The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Forum
UC Statement Condemning Anti-Zionism Draws Controversy

A fierce debate over free speech, academic openness and anti-Jewish sentiment will come to a head on Wednesday when UC regents consider an apparently unprecedented policy statement classifying anti-Zionism — a viewpoint opposing the existence of a Jewish state — as a form of bigotry.

A draft of the statement has been endorsed by Hillel International and other Jewish groups, which argue that the problem has gone unrecognized for too long and that Israel-divestment movements sweeping UC and campuses around the globe have created a hostile environment for Jewish students in both blatant and subtle ways — from spray-painted swastikas to excluding Jewish students from some political discourse.

“I commend the university for taking the initiative to address the problem at its root,” said Liat Menna, a Jewish sophomore at UCLA. “It’s about hatred that manifests itself on the campus.”

But the proposed policy has alarmed others, including faculty leaders and prominent Jewish scholars, who say it will have a chilling effect on academic freedom — and that it conflates anti-Jewish sentiment with legitimate political views, including those advanced over the years by many prominent Jews.

“We don’t deny that there are some people who use anti-Zionism as a smoke screen for anti-Semitic thoughts, but to condemn anti-Zionism as a whole, without making that distinction, is a very dangerous path to go down,” said Kathleen Montgomery, a UC Riverside business professor who heads the systemwide University Committee on Academic Freedom.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Israel Lobby, Katy Murphy, Zionism 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. If I were young again (Oh!) and attending a college where there were students and groups expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America…I think I would have a problem with that.

    I would also wonder if it would qualify as free speech protected by the First Amendment…or as treason. (This is an interesting question.)

    But I would never equate it with bigotry.

    It is in fact common in college-town atmospheres to encounter the odd person who thinks the US has no right to exist…you know, because Indians (excuse me, “Native Americans.”) My response is always that things have existed long enough to be permanent. I feel the same way about Israel. It’s been there long enough. It “is real,” and it ain’t going anywhere.

    And I think it can endure a little negative free speech, especially when it happens in my country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Should George Kennan's book, Around the Cragged Hill, be banned because he advocated a dissolution of the present United States and its reconstitution into about eight autonomous republics? What about a call for a constitutional convention to develop a means for peaceable regional or state secession from the union, or a means of peaceable expulsion of some states from the present Union.? The existence of nations, at least in their present form, strikes me as eminently debtable--lots of Hungarians think that Transylvania should be part of Hungary and not Romania. Should that discussion be banned from American campuses as anti-Romanian?

    Quite honestly, the arrogance of (some) Jews in seeking to ban legitimate polltical and historical discussion as anti-Semitic is becoming tiresome.
    , @Max Payne

    I feel the same way about Israel. It’s been there long enough. It “is real,” and it ain’t going anywhere.
     
    As real as South Africa's old apartheid government (which at one point fielded six nuclear weapons). I wonder where that went....
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    1. Expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America is not treason. Treason is very clearly and carefully defined in the U.S. Constitution. Please read it sometime (although I must warn you, Buzz, that it contains hard words). So actually, no, your question is not interesting after all.

    2. Israel "...ain't [sic] going anywhere." Please tell me where the Kingdom of Prussia, the Empire of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Most Serene Republic of Venice, the Kingdom of Naples, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies went. While you're at it, I would like to know what happened to the Free City of Danzig and the Khanate of the Golden Horde. (Warning: History books also contain hard words.)

    , @consonantes
    Do you feel the same way about Palestine?
    They've been there long enough also?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/forum/uc-statement-condemning-anti-zionism-draws-controversy/#comment-1365924
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. ‘Anti-Semitism’–the term itself–is a form of bigotry. It’s designed to malign even the most erstwhile critic of Jewish/Zionist conduct. It is an underhanded assault on the non-Jewish world. False accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ also enjoy total immunity.

    The term ‘anti-Semitism’ should therefore be retired and designated for what it is: hateful speech that’s designed to torpedo Free Speech.

    The theory of ‘anti-Semitism’ is a dishonest concept since it’s based on the view that opposition to Jewish behavior is automatically suspect and indicative of bad morals, if not a bizarre psychological disorder.

    But Jewish power has real victims. Just ask the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the millions in Europe who perished under the boot of Bolshevism. But most Jews don’t want to discuss this. (And they don’t want you to, either.) They’d rather change the subject and turn the tables. “You hate Jews, don’t you!”

    The accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ is designed to injure and diminish anyone who has a gripe against Jewish conduct–whether rightly or wrongly. It’s therefore a smokescreen. The basic message: shut up.

    ‘Anti-Semitism’ has been conflated with gas chambers and lampshades made of Jewish skin. This is 99% malarkey. Why not simply decry murder, dispossession, and violence? Shouldn’t that be the universal standard?

    Unfortunately this down-to-earth formula would get in the way of particular Zionist goals and ongoing policies, since the conquest of Palestine (and a few countries near Israel) remains an unfinished job.

    Sure, people who hate Jews have done terrible things. But people who love Jews have also done terrible things. Let’s therefore separate attitude from violence. That is the key test.

    Jewish-invented taboos involving ‘anti-Semitism’ are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate. Let’s focus on deeds–not speech or thoughts.

    Is making these observations ‘anti-Semitic’?

    Most certainly!

    The sledgehammer of ‘anti-Semitism’ is a manipulative tool designed to 1) assure conformity and 2) impose censorship. It is a backhanded assault on intellectual freedom.

    Due to the invention (and marketing) of anti-Semitic theory, no other group enjoys such lofty protection from criticism–and deserves it less.

    For more on this opaque and mysterious subject:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/advance-ethnic-warfare-chill-criticism-the-moral-and-political-fraud-of-anti-semitic-theory/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    In the good-old days, in Europe, the 'anti-Semitism' meant hating ethnic Jews. Since WWII, 'antisemitism' mean whosoever is hated by the Organized Jewry.

    The Berlin-born Jewish professor Shmuel Almog (Hebrew University, Jerusalem), has claimed that the term with hyphen and without it has different meanings. The term ‘Antisemitism’ was coined by Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s. It was applied to European Christians who hated Jews. However, when it’s written with hyphen ‘Anti-Semitism’ – it means hatred toward Semite people who are found in far greater numbers among Arab Muslims and Christians than the entire world Jewry.

    Incidently, professor Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok (University of Wales) who has authored three books on Jew-hatred (The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Antisemitism and Antisemitism: A History and The Paradox of Antisemitism) has always used the term without hyphen....

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/11/27/antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism/
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Jewish-invented taboos involving ‘anti-Semitism’ are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate.
     
    And when we're talking about Azhkenazic Jews, the term is also laughably inaccurate. The Azhkenazim are basically whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism long, long ago, before Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. The real Semites are the Arabs--the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    "The term 'anti-Semitism' should therefore be retired and designated for what it is: hateful speech that's designed to torpedo Free Speech."

    Need one say more?
    , @Bill
    Right on. The real question is not "Is anti-Zionism a form of anti-Semitism which should therefore be banned from campus" but "Should people advocating the banning of anti-semitism be banned from campus."

