Anti-semitism thread: onwards from 2023

This is broadly the basis of why so many Israel-critical Jews have adopted the "not in my name" adage; they seek to set a clear boundary between their Jewish ethnicity/beliefs and the present-tense actions of the Israeli state.

― spider alert: 🕷️🕷️ (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, December 10, 2023 7:05 AM bookmarkflaglink

That's ok. I know you believe this. And, to put it very gently, I think it gets to sort of what being an ally is - letting the people you're supporting lead the discussion and centering what they think is important - perhaps to the exclusion a bit of what you think is important, in some moments.

As for the "not in my name" Jewish people - this might close to the fetishing and tokenism of certain points of view when those views are brought up by non-Jewish people. It's been expressed as a bit of an irritant in this and other threads. There are a lot of interesting discussions about criticizing Israel. Perhaps they go better in another thread, or in another moment that is not right in the middle of this campus thing.

Thank you both— and I agree with your assessment of the presidents’s performance under inquiry, too, felicity

The reason I feel the campus hearings were a trap is that they let disingenuous scumbags like Stefanik define the terms of debate, to further imo nefarious goals. For example, I don't think she is for a second serious about confronting anti-Semitism on campus, but I do think she and her cohort would love to pressure these liberal elites into setting standards that people like Stefanik could then use to punish or ban protestors or protests of their choosing in the future. Like BLM, say, or, people who protest or harass conservative voices. Their goal is not the safety of Jewish students, their goal is the weakening of liberal institutions of higher education.

For example, the Wisconsin GOP just more or less tried to extort the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They tried to leverage funding for a new engineering building and raises in return for firing several DEI administrators and establishing a conservative academic think tank, or something like that. The University, thankfully, did not take the bait, because they recognized the GOP's offer as bad precedent, less about giving the school something it wants and more about getting something *they* want that they could in turn exploit for further culture war gains.

It boggles my mind that being opposed to a nationalist political ideology has been conflated with hatred of Jewish people. It isn’t the same thing, no matter what anyone on ILX or anywhere else says.

Regarding antisemitism on campuses, criticism of Israel absolutely has to be part of the conversation, because of the conflation of antisemitism and criticism of a state-adopted ideology .

xpost They’ve definitely chilled the atmosphere for any university thinking of inviting a Palestinian speaker, or anyone else who has been critical of Israel.

From another UK perspective -- and following on from what JiC and others have said -- I have seen campus conflict (over trans issues, for example) and harassment being inflated to ultimately undermine educational establishments with a moral panic around student 'radical politics', when newspapers and politicians with an agenda get involved.

There are plenty of complaints here and once the dust settles it would be good to see if there could be processes to de-escalate the conflict in the campus. Maybe the students who are shouting "gas the Jews" are thugs whose humanity cannot be salvaged. As are the ones putting the Palestinian flag on a plane at such time.

But maybe they can.

The reason I feel the campus hearings were a trap is that they let disingenuous scumbags like Stefanik define the terms of debate, to further imo nefarious goals. For example, I don't think she is for a second serious about confronting anti-Semitism on campus, but I do think she and her cohort would love to pressure these liberal elites into setting standards that people like Stefanik could then use to punish or ban protestors or protests of their choosing in the future. Like BLM, say, or, people who protest or harass conservative voices. Their goal is not the safety of Jewish students, their goal is the weakening of liberal institutions of higher education.

The campus hearings were a trap if you're concerned primarily with policing GOP jerks or safeguarding the jobs of University presidents. Why are Jewish students in need of anyone -- GOP or Democrat -- being their mouthpiece to bring attention to this though?

Recognizing they set up gotcha moments for a despicable party does not negate that there is harassment and discrimination on campus and increase in hate crimes against Jewish people in North America. It's not like they cancel each other out.

Either you don't believe things are as bad as the students say, or you cannot conceive that questioning led even by Democrats can elicit any kind of material enforcement of civil rights law.

I really despise Stefanik, but the kind of putting the cart before the horse of close-mindedness of refusing to look at a situation because who is also profiting politically from it is kind of intolerant. You can be opposed to harassment and discrimination without endorsing Stefanik, and I wish people would stop playing into this propaganda and giving her so much attention while acting like "refusing to watch the hearings" is some sort of virtue.

