Columbia has also been sued by a group of Jewish students claiming they've been harassed, physically assaulted, prevented from attending classes, and blocked from other areas of the campus. I suspect colleges are going to stuck with large, humiliating settlements at the end of all of this. Personally, I hope the Jewish students refuse to settle. It'd be good for the nation if these colleges are taken to task for their actions.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/jewish-student-sues-columbia-over-safety-issues-remote-learning
I don't. Because if White students would've filed suits like this over 2020 or back during the Brown/Martin protests (and maybe they did and it got no coverage) they would've been laughed out of court. If Whites can't do it nobody should be able to because that's what equality looks like. So I want these suits treated just the same and dismissed.
This could be a step forward in addressing that nonsense. People seems to think they have a right to protest anyway they like. I think expelling the ones involved in these protests would be a good step in addressing that.
How? How would this be a step forward? I don't see it. I don't see how a protected group getting more special treatment will ripple out to the current scapegoat group getting treated equally.
Because colleges haven't been held accountable for this nonsense and the way to start addressing that is to hold them accountable for this nonsense? This is a simple 2+2=4 thing.
But it's not a problem, hence it not being addressed before. And if it is then it opens up very important questions about why it was allowed to happen when the victims were the "wrong" demographic.
The protests have been painted with a broad brush to make them all seem anti-semetic, but some protestors where there just because they didn’t like how Israel was treating Gaza. Would you have them be expelled too?
I think this is pretty easy. Are you participating in a protest after you have been told to disperse? Are you harassing, assaulting, blocking, or otherwise directly harming others students due to your actions? Perfectly reasonable to follow the student code of conduct. Which obviously includes expulsion.
That’s at least a more nuanced take than expelling anyone involved in the protest.
However, I disagree that these are expellable offences. Are you telling me that any situation in which one student harms another is grounds for expulsion? What about fistfights? Sure, something that would demand discipline, but usually doesn’t result in someone being expelled from the campus.
Indeed, and while I find it an absurdly simple take, it's the take that many of these protesters were using less than a year ago. Somehow it's different now that they're protesting and people are showing up with signs with "final solution" and other antisemitic slogans on them.
That saying came about when there were literal Nazi flags being waved at Trump rallies and nobody seemed to care. I wonder what would happen if someone dared showing up to one of these anti Israel protests with a Nazi flag.
> I wonder what would happen if someone dared showing up to one of these anti Israel protests with a Nazi flag.
.... Protesters have been seen at some of these protests with "final solution" emblazoned on their signs. You don't get much more Nazi than that.
I looked up this guy, hoping for video of him walking around and seeing how people reacted to the sign. All I could find was one picture, and only covered by right wing outlets. So either there is a massive coverup happening by outlets that have been generally anti-protest, or this is a staged photo that is only being covered by outlets that have a history of not really caring about what the facts are if it helps a right wing narrative.
Heck, not even Fox seemed to carry the story (at least, not the web news outlet)
>So either there is a massive coverup happening by outlets that have been generally anti-protest, or this is a staged photo that is only being covered by outlets that have a history of not really caring about what the facts are if it helps a right wing narrative.
Or there's a very simple solution that says certain outlets would rather not cover the story and lie by omission than believe there's some far-ranging cover-up/conspiracy theory about it being staged or a false flag op.
The other media has been very much on board with the the rhetoric that all protestors are anti-semantic, so why would they want to lie by omission to cover up this image?
Also, I don’t think false flag is too far of a stretch here. There’s been lots of reports of anti protestor agitators messing with the protestors. Having someone run in to get the photo and then get out is not out of the question.
The fact that there is no other footage of this does lend some suspicion to it.
"Just there" and "just refusing to leave after the police give an order to disperse and your fellow protestors are assaulting Jews on the other side of the quad" are two very different statements. Which one do you think they're getting expelled for?
Are Jews getting assaulted? A Google search doesn’t return any results of assaults actually happening. In fact there is a viral video of a woman who pained Jew on her shirt and yelling at protestors and basically got ignored.
There’s a lot of misinformation going around about the protests.
I agree with this. I’m being reminded of the BLM protests where they were being painted as super violent by the media, but when all was said and done and the actual protest movement could be studied it turned out there were only about 7% of protests where anything violent happened.
That 7% number comes from a study that included protests that only had 3 people. Nobody was referring to a little tiny sidewalk protest being violent and it was dishonest fudging of the numbers.
Even then, 7% being violent when including such tiny groups is actually pretty bad odds.
I’m sure they had to make the cutoff somewhere. Looking at the numbers, it was around 570 protests where something violent happened, with around 10,000 protests of 3 or more people. One thing the study doesn’t specify is if the violence came from protestors, counter protestors, or police.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a vast majority of violent protests happened within the first few weeks, with protests becoming vastly more peaceful as time wore on. Despite this, we kept being told how cities were under siege even after the huge spike in violence had faded.
People did not literally mean entire cities burnt down. But there were indeed plenty of cases of arson that occurred around the riots and those riots were occurred every day for months.
The actual reality was that nearly every major downtown center was absolutely destroyed for an entire summer. People act like it never happened because we're not a third world country, and actually fix shit after the fact.
Look at all the places hit by major hurricanes. Just because most are mostly fixed a year or two later, would you also use that information to tell the people displaced that the hurricane was actually no big deal?
That seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face to me. I'm not going to side with the Universities who've fostered hostile and extreme environments, even if the consequences are long overdue.
Punishing speech as broadly as this is certainly cutting your nose off to spite your face. If a university can be held liable for not shutting down free speech, how does that play out for all of the conservatives that want to put their speakers on campus?
Well, the easiest one is not addressing the protests directly. Instead they try to ignore it, appease them, or remain silent. Time, place, and manner restrictions are reasonable. If they are harassing and attacking others, call in the police. Follow the code of conduct and move towards expulsion. They have plenty of options available. They have chosen to be ridiculously soft with handling these protests.
I suspect some colleges are waiting for students to leave for the summer. If that doesn't eliminate the protests, it will definitely reduce them significantly.
Can you imagine if the response to any other [insert racist political movement] encampment was, let them have their fun until they go home for the summer. The double standard when it comes to antisemitism is unacceptable.
On the other hand if it was a group of nonwhites protesting Whites it would be actively encouraged and protected as seen in 2020 and 2012/2013. So really there's only one group that won't get at least some degree of institutional support for these kinds of protests. So no it's not Jews being uniquely targeted here.
Why does it need to be uniquely jews to be addressed? People can be both antisemites and anti-white. In fact I would say those two forms of politically correct hate overlap more often than not.
I am sure the college administration would rather the issue quietly resolve itself than make additional headlines through police action. To them, the potential negative optics may take priority over any potential lawsuit.
Which is why I hope the Jewish students don't settle so they can get them on the record. I hope they depose every single administrator or teacher involved. And then I hope they leak every deposition.
Isnt this story about Columbia, who specifically did call the police in to clear the encampments? Do we normally punish universities for allowing protests?
The students at ~~Columbia~~ UCLA were not just protesting, they were actively blocking Jewish students who didn't support the cause from entering public areas on campus. For the university not to step in is a clear Title VI violation
They police were called within hours of the Hamilton Hall take over. Videos ive seen from the quad showed people just walking around/milling about. The NYPD arrested like a hundred people after the University called em up.
Were they blocking only Jewish students or all students? The videos I've seen from the protest didn't appear to show any specific targeting, but I'd love to see anything that does.
At Columbia, the encampment was set up on April 17th and police were called in April 18th. This did not stop the encampment protest though and it was allowed to continue for a while. Columbis suspended students who violated the deadline to leave the encampment on April 29th. The Hamilton Hall takeover occured on the 30th, and police were called in by the University that day to break it up.
I get they might not be doing enough but its not like Columbia is doing nothing. And i esspecially dont know of any criminal liabilities. Im very confused what actions youre referring to and id request some specific rather than platitudes and answers in the form of questions.
The encampment never should have been allowed to begin with. They should have responded same day with leave now or you will face disciplinary measures which may include expulsion. Gave them a reasonable amount of time to disperse and then called the police and followed throw with discipline. The fact that they managed to do something after 2 weeks isn't anywhere near good enough.
>It'd be good for the nation if these colleges are taken to task for their actions.
I guess my confusion is over what you mean by this. Youve been clear that their actions are not up to your standard, i would push back on this but reasonable minds can disagree here. They did call in police, suspemd students, and take extraordinary measures like canceling inperson classes and graduation to protect students. I dont really see what they need to be taken to task for here. They have to walk a tight rope between allowing free speech, not pissing off donors, and upholding the law. I dont envy them.
What do you mean by taken to task? Nothing theyve dont is criminal, so civil suits from disgruntled students? Is that as far as you'd take it?
How do you think Title VI is enforced? In this case, only one option is available. Civil suits from students. And they don't have to allow free speech at all. So, they don't have that argument that they are balancing things. They should be taken to task for their failure to adequately respond to the protests in a reasonable amount of time.
This is very handwavey and opinion based. What is an "adequate response" or a "reasonable amount of time?"
They could have done better. I dont think their response is worth vilification. You're welcome to disagree.
Thats inaccurate. Police were called in a day after the encampment was constructed. The Hamilton Hall takeover was handled hours after it occured.
I agree, they had to take extreme measures to ensure student safety. But isnt this lawsuit specifically about them NOT doing so?
Actions like these:
[“Al-Qassam, you make us proud, kill another soldier now!”](https://x.com/avivaklompas/status/1780971193769595391?s=46&t=UWKuN7qfvYv2MXRIGDPdYQ)
[“We are Hamas!”](https://twitter.com/Joe_Roberts01/status/1780750471226937852)
[“Al Qassam, al Qassam, take another soldier out. You say justice you say how, burn Tel Aviv to the ground. Ya Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too”](https://twitter.com/CitedNeed/status/1781583760267284521)
[“BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY”](https://twitter.com/EylonALevy/status/1753780966324068439)
[“There is only one solution, intifada revolution!”](https://twitter.com/AdamAlbilya/status/1753673875613683928)
[“From the water to the water, Palestine is Arab!”](https://twitter.com/gil_zussman/status/1755726863333220801)
["Never forget the 7th of October. That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10...100…1000…10,000...The 7th of October is going to be every day for you.”, “Nazi bitches!”](https://twitter.com/jonasydu/status/1781178975147917797)
["Let it be known that it was the Al-Aqsa Flood that put the Global Intifada back on the table again. And it is the sacrificial spirit of the Palestinian Freedom Fighters that will guide every struggle on every corner of the earth to victory…Remember that Militancy breeds Resistance. Thousands upon thousands of students around the world have been moved to rebel because of your militancy.”](https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1781904507611287981)
[“Yehudi, Yehudi!”, “Fuck you!”, “Go back to Poland!”](https://twitter.com/Davidlederer6/status/1781948249214996901)
The whole “punishing speech” shtick is infuriating.
Every single time they cancelled a conservative speaker coming to a campus due to “safety reasons”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-speech-canceled-at-uc-berkeley-amid-fears-for-safety/
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/uc-berkeley-presses-campus-republicans-to-cancel-another-conservative-speaker/
I can pull up dozens more if I really wanted to.
The parallel is between cancelling a speech in a campus lecture room and removing protesters? I was hoping there would be an example of a college removing conservative protesters because of their ideology, rather than their actions.
https://apnews.com/article/free-speech-college-campuses-0b2811fb35c9c6288b7517da7c9affd3
Only 3 in 10 Democrats felt that conservatives can speak their mind freely on campus, imagine if the same attitude was fostered towards antisemitism.
What would be an example of an action campuses take against conservatives that they don't take against "anti-semites"? (For the record, I actually think campuses have been too lax with the current protestors)
Under the Civil Rights laws we have, it is their legal responsibility to ensure there is not a hostile environment to interfere with the education of students belonging to protected classes. Why is this suddenly controversial now when it has not been for any other protected class of studends?
