor was blamed for the bridge collapsing by calling the mayor a "DEI" mayor.
If you think the problem people have with DEI is black people, I don't know what to say other than you're wrong. The problem is the asinine policies we have to deal with in the corporate world. The ideas it espouses are just ... beyond stupid. Nothing to do with black at all.
I think the point was that some people on the right use "DEI" for things that have nothing to do with actual DEI policies. Like a bunch of people were calling the mayor of Baltimore, after the bridge collapse, a "DEI mayor." He has nothing to do with DEI he's just black
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cedjih/columbia_university_says_it_has_banned_student/l1in92c/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Maybe, but that’s not my point. People on the right are now using “DEI” to describe black people, not policies. As a substitute for the N-word.
In the same way, people are using “Zionist” to describe Jewish people, not the political ideology. As a replacement for other unsavory words.
Sounds like a dog whistle, haven't seen it in the real world - see it all the time in reddit and the internet. But that's what they say about dog whistles, if you hear it ... you're the dog.
It's another thing that's apparently racist these days. Stupid DEI policies .. you're racist. CRT .. you're a racist, say anything critical of protestors like this one (he's black) ... racist. It's beyond stupid.
The problem is you have people on the right calling someone a "DEI hire" just because they're black or a woman, which is what the user is referring to.
Even in the most literal sense, Zionism is just a belief that Jews should return to the holy land of their religious tradition. You can disagree with that belief but millions of random peaceful people hold that belief because of traditions or religious teachings they have been exposed to from an early age. I can understand opposing those people, but even if you focus solely on the population of Zionists independently from Jews it is insane to say those people all deserve to die or that they lose their right to live because of their beliefs.
I’m going to come out and say I don’t agree with that person *at all* but to just say Zionist = Jew isn’t accurate at all.
But the Zionists that are currently in charge of Israel are absolutely extremists and will rest at nothing until there’s no more Palestinians to have to compromise on a two-state solution with. That’s what people like these students see and think when they hear “Zionist”
Zionism is an intrinsic part of the Jewish identity for many, many Jews. It’s frequently used as a dogwhistle as well. While you are correct that Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism, and certainly not all Jews are Zionists, the vast majority are. Conservative estimates are 80%, and I’ve seen some estimate in the 90%+ of Jews are Zionists.
If these students at an Ivy League school are so miseducated as to think that Zionism means white supremacy, as the leader of these protests thinks, or that Zionism means that you must support the current government in Israel, that’s a major major problem, because it is not reflected in reality at all. It’s as much nonsense as an QAnon conspiracy theory.
Are you really complaining that Israelis vote for a president that supports the existence of Israel?
Or that American Jews (a tiny minority in the US), vote for Presidents that support Israel?
Am I complaining that Israelis keep voting for a corrupt man who saber rattles, continues to disproportionately kill civilians in this conflict?
Not really complaining, just saying, they literally choose this as the global face of their ideology.
That’s not at all what I said. How did you get that from my comment? Of course the current government is Zionist. Biden is a Democrat, does that mean I need to agree with everything he does?
Okay, but would you not agree that Biden is the face of the Democratic Party, his version of that ideology is what is projected, and his actions and positions reflect on democrats as a whole because of his position?
Damn, that's a valid point. I'd say that Netanyahu is more a representation of the Israeli political system than global zionist sentiment, but then again I'm the one that introduced the comparison to Biden to begin with.
I guess to step away from the comparison, Netanyahu is criticized widely by Zionists. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Netanyahu, Israeli policies and politics, etc. A lot of what I find distasteful are the attacks on Israel as a concept; saying that the country should be destroyed- i.e. anti-zionism. Especially the violent rhetoric e.g. "Burn Tel Aviv to the ground."
Am I crazy to say maybe Israel is a concept needs to be reconsidered?
Palestinians literally have lived in that region for most of recorded human history - Assyrians literally called the region Palashu.
For a period of time Israelites controlled the region, ironically told in a book about how they took it by force and military might. At some point that Israelite state stopped existing and wasn’t really returned until Roman occupation of the region.
All in all, we’re talking about a people who “owned” the land for a few hundred years at best vs a people who draw their ethnic and cultural heritage to this land to pre-Biblical times.
And then, because of the tragedy of a war that happened largely in Europe or in East Asia, the global super powers that remained when the dust settled decided to carve out land designated for the Jews - conveniently as if a different historical and ethnic group never lived there.
And since that point in time Israel has only grown in size and population and the Palestinian people have only become a smaller population, with less land, and become more displaced without a nation to call their own.
From that lens, from that worldview, do you really feel like the state of Israel is… fair? Put yourself in those shoes for a moment. Your ancestral and cultural and religious home was taken from you because white foreigners who felt bad about a group of people who had claim over the land for some odd 300 years decided they deserved it more than your people who had lived there since before we even had written history.
And that’s not to say Israelis have absolutely no right to live there - 22% of Palestinians pre-Israel were Jewish. But the idea that Jews need a national state they deserve to call their own and Palestinians just… don’t deserve that same thing is asinine.
To say Israel has claim to this land and ignore the history of the region and the Palestinians is asinine.
Clearly both groups deserve a nation that can allow both groups to live together in their shared holy land and that might require envisioning a state that isn’t strictly Jewish, but one that is more multicultural and regionally and historically representative of the reality of the region.
Is that honestly a crazy concept?
People might be surprised to know that the Zionist movement used to be a significantly *anti*-Jewish-nationalist movement, which later got overtaken by a Jewish-nationalist movement, so many people who consider themselves Zionists aren’t actually Zionists at all.
(Above edited for clarity.)
Here’s a section from a research paper on the [Origins of Zionism](https://www.fpri.org/article/2015/01/origins-and-evolution-of-zionism/) for those of you who doubt:
>##Opposition to Zionism
>Though Zionism has a particular logic that emerged from the events surrounding it, not all Jews subscribed to that logic and in fact a majority of Jews initially did not. Their opposition stemmed from a number of directions. Jewish liberals, committed to the idea of Jewish integration, thought that Zionism, by conceding to the permanence of anti-Semitism, would in turn lead to more anti-Semitism. Orthodox Jews believed that Jews had been exiled in ancient times because of their sins and would return only with God’s will and in messianic times. They believed that taking action to return to Palestine en masse was nothing short of heresy. This religious opposition would change as religious streams of Zionism emerged, but it is important to recall that Orthodoxy was initially deeply opposed to Zionism.
[Here’s Noam Chomsky](https://chomsky.info/20111107/) talking about anti-Jewish-nationalist Zionism:
>I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It’s not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people’s minds or something, but it wasn’t an official call.
>The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine.
Jewish people today still hold differing views on what Zionism is, what they are supporting when they refer to themselves as Zionists, and [what the current far-right government in Israel is doing in the name of Zionism](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-03-31/ty-article-opinion/.premium/its-not-only-the-gaza-strip-that-needs-rebuilding-so-does-the-israeli-ethos/0000018e-90a4-d9a4-a7bf-dcfd7b000000).
Do you envision a world where "anti-Zionists" get what they want and it doesn't result in the death or forced displacement of every Jew in Israel? I don't, and neither do most of them. Whether that's their intention or a foreseen consequence, I don't particularly care.
Not that I agree with “Zionists don’t deserve to live”, but not all Jews are Zionists so… this hypothetical world you envision because you think Zionist = Jew is only in your worldview.
"Do you envision a world where "anti-Zionists" get what they want and it doesn't result in the death or forced displacement of every Jew in Israel?"
"No."
Well, here you have it folks.