    The most obnoxious thing about this campaign is the way it encourages everyone to take for granted that, of course, ant-semitic speech should be banned.
  3. anti-Zionism — a viewpoint opposing the existence of a Jewish state

    Zionism is an ideology. It is quite possible to have a Jewish state sans Zionism. To equate anti-Zionism to opposition to the existence of a Jewish state is either an intentional misdirection or the work of an imbecile.

    I keep reading about college students who think free speech is a bad idea. If faculty and administration go along with it then fine. Ban free speech on campus. But there can be no state or federal assistance to such a campus.

    Read More
  4. Bigots are not bigots when they happen to be RIGHT.

    We know what you did on 9/11/2001 so if you want to talk to me about “bigotry”, it will have to be with both sides equally armed.

    Read More
  5. @Buzz Mohawk
    If I were young again (Oh!) and attending a college where there were students and groups expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America...I think I would have a problem with that.

    I would also wonder if it would qualify as free speech protected by the First Amendment...or as treason. (This is an interesting question.)

    But I would never equate it with bigotry.

    It is in fact common in college-town atmospheres to encounter the odd person who thinks the US has no right to exist...you know, because Indians (excuse me, "Native Americans.") My response is always that things have existed long enough to be permanent. I feel the same way about Israel. It's been there long enough. It "is real," and it ain't going anywhere.

    And I think it can endure a little negative free speech, especially when it happens in my country.

    Should George Kennan’s book, Around the Cragged Hill, be banned because he advocated a dissolution of the present United States and its reconstitution into about eight autonomous republics? What about a call for a constitutional convention to develop a means for peaceable regional or state secession from the union, or a means of peaceable expulsion of some states from the present Union.? The existence of nations, at least in their present form, strikes me as eminently debtable–lots of Hungarians think that Transylvania should be part of Hungary and not Romania. Should that discussion be banned from American campuses as anti-Romanian?

    Quite honestly, the arrogance of (some) Jews in seeking to ban legitimate polltical and historical discussion as anti-Semitic is becoming tiresome.

    Read More
  6. @Buzz Mohawk
    If I were young again (Oh!) and attending a college where there were students and groups expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America...I think I would have a problem with that.

    I would also wonder if it would qualify as free speech protected by the First Amendment...or as treason. (This is an interesting question.)

    But I would never equate it with bigotry.

    It is in fact common in college-town atmospheres to encounter the odd person who thinks the US has no right to exist...you know, because Indians (excuse me, "Native Americans.") My response is always that things have existed long enough to be permanent. I feel the same way about Israel. It's been there long enough. It "is real," and it ain't going anywhere.

    And I think it can endure a little negative free speech, especially when it happens in my country.

    I feel the same way about Israel. It’s been there long enough. It “is real,” and it ain’t going anywhere.

    As real as South Africa’s old apartheid government (which at one point fielded six nuclear weapons). I wonder where that went….

    Read More
  7. Criticism of Zionism = criticism of ‘Jewish state’!!

    That’s ridiculous.

    1. On May 14, 1948, US president Harry Truman crossed the word “Jewish” from David Ben-Gurion’s name of his unilaterally declared “Jewish State of Israel”, and inserted “State” instead. It’s still registered as “State of Israel” as one of the members of United Nations.

    2. Historically, a great majority of Israeli leaders are atheists but racist and mass murderers by their learning from their rabbi and parents as kids.

    3. Many of laws and activities practiced by Israeli Jews are against Moses Laws, such as, pornography, LGBT, prostitution, sex-slavery, treating their women like dirt, etc.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/02/25/alan-hart-israel-makes-holocaust-ii-inevitable/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Many of laws and activities practiced by Israeli Jews are against Moses Laws, such as, pornography, LGBT, prostitution, sex-slavery, treating their women like dirt, etc.
     
    Then they should fit in well with their Sotadic Zone neighbors.
  8. @Mark Green
    'Anti-Semitism'--the term itself--is a form of bigotry. It's designed to malign even the most erstwhile critic of Jewish/Zionist conduct. It is an underhanded assault on the non-Jewish world. False accusations of 'anti-Semitism' also enjoy total immunity.

    The term 'anti-Semitism' should therefore be retired and designated for what it is: hateful speech that's designed to torpedo Free Speech.

    The theory of 'anti-Semitism' is a dishonest concept since it's based on the view that opposition to Jewish behavior is automatically suspect and indicative of bad morals, if not a bizarre psychological disorder.

    But Jewish power has real victims. Just ask the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the millions in Europe who perished under the boot of Bolshevism. But most Jews don't want to discuss this. (And they don't want you to, either.) They'd rather change the subject and turn the tables. "You hate Jews, don't you!"

    The accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is designed to injure and diminish anyone who has a gripe against Jewish conduct--whether rightly or wrongly. It's therefore a smokescreen. The basic message: shut up.

    'Anti-Semitism' has been conflated with gas chambers and lampshades made of Jewish skin. This is 99% malarkey. Why not simply decry murder, dispossession, and violence? Shouldn't that be the universal standard?

    Unfortunately this down-to-earth formula would get in the way of particular Zionist goals and ongoing policies, since the conquest of Palestine (and a few countries near Israel) remains an unfinished job.

    Sure, people who hate Jews have done terrible things. But people who love Jews have also done terrible things. Let's therefore separate attitude from violence. That is the key test.

    Jewish-invented taboos involving 'anti-Semitism' are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate. Let's focus on deeds--not speech or thoughts.

    Is making these observations 'anti-Semitic'?

    Most certainly!

    The sledgehammer of 'anti-Semitism' is a manipulative tool designed to 1) assure conformity and 2) impose censorship. It is a backhanded assault on intellectual freedom.

    Due to the invention (and marketing) of anti-Semitic theory, no other group enjoys such lofty protection from criticism--and deserves it less.

    For more on this opaque and mysterious subject:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/advance-ethnic-warfare-chill-criticism-the-moral-and-political-fraud-of-anti-semitic-theory/

    In the good-old days, in Europe, the ‘anti-Semitism’ meant hating ethnic Jews. Since WWII, ‘antisemitism’ mean whosoever is hated by the Organized Jewry.

    The Berlin-born Jewish professor Shmuel Almog (Hebrew University, Jerusalem), has claimed that the term with hyphen and without it has different meanings. The term ‘Antisemitism’ was coined by Wilhelm Marr in the 1870s. It was applied to European Christians who hated Jews. However, when it’s written with hyphen ‘Anti-Semitism’ – it means hatred toward Semite people who are found in far greater numbers among Arab Muslims and Christians than the entire world Jewry.

    Incidently, professor Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok (University of Wales) who has authored three books on Jew-hatred (The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Antisemitism and Antisemitism: A History and The Paradox of Antisemitism) has always used the term without hyphen….