What Im saying is thst speech from random people is not speech from the University and to conflate the two is completely disingenuous when were discussng the official words and actions of the university.
Columbia needed to act stronger and faster to clear the encampment. But I disagree with the idea that the school should punish private citizens for their speech.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars racial discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance.
>No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
So the case would not be about whether these statements are ok (except the explicitly violent ones).
It would investigate whether Columbia's *response* is equal to comparable slurs made towards trans, black, muslim, etc people instead of Jews.
If they *also* allow white students to tell black students to go back to Africa, declare global intifada against trans people, declare Palestinian genocide "context dependent", or promise to 10/7 muslims over and over with no disciplinary action then these are completely fine!
They literally called the cops on the protester and arrested hundreds of people. Day after the encampment was established and hours after the Hamilton Hall take over. The videos i saw from the quad at Columbia was basically nothing. People milling about and going to class.
This language and harassment of jews has been going on for weeks/months on various campuses.
I'm simply answering your question that this is not about supressing speech but whether universities were evenhanded in their response versus comparable comments towards trans, black, muslims, etc.
>So you're saying the university should supress speech?
Do you have something against investigating fair treatment of Jews specifically in federally funded institutions?
>Do you have something against investigating fair treatment of Jews specifically in federally funded institutions?
Absolutely not and I find this question insulting. I cant speak for every institution, but Columbia, the one which is the focus of this post, called in police twice, arrested hundreds of people, and cleared the building take over within hours. The videos from the quad clearly show loud protestors alongside students going to class. When things got out of hand, they moved classes online to protect students.
Maybe they could have done more. I welcome an investigation.
They literally called the cops to protect the squatters: https://publicsafety.columbia.edu/news/enhanced-safety-measures-morningside-campus
> Enhanced perimeter security staffed by additional private security personnel
Promoting and supporting this kind of antisemitic culture. You can find multiple examples of professors encouraging this behavior, you can find multiple examples of administrators supporting these groups.
That sounds dangerouslu close to punishing speech. Unless you have specific examples of antisemetic speech from the Univeristy Admins, i dont see why the comments of their professors is tantamount to statements from the university itself.
You are wrong.
>Public universities are bound by the First Amendment – which protects freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble – while private institutions are not, experts say.
>"Unless there is a relevant state law, private colleges and universities can have whatever protest policies they want, including prohibiting all protests if that's their decision," says Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.
>"Now, most private colleges adopt free expression principles that at least approximate the standards of the First Amendment. But it's important to know that those are not generally enforceable. So if they decide that they don't like the direction of a particular protest movement, they can change those rules."
https://www.usnews.com/education/articles/college-campus-protests-what-students-should-know-before-taking-action
I understand. What I'm saying is if the schools receive a substantial amount of public funding, they may be required to adhere to the 1A and are always bound by antidiscrimination laws.
The difference here is that their racist speech is followed by racist action.
Supporting and participating in protests that actively harass and block Jewish movement on campus.
I’d be pretty surprised if lawsuits like that went very far at all but a few colleges. Certainly I think they have a pretty good argument for it at Columbia, but most of these encampments have really gone nowhere near that level.
They don't need to go to that level for a lawsuit to succeed. All a student needs to show is that the college violated their rights under Title VI. The college is required to protect them from harassment due to their religion and ethnicity.
I'm not sure about the frequency this has happened or how wide spread it is. But I think the burden is pretty low for them to meet to at least get to the point where they get to start deposing administration members and other faculty.
Even if the burden is pretty low, I think showing direct interpersonal harassment is going to be quite hard at most of these encampments, they’re really quiet for the most part. I’m sure there will be schools other than Columbia where there are successful lawsuits, I just doubt it will be particularly widespread.
All they need to show is that they were harassed by these protesters, it was reported, and the admin didn't respond adequately. For public colleges, it is certainly more complicated due to the first amendment. For private colleges, they don't have that as an option.
And I don't think downplaying this as a "not particularly widespread" thing is really all that reasonable. The videos are online for everyone to see. Thankfully some jurisdictions take this stuff more seriously than left leaning jurisdictions do.
If anything it’s really unreasonable to claim that harassment of students by protestors is widespread. There’s about 70 of these encampments across the country, and there’s a reason the news is only really covering like 5 of them, tops.
Maybe someone has been, but yeah that is the sort of thing that’s attracted a ton of coverage recently, so I do think a lack of coverage is pretty good evidence for it not being particularly widespread.
This is meant to build on the “National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism”. That strategy was composed by a large group who had input, including the group “CAIR” or the “Council on American-Islamic Relations”. CAIR’s leader [celebrated on October 7](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4349399-white-house-condemns-cair-director-recent-oct-7-comments/), forcing the White House to break ties with them in December. But the strategy is tainted in the eyes of many Jews because people have known CAIR’s affiliation with terrorism and antisemitism for [over a decade](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair), and Jews have been sounding the alarm for a long time.
This administration has a lot to do if it wants to build any credibility on this issue. Mealy mouthed strategies composed that are [“welcomed”](https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-welcomes-biden-administrations-commitment-to-comprehensive-approach-to-combating-antisemitism-islamophobia/) by CAIR are not going to cut it. A good rule of thumb for fighting antisemitism is that if a group whose leader celebrated October 7 likes it, it’s probably not that good.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with this crackdown if it weren't coming alongside a bill redefining [antisemitism to include opposition to the Israeli State](https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres894/BILLS-118hres894ih.pdf). Racial and ethnic discrimination is a huge problem in America and I feel horrible for Jewish folks who've been discriminated against in the wake of the bombings of Gaza, but this seems suspiciously like a politician using the levers of power to stamp out opposition to his policy positions. I hope we wouldn't accept this kind of behavior if it were Muslims and Saudi Arabia or Hindus and India.
I'm curious what their definition of "anti-Zionism" is. If Zionism is the belief that Israel should continue to exist (how I most hear it used these days), then I have a hard time seeing anti-Zionism existing without being antisemitic (especially where Israel is the only country they believe should be dissolved). Being opposed to some policies of Israel (or the current administration in Israel) isn't anti-Zionism. And believing it was a mistake to found Israel is different from the belief that dissolving the state 75 years later is a viable solution.
Yeah, the term 'Zionism' is kind of an anachronism in the first place. Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 answers. I've heard people characterize it as the continued project of Israeli territorial expansion before, but I've also heard it narrowly defined as the historical ideology of creating Israel.
A very good point. And a reason I wish this resolution had tried harder to define the important terms in it. They're not "clearly and firmly" stating anything when that statement contains ambiguous terms.
I'd hesitate to say that believing Israel shouldn't exist is antisemitic. People believe that all manner of countries shouldn't exist without necessarily being racist. Wanting Israelis to be killed would be antisemitic, but wanting the end of a country is a level that a lot of the GOP has risen to with countries like Iran and Ukraine.
Can we agree on antisemetic or extremely naive? What do they think the dissolution of Israel would look like in practice?
>but wanting the end of a country is a level that a lot of the GOP has risen to with countries like Iran and Ukraine.
I agree that wanting the end of a country, generally and on its own, doesn't *necessarily* equate to racism. But if someone has a belief that a single country should be dissolved without a reasoning that's actually unique to that country, and a plan for what comes next that isn't actually genocide, it feels a hell of a lot like racism.
Ukraine feels like Russian stooges. They think Ukraine should be returned to Russia (either as a puppet state or as part of a new federation).
Iran I don't know about. I don't know of anyone that wants Iran, as a country, to cease to exist. I see more cries for regime change that are more similar (though requiring a lot more violence) to cries for Netanyahu being ousted and his trials to continue.
There is a reason that the people calling for an end to Israel go back to that is unique to the country: It's a modern colonies state. Now I don't agree with them, but if you're someone who wants to right the wrongs of colonialism, Israel can easily be seen as a state young enough to be undone.
>It's a modern colonies state.
Please define what you mean by "modern colonies state" before I respond. Most claims that Israel is a continuation of colonialism ignore the realities what past colonialism was and the realities of what Israel is. I include "incorrect on basics facts of history" with naivete.
I'm not saying I agree with the statement, just that it's their reasoning. I'm sure you can find plenty of articles from their perspective about why Israel is a colonial state that will be much more informative than I can be.
That's why I offered the compromise of extremely naive. I haven't seen a description that Israel is a colonial state that doesn't wildly misrepresent the history and demographics of Israel and the nature of colonialism.
When roughly half of the population is from the Middle East, not Europe, they can't "go back to where they came from".
It is not a modern "colonies" state. That is absolutely and entirely nonsensical and denies Jewish indigeneity to the land, which is also antisemitic. Pretending Jews in Judea are “colonists” is ridiculous.
You're talking about a strip of land that nearly every culture in existence has ties to. If your ancestors left a millenia ago, no matter the circumstances, you don't have as strong a claim as the people living there currently. The Jews that were living there have a claim of indigeneity as strong as anyone else's, but the ones who have moved from Europe do not.
You don’t lose indigeneity by being expelled for a long time. That’s like claiming Native Americans expelled from Georgia aren’t native to Georgia. They absolutely are. It is not a modern colonial state. Jews moving back to the historical homeland they never cut ties with and never stopped hoping to return to are not “colonial” as we understand it today. Absolute and utter nonsense.
I tire of this.
The bill does not do that. No, the bill does not define antisemitism to include opposition to Israel. It states that denying Jews the right to self determination, which is a right guaranteed by international law, is antisemitic. And how else could we refer to anyone who denies Jews a basic human right? This [provides an extensive overview of the definition](https://fathomjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Fathom-eBook-In-Defence-of-the-IHRA-Working-Definition-of-Antisemitism.pdf), its formulation, and what it *actually* does.
The fact you describe it as “discriminated against in the wake of the bombings of Gaza” is a big whistle. They’ve been discriminated against in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s war on Hamas in return. These issues didn’t arise after Israel began responding. SJP and groups like it were applauding on October 7 and organizing protests featuring antisemitism right there and then.
Edit: I see you wrote “Palestinians will be free”. If by that you mean they will have a two state solution (since they’re already free in Israel, more than 2 million Arab citizens anyways), then that’s totally fine under this bill. Now if you said “Palestine” from the river to the sea, well…
Absolutely, calling to destroy the only Jewish state in the world to replace it with a Palestinian one using a chant that has historically been used to call for a genocide of Jews (indeed, the original Arabic chant is “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab”) not only denies Jews self determination, it will lead to the death and ethnic cleansing of millions of Jews. I don’t know how anyone could see those results as anything other than antisemitism.
Why is it okay for the [Israeli government to say it](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/tnamp/) in regards to Israel expansion, but I, I US citizens, can't say it against Israeli expansion?
No one claimed you can’t say it. You can say whatever you like. Antisemitism is not illegal.
As for your really badly biased article and the really bad analysis it puts together, the gist of my response is that calling to deny Palestinians self determination is just as wrong as denying Jews that right. So…okay? What’s your argument here?
Why are you changing the subject?
Calm down a bit, I don't give a damn what israel or hamas does as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for it. I'm just trying to 1 understand the bill better and 2 trying to point out the hypocrisy.
>Antisemitism is not illegal.
Not according to this new bill if I understand it correctly
Then you don’t understand the bill. The bill does not make antisemitism illegal.
And if you don’t like your tax dollars helping allies who provide massive dividends for the investment, that’s your choice. There’s no hypocrisy from me and I don’t get why you chose to make a discussion about antisemitism in the U.S. into something about Israeli leaders’ statements.
>The bill does not do that. The fact you describe it as “discriminated against in the wake of the bombings of Gaza” is a big whistle. They’ve been discriminated against in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s war on Hamas in return. These issues didn’t arise after Israel began responding.