As for DEI - of course the GOP will try to dismantle it. That is one of the reasons I have been posting since October that it is the responsibility of people who lead legitimate Pro-palestine protests to make sure they have no nazis or other blatant antisemitism. Or you get .... this.

It boggles my mind that being opposed to a nationalist political ideology has been conflated with hatred of Jewish people. It isn’t the same thing, no matter what anyone on ILX or anywhere else says.

Regarding antisemitism on campuses, criticism of Israel absolutely has to be part of the conversation, because of the conflation of antisemitism and criticism of a state-adopted ideology .

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Sunday, December 10, 2023 7:47 AM bookmarkflaglink

Respectfully, that does not seem like your call to make. Who is doing this "conflating"? Is it every individual Jewish student, or are you treating them not as individuals? If you care about criticizing Israel to the point that alarm bells go off in your mind and you must bring up Israel every time a Jewish person wants to talk about studying free of garden variety anti-Jewish harassment and discrimination, that seems like a huge issue.

To be really real, I was kind of shocked that I saw you post something a few years back that you don't hate anyone except "Zionists." I found that truly breathtaking.

xpost They’ve definitely chilled the atmosphere for any university thinking of inviting a Palestinian speaker, or anyone else who has been critical of Israel.

― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Sunday, December 10, 2023 7:49 AM bookmarkflaglink

If you read the allegations in the entire complaint, this is an arms race that also goes for the symbolism and rhetoric for protests and boycotts of Israel. Campuses papered with flyers with swastikas? I don't think Jewish students want that either.

This is broadly the basis of why so many Israel-critical Jews have adopted the "not in my name" adage; they seek to set a clear boundary between their Jewish ethnicity/beliefs and the present-tense actions of the Israeli state.

And sometimes I want to go beyond this and think “why should I, a Jew, be forced or expected to talk about Israel at all” - it’s rather like expecting someone Muslim to have an opinion on terrorism. Circumstances are dire enough for the Palestinians right now that silence is not an option for me, but I still rankle at the need (in my perception) to set a boundary at all.

You can be opposed to harassment and discrimination without endorsing Stefanik

Then find some other way to express your opposition. The Republican Party harbors actual Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in its ranks. They seek the overthrow of American democracy and the installation of a white Christian theocratic government. Accepting their "help" on the issue of campus anti-Semitism, no matter how important it is to you, is short-sighted to say the least. Their goal is not the protection of Jewish college students; their goal is the destruction of the American university system. They just happen to be saying the words you want to hear right this minute, and the fact that you can't see that is mind-boggling.

I read the complaint up until I saw allegations that ran counter to how some events actually happened at Penn. The protesters who targeted the restaurant in Center City Philadelphia did not ‘rampage’ through the Upenn campus beforehand. After the Goldie’s protest they attempted to march toward the campus and were stopped by University Police. It seems an attempt to tie another highly reported event in the area outside Penn into criticism of the University itself.

Unperson - Please type up a list of topics I am allowed to speak on, and how - paying special attention to the treatment of women and minorities - and have it on my desk by end of business.

My sister in law is African-American and considers herself a NeverTrump Republican. Can you do a list for her as well? Thanks in advance.

I read the complaint up until I saw allegations that ran counter to how some events actually happened at Penn. The protesters who targeted the restaurant in Center City Philadelphia did not ‘rampage’ through the Upenn campus beforehand. After the Goldie’s protest they attempted to march toward the campus and were stopped by University Police. It seems an attempt to tie another highly reported event in the area outside Penn into criticism of the University itself.

― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Sunday, December 10, 2023 8:37 AM bookmarkflaglink

I believe you. I wasn't there. I don't blame you for not reading all of it.

The complaint wasn't in my style and there were some iffy seeming characterizations in there. I generally take adjectives with a heavy grain of salt. But I give credence to allegations of names, dates, references to physical evidence such as flyers and the testimony of witnesses who will be under oath. That is what cross examination and the litigation process is for. The firm is aggressive but not disreputable as far as I know.

Respectfully, that does not seem like your call to make. Who is doing this "conflating"? Is it every individual Jewish student, or are you treating them not as individuals? If you care about criticizing Israel to the point that alarm bells go off in your mind and you must bring up Israel every time a Jewish person wants to talk about studying free of garden variety anti-Jewish harassment and discrimination, that seems like a huge issue..