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/11/27/antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism/

    Read More
  9. Hmmm

    Wow a small group of administrators are attempting to ban public expression of individual opinions regarding political ideology on a University campus to protect Israel, tell me it is isn’t true! Sadly, this crap has been going on relatively unfettered for years. Such actions are not just contrary to the very essence of liberty and the antithesis of the intellectual process , they are blatant violation of the first amendment. If the University actually follows through and attempts to implement this abomination, the “University” should be stripped of its accreditation, and the “regents” fired.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Such actions are not just contrary to the very essence of liberty and the antithesis of the intellectual process , they are blatant violation of the first amendment.
     
    Not according to Stanley Fish, panel member of an event chaired by Jeffrey Rosen, director of the (U.S. taxpayer-funded) National Constitution Center.

    Fish, former dean of Liberal Arts at University of Illinois, opined that Constitutional guarantees of free speech do not extend to academia. In that realm, which functions on a system of peer review and tenure, in which senior members call the shots and issue the decisions as to what topics or research will be supported and which will not, a scholar may produce extensive research and writing that, for example, disputes matters related to the (alleged) holocaust, but if that writing does not hew to the ordained doctrine, it will not be funded, or published, and its producer will not be granted a platform in the academy to teach from his research.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?318476-1/free-speech-us
  10. @Buzz Mohawk
    If I were young again (Oh!) and attending a college where there were students and groups expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America...I think I would have a problem with that.

    I would also wonder if it would qualify as free speech protected by the First Amendment...or as treason. (This is an interesting question.)

    But I would never equate it with bigotry.

    It is in fact common in college-town atmospheres to encounter the odd person who thinks the US has no right to exist...you know, because Indians (excuse me, "Native Americans.") My response is always that things have existed long enough to be permanent. I feel the same way about Israel. It's been there long enough. It "is real," and it ain't going anywhere.

    And I think it can endure a little negative free speech, especially when it happens in my country.

    1. Expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America is not treason. Treason is very clearly and carefully defined in the U.S. Constitution. Please read it sometime (although I must warn you, Buzz, that it contains hard words). So actually, no, your question is not interesting after all.

    2. Israel “…ain’t [sic] going anywhere.” Please tell me where the Kingdom of Prussia, the Empire of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Most Serene Republic of Venice, the Kingdom of Naples, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies went. While you’re at it, I would like to know what happened to the Free City of Danzig and the Khanate of the Golden Horde. (Warning: History books also contain hard words.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Remind me never to write about more than one side of an argument here, and never to be subtle, because the Aspergery, square-headed geniuses will take everything literally, accuse me of being ignorant -- or even worse, of having a small vocabulary! They just won't get it.

    I have read the Consitution. Treason includes giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which in some cases, by the right operatives, could conceivably be proven. If I'm wrong about this case, so be it. Engaging in a little thought experiment is okay with me, even if it causes me a little bit of public embarrassment.

    You see, I don't have to always write perfect comments, because it just doesn't matter how I look on the intardnet in front of intards. (Oh, did I use unreal words there too?)

    I'm sure there are radical Palestinian sympathizers behind some of the anti-Israel speech, which definitely gives them aid and comfort -- and is designed to reduce American support for the country they want to destroy. But this is not my issue, and I expressed both sides in my comment.

    When I say Israel has been there long enough to be permanent, I mean it has a right to exist, not that it's existence is free of risk. But readers at this site like you never seem to sense anything more than the literally obvious in any written material.

    Ain't that just too bad?

    , @Bill
    Muh Konstitution!!
  11. If you would like to celebrate this Good Friday by throwing P.C. to the winds and indulging in some truly hard core Thought Crime, read the amusing chapter on European Jewry shortly before WWII, “How Odd of God” in Douglas Reed’s Disgrace Abounding (1939), still available in hardcover on Amazon.com. Here we have an absolutely scathing portrait of the Jews by an anti-Nazi English journalist. It’s not for the easily offended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Actually, you can download the whole book in PDF form for free at his website: http://www.douglasreed.co.uk/disgrace.pdf
  12. #1

    Israel-divestment movements sweeping UC and campuses around the globe have created a hostile environment for Jewish students in both blatant and subtle ways —

    The University of California system is public — supported by California state taxpayers and, one assumes, also receives federal funds — tax remits from all the people of the United States.

    Why ever should a state- and federal US taxpayer supported university system be required to kow tow to demands regarding Israel?

    Does any other state (or state-mimicking entity) that is not supported by US taxpayers enjoy the same protection; i.e. did Ireland (credibly or legitimately) demand that UC refrain from criticizing Ireland when that nation was in the midst of its conflict?

    USA boasts of being a “propositional nation” promising equality under the law. If that is the case then if one entity enjoys exclusive and particular protections that are not enjoyed by every state and entity, then the principle of equality under the law is vitiated and meaningless.

    #2.

    from spray-painted swastikas to excluding Jewish students from some political discourse.

    [controversy alert shamelessly cribbed from Google: Sub-adults and those who failed Critical Thinking 0.01 may be offended by the following]

    a. Americans of German ethnic origin number over 50 million, more than 17% of the US population; German-Americans are America’s largest single ethnic group.

    b. At a time in the first-half of the twentieth century the near-ancestors of German people found themselves and their nation under sustained attack and conditions of chaos. Eventually, a leader and form of government took charge of the chaotic state, imposed order, achieved economic well-being, and raised up forces to fend off attacks against it. They rallied under the sign of the swastika, an effective banner.
    The German people have a right to be proud of that effort to re-order and preserve their state.
    Die Fahne hoch!

    The sustained lies about- and demonization of- the German people and their government in the times of war in the 20th century have reached proportions that are an affront to all people everywhere, and to the essential ability to examine history to appropriately learn its lessons.

    Moreover — You’ve all heard this one:

    First they came for the socialists,
    but I was not a socialist so I did not speak out.
    Then they came for the Catholics,
    But I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic.*
    Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me.

    * Roman Catholicism has been effectively marginalized; card-carrying members of the FDD occupy the Vatican]

    Now, look at what was done to Germany and to the German people.

    Look at what is still being done to Germany, to the German people and indeed to all of what was the heart of Christian Europe.

    First they came for the Germans,
    but I was not a German so I did not speak out.
    Then they came for the ___,
    But I did not speak out because I was not a ___.

    Do you think for one minute that you, Mr. and Mrs. America and your children are not next on the list of peoples to be subjected to the slaughter of their first-born, the degradation of their values, the destruction of their culture and its icons, the eradication of your religious beliefs?

    Die Fahne hoch!

    Unless of course you think it is appropriate and preferable that the flag of the United States is melded into the flag of Israel, as is done routinely and blatantly at AIPAC’s annual traitor-fests.

    If the Hakenkreuz can be censored out of mind and historic memory;
    and the Confederate flag can be censored out of mind and memory;
    So can the Stars and Stripes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    The Zionist crowd has turned BDS into another Holocaust myth. BDS in reality legitimizes the Zionist entity. Barack Obama is on record of saying the BDS is not anti-Israel.