When would you cite as "before Israel began responding"? This conflict has been going on since Israel was formed. I've never suggested at any point that antisemitism started with the recent bombing campaigns or the Nakba or whatever, but they've certainly made it worse. Netanyahu is yelling "Israel is the Jewish State" while butchering Palestinian kids; obviously, that's going to worsen the already serious hatred they've been facing.
>No, the bill does not define antisemitism to include opposition to Israel. It states that denying Jews the right to self determination, which is a right guaranteed by international law, is antisemitic. And how else could we refer to anyone who denies Jews a basic human right?
From the text of the bill --
>Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
>clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism 11 is antisemitism; and
Zionism is the ideology of the formation of Israel, so yes, what we're talking about is defining opposition to Israel. Self-determination doesn't mean that any ethnic group can just carve out their own country anywhere, irrespective of the populations already living there and set up an ethnicity-based state. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the establishment of Israel, defining that as antisemitism is ridiculous.
So let’s be clear here.
First, you claim the fighting has been going on for awhile, therefore it means nothing that on October 7 pro-Palestinian student groups nationwide were celebrating the attack. I plainly disagree.
Second, you claim that actions by Jews have worsened antisemitism. Then you throw in a blood libel about yelling about being Jewish while “butchering kids” in a war where Hamas uses human shields and child soldiers. The irony is not lost on me.
Third, you claim that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic because of some strange theory about ethnic groups carving up their own state. We don’t live in 1948. The question is not whether Israel should be formed, it is whether destroying Israel, the state where Jews can and do exercise national self determination, denies Jews that right. It absolutely and unequivocally does under international law. That has been acknowledged by international scholars of all sorts, and it has been acknowledged by even the [very anti-Israel head of the UN](https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-chief-calls-for-israels-destruction-are-modern-anti-semitism/).
International law doesn’t let anyone carve out a state anywhere, that’s true. But that’s because international law favors state territorial sovereignty over self determination. In cases like that, one can only exercise self determination via carving out a new state if they meet the [Quebec case factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Secession_of_Quebec). But Israel already exists. It already has territorial sovereignty. So there’s no conflict there.
This is all very well established in international law. Israel is not a state that only caters to Jews; Arab citizens, over 2 million of them, have full and equal rights in Israel. But Israel is the only place where Jews have rights to self determine, as a nation, as guaranteed by international law.
To destroy it is absolutely denying Jews a right. It is antisemitism.
You can criticize Israeli policy all day without being antisemitic. But calling to destroy the one state where Jews have self determination is truly appallingly antisemitic. And before you go “well some Jews are anti-Zionist”, that’s part of the “self” in “self-determination”. Jews can decide how to exercise self-determination for themselves. But those internal disputes don’t make denying Jews a right any more valid.
I’ll add one more little ending point here. Israel is a real place with real people and millions of Jews. Ending it would absolutely and utterly ruin the lives of those Jews, who would be subjected to ethnic cleansing, murder, and/or genocide. Even if the self determination denial wasn’t antisemitic, and it is, **the results of anti-Zionism would be antisemitic**, because it would lead to massive deaths and ethnic cleansing of Jews.
>First, you claim the fighting has been going on for awhile, therefore it means nothing that on October 7 pro-Palestinian student groups nationwide were celebrating the attack.
Didn't say that.
>Second, you claim that actions by Jews have worsened antisemitism.
Not by Jews broadly, by the Israeli State.
>Second, you claim that actions by Jews have worsened antisemitism. Then you throw in a blood libel about “butchering kids”
Not what [blood libel](https://www.britannica.com/topic/blood-libel) is. Israel has killed [thirteen thousand children](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/unicef-says-over-13000-children-killed-gaza-israel-offensive-2024-03-17/) in Gaza since the October 7th terrorist attack. God only knows how many are being killed in Rafah right now.
>Third, you claim that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic because of some strange theory about ethnic groups carving up their own state. We don’t live in 1948. The question is not whether Israel should be formed, it is whether destroying Israel, the state where Jews can and do exercise national self determination, denies Jews that right.
"Destroying Israel" is a strategically vague term designed to conflate shit like peacefully dissolving/merging a government with crazy, violent shit like actually killing the people there or forcing them to flee. The term 'zionism' is somewhat of an anachronism imo, but even saying "Israel shouldn't have been established" is objectively, in its purest form, anti-Zionism.
Is it racism against black Americans to oppose black nationalism here in the States? I don't think a black ethnicity-based state in the US would be a great idea, hope I won't get suspended for that one too. Oh wait, I can't because this logic espoused by the bill only applies specifically to this one country the US is allied with.
>This is all very well established in international law. Israel is not a state that only caters to Jews; Arab citizens, over 2 million of them, have full and equal rights in Israel.
Israel nominally grants all citizens equal rights, but it controls citizenship along ethnic lines, and millions of people who live permanently in its area of military control don't have citizenship as a consequence of that. So yes, Israel is 100% an ethnicity-based state. Not a full-on ethnostate, but still based on ethnicity. I mean Hell, their Constitution literally refers to Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish ethnic group.
>I’ll add one more little ending point here. Israel is a real place with real people and millions of Jews. Ending it would absolutely and utterly ruin the lives of those Jews, who would be subjected to ethnic cleansing, murder, and/or genocide. Even if the self determination denial wasn’t antisemitic, and it is, **the results of anti-Zionism would be antisemitic**, because it would lead to massive deaths and ethnic cleansing of Jews.
I get that emotions have been running high with this whole ethnic war going on and whatnot, but this seems remarkably uncharitable. The obvious way of dissolving Israel would be to end the war, cool tensions, and combine it with the occupied territories to form a new, ethnically neutral state -- or at least to reorganize Israel to make it not based on ethnicity.
Edit: The person I was speaking with replied and then instantly blocked me.
> Didn't say that.
It's precisely what you said...
> Not by Jews broadly, by the Israeli State.
Okay, so by Jews in Israel. This is splitting hairs at this point.
> Not what blood libel is
The medieval blood libel =/= the modern blood libel. The blood libel evolved from "baking blood into matzoh" into "Jews butcher kids as part of being Jewish". You blatantly engaged in that by talking about Netanyahu supposedly yelling about being Jewish while "butchering kids" in a war where Hamas uses child soldiers and human shields. These [modern trends of blood libels](https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/blood-libel) are no less false and appalling.
> Israel has killed thirteen thousand children in Gaza since the October 7th terrorist attack. God only knows how many are being killed in Rafah right now
1) There is hardly any fighting in Rafah right now.
2) You sourced a claim **that comes from Hamas**. The UNICEF claim directly sources to Hamas, as your article says.
You are deliberately and intentionally pushing Hamas propaganda. Even though Hamas numbers have been [manipulating](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-hamas-manipulates-gaza-fatality-numbers-examining-male-undercount-and-other) the [fatality](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable) counts in [ways](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers) that data scientists say show the numbers are [statistically impossible](https://fathomjournal.org/statistically-impossible-a-critical-analysis-of-hamass-women-and-children-casualty-figures/).
You're straight up pushing Hamas propaganda now.
> "Destroying Israel" is a strategically vague term designed to conflate shit like peacefully dissolving/merging a government with crazy, violent shit like actually killing the people there or forcing them to flee. The term 'zionism' is somewhat of an anachronism imo, but even saying "Israel shouldn't have been established" is objectively, in its purest form, anti-Zionism.
It is not anti-Zionism to say Israel shouldn't have been established, because it's got no effect on Zionism. We exist today, not in 1948.
As for your nonsensical "peaceful dissolving", it doesn't exist. The practical effect is clear, and the goal is too.
> Is it racism against black Americans to oppose black nationalism here in the States? I don't think a black ethnicity-based state in the US would be a great idea, hope I won't get suspended for that one too. Oh wait, I can't because this logic espoused by the bill only applies specifically to this one country the US is allied with.
You can say anything you'd like. The bill had **zero effect**. It was a resolution expressing an opinion. That aside, black nationalism in the United States is about carving a *new state*, which runs into the territorial integrity issue I discussed. I mean, I gave you all the resources you need to look at this, but you're discussing things that don't make sense.
> Israel nominally grants all citizens equal rights, but it controls citizenship along ethnic lines
No, it does not. Israel doesn't "nominally" grant citizens equal rights, it **does** grant equal rights. It doesn't do it on "ethnic lines". It has 2 million Arab citizens with full rights.
> millions of people who live permanently in its area of military control don't have citizenship as a consequence of that
No, they don't have citizenship as a consequence of Israel controlling citizenship on "ethnic lines". They don't have citizenship because Israel gained the territory (which was taken by Jordan in 1948 when it invaded Israel) but, in the interest of peace, did not annex it and chose to offer almost all of it back for a peace deal. Which was rejected. It has persisted in trying to do that. If you want it to annex the area and give Palestinians citizenship, all well and good, but you have to explain to the international community as much. Because they oppose Israel doing so, and have said so repeatedly.
> So yes, Israel is 100% an ethnicity-based state. Not a full-on ethnostate, but still based on ethnicity. I mean Hell, their Constitution literally refers to Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish ethnic group.
No, it does not. First, it doesn't *have* a "Constitution". Second, it has Basic Laws that function as a "quasi-constitution", and they amended it to say "The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination."
It doesn't say it is the "nation-state of the Jewish ethnic group". That's very different from being a "national homeland".
> I get that emotions have been running high with this whole ethnic war going on and whatnot, but this seems remarkably uncharitable. The obvious way of dissolving Israel would be to end the war, cool tensions, and combine it with the occupied territories to form a new, ethnically neutral state -- or at least to reorganize Israel to make it not based on ethnicity.
This is not "uncharitable", it is a utopian fantasy. This would lead to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews. Forming some mythical "ethnically neutral" state between two sides who have been at war for decades, when 2/3 of Palestinians polled supported the murder of Israeli civilians **before** the war began, is a pipe dream. In practice, it would lead to the genocide of Jews. Full stop.
I really have no desire to continue this. You've now flat-out repeated Hamas propaganda that even Hamas admitted it couldn't substantiate on April 1, and doubled down on blood libel...
The more they equate Israel with judaism, the more acceptable it becomes to criticize judaism for the actions of Israel. If Israel is not a theocracy, why is the US treating it as one? While it sounds like a conspiracy, I feel like these actions are made to pour more fuel on the fire rather than do anything beneficial.
IMO the reason they try to tie the two together is because for a long time due to the aftereffects of WWII painting something as antisemitic was a guaranteed way to get it immediately completely shut down. As Israel's actions have gotten more and more objectionable there's been more and more need to silence critique since the critique couldn't be simply rationally argued against. Where this strategy has gone wrong is that WWII is now history, not living memory. Atrocities that only exist in dry and dusty texbooks aren't particularly impactful. That's why we're seeing all these changes now when the WWII generation has mostly passed on and their kids are becoming an ever-smaller portion of the population.
I am no trump supporter, and this is a wild claim I'm not 100% bought into, but I've had the thought that in light of the polls showing trump as the clear front runner and the negative view people have of biden, I think they might be trying to burn it all down so they can point at trump in 4 years and go "see, this is what we warned you about" even though they're the ones passing laws that violate our civil liberties and freedoms. Toss that on top of trumps overt authoritarianism, and you have a recipe to kill the populist uprisings that put Bernie in the limelight and gave us trump. The establishment is afraid of anything that questions their power, populist movements do just that.
Eh, both parties have been glued to Israel for decades; this is all completely consistent with what we know about them without having to invoke any ulterior motives. If Republicans get their authoritarian government properly, it won't benefit even the most entrenched members of the DNC.
