Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[Heisenberg]

It may not matter in the abstract, but no Trustee of any of these three universities is going to defend them.


Bipartisan group of 76 lawmakers demand resignation of Harvard, MIT, UPenn presidents
https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/bipartisan-group-of-76-lawmakers-demand-resignation-of-harvard-mit-upenn-presidents-stefanik-moskowitz-massachusetts-institute-of-technology-university-of-pennsylvania-new-york-antisemitism-israel-hamas-gaza-war-palestine-holocaust-genocide-congress

Dozens of federal lawmakers, led by Reps. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., sent a letter Friday to the members of the governing boards at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Institute of Technology calling for them to immediately dismiss their school presidents.

[The Sultan]

History will show you that there never was a country recognized as Palestine. It never existed. I explained early that a 2 state solution cannot work if 1 side is fixated on eradicating every Jew, hey?

I mean most Palestinians have a more direct lineage to the land than most Israelis do. Not that I think that matters when it comes to this current conflict but you're the one bringing up history.

[Heisenberg]

I mean most Palestinians have a more direct lineage to the land than most Israelis do. Not that I think that matters when it comes to this current conflict but you're the one bringing up history.

It is the opposite.

Jews are named after Jerusalem. Jesus was a Jew. They have been in these lands for 3,000 years.

Jews occupied the Holylands at least 1,000 years before Islam was invented (610 AD)

In fact, in the 19th century, when the word Palestinian was first used, it was used to describe Jews, not Arabs.

Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century Prussian philosopher who referred to European Jews as "Palestinians living among us."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jews

[jesmu84]

Zionism is a political ideology.

Anti-zionism =/= anti-semitism.

If a jewish person is anti-zionist, are they anti-semitic?

[The Sultan]

Dude there were but a small amount of Jews around the Holy Lands when the Balfour Declaration first arose.

If history matters, and I don't think it does, Germany has a greater claim to Kaliningrad and Armenians have a greater claim to Mount Ararat.

So using history to claim that the Palestinians have no legal claim is specious at best.

[Hards Alumni]

And how does that change things?

Well the people they're in charge of haven't put them in charge.  Seems pretty important and obvious.

[Hards Alumni]

Dude there were but a small amount of Jews around the Holy Lands when the Balfour Declaration first arose.

If history matters, and I don't think it does, Germany has a greater claim to Kaliningrad and Armenians have a greater claim to Mount Ararat.

So using history to claim that the Palestinians have no legal claim is specious at best.

Well that's what he does best.

[MU82]

Anyone angry at the people calling and leaving messages for Judge Enogron and his clerk calling them "dirty Jews"?

Of course not. The judge is picking on the favorite  antisemite of folks like Doc, so he IS a dirty Jew.

[Hards Alumni]

So you're take is they're not anti-Jewish, they're anti-Israel.  Are they anti the existence of a Jewish State?  Are you saying if they were anti-Jewish, they would attacking pockets of Jews in Europe and South America?   There are essentially two countries with significant Jewish populations:  the United States and Israel. Do think Iran is anti-Israel but not anti-Jewish?  Because if they were they would be taking out orthodox communities in NYC and Miami?  What are you actually saying here about a terrorist organization, controlled by Iran, that has in their charter, the elimination of the State of Israel?

Yes.  I'm glad you're figuring this out, finally.  The entire reason that the state of Israel isn't well liked isn't because they're Jewish.  It's because the country was created at the peril of the existing population.  Muslims and Jewish people lived side by side peacefully for hundreds of years.  There is nothing inherently anti-Judaism about Islam.

[4everwarriors]

You've moved from blaming Hamas, to all Palestinians, to all Arabs.

So instead of blaming a group of people, or a country of people, now you're blaming a race of people. Know what that means?

The truth is not racist. It's the truth, hey?

[JWags85]

I believe Israel has a right to exist.

I believe Israel has a right to defend itself and respond to attacks from any/all terrorist groups or nation-states.

I believe Palestinians have a right to exist.

I believe innocent Palestinian citizens being subjected to punishment by Israel simply because a terrorist organization occupies the same geographic area is wrong.

I post what I post because the loudest here only post in one direction. If I, or others, allow this without like-for-like counterbalance, then I believe the "window" will still shift too far in one direction.

I'm happy to discuss things more down the middle at any time.

A lot has already come up in the thread since this, but wanted to say I appreciate the clarification

[Lennys Tap]

There is nothing inherently anti-Judaism about Islam.

