University Of California Approves Anti-Semitism Statement

[Purveyor]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A University of California committee on Wednesday cited anti-Semitism as a form of intolerance that campus leaders should challenge but rejected a more far-reaching denouncement of arguments against Israel's right to exist.

The committee of the university's governing Board of Regents voted unanimously to send the statement on to the full board for final consideration on Thursday.

A year in the making, the formal position opposing anti-Semitic behavior comes amid a wave of impassioned campus activism that has sparked tensions between Palestinian rights supporters and strong allies of Israel.

Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federations of North America and American Jewish Committee had lobbied in favor of the document written by an ad hoc working group.

MORE...http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNIVERSITY_OF_CALIFORNIA_INTOLERANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-23-17-42-56

[King_David]

1. They should of consulted Bernie Sanders

Being a Jew he knows Antisemitism when he sees it :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=126436

[aranthus]

2. Essentially what they said is that antisemitism should not be tolerated on campus except

for the most prevalent and virulent form of antisemitism currently on campus.

[leftynyc]

6. Have you read about that

piece of crap assistant professor at Oberlin? I have a good Jewish friend who has a son there and is ready to pull him out. He's been communicating with the President of the university who is pretending his hands are tied because the poor dear is more worried about being called a bigot (prof is black) and using the ridiculous first amendment argument (like the lunatic prof is owed a fucking job).

Some of that lunatic's greatest hits include:

Among Dr. Karega-Mason's asinine calumnies: Jews were responsible for 9/11, while the murders at the satirical French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and the subsequent murders of Jews in a kosher deli in Paris were false-flag operations undertaken not by the people caught and killed but by unnamed Jews.

Those attuned to 9/11 conspiracy theories will note that Karega-Mason is parroting Nation of Islam leader Rev. Louis Farrakhan, who challenges Jews to prove that they were not agents of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/oberlin_college_professors_ant_1.html

[leftynyc]

8. Well, when it starts effecting

their funding (alumni always asked for money), then they'll pay attention. If this were targeted at any group other than Jews (not Israeli's, Jews), liberals (real liberals) would be shouting from the rooftops. Then they argue anti semitism has nothing to do with it. Freeking hypocrites.

[6chars]

9. This time it's different

Yes, people have been boycotting and excluding and accusing and cursing and killing Jews and blaming them for all things evil in countries around the world for 2000 years. But this time it is for social justice.

Well, anti-semites usually don't call themselves that. Even Ted Nugent after his recent screed tried to cover his ass (with words, not a squirrel tail).

[leftynyc]

10. I don't get it

Why the trouble for Jewish students and what the fuck does that have to do with social justice? I'm open to being convinced the perps are not repulsive anti-semites.

[JDPriestly]

54. So true.

[ZombieHorde]

52. That sounds like a bunch of crazy shit to me.

Though I have to admit I have a bias against claims of false-flag operations. I know there have been false-flag operations at some point in human history, yet still I roll my eyes whenever I hear the term. I know I have a bias, but I can't shake the feeling that most false-flag claims are total bullshit.

[Eugene]

3. University of California softens anti-Semitism statement

Source: Reuters

World | Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:25pm EDT

University of California softens anti-Semitism statement

SAN FRANCISCO | BY CASSIE PATON

The University of California's regents declared on Wednesday they would not tolerate anti-Semitism on campus but rejected a proposal to equate anti-Zionism with religious bigotry, as they tried to defuse tensions between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian students.

The statement of principles, approved unanimously by the university's governing board, stems from concerns among Jewish students and faculty about a rise in anti-Semitism on several UC campuses in response to recent student activism in support of Israel.

Pro-Palestinian campus activists, however, say they are simply voicing legitimate criticism of Israel, which, they say, is being misconstrued, creating a pretext for pro-Israeli activists to squelch the Arab side of the Mideast debate.

The regents rebuffed draft language that would have broadly defined opposition to Israel as anti-Jewish bigotry, with the board instead voting to disapprove "anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-discrimination-idUSKCN0WQ03F

[aranthus]

12. There is no non-antisemitic form of political anti-Zionism

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:06 PM - Edit history (2)

You cannot deny the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in at least some part of their ancient homeland and not be anti-Jewish. It's like saying you are against the United States, but not anti-American. It's a stupid and deceitful argument.

