Israel/Palestine post 10/7 - follow-on events/thoughts as relate to other countries

akm, in answer to your questions about how legitimate Pro-Palestinian campus protest can be a hostile environment or discriminatory or harassment, legally you should keep in mind that the thresholds are different when the person is in a supervisory position in relation to the person affected rather than a peer. So even if you think these issues have been litigated before, I do think this presents some sadly novel issues of a type we have not previously encountered.

So this is highly fact-dependent, but for example, in a Title VII discrimination case, there is probably less tolerance for offensive speech when your boss tells demeaning racist or sexist jokes to you, than an environment where peers tell such jokes. The boss exerts power and authority over the conditions of your work, where the peers don't, even if speech coming from both types of actors can create an atmosphere so pervasive that it's considered hostile.

In the testimony that Keyes mentioned, it was faculty at Penn that were called out by name for visibly clapping at an October 8, 2023 rally calling to send Jews "Go back to Moscow, Brooklyn, ____ing Berlin where you came from."

So this is an example of 2 people having different perspectives on a shared reality. Keyes saw that and reacted to the idea that a Congressperson was calling for those faculty to be fired. I saw that, and reacted to the idea that a Jewish student seeing professors clap for "Go back to Moscow, Brooklyn, ___ Berlin, where you came from" the day after October 7 would reasonably make such a student feel threatened, because it's faculty. And faculty exercise power and authority over students in the form of giving grades and writing recommendations, and are in charge of campus atmosphere.

And it's not that I insist on people watching the hearing. I gave that an an example of how 2 people can watch the same clip and come away with different accounts.

And by the way, all of the speech is permitted by the First Amendment. I think people are struggling with where that conflicts with campus duty. I agree with a lot of what Ken White (Popehat) writes, but not all of it. He is a white man who does white collar defense. I am not. We are not going to have the exact same ideas. We can discuss that, but to me the defining lens is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the First Amendment.

The line between "hate speech" and "not hate speech" isn't always obvious, and things can be in both categories at once? Two months ago I wouldn't have thought anything about the terms from the river to the sea or intifada, now I do.

I also think the line between "anti-semitic" and "not anti-semitic" isn't necessarily all that clear either, but I can't quite say why. I feel like there are people for who this isn't true, but could become true. I see signs with the Israel flag being put in a trashcan and it strikes me, do we see that with the Russia flag? I suppose maybe we see memes or it being broken into smaller states with its republics becoming independent, or reduced in size, but they dont seem to be meant seriously.. Is there also a line between "Israel should stop occupying Gaza and WB" and "Israel should stop existing" which doesnt exist with Russia, where its more clearly "Russia should stop invading Ukraine"

Thats quite a muddled post, I'm not particularly clear on this in my head so its partly thinking aloud

hate speech is legally protected speech in the US, I'm sad to say

thanks felicity that was a good explanation about the specifics of that particular case

You're welcome.

There is no formulaic answer which is why I was generally sympathetic to uiversity presidents stumbling in trying to give linear answers to questions that have no straightforward yes/no answer, especially in the abstract way they were posed.

I just listened to the first hour (of three and a half) of the Congressional hearing— was listening while dog-walking, so couldn’t clock the sources of all the queries

There is some discussion about a (future) congressional hearing to combat Islamophobia. There is a lot of conflation of criticism of the state of Israel with broader anti-Semitism; right away the speaker requested that all three uni presidents assert that “the Jewish state of Israel has a right to exist”. Two congresspeople weren’t interested in discussing anti-Semitism at all; one was asking the presidents “what percentage of your faculty would you say holds Conservative beliefs?” none of the presidents claimed to have that data.

Mr. Grothman’s line of query was pretty bizarre— asking the Harvard president as to why it was that polls of the Harvard student body and faculty expressed on two separate occasions a 2%, and then 1%, level of support of President Trump, suggesting this was indicative of a lack of ideological diversity on the campus. He brought up two H professors who were terminated on the basis of them having “problematic beliefs”; he didn’t state the cause of the first, but the second was asserting sexual essentialism.

All in all, listening to this hearing felt like a waste of my time. This line of inquiry does not seem to be conducted in good faith in any capacity, it felt frustrating to hear so much conflation of criticism of a murderous nation-state with hate speech. One congressperson desired disciplining faculty members who ascribed to BDS philosophy.