Unperson - Please type up a list of topics I am allowed to speak on, and how - paying special attention to the treatment of women and minorities - and have it on my desk by end of business.

You, like me, are free to speak on any topic of your choice, in any way you see fit. (After all, neither of us are college students.) You are also free to choose any allies you like in your crusade against campus anti-Semitism. When the people you have allied with turn their attention to you, I wish you all the luck in the world.

I appreciate that. Hopefully you have changed and backed off your earlier statement about hating "Zionists."

I would really like criticism of Israel to be a discrete topic that can be discussed separately from anti-semitism. I do agree that people cynically conflate them as a shield. I think we agree and I understand your statement better. If a person injects that into the argument, then it's fair game. I just don't think it should be considered inevitable the people should be bringing Israel up preemptively to Jewish people or on the subject of antisemitism generally if that topic has not been raised.

I agree people can be pro-Palestian and not antisemitic. They can even be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, and against the fascistic extremes in both governing bodies.

When the people you have allied with turn their attention to you, I wish you all the luck in the world.

Honestly, the fucking nerve of unperson acting like he’s any sort of moral authority. Fuck that.

You, like me, are free to speak on any topic of your choice, in any way you see fit. (After all, neither of us are college students.) You are also free to choose any allies you like in your crusade against campus anti-Semitism. When the people you have allied with turn their attention to you, I wish you all the luck in the world.

― Tahuti Watches L&O:SVU Reruns Without His Ape (unperson), Sunday, December 10, 2023 8:54 AM bookmarkflaglink

Oh spare me the fake concern trolling. I have posted about Trump's plans to dismantle the US Constitution and deploy the military against his enemies in the USPol thread. These people are not my allies.

And posting about women's bodies in a discussion of AI in a "character" so you can use the word "t*ts". You're gross.

Your only contributions to ILX antisemitism discussions to date as far as I remember have been to tell Jewish posters that you're not concerned about Bradley Cooper's fake nose and to raise Stefanik's name repeatedly when I am trying to discuss Title VI campus violations.

You seem really concerned about antisemitism. Great allyship. Hope you get FPed for a week.

Personally, I felt much more threatened at the start of the Trump administration than I have at any other time in my life. I actually considered exit strategies. That is not to say I don't feel threatened now, but when there are extreme standards set by actual Nazis unfurling swastikas (whether in Orlando or Madison), or, say, the Charlottesville march, under the literal banner of armed militias, with actual chants of "Jews will not replace us," I feel more threatened by those organized white supremacists with allies in Washington than I do incoherent student protests. So when outright Trump supporters profess to fight anti-Semitism, I would take their support more seriously if they themselves did not support actual anti-Semites and white supremacists, or support and vote for their ringleader god-emperor.

Which is not to dismiss what is happening on college campuses, which is real and, even if it doesn't always rise to the level of outright hate speech, imo, certainly constitutes at least disconcerting harassment that should not be allowed unchecked. I just wish there was a way to confront it without hyperbolic distortion of the already disturbing facts or resorting to assistance from disreputable politicians. And yeah, Democrats participated in those hearings, too, but they're victims of the same rhetorical trap. If they didn't assail these inept/ensnared college presidents then the same bad faith GOP leaders would accuse *them* of supporting anti-Semitism, which is GOP 101: accuse your enemy of what you yourself have been accused of.

I appreciate that. Hopefully you have changed and backed off your earlier statement about hating "Zionists."

I would really like criticism of Israel to be a discrete topic that can be discussed separately from anti-semitism. I do agree that people cynically conflate them as a shield. I think we agree and I understand your statement better. If a person injects that into the argument, then it's fair game. I just don't think it should be considered inevitable the people should be bringing Israel up preemptively to Jewish people or on the subject of antisemitism generally if that topic has not been raised.

I agree people can be pro-Palestian and not antisemitic. They can even be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, and against the fascistic extremes in both governing bodies.

I just wish there was a way to confront it without hyperbolic distortion of the already disturbing facts or resorting to assistance from disreputable politicians.