[ZombieHorde]

53. I'm against the so called existence of all countries,

but I am not against the people who live within these make-believe borders. I am against the United States, but I am pro-American. I love humanity, but I don't love all of our fairy tales. I don't love all of our violence.

[aranthus]

57. You can't be anti-the United States and pro-American.

What you claim to love (Americanism) is only fully expressed in a country called the United States. It's the same for virtually every other nationality. If you are against a people having a country, then you are hostile to that people. If you are against all countries, then in reality, you are anti-human.

[ZombieHorde]

58. Why do you think being against countries is anti-human?

I don't understand the logic.

[aranthus]

59. Because

One of the most important expressions of humanity is our culture, usually expressed as the idea of the nation. A state (country) is merely the governing apparatus of a nation. The state exists to create, protect, maintain and promote that national identity. They are necessary complements to each other. The nation tells the state what to do and gives it meaning. The state gives a nation physical cohesion. They can't exist without each other. Without a national identity the state shatters or collapses, and without a state, the nation eventually dissipates and withers away. That's why it's not possible to be be against the United States and also pro-American. It's like saying you like someone, but you don't want them to do what's necessary to stay alive.

Question: Do you feel the same about religion as you feel about countries?

[ZombieHorde]

60. Art, language, religion, etc., are older than countries.

Humans had tribes longer than we had countries. Culture doesn't rely on borders and bureaucracy. The US has many cultures. There's no one American culture. Trump's culture is completely different than my Native friends from the reservation. There's no comparison. They have extremely little in common. The US treats Trump like a king and the Natives like they're subhuman.

Without a national identity the state shatters or collapses, and without a state, the nation eventually dissipates and withers away.

Without a national identity we won't have wars on the scale we have now.

That's why it's not possible to be be against the United States and also pro-American. It's like saying you like someone, but you don't want them to do what's necessary to stay alive.

We need real things to stay alive, like food and shelter. We don't need the social constructs of borders and paperwork.

Question: Do you feel the same about religion as you feel about countries?

I feel the same about large, organized religions because they become too impersonal to serve the people.

[aranthus]

61. It seems as if you long for a humanity that does not exist.

We don't live in tribes anymore.

[Little Tich]

4. Anti-Zionism isn't a form of discrimination, but anti-Semitism is.

Everyone ought to know that. I tried to find the amendment where the fallacious passage connecting anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was amended, but I couldn't find it. (http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar16/e1.pdf)

Either way, it seems as if the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federations of North America and American Jewish Committee haven't got a clue about what anti-Semitism is, or perhaps they're just pro-Israel shills who have no moral qualms against accusing those who are opposed to Israel's policies of anti-Semitism.

[aranthus]

13. There is no non-antisemitic form of political anti-Zionism.

You cannot deny the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in at least some part of their ancient homeland and not be anti-Jewish. It's like saying you are against the United States, but not anti-American. It's a stupid and deceitful argument.

[Little Tich]

15. I would actually consider the position stated in your post to be discriminatory,

simply because I believe that all persons have a right to live in their ancestral homeland. The idea of a state for only one people in the ancestral homeland of two peoples is discriminatory, and that discrimination is based on ethnicity only. It wouldn't be discriminatory to say that Jews have a right to live in their ancestral homeland, it's that "on their own" that makes it racist. How can the rights of Jews trump the rights of Palestinians and vice versa? I think all persons have a right to live in their ancestral homeland, and that includes both Palestinians and Jews.

You seem to think that the idea of equal rights for Palestinians and Jews is anti-Jewish.

[aranthus]

18. Each people get's its own country. How is that discriminatory?

Perhaps you don't realize it, but neither the Jews nor the Palestinians have all of their ancestral homeland, nor the right to live in every part of it. You would have to take land from Jordan to accomplish that, and the Jordanians would rightfully object. What you don't seem to understand is that what is important is that a people have some place (a nation state) where they can live their own way, by their own customs and their own laws. That means a separate state for Palestinians and one for the Jews. Neither side has an exclusive right to all of the territory. It is far more important that each side has a place that it rules than that each side has access to the whole of the territory. Doing things your way denies both Jews and Palestinians something far more important than what you would be giving them.