Correct me if I am wrong but at the top of this thread I thought you said you are one of the people who gets upset when antisemitism in North America is discussed when there is war in Gaza.

So has that changed or ... it's a waste of time? What is your point?

If you are going to say some of the hearing was not conducted in good faith, nobody including me is disputing that.

fgti, don't get sucked into the toxic tunnel line of questioning.

This isn't directed to either of you particularly but maybe ... if you are fine with people discussing movies, books, food, whatever, but the minute people in North America want to discuss antisemitism as it affects them, alarm bells go off and you can "no longer remain silent" then you are the one who might have an issue?

Oh, I am very invested in eliminating anti-Semitism in all its forms, starting with— most importantly— the dismantling of the racist right-wing Israeli state that has a. directly funded the terrorist organization Hamas, b. allowed the October 7 attacks to happen (both through funding and ignoring all warnings of its imminence), and reportedly massively increased the number of Israeli dead through IDF’s blind military response, c. plunged the region into a war that endangers Jewish bodies both in the region and foments global anti-Semitism by conflating its nihilistic and not-at-all-Jewish values with Judaism, d. continuing an illegal occupation, arming its civilian population, endangering its citizens, deprioritizing poorer Jewish immigrants to Israel by housing them in regions of greater conflict, and so on and so on. And this isn’t even to mention what’s happening to Palestinians. This is the anti-Semitism that I oppose, but my opinions— including my resolute support of BDS— are being themselves painted in certain corners as being anti-Semitic, and have led to people in professional positions being terminated, and have led to the many Jewish people who share these views as being described as “non Jews” or as treasonous, and so on. My priority is Jewish lives, it’s Palestinian lives, it’s the safety of all these peoples; discussions about whether or not this phrase or that which was uttered and applauded at a rally, which professor was present and was applauding it, whether or not it constitutes a fireable offense, when all that people are protesting is “the abomination that has been transpiring in Gaza these past 60+ days”.

I find it much, much easier to talk about the conflict with my hawkish Israeli friend, because he doesn’t obfuscate or make any secret of his desires: for Gaza to be annexed, for the West Bank to be settled. I make no secret of my own: for Israel and Palestine to confederate and become a secular democracy. What are your desires, felicity?

thanks for that, fgti.

Not to have me or my mother or family being forced to state a position on issues you dictate just because we are Jewish.

That goes in the other thread.

My mother who is Korean converted to Judaism in the 1960s. Do you want me to bother her for her views?

Shall I explain to her how "Zionism" is a racist project? What would you like me to ask her?

I’m not forcing anything! A colleague of mine died in Israel because of a Hamas missile. One of my best friends has lost over a dozen family members in Gaza in the past two weeks and cannot leave the house because of his distress. I care about my friends and co-workers!

I am very sorry for your losses.

Just, there is no need to tokenize people.

Speaking of caring about my friends, happy birthday!! I have some soap I want to mail to you. I adore you, felicity!!

I really "heart" you too, fgti.

We will get through this.

<3

Happy birthday! And Happy Hanukkah!

Wow, that's really nice! Happy Hanukkah to you too!

BTW, I just want to make clear: I really am not spending most of my time worrying about being attacked or anything. I live in a nice small town with a significant Jewish population. There was one incident where our Jewish bakery was grafiti'd and I heard about a swastika at the high school, but this is pretty minor stuff, maybe a little surprising here but minor. I honestly doubt that it's truly "unsafe" for Jewish students on most campuses. Maybe upsetting, but not unsafe. I'm not writing to my congresspeople or university presidents to get the word "intifada" banned, and I know the word can be different in other contexts (e.g. I occasionally read Electronic Intifada). I could not possibly make this my priority given the situation right now. I just occasionally work through my thoughts about this stuff online.

I wasn't only rocked by 10/7 because of what was done to Israelis but because I believed this would follow, particularly with the current Israeli government. I find the question of whether Hamas is "as bad as" Israel (or vice versa) to be nonsensical, the wrong question. Hamas and the Likkud coalition have both been pushing things away from compromise, away from negotiation, for a long time. This happens to be both of their strategies. Just like Israeli bombings create more Hamas, Hamas attacks on civilians harden Israelis against Palestinians. I have seen it happen.