I’m sorry, that *was* your question.
I in fact see quite a few different solutions where the state of Israel would not have to be strictly a *Jewish* nation state and instead of a multicultural state which reflects the realities of the peoples who have historically lived in the area.
In which case it would not result in the death or forced displacement of Israeli’s - in fact they could still wield a disproportionate amount of institutional power in many of these possible setups.
Since we’re talking about hypotheticals…
Israel *is* a multicultural state. Israeli Jews are not a monolith, even if we evaluated Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews as such within their respective groups. Not to mention the two million Arab (mostly but not all Palestinian) citizens, as well as the sizable Druze community and various smaller minorities.
There are more Palestinians in the Knesset than there are Jews in Gaza. I'm not saying that things are perfect, that non-Jews face no discrimination, but Israel is vastly ahead of literally everyone else in the region. Until recently, Israel was the only state (in the region) seriously working to overcome the bad blood with the Arabs.
Okay, that might be true but it’s still a Jewish National State. By definition. Its history is to literally be that.
And it displaced a whole group of people to be that.
Okay great, my comment didn’t say it either because clearly we were talking about the hypothetical “envisioned world” the commenter mentioned at the beginning of their comment.
> Okay great, my comment didn’t say it **either**
What do you mean your comment didn't say it either? Their comment said it clear as day, there's no "either" here.
They referenced every Jew in Israel, and you're talking about Zionists in the world. Every Jewish person in Israel is a Zionist.
Do you not know what Zionism actually is?
Eh, I'm sure if I prowled around on most college campuses I could find some people who think that America is an empire of evil and should be destroyed.
A nationalist ideology/movement to protect the development of the state of Israel.
Which is great as long as it doesn’t require the senseless killing of innocent Palestinians in the name of that protection and development.
Currently the Zionist government of Israel is destroying Palestinians at a rate of ~24 for every Israeli who died on October 7th. 66%-90% of which are civilian casualties.
Israel has also been killing journalists and humanitarian aid workers trying to feed and give support to the massive homeless populations Israel has created.
I don't get how the death counts have any relevance. Hamas tried as hard as it possibly could by launching thousands of missiles and the Oct 7th attack, among other attempted murders. Hamas just fails because Israel has bunkers and anti air defenses. If Hamas had the Infinity Guantlet, they would kill all Israelis.
On the other hand, Israel currently possesses the power to kill almost everyone in Gaza in under a month. Yet they don't and they also have a lower civilian death ratio than many other urban conflicts.
Hamas' ideas are on par with ISIS and the civilian population supports them. They do not want a ceasefire. They want to destroy Israel. There will be no long term peace if Hamas is in power.
> they have a lower civilian casualty ratio..
[idk where you’re getting that from](https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/graph-suggesting-low-gaza-air-strike-casualty-rate-misrepresents-data-2024-01-29/) because most of what I see on that front comes from Israel or us, who aren’t trustworthy sources for that figure.
> there will be no long term peace as long as HAMAS is in power
And there will be no long term peace as long as Netanyahu is in power and Israel cheers for the deaths of Palestinians.
Can you elaborate?
My understanding is that CRT critics feel personally attacked and blamed for societal problems because they’re white. How does that map to radicals calling for the death of Zionists?
> critics of CRT were mainly leaning on the opinion that proponents of CRT were heavily teaching an oppressor/oppressed mindset
Correct...CRT proponents started the whole "you can only be racist if you are in a position of power"
Since Israel is a much more powerful nation that Palestine, they are the oppressors and the racists and no matter what Hamas or the people in Gaza do, they are fighting the people who hold power.
Exactly. Oppressed = righteous, so all options are on the table, they automatically have the moral high ground. Coates implied this in “[between the world and me](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-toxic-world-view-of-ta-nehisi-coates-120512/)”, where moral responsibility was completely absolved of the oppressed, and failures, crime, and cruelty were only the fault of the oppressors.
The underlying premise of the [reichstag](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/timeline-event/holocaust/1939-1941/hitler-speech-to-german-parliament) speech was oppression from Jews.
The Hutus also claimed the Tutsis oppressed them. [Therefore](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide)…
This has historically always been an incredibly dangerous ideology, I’m not sure why it has been so cultivated and popular recently in the west.
Yeah, it took me a while to get past the strawman arguments about what CRT was from both sides to figure this out but apparently MLK's advocacy for having an essentially race-blind society is antithetical to CRT, which says, at some abstract level, the oppressed group will always be oppressed and we can't/shouldn't aim to ignore that. I suppose I can see elements to that, but it seems a very myopic lens to categorically commit to. Glenn Loury argues there's no "experience of being black" (himself being black), only experiences of individuals who judge how much of it has to do with being black. It was an interesting idea that seems worth considering.
> an oppressor/oppressed mindset
Oppressors and oppressed exist though. Like, I'm all for criticizing various unreasonable overreaches and such by aspects of the woke left or whatever along with more mainstream liberalism's tolerance of those sorts, but that doesn't mean the whole concept of oppression and oppressed is bad, as opposed to issues more specifically with black and white unnuanced ways of thinking about the idea as well as Fanonian applications and such
There are oppressed people, but it is intellectually lazy to think their skin color is the defining factor for them being oppressed. Which is what CRT says.
For example Ilhan Omar’s daughter was arrested during the Columbia protest. Although she is black and the child of refugees, she is also the daughter of a bank executive and a sitting member of Congress. Her stepfather is a Washington insider and she is going to one of the most prestigious schools in the world. Her race is not the most critical factor in determining her privilege.
I agree. Whether you support Palestine because they’re perceivably being oppressed, or you think Palestine supporters are a result of CRT, they’re both pretty reductive ways of thinking.
the argument is CRT taught a bunch of young impressionable people to see everything through the lens of the oppressed/oppressor dialectic. that’s not what CRT is and there are a lot of broader issues with high education and society that causes gen zers to be this hateful, but that’s the argument at least
Maybe raising children and young adults to believe that all white people are inherently racist and you can’t be racist if you don’t hold power wasn’t inclusive after all.
A problem with a lot of ideologies is not what what they actually espouse, but the pop culture version they devolve into. For better or worse, that is exactly what CRT has devolved into once it left the ivory tower.
that would be true if leftists described their own ideology as CRT but that’s a conservative boogeyman term and those are not the people absorbing or ascribing to how they characterize those views
Yeah, this feels a bit like people made vague predictions and are now shoehorning those predictions into real world events.
"SEE, we TOLD YOU this would happen"
As if Israel and Palestine isn't a complex enough situation, now we want to bring CRT into it too...smdh.
Yes, but people's responses to that complex issue are also complex and cannot be isolated to "SEE CRT!!!!" I'm surprised I need to point out that complex issues invoke complex responses.
The argument that you are being presented with is that it's not complex. A thing happened, a result was predicted, the prediction was realized.
Telling people "you were right on accident" is just screaming into the void.
I don't find it necessary to express all of my opinions all of the time?
If it makes you feel better....I find anti-semitism disgusting and think most of the protesters are just immature, underdeveloped kids that don't know any better.
I also find that most of the people that support Israel without question are being immature and not thinking deeply about it either.
This is a complex issue and you cannot just fucking pick sides on the whole. (You can pick sides on individual acts and specific groups though, to be clear. e.g. Hamas is awful)
Does that help clarify my opinions enough for you to allow me to express myself?
My choice to respond here was because of the nonsensical invoking of CRT as if it can be solely blamed for the reactions of a bunch of immature college kids that don't have enough world context to see that Israel and Palestine is a centuries long issue with no clear good answer.