    If one reads BDS Declaration, he will find to his surprise that BDS is not against the Jewish occupation of 78% of the historic Palestine. BDS uses the word “occupation” for the West Bank and Gaza Strip but not even for East Jerusalem which all were occupied by Israel as result of its 1967 War of Aggression. The BDS demands from Israel; 1) Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the wall, 2) Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality (meaning Israel has the right to exist within pre-1967 borders); and 3) Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

    Zionist Jew writer David Cohen boasted at Jewish site algemeiner on December 23, 2013 that BDS is not anti-Israel but against world Jewish power.

    On February 18, 2014, Emily L. Hauser claimed at the Jewish Daily Forward that BDS is not antisemitism. “Though I boycott the settlements, I don’t personally support BDS, and I do not doubt that some members of that movement are unrepentant antisemites – just a some member of the Greater Israel movement are unrepentant racist and Islamophobe,” she wrote.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/04/28/bds-legitimizes-israel/
  13. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    If you would like to celebrate this Good Friday by throwing P.C. to the winds and indulging in some truly hard core Thought Crime, read the amusing chapter on European Jewry shortly before WWII, "How Odd of God" in Douglas Reed's Disgrace Abounding (1939), still available in hardcover on Amazon.com. Here we have an absolutely scathing portrait of the Jews by an anti-Nazi English journalist. It's not for the easily offended.

    Actually, you can download the whole book in PDF form for free at his website: http://www.douglasreed.co.uk/disgrace.pdf

    Read More
  14. @Mark Green
    'Anti-Semitism'--the term itself--is a form of bigotry. It's designed to malign even the most erstwhile critic of Jewish/Zionist conduct. It is an underhanded assault on the non-Jewish world. False accusations of 'anti-Semitism' also enjoy total immunity.

    The term 'anti-Semitism' should therefore be retired and designated for what it is: hateful speech that's designed to torpedo Free Speech.

    The theory of 'anti-Semitism' is a dishonest concept since it's based on the view that opposition to Jewish behavior is automatically suspect and indicative of bad morals, if not a bizarre psychological disorder.

    But Jewish power has real victims. Just ask the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the millions in Europe who perished under the boot of Bolshevism. But most Jews don't want to discuss this. (And they don't want you to, either.) They'd rather change the subject and turn the tables. "You hate Jews, don't you!"

    The accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is designed to injure and diminish anyone who has a gripe against Jewish conduct--whether rightly or wrongly. It's therefore a smokescreen. The basic message: shut up.

    'Anti-Semitism' has been conflated with gas chambers and lampshades made of Jewish skin. This is 99% malarkey. Why not simply decry murder, dispossession, and violence? Shouldn't that be the universal standard?

    Unfortunately this down-to-earth formula would get in the way of particular Zionist goals and ongoing policies, since the conquest of Palestine (and a few countries near Israel) remains an unfinished job.

    Sure, people who hate Jews have done terrible things. But people who love Jews have also done terrible things. Let's therefore separate attitude from violence. That is the key test.

    Jewish-invented taboos involving 'anti-Semitism' are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate. Let's focus on deeds--not speech or thoughts.

    Is making these observations 'anti-Semitic'?

    Most certainly!

    The sledgehammer of 'anti-Semitism' is a manipulative tool designed to 1) assure conformity and 2) impose censorship. It is a backhanded assault on intellectual freedom.

    Due to the invention (and marketing) of anti-Semitic theory, no other group enjoys such lofty protection from criticism--and deserves it less.

    For more on this opaque and mysterious subject:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/advance-ethnic-warfare-chill-criticism-the-moral-and-political-fraud-of-anti-semitic-theory/

    Jewish-invented taboos involving ‘anti-Semitism’ are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate.

    And when we’re talking about Azhkenazic Jews, the term is also laughably inaccurate. The Azhkenazim are basically whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism long, long ago, before Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. The real Semites are the Arabs–the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The real Semites are the Arabs–the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.
     
    As they themselves ethnically-cleansed everywhere else from Mesopotamia to the Mauritanian coast.

    Some ethnic cleansings are more equal than others, apparently. How are once great Christian cities such as Damascus, Alexandria, and Hippo Regius doing today?
    , @SolontoCroesus

    At the end of every Hebrew sentence that you utter,
    There sits an Arab, smoking his hookah,
    Even if it is begun in Siberia,
    Or in Hollywood, with Hava Nigilah. -- Me'ir Ariel
     
  15. @Rehmat
    Criticism of Zionism = criticism of 'Jewish state'!!

    That's ridiculous.

    1. On May 14, 1948, US president Harry Truman crossed the word "Jewish" from David Ben-Gurion's name of his unilaterally declared "Jewish State of Israel", and inserted "State" instead. It's still registered as "State of Israel" as one of the members of United Nations.

    2. Historically, a great majority of Israeli leaders are atheists but racist and mass murderers by their learning from their rabbi and parents as kids.

    3. Many of laws and activities practiced by Israeli Jews are against Moses Laws, such as, pornography, LGBT, prostitution, sex-slavery, treating their women like dirt, etc.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/02/25/alan-hart-israel-makes-holocaust-ii-inevitable/

    Many of laws and activities practiced by Israeli Jews are against Moses Laws, such as, pornography, LGBT, prostitution, sex-slavery, treating their women like dirt, etc.

    Then they should fit in well with their Sotadic Zone neighbors.

    Read More
  16. @SolontoCroesus
    #1

    Israel-divestment movements sweeping UC and campuses around the globe have created a hostile environment for Jewish students in both blatant and subtle ways —
     
    The University of California system is public -- supported by California state taxpayers and, one assumes, also receives federal funds -- tax remits from all the people of the United States.

    Why ever should a state- and federal US taxpayer supported university system be required to kow tow to demands regarding Israel?

    Does any other state (or state-mimicking entity) that is not supported by US taxpayers enjoy the same protection; i.e. did Ireland (credibly or legitimately) demand that UC refrain from criticizing Ireland when that nation was in the midst of its conflict?

    USA boasts of being a "propositional nation" promising equality under the law. If that is the case then if one entity enjoys exclusive and particular protections that are not enjoyed by every state and entity, then the principle of equality under the law is vitiated and meaningless.

    #2.


    from spray-painted swastikas to excluding Jewish students from some political discourse.
     
    [controversy alert shamelessly cribbed from Google: Sub-adults and those who failed Critical Thinking 0.01 may be offended by the following]

    a. Americans of German ethnic origin number over 50 million, more than 17% of the US population; German-Americans are America’s largest single ethnic group.

    b. At a time in the first-half of the twentieth century the near-ancestors of German people found themselves and their nation under sustained attack and conditions of chaos. Eventually, a leader and form of government took charge of the chaotic state, imposed order, achieved economic well-being, and raised up forces to fend off attacks against it. They rallied under the sign of the swastika, an effective banner.
    The German people have a right to be proud of that effort to re-order and preserve their state.
    Die Fahne hoch!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IECxa8P7uMo

    The sustained lies about- and demonization of- the German people and their government in the times of war in the 20th century have reached proportions that are an affront to all people everywhere, and to the essential ability to examine history to appropriately learn its lessons.

    Moreover -- You've all heard this one:


    First they came for the socialists,
    but I was not a socialist so I did not speak out.
    Then they came for the Catholics,
    But I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic.*
    Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me.
     