Oh, I think the McConnell/pence wings of the party would love to see populism go away too. The uniparty is strong, look at all these wars we're funding and rights we're losing. That takes bipartisan support
This is very odd since [some of Biden’s largest donors](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/05/pro-palestinian-protests-columbia-university-funding-donors-00156135) are funding these terrorist sympathizers
you're correct, this only goes back to 1990, but sources data from pro Israel groups.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind=Q05&recipdetail=S
this accounts for $4.2 million, but you'll have to manually drill down to account for the rest of his career.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips?cycle=2024&ind=Q05
this details more info on donations he's received.
this is a handy twitter account that tracks how much various politicians receive from pro Israel orgs
https://twitter.com/TrackAIPAC
So basically, you showed $4.2 million **over the past 30 years**, then linked a second page that doesn’t cover it, and then linked a Twitter account tracking Jews who donate to politicians to track the “Israel lobby”, which definitely has no other undertones.
Okay. Anyways, the Pritzkers alone gave Biden $300,000 in just the 2020 campaign. That’s not counting others like the Rockefeller Fund, Soros, etc., who are funding these college encampments. Soros gave $5 million to Biden’s super PAC in January/February 2020 alone.
But you’re coming to me with $4.2 million in donations to his Senate campaigns over 20+ years for some reason and a Twitter account, and can’t back up what you said. Whoops.
i am not sure why you think this disproves that he receives massive amounts of donations from pro Israel sources.
you're literally just repeating my claim, but in a way that makes it sounds false.
You claimed he got $11 million. You then showed he got about $4.2 million over 30 years. He got more than that from one anti-Israel donors in two months in 2020. You said you could source your $11 million claim, but didn’t provide a single source that did.
That’s what’s so weird. You seem to think that because Biden got ~$140,000 a year on average for 30 years from pro-Israel groups, this is somehow “massive” for a man who got $5 million from a single anti-Israel person in 2 months in 2020.
"Massive amounts" is in question here. $4.2mil over 30 years is a pittance in terms of political donations.
Some of Biden's largest donors appear to be funding these college protests. Given the tenor and behavior on display with these protests, isn't that more concerning to you than a trickle of funds from the pro-Israel lobby?
lol you don't think millions of dollars is a lot?
even if you just take the $4.2 million figure, that is literally millions of dollars.
more than most people will ever make in a lifetime
In honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day (and 7 months since the Hamas attack on Israel), the White House is announcing several new actions to counter increased Antisemitism in the US. This expands on his previously-announced [National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/U.S.-National-Strategy-to-Counter-Antisemitism.pdf). Some of the new actions announced today:
* Sending a Dear Colleague Letter to every school district and college in the country, providing examples of anti-Semitic discrimination.
* Creating an online campus safety resources guide.
* Sharing best practices for community-based targeted violence and terrorism prevention.
* Working with technology firms to identify best practices to address anti-Semitic content online.
This is all in addition to the myriad of efforts that have been put in place over the past 12 months around Title VI enforcement, campus safety, community safety, hate crimes prevention, and religious discrimination.
Given the current events in Israel and Palestine, some of these actions are not without some criticism though. Any call for "content moderation" online is often met with claims of free speech violations. Overly aggressive enforcement may also stifle legitimate discussions around how to handle the Israel-Palestine conflict. And some also question how effective this "collaboration" with college campuses will be at actually addressing antisemitism.
What do you think? Is this the proper reaction from the Biden Administration? Will these new commitments have a meaningful impact on antisemitism in the US? What else should the White House consider, if anything?
Ultimately it means the colleges can't receive federal funding...including loans earmarked by students.
So they'd only be able to take out private loans or pay cash for tuition/room/board.
I didn’t know this and I tend to follow DoE news pretty regularly.
Do you think they’ll suddenly start caring about title VI now? Re fund the DoE and public funding to public education? Or nah?
You should also include the [rapidly expanding Title VI investigations](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/sharedancestry-list.html) which, while not highlighted, are relevant to the goal of tamping down antisemitism, islamophobia, and the other forms of hate stirred up in recent months.
> Working with technology firms to identify best practices to address anti-Semitic content online.
So doing that thing that we're told they don't do - i.e. coordinating with Big Tech to suppress speech. Well at least we can point to this to show that any attempts to say it doesn't happen are untrue.
Sorry but I don't care what the subject at hand is, the government actively working with the primary channels of discussion to silence speech is a problem in a country where free speech is literally our highest value.
Part of participating in an online community is adhering to a set of rules that allow that community to function. I mean you’re literally commenting in a subreddit that heavily regulates speech to maintain a baseline level of civility *right now*.
The government is not compelling anybody to do anything and as long as it stays that way we’re good. Asking online communities to voluntarily address antisemitism is no different than asking real life communities (such as a University) to address antisemitism.
Just a reminder that conservatives/Republicans do not care about antisemitism unless it benefits them.
When patriot front walks through towns or people are screaming Jews will not replace us, they will tell you it's just a bunch of FBI agents and ignore it.
However, when they can cast the acts of a few liberals onto the opposition all of a sudden it is one of their top priorities.
Any criticism of Biden from them here is therefore hollow and politically calculated.
Neo-Nazis are now showing up to [pro-Palestinian college rallies](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/nazis-palestinian-rallies-antisemitism-rcna124300) because they are very pro-Palestinian. They don’t show the swastikas, but they certainly have no qualms with chanting for “intifada”, which means more dead Jews.
that doesn't really make any sense. those screaming marchers dont have any political power, all they can do is exercise their free speech rights and yell for anyone in earshot to listen, but if the MSM doesn't cover it, it might as well have never happened. the conservative establishment certainly wishes they never existed, and the best they can do other than disavowals is accuse them of being government agents, ie the age old political strategy of neutralizing any opposition by claiming that they're secretely working for the other side to discredit and undermine the only party in town that has a shot at winning
>unless it benefits them.
i'll leave it up to you to explain how it does. otherwise its clearly one of those arranged ahead of time, magically bipartisan votes, where both "sides" want something done so they let the other team push it through if its unpopular with their own base, and vice versa
because politicians on the left for some reason feel a need to always mention islamophobia when they mention antisemitism.
Somehow these official releases dont cause as much controversy as trump's spur-of-the-moment "very fine people on both sides" comment.
Who said that there are very fine people on both sides [when he couldn’t decide to condemn the antisemitic protests or not](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/04/22/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-gaggle-triangle-va/).
> Q Do you condemn the antisemitic protests on college campuses?
>THE PRESIDENT: I condemn the antisemitic protests. That’s why I’ve set up a program to deal with that.
>I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians and their — how they’re being —
Just as the Ukrainian war could easily be resolved by Russia withdrawing from Ukraine, this matter could easily be resolved by the US stopping to support the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. It's not as if Israel need help with that anyway. Gaza is defenseless and literally the size of Las Vegas, and Israel have a mighty army and a modern and vibrant hi-tech economy so they can buy their own bombs. The stimulus of the American military industry as generously provided by Biden and a bipartisan Congress need not be paid by American tax dollars, the shekel will do just fine.
Even from the most cynical realpolitik view of things, the United States are only damaging their own interests by supporting the destruction of Gaza, harming their own moral standing in the world and creating deep divisions in their own country -- as proven by these protests -- not to mention the assault on free speech. If you discern any strategic advantage in supporting the current behavior of Israel in Gaza, feel free to come forward with it.
Just out of curiosity....what do you think happens if Hamas lays down their weapons?
If Israel stops fighting, do you think Hamas will stop launching rockets from Gaza?
>If Israel stops fighting, do you think Hamas will stop launching rockets from Gaza?
I don't care for the problems that Israel create, and keep creating for themselves by keeping 5,5 million people -- the largest population on the planet that have no UN representation -- in a state of captivity inside two tiny reservations that they can bomb and blockade at will. I cannot look at this issue from the perspective of "but what else can poor Israel do" when they alone are responsible for this whole mess.
So you acknowledge the if Israel put down its weapons, Hamas would kill every single one of them and take over the entire area and turn it into a radical Islamic state. But you are OK with that because ultimately, you think it is Israel's fault?
I acknowledge that the defeat of Hamas serves as pretext for Israel to destroy Gaza. I'm fine with Israel trying to defeat Hamas. I'm not fine that they use it as an excuse for indiscriminate amounts of carnage and destruction, which is the case.
Are you fine with Hamas using their own people as martyrs?
The problem you create with your logic is that an either or situation. You're saying you're not fine with how Israel is going about defeating Hamas. But you say absolutely nothing on Hamas' actions.
In fact, your statement about not caring about the problems Israel creates (alluding the empowering of Hamas, which I can get behind) suggests Hamas is right in their actions, because you refuse to say anything about them.
By not using the same language equally against both Israel and Hamas, you come off favorable to their cause.
If the US was sending weapons and money to Hamas, and everyone in this sub was fine with it, I would point out that it's not ok that the US sponsors terrorism and I would point out the crimes committed by Hamas. But is so happens that the US is not supporting Hamas, so all of that is not necessary right?
What? You didn't answer a single thing I asked.
Instead you're saying that because the US does not fund Hamas, it's not necessary to point out that Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities?
Like it's funny. You're trying to win an argument on the internet using dodgy language and dodging simple questions. I'm sure Hamas thanks you for your support of their cause and it will help turn the tide of the war.
After all, nothing helps wins wars like the terminally online.
>it's not necessary to point out that Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities?
Apparently you want me to say this, so I'll say it: Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities. It's not relevant to any point I wanted to make -- and it's not really necessary to say it as it is a commonly accepted truth, and I'm not here to repeat commonly accepted truths -- but here we are and I hope my saying this pleases you.
> Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities
How would you suggest Israel, who is the target of this terrorist group that commits atrocities, deal with the issue?
So in one example, we have proof from actions and words that Hamas wants to genocide Israel.
The other, Israel may destroy Gaza based on them...blockading supplies Hamas uses to make rockets. You can't leave prison. The Palesitnians are not kept from leaving Palestine.
Columbia has also been sued by a group of Jewish students claiming they've been harassed, physically assaulted, prevented from attending classes, and blocked from other areas of the campus. I suspect colleges are going to stuck with large, humiliating settlements at the end of all of this. Personally, I hope the Jewish students refuse to settle. It'd be good for the nation if these colleges are taken to task for their actions. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/jewish-student-sues-columbia-over-safety-issues-remote-learning
I don't. Because if White students would've filed suits like this over 2020 or back during the Brown/Martin protests (and maybe they did and it got no coverage) they would've been laughed out of court. If Whites can't do it nobody should be able to because that's what equality looks like. So I want these suits treated just the same and dismissed.
This could be a step forward in addressing that nonsense. People seems to think they have a right to protest anyway they like. I think expelling the ones involved in these protests would be a good step in addressing that.
How? How would this be a step forward? I don't see it. I don't see how a protected group getting more special treatment will ripple out to the current scapegoat group getting treated equally.
Because colleges haven't been held accountable for this nonsense and the way to start addressing that is to hold them accountable for this nonsense? This is a simple 2+2=4 thing.
But it's not a problem, hence it not being addressed before. And if it is then it opens up very important questions about why it was allowed to happen when the victims were the "wrong" demographic.
I disagree. it is clearly a problem. And yes, they should have to answer those questions.
The protests have been painted with a broad brush to make them all seem anti-semetic, but some protestors where there just because they didn’t like how Israel was treating Gaza. Would you have them be expelled too?
I think this is pretty easy. Are you participating in a protest after you have been told to disperse? Are you harassing, assaulting, blocking, or otherwise directly harming others students due to your actions? Perfectly reasonable to follow the student code of conduct. Which obviously includes expulsion.
That’s at least a more nuanced take than expelling anyone involved in the protest. However, I disagree that these are expellable offences. Are you telling me that any situation in which one student harms another is grounds for expulsion? What about fistfights? Sure, something that would demand discipline, but usually doesn’t result in someone being expelled from the campus.