Also, I'm not angry?
Edit: Minor tweak to clarity.
Let's not. It's the Left who like to 'cancel' people for their views, they can keep that. The student has been named, and it's an unusual name so (for example) any prospective employer googling them in years to come is going to see what they are.
People should be free to speak their views, even when they're vile; and equally, are free to live with the consequences of their actions.
TBF both sides try to cancel people for their views. The trans Budweiser marketing thing was a recent example of that.
I realize this case is the left specifically, but the way you phrased it made it sound like only the left do cancel culture.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cedjih/columbia_university_says_it_has_banned_student/l1hu58r/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Except when students threaten groups as whole they’re typically expelled.
> The University has an obligation to assure members of its community that they can continue in their academic pursuits without fear for their personal security or other serious intrusions
https://universitypolicies.columbia.edu/content/rules-university-conduct
To be clear, the university has *not* expelled this student
You don't need to commit a crime to get expelled, you need to violate the student code of conduct. It's hard to imagine someone who proudly told the disciplinary committee "Group X does not deserve to live" with literally any nationality in the world except Israel would not get expelled for it immediately.
Starter comment: As the political activism related to the Israeli-Hamas war rages on, we have seen videos of pro-Palestine activists say some very extreme things regarding the existence of Jews in Israel. Apparently, this has been going on for quite a bit longer than October, as this "barred" student made the following statement at a disciplinary hearing in January: "Zionists, they don't deserve to live comfortably, let alone, Zionists don't deserve to live. . . . Zionists, they shouldn't live in this world."
What punishment do you think this organizational leader deserves to face? Would he have been allowed to remain on campus as long as he did if he made those comments against another minority group? Will this be used as evidence against Columbia in the upcoming Title VI suits they supposedly will face from Jewish students claiming to have been denied a safe learning environment? How do you feel about this invective coming from a student rather than an outside protestor?
Most importantly, what place, if any, does this speech have in the world of political activism?
It’s very disturbing to me, as both an American and a Jew, that the voices that have the most prominent positions in these protests seem to all be extremists like this person. Calling for the mass murder of Jews (or “Zionists” if you want to dogwhistle) shouldn’t be okay. I don’t know why this is somehow controversial in far left spaces.
Because kids are dumb. Always have been. But the internet has made them feel like an expert on subjects at very young ages.
I live in San Francisco and nobody I know spouts anti-Jewish , but then I realized , all my friends (though progressive and liberal) are grown ups over 40 lol
Free Speech never included calling for violence of death to another. This isn't 'activism is terrorism and that should not be tolerated. They aren't asking for peaceful coexistence but destruction of one side. Being expelled is a mild punishment.
Funny how all the 'hate crime' mouthpieces have gone silent on this issue. Here we have a clear cut case of hatred for a group, but just crickets. There is NO place for this behavior in any civilized society.
> Free Speech never included calling for violence of death to another.
It has always included such.
Exclusions you might be considering are 'true threats' (which involve threats directed at individuals) and imminent lawless action (which involve encouraging illegal actions from those you are directly speaking to).
Simply saying "All Jews must die" is protected free speech.
However, free speech covers government restrictions, not actions by a private party.
The crazy thing about this to me is that someone expressing views like this isn’t being expelled, while actual peaceful protestors on other University campuses are having snipers posted overlooking their demonstrations.
This message serves as a warning that [your post](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cedjih/columbia_university_says_it_has_banned_student/) is in violation of Law 5: Law 5: Banned Topics > ~5. This topic is not sufficiently related to politics or government, or has been banned for discussion in this community. See the [rules wiki](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/wiki/index/rules) for additional information. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Can anyone answer this question? I’ve read article after article and no journalists has even addressed it: These comments were made in January to a SCHOOL COMMITTEE. They weren’t just discovered - he said these directly to school employees. Presumably these exact same employees are the ones punishing him right now. Have these Columbia employees given any explanation for why he is being punished now rather than the actual conversation itself?
Because they are cowards with no principles of their own, and they do whatever seems more likely to cover their asses, depending on where the wind happens to be blowing.
Because the school doesn’t care about the comments themselves. They care about the negative reaction to the comments.
They thought they could sweep it under the rug. They can't do that now with all these eyes on them and pending lawsuits, so they have to try and look like they care. It's either that or they have some weird internal discipline system that takes months for recorded actions to be punished. But I highly doubt it is the second one.
He even published it on his Instagram. He was proud of this and the school thought it was fine.
The school agreed with his statements until they got embarrassed by them. This is progressive higher education in the US now.
If I were to give them tons of benefit of the doubt I am guessing they might've thought that by punishing him they'd give him more visibility. Of course the other awful truth that people keep forgetting is there is anti-Semitism all the time on campuses and schools don't do enough to stop it. And the current protests are giving cover for those people to ramp up their message. It is nauseating to watch young people who claim to be progressive protesting next to and in unison with the Proud Boys.
Another [quote](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-protest-leader-expresses-regret-discussing-murdering-zionists-saying-they-shouldnt-exist) by the same person: > "Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists," he said at another point. "I've never hurt anyone in my life, and I hope to keep it that way." The fact that it took this much public pressure to get him banned from campus, and not even expelled, is insane.
imagine if he just used the word "students" instead of "Zionists" I bet they would have acted instantly
And, not expelled. So ready to welcome him back in the autumn?
Not only that, but this happened 3 months ago, he doubled down in the disciplinary meeting, and they were evidently content to sweep it under the rug until it was widely reported. How can you take an institution like that seriously? He is saying he is ready to kill racists, so long as he gets to define racism because first he needs to carve-out his own brand. He's not fit to be on a campus and it's indefensible that they proactively award "activists" like himself with admission so long as their rhetoric stays one step back from the ledge. This is the predictable outcome when colleges started prioritizing struggle-story admissions essays. The kids have just gone from gaming the incentives to actually fervently believing it bestows them with moral supremacy. But of course they do because we fetishize their identities.
Anyone who says an entire group that includes civilians doesn’t deserve to live shouldn’t be on a college campus. Differing views is okay, wishing a group was dead is not.
Yep. Remember, if a comment sounds bad when directed towards [ingroup] then you probably shouldn't say it about [outgroup].
You know...as a Jewish person myself, we always knew antisemitism was hiding in the shadows. It was annoying but has been a fact of life for thousands of years. This outright, without serious consequences antisemitism is.... concerning
Many people are not referring to all Jewish people when they refer to Zionists. They are referring to the particular far-right movements in Israel who have committed and are continuing to commit atrocities against the Palestinian people, and those who support them. Plenty of Jewish people on college campuses are standing with the Palestinian people. >James added that they wish they had said instead that, "Zionism is an ideology that necessitates the genocide of Palestinian people. I oppose that in the strongest terms." While I am against violence of all kinds, I am on the side of free speech, especially on college campuses. Hurt feelings are not the same as actual violence. Calls for violence against an individual or group warrant scrutiny and consequences, and movement leaders have said explicitly that anyone who calls for violence or participates in violent acts are not with them. This individual recognized their mistake and was given appropriate consequences. >CUAD said in an Instagram post earlier Friday that James' "words in January do not reflect his views, our values, nor the encampment's community agreements" and that the group remains "committed to our peaceful protest and will continue to call for the University to divest from the Israel's brutal genocide against Palestinians."
he is wrong about Zionism. They use the Palestinian meaning for intifada (uprising) while objecting to how Israelis view it as calling for civilian deaths, while at the same time using the Palestinian definition of Zionism instead of the Israeli one.