    * Roman Catholicism has been effectively marginalized; card-carrying members of the FDD occupy the Vatican]

    Now, look at what was done to Germany and to the German people.

    Look at what is still being done to Germany, to the German people and indeed to all of what was the heart of Christian Europe.

    First they came for the Germans,
    but I was not a German so I did not speak out.
    Then they came for the ___,
    But I did not speak out because I was not a ___.

    Do you think for one minute that you, Mr. and Mrs. America and your children are not next on the list of peoples to be subjected to the slaughter of their first-born, the degradation of their values, the destruction of their culture and its icons, the eradication of your religious beliefs?

    Die Fahne hoch!

    Unless of course you think it is appropriate and preferable that the flag of the United States is melded into the flag of Israel, as is done routinely and blatantly at AIPAC's annual traitor-fests.

    If the Hakenkreuz can be censored out of mind and historic memory;
    and the Confederate flag can be censored out of mind and memory;
    So can the Stars and Stripes.

    The Zionist crowd has turned BDS into another Holocaust myth. BDS in reality legitimizes the Zionist entity. Barack Obama is on record of saying the BDS is not anti-Israel.

    If one reads BDS Declaration, he will find to his surprise that BDS is not against the Jewish occupation of 78% of the historic Palestine. BDS uses the word “occupation” for the West Bank and Gaza Strip but not even for East Jerusalem which all were occupied by Israel as result of its 1967 War of Aggression. The BDS demands from Israel; 1) Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the wall, 2) Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality (meaning Israel has the right to exist within pre-1967 borders); and 3) Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

    Zionist Jew writer David Cohen boasted at Jewish site algemeiner on December 23, 2013 that BDS is not anti-Israel but against world Jewish power.

    On February 18, 2014, Emily L. Hauser claimed at the Jewish Daily Forward that BDS is not antisemitism. “Though I boycott the settlements, I don’t personally support BDS, and I do not doubt that some members of that movement are unrepentant antisemites – just a some member of the Greater Israel movement are unrepentant racist and Islamophobe,” she wrote.

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/04/28/bds-legitimizes-israel/

    Read More
  17. @Seamus Padraig

    Jewish-invented taboos involving ‘anti-Semitism’ are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate.
     
    And when we're talking about Azhkenazic Jews, the term is also laughably inaccurate. The Azhkenazim are basically whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism long, long ago, before Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. The real Semites are the Arabs--the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

    The real Semites are the Arabs–the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

    As they themselves ethnically-cleansed everywhere else from Mesopotamia to the Mauritanian coast.

    Some ethnic cleansings are more equal than others, apparently. How are once great Christian cities such as Damascus, Alexandria, and Hippo Regius doing today?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Well said.

    Christianity is 600 years older than Islam.
    Out of its birthplace in Mecca, Islam spread out violently and conquered the lands of others by sword.

    Islam spread mostly, but not exclusively, by violence and by the sword.
    Christianity spread mostly, but not exclusively, by persuasion and proselytizing.

    The Middle East was Christian or 'other' for centuries.
    Not a single Muslim in sight.
    Now hardly any indigenous Christians have been left in their own lands.

    Asia Minor was 100% Christian.
    That is until nomad Muslim Turks from Uyguristan invaded.
    Now Asia Minor is nearly 100% Islamized.
    "Peacefully", of course.

    , @matt
    You keep saying that Muslims ethnically cleansed Christians, and you never provide the slightest shred of evidence for it. I called you on it the last time and you were stone silent. Pick up a goddamn history book: the former parts of the Byzantine Empire remained predominantly Christian for centuries. The native inhabitants converted to Islam only gradually, out of a combination of genuine belief, careerism, desire to avoid extra taxation, and numerous other factors. You sound like a moron.
  18. @Seamus Padraig

    Jewish-invented taboos involving ‘anti-Semitism’ are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate.
     
    And when we're talking about Azhkenazic Jews, the term is also laughably inaccurate. The Azhkenazim are basically whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism long, long ago, before Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. The real Semites are the Arabs--the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

    At the end of every Hebrew sentence that you utter,
    There sits an Arab, smoking his hookah,
    Even if it is begun in Siberia,
    Or in Hollywood, with Hava Nigilah. — Me’ir Ariel

    Read More
  19. @Reg Cæsar

    The real Semites are the Arabs–the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.
     
    As they themselves ethnically-cleansed everywhere else from Mesopotamia to the Mauritanian coast.

    Some ethnic cleansings are more equal than others, apparently. How are once great Christian cities such as Damascus, Alexandria, and Hippo Regius doing today?

    Well said.

    Christianity is 600 years older than Islam.
    Out of its birthplace in Mecca, Islam spread out violently and conquered the lands of others by sword.

    Islam spread mostly, but not exclusively, by violence and by the sword.
    Christianity spread mostly, but not exclusively, by persuasion and proselytizing.

    The Middle East was Christian or ‘other’ for centuries.
    Not a single Muslim in sight.
    Now hardly any indigenous Christians have been left in their own lands.

    Asia Minor was 100% Christian.
    That is until nomad Muslim Turks from Uyguristan invaded.
    Now Asia Minor is nearly 100% Islamized.
    “Peacefully”, of course.

    Read More
  20. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I’m none too fond of these attempts to muzzle people since it cuts both ways. However, what do college kids know? Nothing, that’s what. They’re there to learn, not to get involved with politics that they have little understanding of. Generally, people don’t gain much insight into political questions until they’re past the age of thirty, if they ever do that is. These children should stick to learning what they’re there for and just do what youth are best at when not studying and that’s sports and hanging around. Youth are just suckers for rabble rousers.

    Read More
  21. @Reg Cæsar

    The real Semites are the Arabs–the very ones being ethnically cleansed from Palestine.
     
    As they themselves ethnically-cleansed everywhere else from Mesopotamia to the Mauritanian coast.

    Some ethnic cleansings are more equal than others, apparently. How are once great Christian cities such as Damascus, Alexandria, and Hippo Regius doing today?

    You keep saying that Muslims ethnically cleansed Christians, and you never provide the slightest shred of evidence for it. I called you on it the last time and you were stone silent. Pick up a goddamn history book: the former parts of the Byzantine Empire remained predominantly Christian for centuries. The native inhabitants converted to Islam only gradually, out of a combination of genuine belief, careerism, desire to avoid extra taxation, and numerous other factors. You sound like a moron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Pick up a goddamn history book:}

    No, you pick up a 'goddamn' history book.

    Muslim Turks committed Genocide against Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks of Asia Minor. About 4 millions were murdered. That is just between 1915-1923. Several hundred thousand Christian children were kidnapped and Islamized.
    Before that, 1894-1896, Turks massacred 300,000 Armenian Christians in the Hamidian Massacres.

    Go pick up a 'goddamn' history book and learn that Turks squatting in Asia Minor today are descendants of nomadic Muslim Turkic tribes originally from Uyguristan.