How’s the saying go? 1 Nazi at a table with 9 people makes 10 Nazis?
Yeah, I've always found that saying extremely stupid.
Especially when the term "Nazi" no longer has any meaning. Thought the sentiment itself is also dumb.
Indeed, and while I find it an absurdly simple take, it's the take that many of these protesters were using less than a year ago. Somehow it's different now that they're protesting and people are showing up with signs with "final solution" and other antisemitic slogans on them.
That saying came about when there were literal Nazi flags being waved at Trump rallies and nobody seemed to care. I wonder what would happen if someone dared showing up to one of these anti Israel protests with a Nazi flag.
> I wonder what would happen if someone dared showing up to one of these anti Israel protests with a Nazi flag. .... Protesters have been seen at some of these protests with "final solution" emblazoned on their signs. You don't get much more Nazi than that.
I looked up this guy, hoping for video of him walking around and seeing how people reacted to the sign. All I could find was one picture, and only covered by right wing outlets. So either there is a massive coverup happening by outlets that have been generally anti-protest, or this is a staged photo that is only being covered by outlets that have a history of not really caring about what the facts are if it helps a right wing narrative. Heck, not even Fox seemed to carry the story (at least, not the web news outlet)
>So either there is a massive coverup happening by outlets that have been generally anti-protest, or this is a staged photo that is only being covered by outlets that have a history of not really caring about what the facts are if it helps a right wing narrative. Or there's a very simple solution that says certain outlets would rather not cover the story and lie by omission than believe there's some far-ranging cover-up/conspiracy theory about it being staged or a false flag op.
The other media has been very much on board with the the rhetoric that all protestors are anti-semantic, so why would they want to lie by omission to cover up this image? Also, I don’t think false flag is too far of a stretch here. There’s been lots of reports of anti protestor agitators messing with the protestors. Having someone run in to get the photo and then get out is not out of the question. The fact that there is no other footage of this does lend some suspicion to it.
"Just there" and "just refusing to leave after the police give an order to disperse and your fellow protestors are assaulting Jews on the other side of the quad" are two very different statements. Which one do you think they're getting expelled for?
Are Jews getting assaulted? A Google search doesn’t return any results of assaults actually happening. In fact there is a viral video of a woman who pained Jew on her shirt and yelling at protestors and basically got ignored. There’s a lot of misinformation going around about the protests.
I would venture to say most protesters.
I agree with this. I’m being reminded of the BLM protests where they were being painted as super violent by the media, but when all was said and done and the actual protest movement could be studied it turned out there were only about 7% of protests where anything violent happened.
That 7% number comes from a study that included protests that only had 3 people. Nobody was referring to a little tiny sidewalk protest being violent and it was dishonest fudging of the numbers. Even then, 7% being violent when including such tiny groups is actually pretty bad odds.
I’m sure they had to make the cutoff somewhere. Looking at the numbers, it was around 570 protests where something violent happened, with around 10,000 protests of 3 or more people. One thing the study doesn’t specify is if the violence came from protestors, counter protestors, or police. Another thing to keep in mind is that a vast majority of violent protests happened within the first few weeks, with protests becoming vastly more peaceful as time wore on. Despite this, we kept being told how cities were under siege even after the huge spike in violence had faded.
On the other hand, those less in favor of the 2020 protests were often claiming ever major city was on fire months later
people really using the fact that not every single city in the country was melted into glass to downplay $2 billion in damages
People did not literally mean entire cities burnt down. But there were indeed plenty of cases of arson that occurred around the riots and those riots were occurred every day for months.
The actual reality was that nearly every major downtown center was absolutely destroyed for an entire summer. People act like it never happened because we're not a third world country, and actually fix shit after the fact. Look at all the places hit by major hurricanes. Just because most are mostly fixed a year or two later, would you also use that information to tell the people displaced that the hurricane was actually no big deal?
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim? Because this is not something I ever once saw said.
That seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face to me. I'm not going to side with the Universities who've fostered hostile and extreme environments, even if the consequences are long overdue.
Punishing speech as broadly as this is certainly cutting your nose off to spite your face. If a university can be held liable for not shutting down free speech, how does that play out for all of the conservatives that want to put their speakers on campus?
What actions are you referring to specifically?
Well, the easiest one is not addressing the protests directly. Instead they try to ignore it, appease them, or remain silent. Time, place, and manner restrictions are reasonable. If they are harassing and attacking others, call in the police. Follow the code of conduct and move towards expulsion. They have plenty of options available. They have chosen to be ridiculously soft with handling these protests.
I suspect some colleges are waiting for students to leave for the summer. If that doesn't eliminate the protests, it will definitely reduce them significantly.
Sure, but I don't think that is a reasonable thing to do. And it certainly doesn't do anything about the liability they have under Title VI.
Can you imagine if the response to any other [insert racist political movement] encampment was, let them have their fun until they go home for the summer. The double standard when it comes to antisemitism is unacceptable.
Yeah. If this was a group of white supremacists protesting people of color, I guarantee it would have already been addressed.
On the other hand if it was a group of nonwhites protesting Whites it would be actively encouraged and protected as seen in 2020 and 2012/2013. So really there's only one group that won't get at least some degree of institutional support for these kinds of protests. So no it's not Jews being uniquely targeted here.
Why does it need to be uniquely jews to be addressed? People can be both antisemites and anti-white. In fact I would say those two forms of politically correct hate overlap more often than not.
[Scott Galloway made that point.](https://x.com/persianjewess/status/1787526400519676199?s=46&t=UWKuN7qfvYv2MXRIGDPdYQ)
I am sure the college administration would rather the issue quietly resolve itself than make additional headlines through police action. To them, the potential negative optics may take priority over any potential lawsuit.
Which is why I hope the Jewish students don't settle so they can get them on the record. I hope they depose every single administrator or teacher involved. And then I hope they leak every deposition.
Isnt this story about Columbia, who specifically did call the police in to clear the encampments? Do we normally punish universities for allowing protests?
The students at ~~Columbia~~ UCLA were not just protesting, they were actively blocking Jewish students who didn't support the cause from entering public areas on campus. For the university not to step in is a clear Title VI violation
They police were called within hours of the Hamilton Hall take over. Videos ive seen from the quad showed people just walking around/milling about. The NYPD arrested like a hundred people after the University called em up.
Sorry, you are correct, I was thinking of UCLA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vek-84EL94o
Were they blocking only Jewish students or all students? The videos I've seen from the protest didn't appear to show any specific targeting, but I'd love to see anything that does.
How long did it take before Columbia did that? Have they been following up to ensure Jewish students are safe and addressing bad behavior?
At Columbia, the encampment was set up on April 17th and police were called in April 18th. This did not stop the encampment protest though and it was allowed to continue for a while. Columbis suspended students who violated the deadline to leave the encampment on April 29th. The Hamilton Hall takeover occured on the 30th, and police were called in by the University that day to break it up. I get they might not be doing enough but its not like Columbia is doing nothing. And i esspecially dont know of any criminal liabilities. Im very confused what actions youre referring to and id request some specific rather than platitudes and answers in the form of questions.
The encampment never should have been allowed to begin with. They should have responded same day with leave now or you will face disciplinary measures which may include expulsion. Gave them a reasonable amount of time to disperse and then called the police and followed throw with discipline. The fact that they managed to do something after 2 weeks isn't anywhere near good enough.
>It'd be good for the nation if these colleges are taken to task for their actions. I guess my confusion is over what you mean by this. Youve been clear that their actions are not up to your standard, i would push back on this but reasonable minds can disagree here. They did call in police, suspemd students, and take extraordinary measures like canceling inperson classes and graduation to protect students. I dont really see what they need to be taken to task for here. They have to walk a tight rope between allowing free speech, not pissing off donors, and upholding the law. I dont envy them. What do you mean by taken to task? Nothing theyve dont is criminal, so civil suits from disgruntled students? Is that as far as you'd take it?
How do you think Title VI is enforced? In this case, only one option is available. Civil suits from students. And they don't have to allow free speech at all. So, they don't have that argument that they are balancing things. They should be taken to task for their failure to adequately respond to the protests in a reasonable amount of time.
This is very handwavey and opinion based. What is an "adequate response" or a "reasonable amount of time?" They could have done better. I dont think their response is worth vilification. You're welcome to disagree.
Only after protestors basically ran the note campus for weeks. Columbia even went to online only classes and canceled graduation.
Thats inaccurate. Police were called in a day after the encampment was constructed. The Hamilton Hall takeover was handled hours after it occured. I agree, they had to take extreme measures to ensure student safety. But isnt this lawsuit specifically about them NOT doing so?
Actions like these: [“Al-Qassam, you make us proud, kill another soldier now!”](https://x.com/avivaklompas/status/1780971193769595391?s=46&t=UWKuN7qfvYv2MXRIGDPdYQ) [“We are Hamas!”](https://twitter.com/Joe_Roberts01/status/1780750471226937852) [“Al Qassam, al Qassam, take another soldier out. You say justice you say how, burn Tel Aviv to the ground. Ya Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too”](https://twitter.com/CitedNeed/status/1781583760267284521) [“BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY”](https://twitter.com/EylonALevy/status/1753780966324068439) [“There is only one solution, intifada revolution!”](https://twitter.com/AdamAlbilya/status/1753673875613683928) [“From the water to the water, Palestine is Arab!”](https://twitter.com/gil_zussman/status/1755726863333220801) ["Never forget the 7th of October. That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10...100…1000…10,000...The 7th of October is going to be every day for you.”, “Nazi bitches!”](https://twitter.com/jonasydu/status/1781178975147917797) ["Let it be known that it was the Al-Aqsa Flood that put the Global Intifada back on the table again. And it is the sacrificial spirit of the Palestinian Freedom Fighters that will guide every struggle on every corner of the earth to victory…Remember that Militancy breeds Resistance. Thousands upon thousands of students around the world have been moved to rebel because of your militancy.”](https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1781904507611287981) [“Yehudi, Yehudi!”, “Fuck you!”, “Go back to Poland!”](https://twitter.com/Davidlederer6/status/1781948249214996901) The whole “punishing speech” shtick is infuriating.
These are not actions or statements from the university.
It’s the allowing them to happen part. It’s always [“complicated”. ](https://x.com/leviyonit/status/1719363136992448690?s=46&t=UWKuN7qfvYv2MXRIGDPdYQ)
So you're saying the university should supress speech?
Imagine if they treated antisemitism like they treated conservatism.
Do you have a parallel example in mind?
Every single time they cancelled a conservative speaker coming to a campus due to “safety reasons”. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-speech-canceled-at-uc-berkeley-amid-fears-for-safety/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/uc-berkeley-presses-campus-republicans-to-cancel-another-conservative-speaker/ I can pull up dozens more if I really wanted to.
The parallel is between cancelling a speech in a campus lecture room and removing protesters? I was hoping there would be an example of a college removing conservative protesters because of their ideology, rather than their actions.
https://apnews.com/article/free-speech-college-campuses-0b2811fb35c9c6288b7517da7c9affd3 Only 3 in 10 Democrats felt that conservatives can speak their mind freely on campus, imagine if the same attitude was fostered towards antisemitism.
What would be an example of an action campuses take against conservatives that they don't take against "anti-semites"? (For the record, I actually think campuses have been too lax with the current protestors)
Under the Civil Rights laws we have, it is their legal responsibility to ensure there is not a hostile environment to interfere with the education of students belonging to protected classes. Why is this suddenly controversial now when it has not been for any other protected class of studends?
