Anti-semitism thread: onwards from 2023

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.

And thankfully we can count on this Court to issue the right decision.

Any decision they make is going to piss someone off. There is an argument to be made that people should not be offended by words.

I realize this is getting into the “creepy free speech” area

Opinion To fight antisemitism on campuses, we must restrict speech

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/10/university-pennsylvania-president-magill-resigns-antisemitism-speech/

Hasn't Germany outlawed all sorts of Nazi stuff over the years, flags, etc? Has any other country gone that far? Is that too far?

Yes and I believe other countries have as well but could be wrong. It doesn’t seem to have stopped an insurgent Neo Nazi movement

Likewise, have hate crime laws stopped hateful acts? Or is the point of the law to punish and not deter? I dunno!

The German laws did a good job of keeping everyone they rehired in the military and security apparatus post-war from slipping and getting them bad press.

Hasn't Germany outlawed all sorts of Nazi stuff over the years, flags, etc? Has any other country gone that far? Is that too far?

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, December 10, 2023 11:49 AM bookmarkflaglink

There's an influential Internet law case, Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'antisémitisme (LICRA), 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006), about the conflict of French law with the First Amendment in the U.S.

Yahoo! was ordered to comply with an order from a French court prohibiting the sale of Nazi memorabilia the the effect they were available to internet buyers in France, even though the advertisement was permitted in the US under the FIrst Amendment..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!

The Wikipedia article goes over some of the restrictions in France criminalizing Nazi displays.

Article R645-1 of the French Criminal Code prohibits to "wear or exhibit" in public uniforms, insignias and emblems which "recall those used" by

an organisation declared illegal in application of Art. 9 of the Nuremberg Charter, or by
a person found guilty of crimes against humanity as defined by Arts. L211-1 to L212-3 or by the Law № 64-1326 of 1964-12-26.
Display is allowed for the purposes of films, theatrical productions and historical exhibitions.

In 2011 the fashion designer John Galliano was tried in France for violation of some criminal code. I don't know the citation other than some vague reference in news articles to laws making the expression of antisemitic ideas illegal.

Just a note that this also cuts both ways— what about students for whom the flag of Israel represents their relatives being displaced and slaughtered?

or not even just students, people

I'll note that the University of Missouri decided this wasn't a Title VI violation :

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/mizzou-will-not-to-punish-student-over-viral-racist-comment-39258907

Ok yeah - injecting "what about Israel" - aren't you conflating things in just the way just discussed?

(xpost) or rather, under the first amendment. I'm not sure why there wasn't a Title VI complaint