Yes, which is why I keep suggesting that people view the primary sources and draw their own conclusions. Instead of relying on other posters or the media to digest it for them.

But apparently that suggestion throws people into a rage. So I stopped.

one of the invited speakers at the Palestine Writes Literature Festival stooped to the previously unimaginable low of joking about an Israeli baby Hamas had burned in an oven, asking “with or without baking powder?”

this was poet Refaat Alareer btw, who died in the past few days in Gaza. I know a couple of people who knew and knew of him, and I was unfamiliar with his poetry; I read some after his death and found it rather moving. I also read the NYT story on him that they retracted after more video of him in the classroom came to light. I think you could credibly say he has expressed anti-semitic beliefs, so I understand the upset his being at that festival could have caused.

xp

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we take Republicans more seriously. It's obvious Stefanik is a ghoul and was asking ridiculous bad faith questions to trap those college presidents. Unfortunately, the presidents handled those questions about as badly as they possibly could, which did not help things whatsoever. Noting that they did a bad job is not the same as siding with Republicans.

that was xp to Josh...

xpost he was targeted for assassination by the IOF, he didn’t just “die.” Also his entire family was killed.

part of the issue with the University presidents and their answers to these questions is that ... they are academics. Welcome to how academics answer questions. There is a lot of rationalizing and context all the fucking time. Was that politically savvy of them? No. They should have done better. Their brains don't work that way. Does it mean they are not invested in the safety of their students? I don't know, but I don't think so. At any given time, any protected group in a University likely feels that institutions are not doing enough for them. I absolutely buy that. I think some standards are going to have to be set on how and what works and is acceptable in the bounds of Title VI and the first amendment. But I get very nervous when we start purging academics. We've seen that play out in other countries.

I don't at all think they should lose their jobs based on their testimony, nor do I think that they don't care about the safety of their students. Their answers were reasonable from a highly legalistic and academic perspective, just utterly misguided based on the venue. If you are going in front of congress to answer questions about a loaded topic like this, you need to be prepared for ridiculous, OTT bad faith questions.

Right. One would hope they would have prepared better or known what was coming. It's like they never watched a congressional hearing before.

I do not think any of these presidents are antisemitic. But this probably cost Magill any chance for a federal judicial nomination.

She had a very good background for it - RBG clerk, constitutional law professor, daughter of an 8th Circuit judge. But no way would anyone nominate her now.

She seems like a nice person. But it's a bit hard for me to be too upset for her. She has tenure and she'll have good jobs and there are many qualified candidates for federal judge and university professor jobs.

Whoever told her to smile should be fired though.

Josh, I am sympathetic to your daughter's "at least" view a bit because, as a female in the legal field, I often don't have the luxury of automatically commanding attention and having everyone sit up and listen when I start speaking, or taking me seriously and crediting me with my ideas or assuming I am lead counsel the way my white, male colleagues do.

So just throwing out the entire hearing because of who some of the questioners were, when a lot of people (maybe Muslim Americans or students) would probably love to have such a hearing. It seems a bit luxurious when the purpose of Congressional hearings is to shed light on things.

one of the invited speakers at the Palestine Writes Literature Festival stooped to the previously unimaginable low of joking about an Israeli baby Hamas had burned in an oven, asking “with or without baking powder?”

---
xpost he was targeted for assassination by the IOF, he didn’t just “die.” Also his entire family was killed.

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Sunday, 10 December 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Body hasn't been found either, from what I've seen. Any mention of him has that quote of his in the twitter comments, purely deployed as an attempt to stop humanising him.

xpost I don't disagree, but the clip that got the most traction was predicated on something that (fortunately) I don't really see out there that much: the outright explicit call to harm Jews, or similar. That I think explains why the presidents struggled to answer what seemed to be a straightforward question: does calling for the genocide of Jews constitute bullying or harassment? But in this context it's not so straightforward, imo. If someone answers "yes," then the follow-up would be: then why haven't all these people been punished/expelled/fired for saying (example x/y/z)? If someone answers "no," then the follow-up would be: you don't think (example x, y, z) rises to the level of bullying or harassment? In both cases skipping right past any proof that anyone actually was "calling for the genocide of Jews," the explosive claim at the heart of the original question, and leading to pressure for action without even an investigation.