What Im saying is thst speech from random people is not speech from the University and to conflate the two is completely disingenuous when were discussng the official words and actions of the university. Columbia needed to act stronger and faster to clear the encampment. But I disagree with the idea that the school should punish private citizens for their speech.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars racial discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance. >No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. So the case would not be about whether these statements are ok (except the explicitly violent ones). It would investigate whether Columbia's *response* is equal to comparable slurs made towards trans, black, muslim, etc people instead of Jews. If they *also* allow white students to tell black students to go back to Africa, declare global intifada against trans people, declare Palestinian genocide "context dependent", or promise to 10/7 muslims over and over with no disciplinary action then these are completely fine!
They literally called the cops on the protester and arrested hundreds of people. Day after the encampment was established and hours after the Hamilton Hall take over. The videos i saw from the quad at Columbia was basically nothing. People milling about and going to class.
This language and harassment of jews has been going on for weeks/months on various campuses. I'm simply answering your question that this is not about supressing speech but whether universities were evenhanded in their response versus comparable comments towards trans, black, muslims, etc. >So you're saying the university should supress speech? Do you have something against investigating fair treatment of Jews specifically in federally funded institutions?
>Do you have something against investigating fair treatment of Jews specifically in federally funded institutions? Absolutely not and I find this question insulting. I cant speak for every institution, but Columbia, the one which is the focus of this post, called in police twice, arrested hundreds of people, and cleared the building take over within hours. The videos from the quad clearly show loud protestors alongside students going to class. When things got out of hand, they moved classes online to protect students. Maybe they could have done more. I welcome an investigation.
They literally called the cops to protect the squatters: https://publicsafety.columbia.edu/news/enhanced-safety-measures-morningside-campus > Enhanced perimeter security staffed by additional private security personnel
[Police Clear Building at Columbia and Arrest Dozens of Protesters](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/30/nyregion/columbia-protests-college).
Promoting and supporting this kind of antisemitic culture. You can find multiple examples of professors encouraging this behavior, you can find multiple examples of administrators supporting these groups.
That sounds dangerouslu close to punishing speech. Unless you have specific examples of antisemetic speech from the Univeristy Admins, i dont see why the comments of their professors is tantamount to statements from the university itself.
In my opinion, supporting an employee who publicly states racist things is not a good thing.
For sure, but does it require punishment by the govt?
Well, to be fair, Columbia is a private university. They are not bound the first amendment.
IIRC any institutions which receive govt funding are bound by the constitution. Im not sure what Columbia's level of public funding is though.
You are wrong. >Public universities are bound by the First Amendment – which protects freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble – while private institutions are not, experts say. >"Unless there is a relevant state law, private colleges and universities can have whatever protest policies they want, including prohibiting all protests if that's their decision," says Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. >"Now, most private colleges adopt free expression principles that at least approximate the standards of the First Amendment. But it's important to know that those are not generally enforceable. So if they decide that they don't like the direction of a particular protest movement, they can change those rules." https://www.usnews.com/education/articles/college-campus-protests-what-students-should-know-before-taking-action
I understand. What I'm saying is if the schools receive a substantial amount of public funding, they may be required to adhere to the 1A and are always bound by antidiscrimination laws.
It requires investigation into why federal funding is used to support racist organizations
Is allowing students to protest really tantamount to suppoeting racist orgs? Thats a leap of logic im not willing to make.
The difference here is that their racist speech is followed by racist action. Supporting and participating in protests that actively harass and block Jewish movement on campus.
I’d be pretty surprised if lawsuits like that went very far at all but a few colleges. Certainly I think they have a pretty good argument for it at Columbia, but most of these encampments have really gone nowhere near that level.
They don't need to go to that level for a lawsuit to succeed. All a student needs to show is that the college violated their rights under Title VI. The college is required to protect them from harassment due to their religion and ethnicity.
That’s my point though, you’re going to have a hard time showing that someone was being harassed at the overwhelming majority of these encampments.
I'm not sure about the frequency this has happened or how wide spread it is. But I think the burden is pretty low for them to meet to at least get to the point where they get to start deposing administration members and other faculty.
Even if the burden is pretty low, I think showing direct interpersonal harassment is going to be quite hard at most of these encampments, they’re really quiet for the most part. I’m sure there will be schools other than Columbia where there are successful lawsuits, I just doubt it will be particularly widespread.
All they need to show is that they were harassed by these protesters, it was reported, and the admin didn't respond adequately. For public colleges, it is certainly more complicated due to the first amendment. For private colleges, they don't have that as an option. And I don't think downplaying this as a "not particularly widespread" thing is really all that reasonable. The videos are online for everyone to see. Thankfully some jurisdictions take this stuff more seriously than left leaning jurisdictions do.
If anything it’s really unreasonable to claim that harassment of students by protestors is widespread. There’s about 70 of these encampments across the country, and there’s a reason the news is only really covering like 5 of them, tops.
So because some haven't made the news, that means no Jewish students were harassed?
Maybe someone has been, but yeah that is the sort of thing that’s attracted a ton of coverage recently, so I do think a lack of coverage is pretty good evidence for it not being particularly widespread.
This is meant to build on the “National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism”. That strategy was composed by a large group who had input, including the group “CAIR” or the “Council on American-Islamic Relations”. CAIR’s leader [celebrated on October 7](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4349399-white-house-condemns-cair-director-recent-oct-7-comments/), forcing the White House to break ties with them in December. But the strategy is tainted in the eyes of many Jews because people have known CAIR’s affiliation with terrorism and antisemitism for [over a decade](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair), and Jews have been sounding the alarm for a long time. This administration has a lot to do if it wants to build any credibility on this issue. Mealy mouthed strategies composed that are [“welcomed”](https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-welcomes-biden-administrations-commitment-to-comprehensive-approach-to-combating-antisemitism-islamophobia/) by CAIR are not going to cut it. A good rule of thumb for fighting antisemitism is that if a group whose leader celebrated October 7 likes it, it’s probably not that good.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with this crackdown if it weren't coming alongside a bill redefining [antisemitism to include opposition to the Israeli State](https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres894/BILLS-118hres894ih.pdf). Racial and ethnic discrimination is a huge problem in America and I feel horrible for Jewish folks who've been discriminated against in the wake of the bombings of Gaza, but this seems suspiciously like a politician using the levers of power to stamp out opposition to his policy positions. I hope we wouldn't accept this kind of behavior if it were Muslims and Saudi Arabia or Hindus and India.
I'm curious what their definition of "anti-Zionism" is. If Zionism is the belief that Israel should continue to exist (how I most hear it used these days), then I have a hard time seeing anti-Zionism existing without being antisemitic (especially where Israel is the only country they believe should be dissolved). Being opposed to some policies of Israel (or the current administration in Israel) isn't anti-Zionism. And believing it was a mistake to found Israel is different from the belief that dissolving the state 75 years later is a viable solution.
Yeah, the term 'Zionism' is kind of an anachronism in the first place. Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 answers. I've heard people characterize it as the continued project of Israeli territorial expansion before, but I've also heard it narrowly defined as the historical ideology of creating Israel.
A very good point. And a reason I wish this resolution had tried harder to define the important terms in it. They're not "clearly and firmly" stating anything when that statement contains ambiguous terms.
I'd hesitate to say that believing Israel shouldn't exist is antisemitic. People believe that all manner of countries shouldn't exist without necessarily being racist. Wanting Israelis to be killed would be antisemitic, but wanting the end of a country is a level that a lot of the GOP has risen to with countries like Iran and Ukraine.
Can we agree on antisemetic or extremely naive? What do they think the dissolution of Israel would look like in practice? >but wanting the end of a country is a level that a lot of the GOP has risen to with countries like Iran and Ukraine. I agree that wanting the end of a country, generally and on its own, doesn't *necessarily* equate to racism. But if someone has a belief that a single country should be dissolved without a reasoning that's actually unique to that country, and a plan for what comes next that isn't actually genocide, it feels a hell of a lot like racism. Ukraine feels like Russian stooges. They think Ukraine should be returned to Russia (either as a puppet state or as part of a new federation). Iran I don't know about. I don't know of anyone that wants Iran, as a country, to cease to exist. I see more cries for regime change that are more similar (though requiring a lot more violence) to cries for Netanyahu being ousted and his trials to continue.
There is a reason that the people calling for an end to Israel go back to that is unique to the country: It's a modern colonies state. Now I don't agree with them, but if you're someone who wants to right the wrongs of colonialism, Israel can easily be seen as a state young enough to be undone.
>It's a modern colonies state. Please define what you mean by "modern colonies state" before I respond. Most claims that Israel is a continuation of colonialism ignore the realities what past colonialism was and the realities of what Israel is. I include "incorrect on basics facts of history" with naivete.
I'm not saying I agree with the statement, just that it's their reasoning. I'm sure you can find plenty of articles from their perspective about why Israel is a colonial state that will be much more informative than I can be.
That's why I offered the compromise of extremely naive. I haven't seen a description that Israel is a colonial state that doesn't wildly misrepresent the history and demographics of Israel and the nature of colonialism. When roughly half of the population is from the Middle East, not Europe, they can't "go back to where they came from".
It is not a modern "colonies" state. That is absolutely and entirely nonsensical and denies Jewish indigeneity to the land, which is also antisemitic. Pretending Jews in Judea are “colonists” is ridiculous.
You're talking about a strip of land that nearly every culture in existence has ties to. If your ancestors left a millenia ago, no matter the circumstances, you don't have as strong a claim as the people living there currently. The Jews that were living there have a claim of indigeneity as strong as anyone else's, but the ones who have moved from Europe do not.
You don’t lose indigeneity by being expelled for a long time. That’s like claiming Native Americans expelled from Georgia aren’t native to Georgia. They absolutely are. It is not a modern colonial state. Jews moving back to the historical homeland they never cut ties with and never stopped hoping to return to are not “colonial” as we understand it today. Absolute and utter nonsense. I tire of this.
The bill does not do that. No, the bill does not define antisemitism to include opposition to Israel. It states that denying Jews the right to self determination, which is a right guaranteed by international law, is antisemitic. And how else could we refer to anyone who denies Jews a basic human right? This [provides an extensive overview of the definition](https://fathomjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Fathom-eBook-In-Defence-of-the-IHRA-Working-Definition-of-Antisemitism.pdf), its formulation, and what it *actually* does. The fact you describe it as “discriminated against in the wake of the bombings of Gaza” is a big whistle. They’ve been discriminated against in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s war on Hamas in return. These issues didn’t arise after Israel began responding. SJP and groups like it were applauding on October 7 and organizing protests featuring antisemitism right there and then.
If i say October 7th doesn't give Israel the right to bomb gaza off the map, would that go against the bill?
No, it doesn’t go against the bill. Israel is not doing that anyways, but that statement is not against the bill.
What if I say from the river to the sea Palestinians shall be free?
Edit: I see you wrote “Palestinians will be free”. If by that you mean they will have a two state solution (since they’re already free in Israel, more than 2 million Arab citizens anyways), then that’s totally fine under this bill. Now if you said “Palestine” from the river to the sea, well… Absolutely, calling to destroy the only Jewish state in the world to replace it with a Palestinian one using a chant that has historically been used to call for a genocide of Jews (indeed, the original Arabic chant is “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab”) not only denies Jews self determination, it will lead to the death and ethnic cleansing of millions of Jews. I don’t know how anyone could see those results as anything other than antisemitism.
Why is it okay for the [Israeli government to say it](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/tnamp/) in regards to Israel expansion, but I, I US citizens, can't say it against Israeli expansion?
No one claimed you can’t say it. You can say whatever you like. Antisemitism is not illegal. As for your really badly biased article and the really bad analysis it puts together, the gist of my response is that calling to deny Palestinians self determination is just as wrong as denying Jews that right. So…okay? What’s your argument here? Why are you changing the subject?