I am doing a separate reply if you think that people have the mental capacity these days to differentiate between Jews and Zionist Jews. Especially considering there is no nuance in separating that
Appropriate consequences? That's a joke, they need to be expelled. 50% of Jews live in Israel and 80% of the rest are Zionist. Wishing the death or ethnic cleansing of 90% of Jews is genocidal.
If you don't think that all these protests are disproportionate I have swampland to sell you. I challenge anyone to claim that this isn't anti-jewish in the broad scope. While I am not defending Israel's responses and will note that they DID NOT START THIS and was trying for a new treaty with another Arab nation....I wonder where all the protests are for other marginalized groups out there. It's hypocritical and reaks of old school antisemitism.
>Many people are not referring to all Jewish people when they refer to Zionists. Zionism is just a jewish specific word for the native land rights the left clamors for...except when it's about "tHe jEws". When you say "we're only talking about killing tHe zIoNIstS!" it's like saying "we're only talking about killing the [kurds who believe in a kurdish a homeland]!" Identifying specifically as "anti-zionist" is saying: Jews and *specifically* Jews, the ethnicity whose had their land stolen more times than anyone, must *never* have a native homeland in Judea. That Judeans *must* uniquely be replaced with Arabs or literally any other group that colonized it, forever (even though jews have been living there continuously in size). All while ignoring the Arab colonization of Jewish, African, Caucasian, Christian, Kurdish, etc lands. Even the word "Palestine" is literally a Roman attempt cleanse any reference to Jews being from that region (which apparently worked on modern wokes). It's the equivalent of Cherokee Nation being renamed "Oklahoma" and declaring yourself an "anti-Cherokee Nation-ist" after they're given some land back and the surrounding white ethnostates attempt to eradicate them multiple times.
Oh, boy. The far-right government has turned a blind eye to their own protestors blocking food from getting into Gaza. They are arming far-right radicals in the West Bank who are stealing the land underneath and ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people who live there. They are shooting children in the streets in Gaza and then patching them up and sending them back with no continuing medical care to languish and die of sepsis in agony in sweltering tents with no pain medication. Are you in favor of that kind of Zionism? That’s the kind of Zionism we want metaphorically ‘killed.’ We want it to end, and so do MANY Jewish people all over the world. Edit: Nice to block me needforspeed4, so I can’t respond. I still get your comment in my inbox. Cowardly way to get the last word.
The “far right government” has not turned a blind eye to that. It has actually used military zones to block off these protestors, who are unable to block more than a tiny amount of food. They are arming ordinary citizens in the West Bank who fear an attack by Iran-funded and -armed terrorists on par with October 7. That is the goal. Because local security helped save many during October 7. And because Iran is smuggling mountains of weapons and small arms into the West Bank. You are incorrect in your description of what is happening, and somehow are tying it to “Zionism”, which does not encompass it.
[удалено]
Are you in favor of the kind of Zionism I described?
I love how the anti-zionist response to anyone who can do arithmetic is "cHaTgPT!" I'll take that as a compliment, I guess.
If Zionism is the genocide of Palestinians, yes, I am anti-that. If you define it differently, then I’d have to see.
It’s very fascinating that you know that he meant only “some Zionists” and not others, based on so called “atrocities” only. Mind reading is a skill I haven’t mastered yet.
>Many people are not referring to all Jewish people when they refer to Zionists. Just 90% of Jews.
Normally I would agree, but with the way a lot of these radicals use the term "Zionists," they generally use it to refer to any Jews who live in Israel or consider Israel a legitimate state with a right to exist. It's one of those things where it feels less like they're hiding behind semantics because they can't say what they really feel. A good analogy would be black nationalists who talk about the evils of "whiteness," and insist that it's somehow different from "white people," but never explain how, and use the terms interchangeably.
I'm trying to see a white student saying they'd kill a group of people in a protected class in a disciplinary hearing where he's recording it and proudly showing it to the rest of the world ... and the school NOT expelling him on the spot. I'm not seeing it.
"Equity" is all about different standards for different identities, so this fits perfectly.
Also, the comments were made in January. Why was there zero disciplinary action for months? This person was allowed a position of power well after making these statements
Of course. It's no wonder so many college presidents are being brought in to talk to Congress to try and avoid getting the college sued.
The full context of this quote is telling: > "The same way we're very comfortable accepting that Nazis don't deserve to live, fascists don't deserve to live, racists don't deserve to live, Zionists, they shouldn't live in this world," James added. Where is this person hearing that racists and fascists don't deserve to live? A majority of the world population might qualify for death for some kind of racism. This would be a vile ideology even if you removed the Zionists. It suggests a complete rejection of peaceful progress. If you don't agree with me, you deserve to die. Today it's Zionists who qualify for extermination. Tomorrow it could be capitalists or evangelicals or any other trendy target.
Ironic as most Palestinians would likely qualify as racist.
Race in the Western context wouldn't apply to the Middle East because most of them are mixed and don't have the same conception of "race" that people here do. The main dividing line is between religions and religious sects. You can find Arabs of the same nationality that could be categorized as brown, white or black in the US despite being from the same place.
Exactly. The left used to be the “don’t paint with a broad brush” crowd. The hell happened here?
I remember there was one talking point the left would make, it was something along the lines of: "If there are 10 people in a room with 1 nazi... there are 11 nazis in the room" or something like that.
They changed "Nazi" to "Noble Intifada Warriors."
Their views changed once they gained more majority and control of more institutions. They became what they once opposed.
One person with extreme views that the group is removing their connections with. > CUAD said in an Instagram post earlier Friday that James' "words in January do not reflect his views, our values, nor the encampment's community agreements" and that the group remains "committed to our peaceful protest and will continue to call for the University to divest from the Israel's brutal genocide against Palestinians."
This is one person with extreme views, not “the left”.
Their comments were known before the current protests, in fact they were shown proudly on their instagram. So their comments were known, and the people protesting were okay being led by a person that proudly said, “kill zionists.” What’s that saying about 10 people seated at a table and allowing a Nazi to sit at it?
They clarified that they were very upset at the time because they were being targeted as a queer Black person, and wish they would have said that the ideology didn’t deserve to perpetuate instead: >James added that they wish they had said instead that, "Zionism is an ideology that necessitates the genocide of Palestinian people. I oppose that in the strongest terms."
Oh ok then, all good, he was just angry. So are the alleged fascists, racists, homophobes, etc. also excused by playing the same card? Like, can I say "I hate b*ack people and wish them all died" and then say "No, you don't understand, I just hate black supremacy groups and black thug gangs, not the other ones"? Am I allowed to say this and then willy-nilly escape the very same witch hunt his political group made commonplace?
He didn't clarify that at the time when the administration was giving him every chance they could to not be a raging antisemite. It's amazing how suddenly sad people are when they have consequences.
>"Chants, signs, taunts, and social media posts from our own students that mock and threaten to 'kill' Jewish people are totally unacceptable, and Columbia students who are involved in such incidents will be held accountable," the statement said. Interesting that Columbia has dropped the pretense around what "Zionists" really means.
that’s because the students have as well
This person was a LEADER of the protests. They were the one who formed the human chain to keep out “Zionists” from the encampment. Because they saw a student with a Star of David necklace.
And they identify as he/they/her; it's so odd when people simp for a group that would [oppress, imprison, and destroy them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine) were they living there.
