Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems that at the University of California School of Law in Berkeley is making sure not to have any speakers who support Israel or Zionism. This is very anti-Semitic and should concern American Jews in general.
So, Jews have been "cancelled" at UC Berkeley's School of Law. I can't say it comes as a surprise, as it was not so long ago when UC Berkeley hosted Hamas-sympathizer Haneen Zoabi as a "Distinguished Guest" lecturer. I doubt that any of the UC Berkeley campuses will be cancelling Hamas-sympathizers anytime soon.
It's only "anti-semitic" if you assume every Jewish person supports Zionism/Israel, or that no non-Jewish person does
Obviously, not every Jewish person supports Israel, and clearly there are many non-Jewish people who do support Israel. The concept of anti-Zionism, however, goes beyond whether one merely chooses not to support Israel.
Anti-Zionism, in its most basic definition, is the belief that the State of Israel has no right to exist. And the belief that the State of Israel has no right to exist springs from the belief that the Jewish people have no right to exist.
Both Israel and the Jewish people have the right to exist and to defend themselves against those who would be pleased to see them entirely wiped out of the Middle East, just as the Jewish people were nearly wiped out of Europe in the Holocaust.
There are even ultra-orthodox who are residents of Israel who do not support Israel as a State on Biblical grounds. However, they do support the existence of Jewry and the right to reside in Israel and the middle east.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,099,287 times
Reputation: 15538
There is a difference between supporting Israel's right to exist as a country and disagreeing with how the government run their affairs. Reading the OP's article it expands to state that only a handful of "student groups" proposed this, the same ones who "adopted a statement drafted by Law Students for Justice In Palestine condemning Israel."
Is this any different than the groups that would want a ban a Conservative Spokesman or try to stop pro Palestinian speakers? This is Berkley and they do have more than their share of extreme views.
It's only "anti-semitic" if you assume every Jewish person supports Zionism/Israel, or that no non-Jewish person does
Anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic, but this specific practice, which targets anyone who lends any modicum of support to Israel in any context (including simply believing that Israel has a right to exist) raises numerous red flags. It is nothing short of overly broad and underinclusive. I am quite critical of the current Israeli government and would describe my own views as more post-Zionist than Zionist, but I do think that Israel has a right to exist and should not be singled out for alleged human rights violations while Palestine and the other surrounding Arab nations are given a complete pass. Speaking as a firmly left-leaning person, it is deplorable that many left-leaning groups which have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict use this issue (and often this issue alone) as a moral litmus test.
Sure, there are prominent non-Jewish Zionists, although I highly doubt these groups would be inviting the likes of Lindsey Graham to come speak in the first place. Rather than take an intellectually honest and holistic approach by examining all aspects of a potential speaker’s moral compass, these groups are, in effect, taking a lazy and bigoted shortcut that does no favors to Palestine or the Palestinian people. Practically speaking, those with Jewish-sounding names will be scrutinized over all others until the internet paper trail either confirms or denies their support for Israel to the group’s satisfaction.
Last edited by ElijahAstin; 09-30-2022 at 06:01 PM..
According to an article, "Multiple student groups at the UC Berkeley School of Law passed a bylaw on August 21 stating that they would never invite any speakers that support “Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”"
The problem is that the by-law refers to 3 distinct groups of people, ones who support
"Zionism"
"the apartheid state of Israel"
"the occupation of Palestine"
the first one is based in a misused word. Without definition, the term "Zionism" could apply to a political Zionist, a religious Zionist (and, yes, they are very, very different) and other people
the second and third ones are contrary to fact and international legal terminology.
This also means that if a constitutional scholar expressed support for the existence of a future, theocratic state of Israel in the year 3000, then the Asian law students refuse to have him come and speak about gun control in 2022. The by laws seem to say nothing about speeches, just speakers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