How 'bout anti woman?

[21Jumpstreet]

I actually agree that they didn't have good responses though I suspect my reasons are different than yours. What they said was the truth (caveat I have not watched the entire hearings just the few clips that have gone viral)  which is what they are required to speak when under oath. I can understand the instict to just stick to answering the question when under oath, but they could have displayed a lot more compassion than they did... but even then I understand the fear.  Because if a university president says the wrong thing,  they can be accused of "chilling" free speech which is another potential lawsuit.

They had to have known that this line of questioning was coming.  They didn't prepare well enough. University presidents need to be politicians as much as they are academics

I am shocked Magill wasn't prepared better, she had a lot of leeway from my wife, for example, but that has been replaced with frustration and disbelief. I completely understand she was walking a line, and has to. This was nothing but political theater.

[21Jumpstreet]

The truth is not racist. It's the truth, hey?

Yikes, Doc.

[Heisenberg]

Palantir announced it will hire 180 kids suffering from antisemitism on college campus. In other words, you can leave now and start your career, and not wait for graduation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/palantir-offers-opportunity-students-looking-234921216.html

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

They are calling for intifada, genocide, and threatening Jewish Students. They are words to incite violence and physical assaults, and such words are not protected speech.

Regarding the bolded, we've been over this. In order to reach the legal standard for incitement, speech must pass "the Brandenburg test". The Brandenburg test has two prongs: 1. "The speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and 2. "The speech is likely to incite or produce such action". Both prongs need to be met in order for speech to be considered unprotected. The name "Brandenburg test" refers to the case where it was developed, Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case centered around the State of Ohio trying to punish a KKK klansman for calling for violence against Black people. The supreme court ruled that Ohio had violated Brandenburg's first amendment rights and explicitly stated that simply advocating for violence is protected speech.

An example of speech that would pass the Brandenburg test (making it unprotected speech) could be someone pointing at someone and yelling "he has a gun, somebody shoot him" (when no actual threat exists). This passes the Brandenburg test because it is directing others to immediately commit lawless action (shooting an innocent bystander) and it is likely to produce that lawless action (because it could reasonably deceive any armed bystander that there was a threat that justified self-defense). To apply it to the current topic, an anti-Israel protestor telling an already riled up anti-Israel protest, "let's go vandalize that synagogue right across the street" would (imo) pass the Brandenburg test. Calls for intifada or genocide, or saying "From the River to the Sea"? These don't pass the Brandenburg test because they are not imminent and are not likely to spark lawless action. In fact, the Brandburg test was specifically created to ensure that general advocacy of violence was considered protected speech. In regrards to the current topic, it's despicable, disgusting hate speech. But it is also protected speech.  If you have issue with this, your fight is with the US Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Regarding the underlined, general threats of violence against a protected class are considered protected speech. There is however an exception for "true threats". In order for something to be considered a "true threat" the government (which includes universities) must prove that "the speaker meant to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular individual or group of individuals." To give an example regarding the current topic, someone saying "I am going to get a gun and shoot up this Jewish Community Center" would be considered a true threat because there is a direct threat of violence to a specific group of individuals (anyone who works at or frequents that particular community center). We saw something similar to this at Cornell recently and the speaker was correctly arrested. On the other hand, someone stating "kill all Jews" is a deplorable antisemite...but is also engaging in protected speech. Again, if you have an issue with that, your fight is with the US Constitution and the Supreme Court.

I have not reviewed every single story out there but while I have seen many stories of Jewish students feeling threatened (for very good reason), I have seen very few stories of Jewish students being targeted by "true threats". The few stories I have seen (like the previously mentioned one at Cornell) have resulted in swift action by universities. That is not to minimize the terror and anxiety felt by Jewish students and caused by some of these protestors, it is merely a recognition of what is and isn't allowed by the First Amendment.

[Heisenberg]

Regarding the bolded, we've been over this. In order to reach the legal standard for incitement, speech must pass "the Brandenburg test". The Brandenburg test has two prongs: 1. "The speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and 2. "The speech is likely to incite or produce such action". Both prongs need to be met in order for speech to be considered unprotected. The name "Brandenburg test" refers to the case where it was developed, Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case centered around the State of Ohio trying to punish a KKK klansman for calling for violence against Black people. The supreme court ruled that Ohio had violated Brandenburg's first amendment rights and explicitly stated that simply advocating for violence is protected speech.