[Little Tich]

20. I understand what you mean, but I disagree completely, simply because I'm very much opposed to

nationalism as a political idea.

The way I see it, the notion that every people has a right to a state of their own is a really bad idea that doesn't correspond to reality. Idon't believe that peoples have any rights, only individuals do. I also believe that all forms of nationalism are discriminatory, and that when nationalism is allowed to dominate, things go pear-shaped pretty quickly.

That's what I believe, and if you perceive that it's an uphill struggle to convince me, that's probably why.

BTW, I'm just curious, what part of Jordan is part of the Palestinian ancestral homeland?

[Little Tich]

23. I firmly believe that all forms of discrimination can be overcome, especially in a democratic

environment.

There's nothing that says that anti-Semitism is harder to get rid of than other forms of racism. There's no reason whatsoever to give up on Jews anywhere and encourage them to leave their countries for a Jewish state of their own. Besides, a history of discrimination means that things should be changed to enforce equality, not entitlement.

[King_David]

34. Yes

[aranthus]

40. Some responses

First, nationalism isn't so much a political idea (it is partly), as it is a cultural idea. Think about it this way.

One of the major rights of individuals is the right of association. The right to be with whom you want, and to form groups that relate together and work together. It's natural for people to congregate with people who speak like, think like, and do things like they do. In fact, without that, group cooperation isn't possible, and that means that civilization itself isn't possible unless people have some shared values, traditions, and ways of doing things. That's what nationalism is. The shared culture of a group large enough to govern itself. Without that, there are no countries. Nationalism isn't discriminatory. It's necessary. And it ultimately derives from the individual right of people to work together with people like themselves.

So your beliefs don't square with what humans do in the real world. In fact, humans are what they believe, and the principal ideological identification of most humans is their nationality. So your beliefs make you anti-everyone.

As for what part of Jordan is the Palestinian national homeland. Pretty much all of it. the majority population is Palestinian, and since a "homeland" is where a nation came into existence, Jordan is as much that as any other place. It's also part of the Jewish homeland as the ancient Israelite kingdoms included parts of the East Bank of the Jordan River.

[Little Tich]

44. Aren't the Palestininans the direct descendants of the original population in Palestine, and only

related to the populations in the surrounding countries?

This is not the first time that I've been told that Palestinians don't come from Palestine, you know...

[aranthus]

47. Some of them probably are.

The original inhabitants of Palestine were the Canaanites, of which the Hebrews were one tribe. The Hebrews eventually united the other tribes into one nation called the Israelites. There are three peoples that clam ancestry from the Israelites. The Jews, The Samaritans, and the Palestinians. Of those, the ones that are closest in relation to the surrounding peoples are the Palestinians. They are most closely related to the Arab invaders of the 7th century.

Here's where it gets tricky. A people develops over time. It isn't simply some group that has a genetic commonality. It's a group of people that has a common cultural identity and self identity. The Jews and Samaritans developed those things thousands of years ago. The Palestinians only developed a group identity in the last century. This is why the argument that the Palestinians are related to the Canaanites doesn't have much weight. They may have some genetic relation to the Canaanites, but their cultural relation is thin at best. For example, their native language is not a Canaanite language. Instead the speak Arabic. ON the other hand the Jews do speak an ancient Canaanite language: Hebrew.

Since a homeland is where the group identity is created Jordan is arguably part of the Palestinian homeland. It's also part of the Jewish homeland. My point was not to suggest that the Palestinians get Jordan. Just the opposite. That they and the Jews can't have Jordan even though parts of Jordan are part of their ancestral homeland. National identity and rights of sovereignty count for more than territorial integrity.

[Little Tich]

49. Frankly, what I get from your post is that in the homeland of the Jews,

Jewish culture trumps the Palestinian one, due to it being older, more original and superior in many ways. I simply don't believe that the culture of one people is better than another, and I think you're creating a historical narrative that supports your own arguments about Jews and Palestinians.

The history of the peoples in the region is an interesting subject, but I won't discuss it here and now - I'm trying to extricate myself from this thread.