I am not totally unsympathetic to the idea that violent resistance is sometimes necessary and/or effective, but it's hard for me to see that there was anything effective about 10/7, just horror begetting more horror. I get it "well what do you suggest they do?" And I don't. I don't have any pretense to tell Palestinians how to resist or fight their fight. That is for them to decide. They are the ones who have to figure out what they are willing to risk for what end. As I've said, maybe it's a long game. Maybe this is the darkness before the light. Maybe these events are a turning point in the way the world sees Israel and maybe that will actually matter. I have no idea. But I can't help but have contempt for non-Palestinians who romanticize violence against civilians in a LARPy way, with nothing at stake for themselves, and I've seen a lot of that. It disgusts me. It completely revolts me to see anyone celebrating or romanticizing the massacre of any civilians. And yes, I absolutely feel the same way about people celebrating the IDF. How can a better world emerge out of these things?

really good post

Aimless, I got around to responding to your extremely condescending post.

Sorry, James Schneider is "Israel"?

uh, James Schneider was not in any way trying to identify himself as "Israel". Nor did he attribute the argument to "Israel" as a whole, but to "Israeli authorities", unspecified, but the implication is the people with some sort of governmental authority. Both of those are quite clear if you take a moment to read it slowly.

― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Thursday, December 7, 2023 10:08 AM bookmarkflaglink

I did take a moment to read it slowly.

Here was the James Schneider post:

James Schneider
@schneiderhome
Israeli officials justify bombing Gaza by recalling the Allied bombing of Dresden.

2 problems with that argument:
1 The Geneva Convention was brought in after WW2 to prevent such mass killings of civilians.
2 The destruction in Gaza is already comparable after just 2 months.

8:12 AM · Dec 7, 2023
·
39.7K
Views

According to the FT article cited by xyzzzz, it was Robert Pape, an American military analyst, who compares Gaza to Dresden. Not an Israeli official.

Credit to the graph as pasted into the James Schneider post was cropped out. Credit was "Sources: FT research; damage analysis Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite data by Corey Sher of CUNY graduate center and Jamon van den Hoek of Oregon State University (c) FT."

Just FYI - when you see screenshots or PDFs with no link or the credits cropped out check for misinformation.

Maybe there is an undisclosed source that is not in the post. But the FT cite does not support the assertion.

Here is a more accurate report based on the FT story as a contrast:

https://www.newarab.com/news/israels-war-gaza-compared-wwii-bombing-germany

There is plenty to criticize and be appalled at. And if there is a source where Israel officials do discuss Dresden, feel free to post it. It just didn't seem that James Schneider had such a source in this Tweet.

Ah, I see rob has posted elsewhere where an Israel official invokes Dresden.

https://www.mediaite.com/uk/israeli-official-evokes-dresden/

For the record, I saw a LOT of Israeli goverment and IDF spokespeople invoking Dresden in TV interviews in the early stages of the bombing campaign but they seemed to have stopped, probably because they realized how stupid it was.

yes I recall that now too.

Just FYI I am utterly uninterested in doing any checking for sources beyond some light checking on who us writing the tweet. It's just besides the point for that tweet which is Schneider's opinion on that graph and doesn't change what he is commenting on, which is Israel's invoking of Dresden.

Similarly with "From the River to the Sea". I've no problems with that chant and will chant that at the demos I will attend. By and large the people trying to delegitimise the slogan are trying to police the peaceful demonstrations. Checking of sources is utterly banal when a lot of those people don't care for the demos.

People can be interested in different things.

I think a lot of my interest in fact checking comes from what I do for work. But also from the rampant misinformation that is spread around this conflict.

And I hope that you understand that your interest in things comes from a different place than US college students directly affected. Nobody is spraying swastiskas on your building or posting death threats on University discussion boards making very concrete threats to kill all the people of your ethnicity in your dining hall, as far as I know.

And I don't disregard those attacks by my lack of comment. My only 'comment' was to bring in the Palestinian student talking about a double standard he saw taking place at that hearing. I know anti semitic attacks are taking place in the US and Europe from reports...posted via twitter.

The Schneider tweet or chants of "From the River to the Sea" at demos throughout the world don't have anything to do with that. There are other things they plug into.