    {The native inhabitants converted to Islam only gradually, out of a combination of genuine belief, careerism, desire to avoid extra taxation, and numerous other factors.}

    You are the one who sounds like a moron.

    Native inhabitants were given a choice: convert to Islam or get your throat cut.

    , @Mark Green
    I was in Syria ten years ago. I visited many churches and Mosques there. Secular Syria (under Assad) was peaceful, tolerant and intact. I even met a Jewish shopkeeper in Aleppo. He had no intention of leaving Syria for Israel.

    Both the Christians and Muslims that I spoke to in Syria complained about the Israelis, not one another. Remember also that Israel once had a substantial Christian population. Most Christians have fled Zionized Palestine over the past 60 years. Why? Because of anti-Christian laws and customs that have come into being since the Jews took over. Bad vibes. Racism. Ethnic cleansing. Jewish Israelis want the native Christians and Muslims gone.

    Israeli Jews tolerate money-spending Christian tourists but abhor the idea of living side by side with the Goyim. Segregation is a core Israeli value; as is Jewish racial supremacism. Indeed, Jews are not permitted to marry Christians or Muslims inside the 'democratic' Jewish State. Islam on the other hand, respects Christ as a prophet.

    Meanwhile, Zio-Washington is invading Muslim-majority countries and slaughtering Muslim civilians in their homes and villages to please the crypto-Israelis who dominate Washington, NY, LA, Chicago, Wall Street and Hollywood. Freedom! Democracy!
  22. @matt
    You keep saying that Muslims ethnically cleansed Christians, and you never provide the slightest shred of evidence for it. I called you on it the last time and you were stone silent. Pick up a goddamn history book: the former parts of the Byzantine Empire remained predominantly Christian for centuries. The native inhabitants converted to Islam only gradually, out of a combination of genuine belief, careerism, desire to avoid extra taxation, and numerous other factors. You sound like a moron.

    {Pick up a goddamn history book:}

    No, you pick up a ‘goddamn’ history book.

    Muslim Turks committed Genocide against Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks of Asia Minor. About 4 millions were murdered. That is just between 1915-1923. Several hundred thousand Christian children were kidnapped and Islamized.
    Before that, 1894-1896, Turks massacred 300,000 Armenian Christians in the Hamidian Massacres.

    Go pick up a ‘goddamn’ history book and learn that Turks squatting in Asia Minor today are descendants of nomadic Muslim Turkic tribes originally from Uyguristan.

    {The native inhabitants converted to Islam only gradually, out of a combination of genuine belief, careerism, desire to avoid extra taxation, and numerous other factors.}

    You are the one who sounds like a moron.

    Native inhabitants were given a choice: convert to Islam or get your throat cut.

    Read More
  23. @Mark Green
    'Anti-Semitism'--the term itself--is a form of bigotry. It's designed to malign even the most erstwhile critic of Jewish/Zionist conduct. It is an underhanded assault on the non-Jewish world. False accusations of 'anti-Semitism' also enjoy total immunity.

    The term 'anti-Semitism' should therefore be retired and designated for what it is: hateful speech that's designed to torpedo Free Speech.

    The theory of 'anti-Semitism' is a dishonest concept since it's based on the view that opposition to Jewish behavior is automatically suspect and indicative of bad morals, if not a bizarre psychological disorder.

    But Jewish power has real victims. Just ask the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the millions in Europe who perished under the boot of Bolshevism. But most Jews don't want to discuss this. (And they don't want you to, either.) They'd rather change the subject and turn the tables. "You hate Jews, don't you!"

    The accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is designed to injure and diminish anyone who has a gripe against Jewish conduct--whether rightly or wrongly. It's therefore a smokescreen. The basic message: shut up.

    'Anti-Semitism' has been conflated with gas chambers and lampshades made of Jewish skin. This is 99% malarkey. Why not simply decry murder, dispossession, and violence? Shouldn't that be the universal standard?

    Unfortunately this down-to-earth formula would get in the way of particular Zionist goals and ongoing policies, since the conquest of Palestine (and a few countries near Israel) remains an unfinished job.

    Sure, people who hate Jews have done terrible things. But people who love Jews have also done terrible things. Let's therefore separate attitude from violence. That is the key test.

    Jewish-invented taboos involving 'anti-Semitism' are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate. Let's focus on deeds--not speech or thoughts.

    Is making these observations 'anti-Semitic'?

    Most certainly!

    The sledgehammer of 'anti-Semitism' is a manipulative tool designed to 1) assure conformity and 2) impose censorship. It is a backhanded assault on intellectual freedom.

    Due to the invention (and marketing) of anti-Semitic theory, no other group enjoys such lofty protection from criticism--and deserves it less.

    For more on this opaque and mysterious subject:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/advance-ethnic-warfare-chill-criticism-the-moral-and-political-fraud-of-anti-semitic-theory/

    “The term ‘anti-Semitism’ should therefore be retired and designated for what it is: hateful speech that’s designed to torpedo Free Speech.”

    Need one say more?

    Read More
  24. @matt
    You keep saying that Muslims ethnically cleansed Christians, and you never provide the slightest shred of evidence for it. I called you on it the last time and you were stone silent. Pick up a goddamn history book: the former parts of the Byzantine Empire remained predominantly Christian for centuries. The native inhabitants converted to Islam only gradually, out of a combination of genuine belief, careerism, desire to avoid extra taxation, and numerous other factors. You sound like a moron.

    I was in Syria ten years ago. I visited many churches and Mosques there. Secular Syria (under Assad) was peaceful, tolerant and intact. I even met a Jewish shopkeeper in Aleppo. He had no intention of leaving Syria for Israel.

    Both the Christians and Muslims that I spoke to in Syria complained about the Israelis, not one another. Remember also that Israel once had a substantial Christian population. Most Christians have fled Zionized Palestine over the past 60 years. Why? Because of anti-Christian laws and customs that have come into being since the Jews took over. Bad vibes. Racism. Ethnic cleansing. Jewish Israelis want the native Christians and Muslims gone.

    Israeli Jews tolerate money-spending Christian tourists but abhor the idea of living side by side with the Goyim. Segregation is a core Israeli value; as is Jewish racial supremacism. Indeed, Jews are not permitted to marry Christians or Muslims inside the ‘democratic’ Jewish State. Islam on the other hand, respects Christ as a prophet.

    Meanwhile, Zio-Washington is invading Muslim-majority countries and slaughtering Muslim civilians in their homes and villages to please the crypto-Israelis who dominate Washington, NY, LA, Chicago, Wall Street and Hollywood. Freedom! Democracy!

    Read More
  25. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    1. Expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America is not treason. Treason is very clearly and carefully defined in the U.S. Constitution. Please read it sometime (although I must warn you, Buzz, that it contains hard words). So actually, no, your question is not interesting after all.

    2. Israel "...ain't [sic] going anywhere." Please tell me where the Kingdom of Prussia, the Empire of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Most Serene Republic of Venice, the Kingdom of Naples, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies went. While you're at it, I would like to know what happened to the Free City of Danzig and the Khanate of the Golden Horde. (Warning: History books also contain hard words.)