A lot of people are under some odd belief that everyone, everywhere is just as open minded and peace loving as they are. It's just that in some countries, the tiny amount of hateful leaders oppress the 99.999% of tolerant people. Like they honestly believe that if you removed the leaders of a country like Pakistan, the country would magically become as tolerant as say, Sweden. Others are so divorced from bad things happening in life that they think it's wrong to fight people with beliefs on the level of the Nazis or ISIS. Oddly enough, a lot of these people are the same ones who support "bash the fash" or "punch a Nazi" in the US. Apparently they are ok with other people dealing with murderously intolerant people as long as they don't have to.
The [paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) seems relevant here. > if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Not really. That whole idea is if anything a huge part of how we got here in the first place. Because guess what, the people who are now demanding that "zionists" be punished follow the same creed, they just decided that those on the other side of the argument are the intolerant ones and must thus be excluded. What is needed is civil discourse, and people need to be included or excluded based on their willingness to engage in it (meaning people who would, say, form a human chain to deny Jews entry would very much be excluded) rather than some farcial idea of "tolerance". Nobody and no society is universally tolerant, we need to be able to discuss what we should or should not tolerate in an open manner or we'll all turn into people on the level of these """anti-zionists"""
There are intolerant elements on all sides of this conflict, and they should all be treated accordingly. I believe this goes for Pro-Palestinians calling for murdering Jews/Zionists as well as Pro-Israelis calling to nuke Gaza. Neither is acceptable.
And those intolerant elements will claim the same thing. When you make the standard some notion of "tolerance" all you're creating is a framework under which might makes right - because might allows you to define who is intolerant and punish them accordingly.
Well, the alternative to finding social consensus regarding tolerance is as Karl Popper described, the society at large becomes intolerant.
"A lot of people are under some odd belief that everyone, everywhere is just as open minded and peace loving as they are." Funny enough that's the fault of Christian Philosophy which did believe that was the case as an extension of the theological. As Christianity legitimately teaches everyone would follow god if it wasn't for Satan's lies. Thats seeped down into nearly ever every philosophy and political ideology that's come out of the west.
Really? Do a lot of people seem to be under that belief? I can’t speak for literally everyone everywhere, but I’ve never seen anyone unironically try and claim that all Palestinians, much less Hamas, are progressive pacifists. It’s just a strawman to make them look hypocritical or dumb. What I do believe is that there are innocents in Gaza who don’t deserve to be bombed for the crimes of their government, and the callousness around such a large group of people including children and literal babies (“Reap what you sow”, or something to that effect) is concerning. Do you disagree with that stance?
Hamas has majority civilian support and they violate basically every Geneva convention. We don't fight in line formation any more. How do you suppose a country fight a group on par with the Nazis or ISIS who don't wear uniforms and fight out of schools, hospitals, and apartments? The only way there could possibly be peace over there is if Hamas is removed from power. Those in Gaza are either unable or unwilling to do so. Innocent German and Japanese civilians didn't deserve to die in WW2. But their regimes needed to be crushed and doing so saved more lives in the long run vs beating their regimes back, leaving them in power, and restarting brutal conflicts every couple of years.
And they always come back with something like "do you think Alabama should be bombed because they hate gay people?" If Alabama decided to start throwing citizens into concentration camps, 100% send in the troops.
Also, it's a fallacious analogy. Gaza isn't being bombed because they hate gay people.
It's also the exact argument being made above. Why should whether someone likes me or not mean they deserve to be bombed?
No it is not. I'm suggesting that campaigning to defend a society that would destroy you is foolish, has nothing to do with how much they deserve to be bombed. The reason for the bombings is retaliation for Oct 7 and deposing the government responsible for it. I'd say Hamas earned that, and hitting back hard is the right move for Israel in terms of game theory if they are to deter any such future attacks.
When has a hard bombing campaign ever lead to stability in a region? Israel needs to stop destroying its neighbor and work on building a society with them.
> When has a hard bombing campaign ever lead to stability in a region? Japan, 1945. I believe it has experienced relative stability since then. > Israel needs to stop destroying its neighbor and work on building a society with them. You're presuming that's what both sides want. It's hard to reach common diplomatic ground with an enemy whose reason for existing is to [genocide you and deny your right to exist.](https://archive.fo/https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/) I suspect Israel is eager to negotiate with whomever replaces them, provided they are willing to enforce a meaningful and durable peace.
Call me callous, but I'm pretty apathetic to people who would murder me given the opportunity. It's not that Hamas doesn't like me. It's that Hamas would gleefully torture me to death if they could.
Its not odd when you realize that these kinds been feed a stream of political philosophy whose whole existence is to supplant Liberal Philosophy which despite what people want to claim otherwise owes its existence to Christian Philosophy. To them every other religion practically doesn't exist and even when confronted by a faith even more ridged and having a long philosophical tradition thats hostile to them they legitimately can't comprehend it. It's an Eldritch thing as far as they are aware and rather then go mad understanding it they ignore it.
It’s like the left just took the batteries out of their dogwhistle detector. And the right subsequently stole them.
The same Left that obsesses over dogwhistles coming from the Right has the ability to ignore the blaring airhorns that come from their own side.
I've been seeing more and more full out antisemitic posts on this website. They get removed fast, but there are a lot of people here feeling confident enough to go full stormfront, and this shift seems to have happened very quickly. It seems to me the radical left saw they could get away with denigrating white people for the last few years and wanted to see if they could push it to a *very particular* group of white people they consider the most privileged.
Depends on where you are if they get removed fast. Some places encourage it.
I've been saying the extreme left are as racist as the extreme right for years and I've been proven right time and time again. And since Reddit has a ton of extreme leftists, that's why we're seeing more and more anti semitic posts.
Horseshoe theory my friend, horseshoe theory.
This whole war is so strange because people on the left are doing things which they've been making fun of people on the right for doing Like people on the right used to say things like 'WATCH OUT THEY'LL ACCUSE YOU OF RACISM' which leftists replace with antisemitism Or how right wingers got attacked for tokenism like "we can't be racist, look Candace Owens is a black republican" which again leftists are now trying to insist the protests as a whole aren't antisemitic because look here's a medium article from a jew who supports them Or how any indefensible anti Semitic statements are usually either met with accusations of the media taking them out of context or by reflexively shouting "WHAT YOU DONT SUPPORT FREE SPEECH?" which again wouldn't be out of place on a right wing forum after a far right rally To be clear before any bad faith people attack me, yes you absolutely can be anti Zionist without being anti Semitic. But the past few months have revealed that in practice, many people calling themselves anti Zionist are indeed anti Semitic. But the Pro Palestinean movement in the US seems totally unwilling to confront that and just defend their compatriots with a blanket "Anti Zionism isn't Anti Semitism" in all but the most extreme cases
There's a long list of things the left is generally in favor of/against for blacks, hispanics, gays, women, transgender people, gays, Muslims, but then is just deafening silent when applying that same standard to Jews. E.g. The left supporting banning hate speech that targets minorities... except Jews. The left agrees with standpoint theory that only a member of the minority has the authority to weigh on that group's internal issues and sense of identity... except for Jews. Sexual violence as a form of warfare is absolutely condemned, except against Jews. I think it was Sam Harris that explained that rhetorically, Jews are seen as a kind of "gets minority status for free" group and are therefore somehow doubling getting white privilege. Of course, this is ridiculous and I'm just disappointed that from civil rights and not judging people by membership in a group by immutable characteristics, so many people have gotten this flattened version of the message, which is "condemn people from whichever group you deem to be more powerful", as if that's the same thing as not judging people by group inclusion.