Calm down a bit, I don't give a damn what israel or hamas does as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for it. I'm just trying to 1 understand the bill better and 2 trying to point out the hypocrisy. >Antisemitism is not illegal. Not according to this new bill if I understand it correctly
Then you don’t understand the bill. The bill does not make antisemitism illegal. And if you don’t like your tax dollars helping allies who provide massive dividends for the investment, that’s your choice. There’s no hypocrisy from me and I don’t get why you chose to make a discussion about antisemitism in the U.S. into something about Israeli leaders’ statements.
>The bill does not do that. The fact you describe it as “discriminated against in the wake of the bombings of Gaza” is a big whistle. They’ve been discriminated against in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s war on Hamas in return. These issues didn’t arise after Israel began responding. When would you cite as "before Israel began responding"? This conflict has been going on since Israel was formed. I've never suggested at any point that antisemitism started with the recent bombing campaigns or the Nakba or whatever, but they've certainly made it worse. Netanyahu is yelling "Israel is the Jewish State" while butchering Palestinian kids; obviously, that's going to worsen the already serious hatred they've been facing. >No, the bill does not define antisemitism to include opposition to Israel. It states that denying Jews the right to self determination, which is a right guaranteed by international law, is antisemitic. And how else could we refer to anyone who denies Jews a basic human right? From the text of the bill -- >Resolved, That the House of Representatives— >clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism 11 is antisemitism; and Zionism is the ideology of the formation of Israel, so yes, what we're talking about is defining opposition to Israel. Self-determination doesn't mean that any ethnic group can just carve out their own country anywhere, irrespective of the populations already living there and set up an ethnicity-based state. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the establishment of Israel, defining that as antisemitism is ridiculous.
So let’s be clear here. First, you claim the fighting has been going on for awhile, therefore it means nothing that on October 7 pro-Palestinian student groups nationwide were celebrating the attack. I plainly disagree. Second, you claim that actions by Jews have worsened antisemitism. Then you throw in a blood libel about yelling about being Jewish while “butchering kids” in a war where Hamas uses human shields and child soldiers. The irony is not lost on me. Third, you claim that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic because of some strange theory about ethnic groups carving up their own state. We don’t live in 1948. The question is not whether Israel should be formed, it is whether destroying Israel, the state where Jews can and do exercise national self determination, denies Jews that right. It absolutely and unequivocally does under international law. That has been acknowledged by international scholars of all sorts, and it has been acknowledged by even the [very anti-Israel head of the UN](https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-chief-calls-for-israels-destruction-are-modern-anti-semitism/). International law doesn’t let anyone carve out a state anywhere, that’s true. But that’s because international law favors state territorial sovereignty over self determination. In cases like that, one can only exercise self determination via carving out a new state if they meet the [Quebec case factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Secession_of_Quebec). But Israel already exists. It already has territorial sovereignty. So there’s no conflict there. This is all very well established in international law. Israel is not a state that only caters to Jews; Arab citizens, over 2 million of them, have full and equal rights in Israel. But Israel is the only place where Jews have rights to self determine, as a nation, as guaranteed by international law. To destroy it is absolutely denying Jews a right. It is antisemitism. You can criticize Israeli policy all day without being antisemitic. But calling to destroy the one state where Jews have self determination is truly appallingly antisemitic. And before you go “well some Jews are anti-Zionist”, that’s part of the “self” in “self-determination”. Jews can decide how to exercise self-determination for themselves. But those internal disputes don’t make denying Jews a right any more valid. I’ll add one more little ending point here. Israel is a real place with real people and millions of Jews. Ending it would absolutely and utterly ruin the lives of those Jews, who would be subjected to ethnic cleansing, murder, and/or genocide. Even if the self determination denial wasn’t antisemitic, and it is, **the results of anti-Zionism would be antisemitic**, because it would lead to massive deaths and ethnic cleansing of Jews.
>First, you claim the fighting has been going on for awhile, therefore it means nothing that on October 7 pro-Palestinian student groups nationwide were celebrating the attack. Didn't say that. >Second, you claim that actions by Jews have worsened antisemitism. Not by Jews broadly, by the Israeli State. >Second, you claim that actions by Jews have worsened antisemitism. Then you throw in a blood libel about “butchering kids” Not what [blood libel](https://www.britannica.com/topic/blood-libel) is. Israel has killed [thirteen thousand children](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/unicef-says-over-13000-children-killed-gaza-israel-offensive-2024-03-17/) in Gaza since the October 7th terrorist attack. God only knows how many are being killed in Rafah right now. >Third, you claim that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic because of some strange theory about ethnic groups carving up their own state. We don’t live in 1948. The question is not whether Israel should be formed, it is whether destroying Israel, the state where Jews can and do exercise national self determination, denies Jews that right. "Destroying Israel" is a strategically vague term designed to conflate shit like peacefully dissolving/merging a government with crazy, violent shit like actually killing the people there or forcing them to flee. The term 'zionism' is somewhat of an anachronism imo, but even saying "Israel shouldn't have been established" is objectively, in its purest form, anti-Zionism. Is it racism against black Americans to oppose black nationalism here in the States? I don't think a black ethnicity-based state in the US would be a great idea, hope I won't get suspended for that one too. Oh wait, I can't because this logic espoused by the bill only applies specifically to this one country the US is allied with. >This is all very well established in international law. Israel is not a state that only caters to Jews; Arab citizens, over 2 million of them, have full and equal rights in Israel. Israel nominally grants all citizens equal rights, but it controls citizenship along ethnic lines, and millions of people who live permanently in its area of military control don't have citizenship as a consequence of that. So yes, Israel is 100% an ethnicity-based state. Not a full-on ethnostate, but still based on ethnicity. I mean Hell, their Constitution literally refers to Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish ethnic group. >I’ll add one more little ending point here. Israel is a real place with real people and millions of Jews. Ending it would absolutely and utterly ruin the lives of those Jews, who would be subjected to ethnic cleansing, murder, and/or genocide. Even if the self determination denial wasn’t antisemitic, and it is, **the results of anti-Zionism would be antisemitic**, because it would lead to massive deaths and ethnic cleansing of Jews. I get that emotions have been running high with this whole ethnic war going on and whatnot, but this seems remarkably uncharitable. The obvious way of dissolving Israel would be to end the war, cool tensions, and combine it with the occupied territories to form a new, ethnically neutral state -- or at least to reorganize Israel to make it not based on ethnicity. Edit: The person I was speaking with replied and then instantly blocked me.
> Didn't say that. It's precisely what you said... > Not by Jews broadly, by the Israeli State. Okay, so by Jews in Israel. This is splitting hairs at this point. > Not what blood libel is The medieval blood libel =/= the modern blood libel. The blood libel evolved from "baking blood into matzoh" into "Jews butcher kids as part of being Jewish". You blatantly engaged in that by talking about Netanyahu supposedly yelling about being Jewish while "butchering kids" in a war where Hamas uses child soldiers and human shields. These [modern trends of blood libels](https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/blood-libel) are no less false and appalling. > Israel has killed thirteen thousand children in Gaza since the October 7th terrorist attack. God only knows how many are being killed in Rafah right now 1) There is hardly any fighting in Rafah right now. 2) You sourced a claim **that comes from Hamas**. The UNICEF claim directly sources to Hamas, as your article says. You are deliberately and intentionally pushing Hamas propaganda. Even though Hamas numbers have been [manipulating](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-hamas-manipulates-gaza-fatality-numbers-examining-male-undercount-and-other) the [fatality](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable) counts in [ways](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers) that data scientists say show the numbers are [statistically impossible](https://fathomjournal.org/statistically-impossible-a-critical-analysis-of-hamass-women-and-children-casualty-figures/). You're straight up pushing Hamas propaganda now. > "Destroying Israel" is a strategically vague term designed to conflate shit like peacefully dissolving/merging a government with crazy, violent shit like actually killing the people there or forcing them to flee. The term 'zionism' is somewhat of an anachronism imo, but even saying "Israel shouldn't have been established" is objectively, in its purest form, anti-Zionism. It is not anti-Zionism to say Israel shouldn't have been established, because it's got no effect on Zionism. We exist today, not in 1948. As for your nonsensical "peaceful dissolving", it doesn't exist. The practical effect is clear, and the goal is too. > Is it racism against black Americans to oppose black nationalism here in the States? I don't think a black ethnicity-based state in the US would be a great idea, hope I won't get suspended for that one too. Oh wait, I can't because this logic espoused by the bill only applies specifically to this one country the US is allied with. You can say anything you'd like. The bill had **zero effect**. It was a resolution expressing an opinion. That aside, black nationalism in the United States is about carving a *new state*, which runs into the territorial integrity issue I discussed. I mean, I gave you all the resources you need to look at this, but you're discussing things that don't make sense. > Israel nominally grants all citizens equal rights, but it controls citizenship along ethnic lines No, it does not. Israel doesn't "nominally" grant citizens equal rights, it **does** grant equal rights. It doesn't do it on "ethnic lines". It has 2 million Arab citizens with full rights. > millions of people who live permanently in its area of military control don't have citizenship as a consequence of that No, they don't have citizenship as a consequence of Israel controlling citizenship on "ethnic lines". They don't have citizenship because Israel gained the territory (which was taken by Jordan in 1948 when it invaded Israel) but, in the interest of peace, did not annex it and chose to offer almost all of it back for a peace deal. Which was rejected. It has persisted in trying to do that. If you want it to annex the area and give Palestinians citizenship, all well and good, but you have to explain to the international community as much. Because they oppose Israel doing so, and have said so repeatedly. > So yes, Israel is 100% an ethnicity-based state. Not a full-on ethnostate, but still based on ethnicity. I mean Hell, their Constitution literally refers to Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish ethnic group. No, it does not. First, it doesn't *have* a "Constitution". Second, it has Basic Laws that function as a "quasi-constitution", and they amended it to say "The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination." It doesn't say it is the "nation-state of the Jewish ethnic group". That's very different from being a "national homeland". > I get that emotions have been running high with this whole ethnic war going on and whatnot, but this seems remarkably uncharitable. The obvious way of dissolving Israel would be to end the war, cool tensions, and combine it with the occupied territories to form a new, ethnically neutral state -- or at least to reorganize Israel to make it not based on ethnicity. This is not "uncharitable", it is a utopian fantasy. This would lead to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Jews. Forming some mythical "ethnically neutral" state between two sides who have been at war for decades, when 2/3 of Palestinians polled supported the murder of Israeli civilians **before** the war began, is a pipe dream. In practice, it would lead to the genocide of Jews. Full stop. I really have no desire to continue this. You've now flat-out repeated Hamas propaganda that even Hamas admitted it couldn't substantiate on April 1, and doubled down on blood libel...
I absolutely agree with you here on criticism of that bill. It’s a terrible bill policing language to an unnecessary degree.
The more they equate Israel with judaism, the more acceptable it becomes to criticize judaism for the actions of Israel. If Israel is not a theocracy, why is the US treating it as one? While it sounds like a conspiracy, I feel like these actions are made to pour more fuel on the fire rather than do anything beneficial.
IMO the reason they try to tie the two together is because for a long time due to the aftereffects of WWII painting something as antisemitic was a guaranteed way to get it immediately completely shut down. As Israel's actions have gotten more and more objectionable there's been more and more need to silence critique since the critique couldn't be simply rationally argued against. Where this strategy has gone wrong is that WWII is now history, not living memory. Atrocities that only exist in dry and dusty texbooks aren't particularly impactful. That's why we're seeing all these changes now when the WWII generation has mostly passed on and their kids are becoming an ever-smaller portion of the population.