This is why I don't think "from the river to the sea" clearly or exclusively exists in "bad" or "not bad", or that the line between the two is always clear.

in the Palestinian student talking about a double standard he saw taking place at that hearing.

Sorry, can you perhaps explain how it is a "double standard" he is talking about?

He seems to be complaining that the graduate student Talia Khan complained about statements he made such as:

"Jewish Israelis want to enslave the world in a global apartheid system"

spreading conspiracy theories that Israel is currently harvesting Palestinian organs

As a neuroscientist, asking if "Zionism to be a mental illness?" and refers to "the Zionist mind"

Those seem like very inappropriate theories for a Neuroscience Post-doc to espouse and not at all related to the topic of making campuses safe for Palestinian students under Title VI. How is it a double standard?

For everyone's benefit the full text of the tweet I posted is below. In the wrong thread, sorry

The substance of his tweet is that Palestinians such as himself have been hounded on campus, and he doesn't feel his voice would ever be heard by the establishment that is sending bombs to Israel; the political establishment that is carrying out the destruction of his people. While knowing everything he has said about Zionism and organ harvest, that substance is what I wanted to bring here.

Israel, Palestine & the Levant rolling events: Oct 23 on

If Palestinian students are being hounded on campus (and not in the sense that they are getting academic complaints for their anti"Zionist" pseudoscientific conspiracy claims) that would be a double standard.

Based on the video in that tweet, that didnt seem at all the same magnitude of hounding that was discussed at the hearing. I can believe he is getting death threats from those tweets. I just don't know if that falls within Title VI's requirement of schools to prevent.

To clarify it would be a double standard if there were an obligation to make campus safe for students of Jewish or Israeli origin and not for Palestinian origin. But Title VI's goal is to make it safe for all.

I suppose the double standard is he's not getting equal tv time. But he is being a little disingenous I think.

Oh, "magnitudes of hounding" must be proved now. How will Palestinian students prove this if they are not invited to a meeting in Capital City? And if they are, will they be heard?

So right now what we have is that tweet.

And stories of Palestinian students being shot at.

Utterly uninterested in carrying on this conversation.

There are Title VI investigations for Islamophobia on campus and upcoming hearings on that specifically that were discussed.

I am saying that particular guy that you chose seemed to not be showing that and also seems to be spreading conspiracy theories that would draw complaints.

Not the same as saying increases in campus islamaphobia isn't a problem or doesn't exist. In fact it was discussed at the hearing, which I already mentioned in previous posts. And it's terrible that Palestinian students were shot near the University of Vermont! Just like you don't mention everything I don't mention everything.

Can't wait to have a weighing of the hounding and see who wins that race! Good stuff.

Again, you seem to be having this reaction to one-up or find a double standard in something I have consistently said applies equally to Jewish and Muslim students in the US.

The suspect in the Vermont shooting is not a student and not Jewish:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/26/three-palestinian-students-shot-near-the-university-of-vermont.html

Why are you insisting on making this a competition?

Are Palestinian students going to be invited to these hearings or not?

Very nice to see increases in Islamophobia being discussed by people authorising weapons that are killing Palestinians.

Talia Khan, who already spoke, is of Afghan Muslim as well as Jewish descent.

I really don't know. I haven't personally experienced anti-Palestinian sentiment in the US.

Sorry I cannot help you there.

Look forward to further reports from Palestinians and Muslims at these hearings.

That will help.

Very nice to see increases in Islamophobia being discussed by people authorising weapons that are killing Palestinians.

― xyzzzz__, Friday, December 8, 2023 3:05 AM bookmarkflaglink

Are you somehow tying this to discussions of whether students on US campuses should be harassed or discriminated against?

Do you do this with any other protected groups?

sorry, I just find that being pitted against each other is a completely foreign experience.

I lived my whole life with friends that are Muslim, Pakistani, Egyptian, Iranian in the US. I literally had no idea we were supposed to be natural enemies until people from ILX started acting like you are right now.

What I am getting from this discussion is: who is in the room and who isn't in the room. Who is getting a hearing and who isn't. Who is asking the questions.

I look forward to hearing about all aggrieved groups getting a hearing. And maybe other people asking the questions.

Well I'm certainly not going to suggest you watch the hearing for yourself or anything.

fgti's post up above of the first hour sure sounds gruelling enough.