    Remind me never to write about more than one side of an argument here, and never to be subtle, because the Aspergery, square-headed geniuses will take everything literally, accuse me of being ignorant — or even worse, of having a small vocabulary! They just won’t get it.

    I have read the Consitution. Treason includes giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which in some cases, by the right operatives, could conceivably be proven. If I’m wrong about this case, so be it. Engaging in a little thought experiment is okay with me, even if it causes me a little bit of public embarrassment.

    You see, I don’t have to always write perfect comments, because it just doesn’t matter how I look on the intardnet in front of intards. (Oh, did I use unreal words there too?)

    I’m sure there are radical Palestinian sympathizers behind some of the anti-Israel speech, which definitely gives them aid and comfort — and is designed to reduce American support for the country they want to destroy. But this is not my issue, and I expressed both sides in my comment.

    When I say Israel has been there long enough to be permanent, I mean it has a right to exist, not that it’s existence is free of risk. But readers at this site like you never seem to sense anything more than the literally obvious in any written material.

    Ain’t that just too bad?

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    America has a right to exist . So does China. They have a border that has been defined and mutually accepted by the country concerned and the rest of the world. Israel does not belong to this category. It has no right to exist in Sheba farm, Golan Heights,and in WB . It has no right to maintain blockade over Gaza.

    It also has no right to goad America into wars against middle eastern countries who have been resisting and opposing the continued existence of Israel beyond 1967 borders . Israel has also no right to pressurize West and the myriad financial institutes to wage economic wars ,carry out ,clandestine assassination , support treason against those middle eastern countries , and engage in starving of the citizen by sanctions. Israel has no right to slander the leaders like Corbyn, or Trump or Chuck Hegel or Richard Falk . It has no right to take American money and use the same money through multiple clandestine levels and operations to buy American senators and congressman . It has no right to bring the elected leaders to Israel on free trip and then force them to make laws in favor of Israel . Israel maintains many organizations in west to carry these operations . When caught,they change names,fold ,or simply delay in addition to making threats of bringing the whole edifice down . Nowadays the charged are simply not investigated by the justice
    dept.
    , @exiled off mainstreet
    I concur that it is factual treason to be an exponent of the interests of a foreign state over the interests of the country you supposedly represent. This appears to be standard operating procedure in the yankee capital these days.
  26. @Buzz Mohawk
    Remind me never to write about more than one side of an argument here, and never to be subtle, because the Aspergery, square-headed geniuses will take everything literally, accuse me of being ignorant -- or even worse, of having a small vocabulary! They just won't get it.

    I have read the Consitution. Treason includes giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which in some cases, by the right operatives, could conceivably be proven. If I'm wrong about this case, so be it. Engaging in a little thought experiment is okay with me, even if it causes me a little bit of public embarrassment.

    You see, I don't have to always write perfect comments, because it just doesn't matter how I look on the intardnet in front of intards. (Oh, did I use unreal words there too?)

    I'm sure there are radical Palestinian sympathizers behind some of the anti-Israel speech, which definitely gives them aid and comfort -- and is designed to reduce American support for the country they want to destroy. But this is not my issue, and I expressed both sides in my comment.

    When I say Israel has been there long enough to be permanent, I mean it has a right to exist, not that it's existence is free of risk. But readers at this site like you never seem to sense anything more than the literally obvious in any written material.

    Ain't that just too bad?

    America has a right to exist . So does China. They have a border that has been defined and mutually accepted by the country concerned and the rest of the world. Israel does not belong to this category. It has no right to exist in Sheba farm, Golan Heights,and in WB . It has no right to maintain blockade over Gaza.

    It also has no right to goad America into wars against middle eastern countries who have been resisting and opposing the continued existence of Israel beyond 1967 borders . Israel has also no right to pressurize West and the myriad financial institutes to wage economic wars ,carry out ,clandestine assassination , support treason against those middle eastern countries , and engage in starving of the citizen by sanctions. Israel has no right to slander the leaders like Corbyn, or Trump or Chuck Hegel or Richard Falk . It has no right to take American money and use the same money through multiple clandestine levels and operations to buy American senators and congressman . It has no right to bring the elected leaders to Israel on free trip and then force them to make laws in favor of Israel . Israel maintains many organizations in west to carry these operations . When caught,they change names,fold ,or simply delay in addition to making threats of bringing the whole edifice down . Nowadays the charged are simply not investigated by the justice
    dept.

    Read More
  27. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/palestinians-stab-israeli-soldier-shot-killed-37890451

    “The Israeli military on Thursday detained a soldier who was captured on video shooting an injured Palestinian who was lying on the ground.http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/palestinians-stab-israeli-soldier-shot-killed-37890451

    Giving moral support to him were the public , military establishment ,lawyer and the religious bodies .

    “Israeli Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, who called on Israeli troops to ignore their orders and just kill any armed Palestinian they can, saying they have a religious to do so http://news.antiwar.com/2016/03/24/israeli-medic-detained-after-killing-disarmed-wounded-palestinian/responsibility

    Does it mean that in future any discussion highlighting the nature of the incident and the religious ,moral,public,and military responses to it would be seen as Antisemitic?

    Read More
  28. @Mark Green
    'Anti-Semitism'--the term itself--is a form of bigotry. It's designed to malign even the most erstwhile critic of Jewish/Zionist conduct. It is an underhanded assault on the non-Jewish world. False accusations of 'anti-Semitism' also enjoy total immunity.

    The term 'anti-Semitism' should therefore be retired and designated for what it is: hateful speech that's designed to torpedo Free Speech.

    The theory of 'anti-Semitism' is a dishonest concept since it's based on the view that opposition to Jewish behavior is automatically suspect and indicative of bad morals, if not a bizarre psychological disorder.

    But Jewish power has real victims. Just ask the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the millions in Europe who perished under the boot of Bolshevism. But most Jews don't want to discuss this. (And they don't want you to, either.) They'd rather change the subject and turn the tables. "You hate Jews, don't you!"

    The accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is designed to injure and diminish anyone who has a gripe against Jewish conduct--whether rightly or wrongly. It's therefore a smokescreen. The basic message: shut up.

    'Anti-Semitism' has been conflated with gas chambers and lampshades made of Jewish skin. This is 99% malarkey. Why not simply decry murder, dispossession, and violence? Shouldn't that be the universal standard?

    Unfortunately this down-to-earth formula would get in the way of particular Zionist goals and ongoing policies, since the conquest of Palestine (and a few countries near Israel) remains an unfinished job.

    Sure, people who hate Jews have done terrible things. But people who love Jews have also done terrible things. Let's therefore separate attitude from violence. That is the key test.

    Jewish-invented taboos involving 'anti-Semitism' are self-serving, unfair, and therefore illegitimate. Let's focus on deeds--not speech or thoughts.

    Is making these observations 'anti-Semitic'?

    Most certainly!

    The sledgehammer of 'anti-Semitism' is a manipulative tool designed to 1) assure conformity and 2) impose censorship. It is a backhanded assault on intellectual freedom.