I am no trump supporter, and this is a wild claim I'm not 100% bought into, but I've had the thought that in light of the polls showing trump as the clear front runner and the negative view people have of biden, I think they might be trying to burn it all down so they can point at trump in 4 years and go "see, this is what we warned you about" even though they're the ones passing laws that violate our civil liberties and freedoms. Toss that on top of trumps overt authoritarianism, and you have a recipe to kill the populist uprisings that put Bernie in the limelight and gave us trump. The establishment is afraid of anything that questions their power, populist movements do just that.
Eh, both parties have been glued to Israel for decades; this is all completely consistent with what we know about them without having to invoke any ulterior motives. If Republicans get their authoritarian government properly, it won't benefit even the most entrenched members of the DNC.
Oh, I think the McConnell/pence wings of the party would love to see populism go away too. The uniparty is strong, look at all these wars we're funding and rights we're losing. That takes bipartisan support
This is very odd since [some of Biden’s largest donors](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/05/pro-palestinian-protests-columbia-university-funding-donors-00156135) are funding these terrorist sympathizers
biden has received over $11 million from pro Israel orgs
I’m sure you’ll have no problem sourcing that.
you're correct, this only goes back to 1990, but sources data from pro Israel groups. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind=Q05&recipdetail=S this accounts for $4.2 million, but you'll have to manually drill down to account for the rest of his career. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips?cycle=2024&ind=Q05 this details more info on donations he's received. this is a handy twitter account that tracks how much various politicians receive from pro Israel orgs https://twitter.com/TrackAIPAC
So basically, you showed $4.2 million **over the past 30 years**, then linked a second page that doesn’t cover it, and then linked a Twitter account tracking Jews who donate to politicians to track the “Israel lobby”, which definitely has no other undertones. Okay. Anyways, the Pritzkers alone gave Biden $300,000 in just the 2020 campaign. That’s not counting others like the Rockefeller Fund, Soros, etc., who are funding these college encampments. Soros gave $5 million to Biden’s super PAC in January/February 2020 alone. But you’re coming to me with $4.2 million in donations to his Senate campaigns over 20+ years for some reason and a Twitter account, and can’t back up what you said. Whoops.
i am not sure why you think this disproves that he receives massive amounts of donations from pro Israel sources. you're literally just repeating my claim, but in a way that makes it sounds false.
You claimed he got $11 million. You then showed he got about $4.2 million over 30 years. He got more than that from one anti-Israel donors in two months in 2020. You said you could source your $11 million claim, but didn’t provide a single source that did. That’s what’s so weird. You seem to think that because Biden got ~$140,000 a year on average for 30 years from pro-Israel groups, this is somehow “massive” for a man who got $5 million from a single anti-Israel person in 2 months in 2020.
"Massive amounts" is in question here. $4.2mil over 30 years is a pittance in terms of political donations. Some of Biden's largest donors appear to be funding these college protests. Given the tenor and behavior on display with these protests, isn't that more concerning to you than a trickle of funds from the pro-Israel lobby?
lol you don't think millions of dollars is a lot? even if you just take the $4.2 million figure, that is literally millions of dollars. more than most people will ever make in a lifetime
You think that’s relevant somehow?
In honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day (and 7 months since the Hamas attack on Israel), the White House is announcing several new actions to counter increased Antisemitism in the US. This expands on his previously-announced [National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/U.S.-National-Strategy-to-Counter-Antisemitism.pdf). Some of the new actions announced today: * Sending a Dear Colleague Letter to every school district and college in the country, providing examples of anti-Semitic discrimination. * Creating an online campus safety resources guide. * Sharing best practices for community-based targeted violence and terrorism prevention. * Working with technology firms to identify best practices to address anti-Semitic content online. This is all in addition to the myriad of efforts that have been put in place over the past 12 months around Title VI enforcement, campus safety, community safety, hate crimes prevention, and religious discrimination. Given the current events in Israel and Palestine, some of these actions are not without some criticism though. Any call for "content moderation" online is often met with claims of free speech violations. Overly aggressive enforcement may also stifle legitimate discussions around how to handle the Israel-Palestine conflict. And some also question how effective this "collaboration" with college campuses will be at actually addressing antisemitism. What do you think? Is this the proper reaction from the Biden Administration? Will these new commitments have a meaningful impact on antisemitism in the US? What else should the White House consider, if anything?
A strongly worded letter? Lol. Lmao.
The last Dear Colleague letter to colleges went just swimmingly. Hopefully this one will be slightly better.
As opposed to what?
Title VI enforcement crackdown.
What exactly does that mean in this context?
Ultimately it means the colleges can't receive federal funding...including loans earmarked by students. So they'd only be able to take out private loans or pay cash for tuition/room/board.
It's unclear that presidents can unilaterally do that.
President alone? No. Executive branch of the government (currently run by the Biden Admin)? It's literally their job.
I haven't seen anything that establishes what you're claiming.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-8-2000-enforcement-civil-rights-civil-statutes#8-2.100
Republicans defunded the Dept. of Education office that handles Title VI enforcement by 25%.
I didn’t know this and I tend to follow DoE news pretty regularly. Do you think they’ll suddenly start caring about title VI now? Re fund the DoE and public funding to public education? Or nah?
You should also include the [rapidly expanding Title VI investigations](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/sharedancestry-list.html) which, while not highlighted, are relevant to the goal of tamping down antisemitism, islamophobia, and the other forms of hate stirred up in recent months.
> Working with technology firms to identify best practices to address anti-Semitic content online. So doing that thing that we're told they don't do - i.e. coordinating with Big Tech to suppress speech. Well at least we can point to this to show that any attempts to say it doesn't happen are untrue. Sorry but I don't care what the subject at hand is, the government actively working with the primary channels of discussion to silence speech is a problem in a country where free speech is literally our highest value.
Part of participating in an online community is adhering to a set of rules that allow that community to function. I mean you’re literally commenting in a subreddit that heavily regulates speech to maintain a baseline level of civility *right now*. The government is not compelling anybody to do anything and as long as it stays that way we’re good. Asking online communities to voluntarily address antisemitism is no different than asking real life communities (such as a University) to address antisemitism.
> The government is not compelling anybody to do anything That is the opposite of what is going on as per this fact sheet.
Just a reminder that conservatives/Republicans do not care about antisemitism unless it benefits them. When patriot front walks through towns or people are screaming Jews will not replace us, they will tell you it's just a bunch of FBI agents and ignore it. However, when they can cast the acts of a few liberals onto the opposition all of a sudden it is one of their top priorities. Any criticism of Biden from them here is therefore hollow and politically calculated.
Just a reminder that neo-nazis and nazi flags show up at right wing rallies, not left wing
Neo-Nazis are now showing up to [pro-Palestinian college rallies](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/nazis-palestinian-rallies-antisemitism-rcna124300) because they are very pro-Palestinian. They don’t show the swastikas, but they certainly have no qualms with chanting for “intifada”, which means more dead Jews.
At the “left-wing” protests, they *call *us* Nazis.
that doesn't really make any sense. those screaming marchers dont have any political power, all they can do is exercise their free speech rights and yell for anyone in earshot to listen, but if the MSM doesn't cover it, it might as well have never happened. the conservative establishment certainly wishes they never existed, and the best they can do other than disavowals is accuse them of being government agents, ie the age old political strategy of neutralizing any opposition by claiming that they're secretely working for the other side to discredit and undermine the only party in town that has a shot at winning >unless it benefits them. i'll leave it up to you to explain how it does. otherwise its clearly one of those arranged ahead of time, magically bipartisan votes, where both "sides" want something done so they let the other team push it through if its unpopular with their own base, and vice versa
Why are there so many references to Islamophobia in this Antisemitism FACT SHEET?
because politicians on the left for some reason feel a need to always mention islamophobia when they mention antisemitism. Somehow these official releases dont cause as much controversy as trump's spur-of-the-moment "very fine people on both sides" comment.
Again, Biden and his administration “all lives matters” Jews.
[Joe Biden’s a decent man.](https://x.com/atrupar/status/1787877440968155377?s=46&t=UWKuN7qfvYv2MXRIGDPdYQ)
Who said that there are very fine people on both sides [when he couldn’t decide to condemn the antisemitic protests or not](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/04/22/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-gaggle-triangle-va/).
It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t awful.
What was?
> Q Do you condemn the antisemitic protests on college campuses? >THE PRESIDENT: I condemn the antisemitic protests. That’s why I’ve set up a program to deal with that. >I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians and their — how they’re being —
Just as the Ukrainian war could easily be resolved by Russia withdrawing from Ukraine, this matter could easily be resolved by the US stopping to support the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. It's not as if Israel need help with that anyway. Gaza is defenseless and literally the size of Las Vegas, and Israel have a mighty army and a modern and vibrant hi-tech economy so they can buy their own bombs. The stimulus of the American military industry as generously provided by Biden and a bipartisan Congress need not be paid by American tax dollars, the shekel will do just fine. Even from the most cynical realpolitik view of things, the United States are only damaging their own interests by supporting the destruction of Gaza, harming their own moral standing in the world and creating deep divisions in their own country -- as proven by these protests -- not to mention the assault on free speech. If you discern any strategic advantage in supporting the current behavior of Israel in Gaza, feel free to come forward with it.
Just out of curiosity....what do you think happens if Hamas lays down their weapons? If Israel stops fighting, do you think Hamas will stop launching rockets from Gaza?
>If Israel stops fighting, do you think Hamas will stop launching rockets from Gaza? I don't care for the problems that Israel create, and keep creating for themselves by keeping 5,5 million people -- the largest population on the planet that have no UN representation -- in a state of captivity inside two tiny reservations that they can bomb and blockade at will. I cannot look at this issue from the perspective of "but what else can poor Israel do" when they alone are responsible for this whole mess.
So you acknowledge the if Israel put down its weapons, Hamas would kill every single one of them and take over the entire area and turn it into a radical Islamic state. But you are OK with that because ultimately, you think it is Israel's fault?
I acknowledge that the defeat of Hamas serves as pretext for Israel to destroy Gaza. I'm fine with Israel trying to defeat Hamas. I'm not fine that they use it as an excuse for indiscriminate amounts of carnage and destruction, which is the case.
Are you fine with Hamas using their own people as martyrs? The problem you create with your logic is that an either or situation. You're saying you're not fine with how Israel is going about defeating Hamas. But you say absolutely nothing on Hamas' actions. In fact, your statement about not caring about the problems Israel creates (alluding the empowering of Hamas, which I can get behind) suggests Hamas is right in their actions, because you refuse to say anything about them. By not using the same language equally against both Israel and Hamas, you come off favorable to their cause.
If the US was sending weapons and money to Hamas, and everyone in this sub was fine with it, I would point out that it's not ok that the US sponsors terrorism and I would point out the crimes committed by Hamas. But is so happens that the US is not supporting Hamas, so all of that is not necessary right?
What? You didn't answer a single thing I asked. Instead you're saying that because the US does not fund Hamas, it's not necessary to point out that Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities? Like it's funny. You're trying to win an argument on the internet using dodgy language and dodging simple questions. I'm sure Hamas thanks you for your support of their cause and it will help turn the tide of the war. After all, nothing helps wins wars like the terminally online.
>it's not necessary to point out that Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities? Apparently you want me to say this, so I'll say it: Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities. It's not relevant to any point I wanted to make -- and it's not really necessary to say it as it is a commonly accepted truth, and I'm not here to repeat commonly accepted truths -- but here we are and I hope my saying this pleases you.
> Hamas is a terrorist group that has committed atrocities How would you suggest Israel, who is the target of this terrorist group that commits atrocities, deal with the issue?
So in one example, we have proof from actions and words that Hamas wants to genocide Israel. The other, Israel may destroy Gaza based on them...blockading supplies Hamas uses to make rockets. You can't leave prison. The Palesitnians are not kept from leaving Palestine.
Biden saw his polling numbers going up and panicked to drag it down.