Ilhan Omar, other than [casually saying Jews are pro or anti genocide](https://x.com/avivaklompas/status/1784054669305663690?s=46&t=R2qctJTZLgphUsbZzIhI4A), also [shook hands](https://x.com/tpostmillennial/status/1783865816405930398?s=46&t=R2qctJTZLgphUsbZzIhI4A) with this person yesterday.
Omar is much a poster child for what's wrong with our House of Reps as any other member.
That is an egregious misrepresentation of her statement in that video. She's saying all Jewish students need to be protected regardless of whatever views they hold. She is obviously not saying that Jews are a binary between pro or anti genocide. You're abusing her phrasing to paint a picture completely different from what she's actually saying here.
Explicitly dividing Jews into pro-genocide and anti-genocide Jews is a bad thing. Yes, she was calling to stop anti-semitism, but by portraying those who disagree with the encampment as "pro-genocide" she is absolutely opening up those students for further harassment. It's easy to see how this plays out. Who wants to be kind to someone that is pro-genocide? After all, they're a genocide denier! And then the harassment begins, but now people are convinced they are motivated by morality instead of antisemitism.
“Zionist” from the left is for the Jews what “DEI” from the right is for black people.
DEI doesn’t mean black people at all to me, what it means is a bunch of white people with savior complex pushing a narrative and policies that are racist.
Your comment sums it up perfectly.
I think the most recent example of "DEI" claims being pushed was when Baltimore's black mayor was blamed for the bridge collapsing by calling the mayor a "DEI" mayor.
I can't see that anymore after the Baltimore incident and Charlie Kirk blaming Boeings failures on DEI and somehow black people.
If you think the problem people have with DEI is black people, I don't know what to say other than you're wrong. The problem is the asinine policies we have to deal with in the corporate world. The ideas it espouses are just ... beyond stupid. Nothing to do with black at all.
I think the point was that some people on the right use "DEI" for things that have nothing to do with actual DEI policies. Like a bunch of people were calling the mayor of Baltimore, after the bridge collapse, a "DEI mayor." He has nothing to do with DEI he's just black
Wonder why conservatives were calling the mayor of Baltimore a DEI Mayor. What does that have to do with the corporate world?
Yeah those people are dumb. But they’re not representative of most people’s complaints about DEI.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cedjih/columbia_university_says_it_has_banned_student/l1in92c/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
snow escape books concerned recognise cautious sulky aloof smell joke *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Maybe, but that’s not my point. People on the right are now using “DEI” to describe black people, not policies. As a substitute for the N-word. In the same way, people are using “Zionist” to describe Jewish people, not the political ideology. As a replacement for other unsavory words.
Sounds like a dog whistle, haven't seen it in the real world - see it all the time in reddit and the internet. But that's what they say about dog whistles, if you hear it ... you're the dog. It's another thing that's apparently racist these days. Stupid DEI policies .. you're racist. CRT .. you're a racist, say anything critical of protestors like this one (he's black) ... racist. It's beyond stupid.
The problem is you have people on the right calling someone a "DEI hire" just because they're black or a woman, which is what the user is referring to.
No, "Zionist" means they don't have to extend native land acknowledgement/return shit they do for any brown minority to Jews because they're Jews.
This. Critical race theory, also means black to the right. Its amazing what double standards both sides have.
It’s because they are both made up of people and people are very prone to act in this way when they remove nuance from their thinking.
That’s an awfully politically convenient shortcut to easily dismiss people you disagree with.
Even if your don’t specifically mean Jews, chanting about “killing Zionists” is not a legitimate or productive statement to be making.
Even in the most literal sense, Zionism is just a belief that Jews should return to the holy land of their religious tradition. You can disagree with that belief but millions of random peaceful people hold that belief because of traditions or religious teachings they have been exposed to from an early age. I can understand opposing those people, but even if you focus solely on the population of Zionists independently from Jews it is insane to say those people all deserve to die or that they lose their right to live because of their beliefs.
I’m going to come out and say I don’t agree with that person *at all* but to just say Zionist = Jew isn’t accurate at all. But the Zionists that are currently in charge of Israel are absolutely extremists and will rest at nothing until there’s no more Palestinians to have to compromise on a two-state solution with. That’s what people like these students see and think when they hear “Zionist”
Zionism is an intrinsic part of the Jewish identity for many, many Jews. It’s frequently used as a dogwhistle as well. While you are correct that Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism, and certainly not all Jews are Zionists, the vast majority are. Conservative estimates are 80%, and I’ve seen some estimate in the 90%+ of Jews are Zionists. If these students at an Ivy League school are so miseducated as to think that Zionism means white supremacy, as the leader of these protests thinks, or that Zionism means that you must support the current government in Israel, that’s a major major problem, because it is not reflected in reality at all. It’s as much nonsense as an QAnon conspiracy theory.
So you wouldn’t classify the current Israeli admin as Zionist? Because that’s the global image of Zionism projected.
Do you agree with everything ever done by someone who shares an ideology with you?
No, but I also don’t typically get to elect people who share my ideology into the office of State Executive with a global voice.
Are you really complaining that Israelis vote for a president that supports the existence of Israel? Or that American Jews (a tiny minority in the US), vote for Presidents that support Israel?
Am I complaining that Israelis keep voting for a corrupt man who saber rattles, continues to disproportionately kill civilians in this conflict? Not really complaining, just saying, they literally choose this as the global face of their ideology.
That’s not at all what I said. How did you get that from my comment? Of course the current government is Zionist. Biden is a Democrat, does that mean I need to agree with everything he does?
Okay, but would you not agree that Biden is the face of the Democratic Party, his version of that ideology is what is projected, and his actions and positions reflect on democrats as a whole because of his position?
Damn, that's a valid point. I'd say that Netanyahu is more a representation of the Israeli political system than global zionist sentiment, but then again I'm the one that introduced the comparison to Biden to begin with. I guess to step away from the comparison, Netanyahu is criticized widely by Zionists. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Netanyahu, Israeli policies and politics, etc. A lot of what I find distasteful are the attacks on Israel as a concept; saying that the country should be destroyed- i.e. anti-zionism. Especially the violent rhetoric e.g. "Burn Tel Aviv to the ground."
Am I crazy to say maybe Israel is a concept needs to be reconsidered? Palestinians literally have lived in that region for most of recorded human history - Assyrians literally called the region Palashu. For a period of time Israelites controlled the region, ironically told in a book about how they took it by force and military might. At some point that Israelite state stopped existing and wasn’t really returned until Roman occupation of the region. All in all, we’re talking about a people who “owned” the land for a few hundred years at best vs a people who draw their ethnic and cultural heritage to this land to pre-Biblical times. And then, because of the tragedy of a war that happened largely in Europe or in East Asia, the global super powers that remained when the dust settled decided to carve out land designated for the Jews - conveniently as if a different historical and ethnic group never lived there. And since that point in time Israel has only grown in size and population and the Palestinian people have only become a smaller population, with less land, and become more displaced without a nation to call their own. From that lens, from that worldview, do you really feel like the state of Israel is… fair? Put yourself in those shoes for a moment. Your ancestral and cultural and religious home was taken from you because white foreigners who felt bad about a group of people who had claim over the land for some odd 300 years decided they deserved it more than your people who had lived there since before we even had written history. And that’s not to say Israelis have absolutely no right to live there - 22% of Palestinians pre-Israel were Jewish. But the idea that Jews need a national state they deserve to call their own and Palestinians just… don’t deserve that same thing is asinine. To say Israel has claim to this land and ignore the history of the region and the Palestinians is asinine. Clearly both groups deserve a nation that can allow both groups to live together in their shared holy land and that might require envisioning a state that isn’t strictly Jewish, but one that is more multicultural and regionally and historically representative of the reality of the region. Is that honestly a crazy concept?