[aranthus]

50. The point is that both peoples have a place to express their own culture.

Why does it have to be one or the other? That's not fair is it? That's why I'm for two separate states. The issue is that you don't think that nationalism is a good idea at all, so it doesn't matter to you if one or both sides is denied their own place.

[Mosby]

63. Postnationalism is a thing

LT is a Postnationalist.

Postnationalism started out as basically an observation that nation states were losing control and authority to international organizations, think WTO, EU, UN.

Now that has morphed into the idea that nationalism and nation states are bad.

Go figure.

[JDPriestly]

55. So true.

Except when we all came to the US, we decided to live as Americans.

And here, we do not insist on living in our own separate parts of the country according to the traditions of our ancestors. We get along just fine with each other by respecting and enjoying our different traditions and cultures.

Israel, as a country, enjoys democracy, peace and prosperity within its borders. It is advanced in terms of technology and the wise use of its resources.

Some of its neighbors would do well to not just accept Israel as a neighbor but to seek assistance from Israelis in trying to develop as nations to be as democratic, peaceful and prosperous as Israel.

Palestinians should try to watch and learn from Israel not destroy it.

[shira]

14. Oh yeah...you know better than the VAST majority of Jews what anti-semitism is.

It took you awhile to accept that a Holocaust denying POS like Gilad Atzmon was antisemitic.

But you know better than any Jewish Federation what Jew hate looks like.

[Little Tich]

16. I believe that if it's not racism, it's not anti-Semitism.

That's where my views differ from those of the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America and the American Jewish Committee. Apart from that small detail, I don't think we have different views on what anti-Semitism is.

[shira]

17. You argued that a holocaust denying terror supporter like Atzmon....

....wasn't an antisemite.

You don't know anything about anti-semitism.

[aranthus]

19. Since Jews are not a race, your point is nonsense.

Jews are an ideologically based ethnicity. Antisemitism is a form of bigotry, but it simply isn't racism. What you seem to be arguing for is your own personal definition of antisemitism that excuses your own antisemitic beliefs.

[Little Tich]

22. All forms of ethnic discrimination are racism.

There's no need to reinvent new definitions for anti-Semitism - the old ones will do just fine. Actually, It's outright dangerous to decouple anti-Semitism from being a subset of racism. You're opening up for a trivialization of anti-Semitism that will in the end only profit actual, Jew-hating racists.

Is it really worth it?

[King_David]

26. How come everyone feels it's okay to tell Jews themselves what is and isn't antisemitism

( speaking in general )



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=126568

[Little Tich]

31. The right for a group to decide what constitutes discrimination against that group potentially

interferes with free speech.

If criticism of a political ideology, in this case anti-Zionism, is labeled discrimination, it will interfere with the right of people to promote a political opinion. There are many groups that would love to be able to decide what constitutes discrimination against them. In fact, what you're proposing is in many ways parallel to religious groups being forced to participate in practices (birth-control, abortions) and provide services to certain people (LGBT), and then complaining that they're being discriminated against by being forced to do so. Now they can only complain about discrimination, but what if they had the right to decide that it actually was discrimination in the legal sense?

I think it's irresponsible to allow groups of people to decide themselves what's to be considered discrimination against them. On the surface, it's a pleasing argument to give the Jewish community the privilege to decide themselves what constitutes discrimination against them, but it's a privilege that is bound to be abused.

I think the current debate in the US and elsewhere about what constitutes anti-Semitism is needed. Currently, it seems as if "Stupid" in the form of various pro-Israel groups has the upper hand, but there's excellent constitutional protection of free speech in the US which will eventually trump any attempts to stifle criticism of Israel.

[King_David]

32. AntiZionism IS Antisemitism

I'm afraid that's not up for debate.

[Little Tich]

36. Would you consider post-Zionism to be anti-Semitic?

I'm wondering, because post-Zionism is definitely challenging the very core of Zionism, and some would say it's even anti-Zionism...

[King_David]

37. I'm not even sure that post Zionists think of themselves as antiZionists

[King_David]

35. It's not a"right"

Black peoples get to decide what is racist against black people , and no white person gets to decide that.

Muslims get to decide what's Islamaphobic and it's none of my business what they define it to be.

Gay people decide what's homophobia and no straight person gets to set me straight on that issue .

And us Jews get to arbitrate what is and isn't Antisemitism, and no fucking way somebody else is going to condescendingly teach us what is and is not.