I looked at the transcript, and I guess it was the MIT president that dodged this line of questioning most successfully:

Congresswoman Stefanik: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?

President Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.

Congresswoman Stefanik: But you've heard chants for Intifada.

President Kornbluth: I've heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

Congresswoman Stefanik: So those would not be, according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules.

President Kornbluth: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.

Imo, Stefanik was invoking her ad hominems and hypotheticals in service of less transparent goals: the future stifling of speech *she* doesn't like. I welcome those aforementioned lawsuits, because maybe they will shed light on this issue in a more neutral setting. That said, I am not a lawyer, but I would be shocked if some of those most damning charges - that a school tolerated student/faculty chants of "gas the Jews," that UPenn formally informed Jewish students to hide their Jewishness, things along those lines - were proven in court. But if they *are* proven, then like I said, things are worse than even I thought.

(xpost)
unfortunately when you put something like that out into public it's going to stick

Yes. His poetry and his lectures will be widely read, and others will stop at that quote.

Pound and Eliot are still widely read despite their horrible views on Jewish people so it's possible the work can transcend the person. Maybe not for a while.

Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?

(xpost)
unfortunately when you put something like that out into public it's going to stick

Pound and Eliot are still widely read despite their horrible views on Jewish people so it's possible the work can transcend the person. Maybe not for a while.

but the clip that got the most traction was predicated on something that (fortunately) I don't really see out there that much: the outright explicit call to harm Jews, or similar

If the predicate is wrong then it costs absolutely nothing to say a call for genocide of Jews would be harassment.

Then you can discuss the predicate.

I suppose one question is, "does calling for genocide violate Title VI?" According to Hochul, as of yesterday, yes it does

https://midmichigannow.com/news/nation-world/gov-hochul-to-college-university-presidents-calls-for-genocide-made-on-campus-violate-human-and-civil-rights-laws

Then the follow on question is "what constitutes calling for genocide?" Does using the term 'intifada' mean you are calling for genocide?

Yeah. But blunt force hearings are not sympathetic to nuance. They're not even conducive to follow-up questions. In fact, they're rarely even useful for fact gathering at all. These sorts of hearings mostly exist to let each interlocutor grandstand and score points. It's like the great Mitch Hedberg joke: "The depressing thing about tennis is that no matter how good I get, I'll never be as good as a wall."

Is chanting "from the river to the sea" advocating for genocide? I think we are in an interesting time.

These sorts of hearings mostly exist to let each interlocutor grandstand and score points.

Right, which is why reading the room is essential.

I explained like the January 6th hearings it's not clear in the beginning where this goes besides getting attention. A lot of people were congused why there were Janaury 6 hearings.

They seem to have issued subpoenas and maybe they will drop it when it becomes a Supreme Court test case like with affirmative action. Who knows.

one of the invited speakers at the Palestine Writes Literature Festival stooped to the previously unimaginable low of joking about an Israeli baby Hamas had burned in an oven, asking “with or without baking powder?”

---
xpost he was targeted for assassination by the IOF, he didn’t just “die.” Also his entire family was killed.

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Sunday, 10 December 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Body hasn't been found either, from what I've seen. Any mention of him has that quote of his in the twitter comments, purely deployed as an attempt to stop humanising him.

― xyzzzz__, Sunday, December 10, 2023 1:32 PM (forty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I’ve seen a whole bunch of other tweets reposted including stating that most Jews are evil, mocking the father of a 9 year old hostage, celebrating 10/7 and chastising multiple people for merely expressing sorrow or disapproval at the targeting of civilians.

Did he deserve to die for being hateful? Of course not. Can I understand why a Gazan might become hateful? Sure. But I can also understand why an Israeli might become hateful after 10/7. I ultimately don’t know why he was killed, is there any clear info on that? I had never previously heard of him so I am only going on what I have seen on the internet recently.

xpost For a second I was congused by your post and almost reached for a dictionary. ;)

It's a legal term of art. Congusing, I know.

xxp No clear info on why beyond the assumption of a continuous target of doctors, journalists and Palestinian society.

I have a feeling this issue is likely to hit the Supreme Court at some point. When we get to terms that some groups feel are “genocidal” by implication, it’s just not clear to me if it can be considered a violation of Title VI.