    Due to the invention (and marketing) of anti-Semitic theory, no other group enjoys such lofty protection from criticism--and deserves it less.

    For more on this opaque and mysterious subject:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/advance-ethnic-warfare-chill-criticism-the-moral-and-political-fraud-of-anti-semitic-theory/

    Right on. The real question is not “Is anti-Zionism a form of anti-Semitism which should therefore be banned from campus” but “Should people advocating the banning of anti-semitism be banned from campus.”

    The most obnoxious thing about this campaign is the way it encourages everyone to take for granted that, of course, ant-semitic speech should be banned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    "The most obnoxious thing about this campaign is the way it encourages everyone to take for granted that, of course, anti-semitic speech should be banned."

    This is really the main point. The UC regents are debating what to include and not include in their definition of what is "a form of bigotry" as various interest groups flex their political muscle for their portion of the spoils.

    No one in the mainstream seems to be asking why they are having that debate in the first place. This is the great victory of political correctness. The window for debate has been narrowed to such an extent and no one disputes the premises.
  29. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    1. Expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America is not treason. Treason is very clearly and carefully defined in the U.S. Constitution. Please read it sometime (although I must warn you, Buzz, that it contains hard words). So actually, no, your question is not interesting after all.

    2. Israel "...ain't [sic] going anywhere." Please tell me where the Kingdom of Prussia, the Empire of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Most Serene Republic of Venice, the Kingdom of Naples, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies went. While you're at it, I would like to know what happened to the Free City of Danzig and the Khanate of the Golden Horde. (Warning: History books also contain hard words.)

    Muh Konstitution!!

    Read More
  30. @Buzz Mohawk
    If I were young again (Oh!) and attending a college where there were students and groups expressing opposition to the existence of the United States of America...I think I would have a problem with that.

    I would also wonder if it would qualify as free speech protected by the First Amendment...or as treason. (This is an interesting question.)

    But I would never equate it with bigotry.

    It is in fact common in college-town atmospheres to encounter the odd person who thinks the US has no right to exist...you know, because Indians (excuse me, "Native Americans.") My response is always that things have existed long enough to be permanent. I feel the same way about Israel. It's been there long enough. It "is real," and it ain't going anywhere.

    And I think it can endure a little negative free speech, especially when it happens in my country.

    Do you feel the same way about Palestine?
    They’ve been there long enough also?

    Read More
  31. @Mark Green
    I was in Syria ten years ago. I visited many churches and Mosques there. Secular Syria (under Assad) was peaceful, tolerant and intact. I even met a Jewish shopkeeper in Aleppo. He had no intention of leaving Syria for Israel.

    Both the Christians and Muslims that I spoke to in Syria complained about the Israelis, not one another. Remember also that Israel once had a substantial Christian population. Most Christians have fled Zionized Palestine over the past 60 years. Why? Because of anti-Christian laws and customs that have come into being since the Jews took over. Bad vibes. Racism. Ethnic cleansing. Jewish Israelis want the native Christians and Muslims gone.

    Israeli Jews tolerate money-spending Christian tourists but abhor the idea of living side by side with the Goyim. Segregation is a core Israeli value; as is Jewish racial supremacism. Indeed, Jews are not permitted to marry Christians or Muslims inside the 'democratic' Jewish State. Islam on the other hand, respects Christ as a prophet.

    Meanwhile, Zio-Washington is invading Muslim-majority countries and slaughtering Muslim civilians in their homes and villages to please the crypto-Israelis who dominate Washington, NY, LA, Chicago, Wall Street and Hollywood. Freedom! Democracy!

    I can’t agree more.

    Read More
  32. This reveals how political correctness can morph into wholesale violations of free speech. It becomes politically incorrect and proscribed to attack an apartheid regime based on religious discrimination and ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, the end result may be to resurrect historic stereotypes which had been buried by the destruction of the odious Nazi regime in 1945.

    Read More
  33. @Buzz Mohawk
    Remind me never to write about more than one side of an argument here, and never to be subtle, because the Aspergery, square-headed geniuses will take everything literally, accuse me of being ignorant -- or even worse, of having a small vocabulary! They just won't get it.

    I have read the Consitution. Treason includes giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which in some cases, by the right operatives, could conceivably be proven. If I'm wrong about this case, so be it. Engaging in a little thought experiment is okay with me, even if it causes me a little bit of public embarrassment.

    You see, I don't have to always write perfect comments, because it just doesn't matter how I look on the intardnet in front of intards. (Oh, did I use unreal words there too?)

    I'm sure there are radical Palestinian sympathizers behind some of the anti-Israel speech, which definitely gives them aid and comfort -- and is designed to reduce American support for the country they want to destroy. But this is not my issue, and I expressed both sides in my comment.

    When I say Israel has been there long enough to be permanent, I mean it has a right to exist, not that it's existence is free of risk. But readers at this site like you never seem to sense anything more than the literally obvious in any written material.

    Ain't that just too bad?

    I concur that it is factual treason to be an exponent of the interests of a foreign state over the interests of the country you supposedly represent. This appears to be standard operating procedure in the yankee capital these days.

    Read More
  34. @Bill
    Right on. The real question is not "Is anti-Zionism a form of anti-Semitism which should therefore be banned from campus" but "Should people advocating the banning of anti-semitism be banned from campus."

    The most obnoxious thing about this campaign is the way it encourages everyone to take for granted that, of course, ant-semitic speech should be banned.

    “The most obnoxious thing about this campaign is the way it encourages everyone to take for granted that, of course, anti-semitic speech should be banned.”

    This is really the main point. The UC regents are debating what to include and not include in their definition of what is “a form of bigotry” as various interest groups flex their political muscle for their portion of the spoils.

    No one in the mainstream seems to be asking why they are having that debate in the first place. This is the great victory of political correctness. The window for debate has been narrowed to such an extent and no one disputes the premises.

    Read More
  35. @DDearborn
    Hmmm

    Wow a small group of administrators are attempting to ban public expression of individual opinions regarding political ideology on a University campus to protect Israel, tell me it is isn't true! Sadly, this crap has been going on relatively unfettered for years. Such actions are not just contrary to the very essence of liberty and the antithesis of the intellectual process , they are blatant violation of the first amendment. If the University actually follows through and attempts to implement this abomination, the "University" should be stripped of its accreditation, and the "regents" fired.

    Such actions are not just contrary to the very essence of liberty and the antithesis of the intellectual process , they are blatant violation of the first amendment.

    Not according to Stanley Fish, panel member of an event chaired by Jeffrey Rosen, director of the (U.S. taxpayer-funded) National Constitution Center.

    Fish, former dean of Liberal Arts at University of Illinois, opined that Constitutional guarantees of free speech do not extend to academia. In that realm, which functions on a system of peer review and tenure, in which senior members call the shots and issue the decisions as to what topics or research will be supported and which will not, a scholar may produce extensive research and writing that, for example, disputes matters related to the (alleged) holocaust, but if that writing does not hew to the ordained doctrine, it will not be funded, or published, and its producer will not be granted a platform in the academy to teach from his research.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?318476-1/free-speech-us

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.