AntiZionism is fucking Antisemitism and there is no room for debate on this issue.... It is what it is.

Period !

[shira]

39. Blacks & Gays apparently have no right to decide what's racist or homophobic....

How batshit insane. Just as insane as Jews having no right to decide what Jew hatred looks like.

I think you're on the wrong forum.

[Little Tich]

42. I'm new to this idea that ethnic / religious groups are allowed to decide themselves what

constitutes discrimination against them.

I've always assumed that ethnic and religious groups were not allowed to decide these things, as it would potentially interfere with the rights of others. I know personally people (white Europeans) who consider themselves discriminated against in their own countries, and I know that there are Christians in the US who consider it discrimination against their religious beliefs to be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple. I would never want to give these groups of people the right to decide what's considered to be discrimination against them.

How does this right to determine what's considered discrimination work, and what groups are eligible to decide this for themselves?

[King_David]

45. It only applies to Jews apparently

One wonders of antisemitism exists at all or if it ever existed .

I think the UN should establish a council of non Jewish states to decide what is and what is not antisemitism.
No need to reinvent the wheel , the UNHRC can fill this function.
As long as Israel is not involved it should be legit.

[Little Tich]

48. Gee, thanks for the compliment, but it still doesn't help me understand.

There are a lot of unfounded accusations and statements in this thread, and it seems as if there's not much use in asking for any facts backing up these arguments. I still don't know how it is that anti-Semitism isn't a form of racism, how the right for groups to decide their standards for discrimination works, and what Atzmon has done to be called a Holocaust denier.

You have at least managed to give a pretty convincing account for how you see the Palestinian connection to Palestine. Too bad that it sounds more like a narrative justifying a point of view and that I dismiss the whole idea of peoplehood out of hand in favor of democratic values. At least I know why I disagree with you.

I like to understand the arguments of the other side as much as I like to promote my own, but I feel that it won't happen in this thread.

[shira]

38. Holocaust Denial is racism & yet you defended a Holocaust Denier....

...who admits he hates Jews, argued that burning down a synagogue is a rational act, & claims Jews persecuting Hitler was a factor in his decision against Jews.

You couldn't find racism in any of that.

Atzmon is one of THE most obvious examples of a Jew hating bigot there is, yet you refused to acknowledge it because you think anything goes when it comes to bashing & inciting against the Jewish people & their state.

[Little Tich]

41. When did Atzmon deny that the Holocaust happened?

I must have missed that. I know he's commented on people's attitudes towards the Holocaust, but I'm not aware of him disputing any actual facts. It's not really important, I think that Atzmon bad enough as it is, but there's no need to invent charges against him.

[shira]

46. We had this conversation already when you defended Atzmon's H-Denial...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134109148#post4

You were shown one quote after another with links backing it all up, but being that you believe anything goes when it comes to bashing Jews you wouldn't back down.

FFS, you were shown he was not just a Holocaust denier but an animal who praised OTHER Holocaust deniers.

It just "wasn't that simple" for you.

[King_David]

28. Of course not:

Either way, it seems as if the Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federations of North America and American Jewish Committee haven't got a clue about what anti-Semitism is

Non Jews always know better than Jews what is and isn't Antisemitism .

Same with myself and my Gay friends... We are all clueless what is and what is not homophobia ... We always have to ask straight people.

[grossproffit]

29. Is being anti Islamism a form of discrimination?

[grossproffit]

30. Yes, Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

[King_David]

33. It most certainly is ,

There is no such thing as being an antiZionist and not being a bigoted Jew hating antisemite.

[JonLeibowitz]

51. My Jewish roommate is an anti-Zionist.

Is he a bigoted Jew-hating antisemite?

[King_David]

56. AntiZionism is denial of self determination to the Jewish people

Have no ide about your room mate but if indeed is an antiZionist, you should explain that Antisemitism is Antisemitism and so is antizionism .
It certainly is not a value of the Democratic Party.

And you calling your roommate Jewish doesn't give him or her a pass , Gilad Atzmon , Bobby Fisher , Richard Falk and That Weiss guy are Jewish too.

[Mosby]

62. yes

He's either an antisemite or an ignorant fool.