An example of speech that would pass the Brandenburg test (making it unprotected speech) could be someone pointing at someone and yelling "he has a gun, somebody shoot him" (when no actual threat exists). This passes the Brandenburg test because it is directing others to immediately commit lawless action (shooting an innocent bystander) and it is likely to produce that lawless action (because it could reasonably deceive any armed bystander that there was a threat that justified self-defense). To apply it to the current topic, an anti-Israel protestor telling an already riled up anti-Israel protest, "let's go vandalize that synagogue right across the street" would (imo) pass the Brandenburg test. Calls for intifada or genocide, or saying "From the River to the Sea"? These don't pass the Brandenburg test because they are not imminent and are not likely to spark lawless action. In fact, the Brandburg test was specifically created to ensure that general advocacy of violence was considered protected speech. In regrards to the current topic, it's despicable, disgusting hate speech. But it is also protected speech.  If you have issue with this, your fight is with the US Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Regarding the underlined, general threats of violence against a protected class are considered protected speech. There is however an exception for "true threats". In order for something to be considered a "true threat" the government (which includes universities) must prove that "the speaker meant to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular individual or group of individuals." To give an example regarding the current topic, someone saying "I am going to get a gun and shoot up this Jewish Community Center" would be considered a true threat because there is a direct threat of violence to a specific group of individuals (anyone who works at or frequents that particular community center). We saw something similar to this at Cornell recently and the speaker was correctly arrested. On the other hand, someone stating "kill all Jews" is a deplorable antisemite...but is also engaging in protected speech. Again, if you have an issue with that, your fight is with the US Constitution and the Supreme Court.

I have not reviewed every single story out there but while I have seen many stories of Jewish students feeling threatened (for very good reason), I have seen very few stories of Jewish students being targeted by "true threats". The few stories I have seen (like the previously mentioned one at Cornell) have resulted in swift action by universities. That is not to minimize the terror and anxiety felt by Jewish students and caused by some of these protestors, it is merely a recognition of what is and isn't allowed by the First Amendment.

You'll like these

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/against-free-speech-hypocrisy

https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/is-the-sudden-discovery-by-campus

Alan Dershowitz: is advocating genocide of Jews protected speech?
https://www.youtube.com/live/d60NwKbqIB8?si=jCyqz6__OGlkcRKP

[The Sultan]

"You'll like these random articles that don't address any of your points but have clouded my atrophied brain with nonsense."

[lawdog77]

If a jewish person is anti-zionist, are they anti-semitic?

Yes, they can be. You mean like the Neturei Karta, who have aligned often with antisemites and Islamic extremists?

[The Sultan]

Yes, they can be. You mean like the Neturei Karta, who have aligned often with antisemites and Islamic extremists?

Sure they CAN be. I think jesmu was asking if they are automatically antisemitic if they are anti-Zionist.

[lawdog77]

Sure they CAN be. I think jesmu was asking if they are automatically antisemitic if they are anti-Zionist.

You're fooling yourself if you think antizionism isnt antisemtic.

Good opinion piece here that says it better than I do:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-770876

[The Sultan]

You're fooling yourself if you think antizionism isnt antisemtic.

Good opinion piece here that says it better than I do:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-770876

Eh. Not sure I agree completely with that. If that article is going to rely on self-determination as a reasoning, there have been plenty of instances when the State of Israel has ignored that concept when it was politically convenient for them to do so.

Anyway Israel now certainly has a right to exist. No doubt about that.

[lawdog77]

Eh. Not sure I agree completely with that. If that article is going to rely on self-determination as a reasoning, there have been plenty of instances when the State of Israel has ignored that concept when it was politically convenient for them to do so.

Anyway Israel now certainly has a right to exist. No doubt about that.

Not according to some Jews, which was jesmu's question.  There's a difference between not agreeing with Israel's policies, or being meh about Israel and being antizionist. There's inherent antisemitism when using antizionism language, in my opinion.

[Uncle Rico]

Grok is woke.  I repeat.  Grok is woke

[Pakuni]

Not according to some Jews, which was jesmu's question.  There's a difference between not agreeing with Israel's policies, or being meh about Israel and being antizionist. There's inherent antisemitism when using antizionism language, in my opinion.

Is there a difference between disagreeing that Jews are inherently entitled to a sovereign ethno-state and wanting Jews wiped out of existence?

(To be clear, Israel today as an established, sovereign nation has a right to exist. But Israel and Zionism are not synonyms. The latter predates the former by decades).