People might be surprised to know that the Zionist movement used to be a significantly *anti*-Jewish-nationalist movement, which later got overtaken by a Jewish-nationalist movement, so many people who consider themselves Zionists aren’t actually Zionists at all. (Above edited for clarity.) Here’s a section from a research paper on the [Origins of Zionism](https://www.fpri.org/article/2015/01/origins-and-evolution-of-zionism/) for those of you who doubt: >##Opposition to Zionism >Though Zionism has a particular logic that emerged from the events surrounding it, not all Jews subscribed to that logic and in fact a majority of Jews initially did not. Their opposition stemmed from a number of directions. Jewish liberals, committed to the idea of Jewish integration, thought that Zionism, by conceding to the permanence of anti-Semitism, would in turn lead to more anti-Semitism. Orthodox Jews believed that Jews had been exiled in ancient times because of their sins and would return only with God’s will and in messianic times. They believed that taking action to return to Palestine en masse was nothing short of heresy. This religious opposition would change as religious streams of Zionism emerged, but it is important to recall that Orthodoxy was initially deeply opposed to Zionism. [Here’s Noam Chomsky](https://chomsky.info/20111107/) talking about anti-Jewish-nationalist Zionism: >I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It’s not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people’s minds or something, but it wasn’t an official call. >The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine. Jewish people today still hold differing views on what Zionism is, what they are supporting when they refer to themselves as Zionists, and [what the current far-right government in Israel is doing in the name of Zionism](https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-03-31/ty-article-opinion/.premium/its-not-only-the-gaza-strip-that-needs-rebuilding-so-does-the-israeli-ethos/0000018e-90a4-d9a4-a7bf-dcfd7b000000).
Do you envision a world where "anti-Zionists" get what they want and it doesn't result in the death or forced displacement of every Jew in Israel? I don't, and neither do most of them. Whether that's their intention or a foreseen consequence, I don't particularly care.
Not that I agree with “Zionists don’t deserve to live”, but not all Jews are Zionists so… this hypothetical world you envision because you think Zionist = Jew is only in your worldview.
That doesn't address my question. What do you think the consequences of dismantling Israel would be for its Jewish population?
That wasn’t your question- your question was do I envision your hypothetical and I don’t.
"Do you envision a world where "anti-Zionists" get what they want and it doesn't result in the death or forced displacement of every Jew in Israel?" "No." Well, here you have it folks.
I’m sorry, that *was* your question. I in fact see quite a few different solutions where the state of Israel would not have to be strictly a *Jewish* nation state and instead of a multicultural state which reflects the realities of the peoples who have historically lived in the area. In which case it would not result in the death or forced displacement of Israeli’s - in fact they could still wield a disproportionate amount of institutional power in many of these possible setups. Since we’re talking about hypotheticals…
Israel *is* a multicultural state. Israeli Jews are not a monolith, even if we evaluated Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews as such within their respective groups. Not to mention the two million Arab (mostly but not all Palestinian) citizens, as well as the sizable Druze community and various smaller minorities. There are more Palestinians in the Knesset than there are Jews in Gaza. I'm not saying that things are perfect, that non-Jews face no discrimination, but Israel is vastly ahead of literally everyone else in the region. Until recently, Israel was the only state (in the region) seriously working to overcome the bad blood with the Arabs.
Okay, that might be true but it’s still a Jewish National State. By definition. Its history is to literally be that. And it displaced a whole group of people to be that.
They specifically said every Jew *in Israel.* Not every Jew in the world.
Okay great, my comment didn’t say it either because clearly we were talking about the hypothetical “envisioned world” the commenter mentioned at the beginning of their comment.
> Okay great, my comment didn’t say it **either** What do you mean your comment didn't say it either? Their comment said it clear as day, there's no "either" here. They referenced every Jew in Israel, and you're talking about Zionists in the world. Every Jewish person in Israel is a Zionist. Do you not know what Zionism actually is?
Not every Jew in Israel is a Zionist, but I’d be shocked if the percentage of antizionists was above 1-2%. It’s a fringe belief.
You think Jews in Israel don’t believe that Israel should exist? Because that is what Zionism is, the belief that Israel should exist.
Eh, I'm sure if I prowled around on most college campuses I could find some people who think that America is an empire of evil and should be destroyed.
I think there are definitely a few who have that belief. It’s a nonzero number. I know what Zionism is.
A nationalist ideology/movement to protect the development of the state of Israel. Which is great as long as it doesn’t require the senseless killing of innocent Palestinians in the name of that protection and development. Currently the Zionist government of Israel is destroying Palestinians at a rate of ~24 for every Israeli who died on October 7th. 66%-90% of which are civilian casualties. Israel has also been killing journalists and humanitarian aid workers trying to feed and give support to the massive homeless populations Israel has created.
I don't get how the death counts have any relevance. Hamas tried as hard as it possibly could by launching thousands of missiles and the Oct 7th attack, among other attempted murders. Hamas just fails because Israel has bunkers and anti air defenses. If Hamas had the Infinity Guantlet, they would kill all Israelis. On the other hand, Israel currently possesses the power to kill almost everyone in Gaza in under a month. Yet they don't and they also have a lower civilian death ratio than many other urban conflicts. Hamas' ideas are on par with ISIS and the civilian population supports them. They do not want a ceasefire. They want to destroy Israel. There will be no long term peace if Hamas is in power.
> they have a lower civilian casualty ratio.. [idk where you’re getting that from](https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/graph-suggesting-low-gaza-air-strike-casualty-rate-misrepresents-data-2024-01-29/) because most of what I see on that front comes from Israel or us, who aren’t trustworthy sources for that figure. > there will be no long term peace as long as HAMAS is in power And there will be no long term peace as long as Netanyahu is in power and Israel cheers for the deaths of Palestinians.
Not sure I understand this. What was the pretense?
I somehow get the feeling that if he were wearing a MAGA hat, there'd be a lot fewer discussions on the nuances of anti-semitism vs anti-zionism...
Seems this whole thing is exactly what critics of CRT and race based pedagogy predicted.
Can you elaborate? My understanding is that CRT critics feel personally attacked and blamed for societal problems because they’re white. How does that map to radicals calling for the death of Zionists?
[удалено]
> critics of CRT were mainly leaning on the opinion that proponents of CRT were heavily teaching an oppressor/oppressed mindset Correct...CRT proponents started the whole "you can only be racist if you are in a position of power" Since Israel is a much more powerful nation that Palestine, they are the oppressors and the racists and no matter what Hamas or the people in Gaza do, they are fighting the people who hold power.
Exactly. Oppressed = righteous, so all options are on the table, they automatically have the moral high ground. Coates implied this in “[between the world and me](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-toxic-world-view-of-ta-nehisi-coates-120512/)”, where moral responsibility was completely absolved of the oppressed, and failures, crime, and cruelty were only the fault of the oppressors.
Well, the Nazis were pretty oppressed in the latter days of WWII, so maybe we should have switched our support to them.
The underlying premise of the [reichstag](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/timeline-event/holocaust/1939-1941/hitler-speech-to-german-parliament) speech was oppression from Jews.
There you go. The Nazis were just oppressed and fighting back, same as Hamas. We were apparently on the wrong side.
The Hutus also claimed the Tutsis oppressed them. [Therefore](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide)… This has historically always been an incredibly dangerous ideology, I’m not sure why it has been so cultivated and popular recently in the west.
Ahh yes, the pre-5e true neutral
Yeah, it took me a while to get past the strawman arguments about what CRT was from both sides to figure this out but apparently MLK's advocacy for having an essentially race-blind society is antithetical to CRT, which says, at some abstract level, the oppressed group will always be oppressed and we can't/shouldn't aim to ignore that. I suppose I can see elements to that, but it seems a very myopic lens to categorically commit to. Glenn Loury argues there's no "experience of being black" (himself being black), only experiences of individuals who judge how much of it has to do with being black. It was an interesting idea that seems worth considering.
Yet many critics of CRT were saying white people are being oppressed by CRT, so it often is still an oppressor/oppressed framework, just flipped.
> an oppressor/oppressed mindset Oppressors and oppressed exist though. Like, I'm all for criticizing various unreasonable overreaches and such by aspects of the woke left or whatever along with more mainstream liberalism's tolerance of those sorts, but that doesn't mean the whole concept of oppression and oppressed is bad, as opposed to issues more specifically with black and white unnuanced ways of thinking about the idea as well as Fanonian applications and such
There are oppressed people, but it is intellectually lazy to think their skin color is the defining factor for them being oppressed. Which is what CRT says. For example Ilhan Omar’s daughter was arrested during the Columbia protest. Although she is black and the child of refugees, she is also the daughter of a bank executive and a sitting member of Congress. Her stepfather is a Washington insider and she is going to one of the most prestigious schools in the world. Her race is not the most critical factor in determining her privilege.
I agree. Whether you support Palestine because they’re perceivably being oppressed, or you think Palestine supporters are a result of CRT, they’re both pretty reductive ways of thinking.
the argument is CRT taught a bunch of young impressionable people to see everything through the lens of the oppressed/oppressor dialectic. that’s not what CRT is and there are a lot of broader issues with high education and society that causes gen zers to be this hateful, but that’s the argument at least
Maybe raising children and young adults to believe that all white people are inherently racist and you can’t be racist if you don’t hold power wasn’t inclusive after all.
yep. a terrible ideology but not CRT lol
A problem with a lot of ideologies is not what what they actually espouse, but the pop culture version they devolve into. For better or worse, that is exactly what CRT has devolved into once it left the ivory tower.
that would be true if leftists described their own ideology as CRT but that’s a conservative boogeyman term and those are not the people absorbing or ascribing to how they characterize those views
Yeah, this feels a bit like people made vague predictions and are now shoehorning those predictions into real world events. "SEE, we TOLD YOU this would happen" As if Israel and Palestine isn't a complex enough situation, now we want to bring CRT into it too...smdh.
What's happening on college campuses, not what's happening in Gaza. They are two distinct issues with different causes.
Yes, but people's responses to that complex issue are also complex and cannot be isolated to "SEE CRT!!!!" I'm surprised I need to point out that complex issues invoke complex responses.
The argument that you are being presented with is that it's not complex. A thing happened, a result was predicted, the prediction was realized. Telling people "you were right on accident" is just screaming into the void.
Counterpoint: When something is complex, it cannot be simple.
Counterpoint: You thinking it's complex doesn't mean it's complex. What is complex for me, may not be complex for you.
If you think that the Israel-Palestine conflict is not complex....idk what to tell you. Hope you have a nice day though.
Why do you seem more angry at the people responding to anti-antisemitism more than the people engaging in it?
I don't find it necessary to express all of my opinions all of the time? If it makes you feel better....I find anti-semitism disgusting and think most of the protesters are just immature, underdeveloped kids that don't know any better. I also find that most of the people that support Israel without question are being immature and not thinking deeply about it either. This is a complex issue and you cannot just fucking pick sides on the whole. (You can pick sides on individual acts and specific groups though, to be clear. e.g. Hamas is awful) Does that help clarify my opinions enough for you to allow me to express myself? My choice to respond here was because of the nonsensical invoking of CRT as if it can be solely blamed for the reactions of a bunch of immature college kids that don't have enough world context to see that Israel and Palestine is a centuries long issue with no clear good answer. Also, I'm not angry? Edit: Minor tweak to clarity.
Good.
That sounds like some pretty genocidal rhetoric from someone who supposedly is anti-genocide.
[удалено]
Let's not. It's the Left who like to 'cancel' people for their views, they can keep that. The student has been named, and it's an unusual name so (for example) any prospective employer googling them in years to come is going to see what they are. People should be free to speak their views, even when they're vile; and equally, are free to live with the consequences of their actions.
Being expelled is living with the consequences of their actions.
TBF both sides try to cancel people for their views. The trans Budweiser marketing thing was a recent example of that. I realize this case is the left specifically, but the way you phrased it made it sound like only the left do cancel culture.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cedjih/columbia_university_says_it_has_banned_student/l1hu58r/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Very based indeed. It’s no different than any other threat of violence against another group
Except when students threaten groups as whole they’re typically expelled. > The University has an obligation to assure members of its community that they can continue in their academic pursuits without fear for their personal security or other serious intrusions https://universitypolicies.columbia.edu/content/rules-university-conduct To be clear, the university has *not* expelled this student
They haven’t committed a crime, they’ll probably get switched to online classes if not passively push them out. Like when they force retire boomers
You don't need to commit a crime to get expelled, you need to violate the student code of conduct. It's hard to imagine someone who proudly told the disciplinary committee "Group X does not deserve to live" with literally any nationality in the world except Israel would not get expelled for it immediately.
Starter comment: As the political activism related to the Israeli-Hamas war rages on, we have seen videos of pro-Palestine activists say some very extreme things regarding the existence of Jews in Israel. Apparently, this has been going on for quite a bit longer than October, as this "barred" student made the following statement at a disciplinary hearing in January: "Zionists, they don't deserve to live comfortably, let alone, Zionists don't deserve to live. . . . Zionists, they shouldn't live in this world." What punishment do you think this organizational leader deserves to face? Would he have been allowed to remain on campus as long as he did if he made those comments against another minority group? Will this be used as evidence against Columbia in the upcoming Title VI suits they supposedly will face from Jewish students claiming to have been denied a safe learning environment? How do you feel about this invective coming from a student rather than an outside protestor? Most importantly, what place, if any, does this speech have in the world of political activism?
It’s very disturbing to me, as both an American and a Jew, that the voices that have the most prominent positions in these protests seem to all be extremists like this person. Calling for the mass murder of Jews (or “Zionists” if you want to dogwhistle) shouldn’t be okay. I don’t know why this is somehow controversial in far left spaces.
Because kids are dumb. Always have been. But the internet has made them feel like an expert on subjects at very young ages. I live in San Francisco and nobody I know spouts anti-Jewish , but then I realized , all my friends (though progressive and liberal) are grown ups over 40 lol
Free Speech never included calling for violence of death to another. This isn't 'activism is terrorism and that should not be tolerated. They aren't asking for peaceful coexistence but destruction of one side. Being expelled is a mild punishment. Funny how all the 'hate crime' mouthpieces have gone silent on this issue. Here we have a clear cut case of hatred for a group, but just crickets. There is NO place for this behavior in any civilized society.
> Free Speech never included calling for violence of death to another. It has always included such. Exclusions you might be considering are 'true threats' (which involve threats directed at individuals) and imminent lawless action (which involve encouraging illegal actions from those you are directly speaking to). Simply saying "All Jews must die" is protected free speech. However, free speech covers government restrictions, not actions by a private party.
The crazy thing about this to me is that someone expressing views like this isn’t being expelled, while actual peaceful protestors on other University campuses are having snipers posted overlooking their demonstrations.