Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In other news, USA fought the Nazis for nothing. Well done America and it's fight for freedom

The US fought the Nazis because they tried to take over Europe (...after Pearl Harbor was bombed). The US rejected entry to many Jewish refugees in the run up to WWII. The US and Israel weren't much in the way of allies early on either.

Currently, we have people in this very thread saying the death of 40,000 Gazans to killed a minority of Hamas and infrastructure is "doing pretty well". As a reminder, 1,200 or so were slaughtered by Hamas on October 7th. Hundreds taken hostages. A huge sum, but well below a magnitude lower than the Gazan losses.

I'm curious what an acceptable death toll in Gaza would be for the elimination of Hamas... ignoring the irony of Hamas growing in its destruction.

Well, Biden said that a red line should be drawn at Rafah. So that makes him anti-semitic because he is criticizing the Israeli govt policy. I believe since then the administration has caved to say something like we will always support Israeli's actions but there must be humanitarian aid and a pathway for civilians to escape death. If Israel disagrees with that, then it still makes Biden anti-semitic.

Comparison of the Israeli govt to Nazis is also anti-semitic and will become illegal on college campuses but could go beyond that if they make another law that expands this usage to other domains. So, basically when college students participate in internet discussions or any about Middle East policy, every thread eventually is Godwinned and at that point, only one side is allow to Godwin. If the other side did it in the heat of the moment, it's illegal and there can be consequences to a student and/or to the school or funding, I suppose.

More in next post...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Suppose a bunch of Gazans appealed to the international community for help getting rid of the most corrupt and violent leadership.
What does anyone think would happen?

My guess is nothing.
It's easier to just clutch your pearls and blame those dirty Jews.
Tom

Exactly. Standard leftist approach: Blame the side with the power, especially if they are a hated group. Compared to the standard rightist approach: Blame the side without the power, especially if they are not white, male and Christian.

Neither side has any real interest in trying to truly solve a complex problem, it's all about blame.

I do not believe in blame. I do believe in responsibility. A person, an organization, a military must be held accountable on some level for the results of the decisions they make and the actions they take, or the maintenance of civil society becomes impossible.

Hamas chose to attack, knowing that Israel would respond with a major ass-whooping. Why do you refuse to hold them accountable?

And note that you're not trying to solve the problem. You're trying to dictate that Israel sit there and die.

Almost the entire debate has been when and how Israel will accept a cease fire. Hardly any debate on Hamas. When will hamas accept a reasonable ceasefire or any type of compromise?

 

[ZiprHead]

WARNING: There is a thread for campus protests. This thread isn't it.

??

What in your opinion is is thread supposed to be about, if not Columbia University's collusion with the far right in its attack on students?

Yup, I screwed up. Another day in my life.

 

[Harry Bosch]

WARNING: There is a thread for campus protests. This thread isn't it.

??

What in your opinion is is thread supposed to be about, if not Columbia University's collusion with the far right in its attack on students?

Yup, I screwed up. Another day in my life.

Sorry, but you've been acting despotic lately. I think that you're letting the power of running this forum go to your head. (kidding!)

 

[Politesse]

Comparison of the Israeli govt to Nazis is also anti-semitic and will become illegal on college campuses but could go beyond that if they make another law that expands this usage to other domains. So, basically when college students participate in internet discussions or any about Middle East policy, every thread eventually is Godwinned and at that point, only one side is allow to Godwin. If the other side did it in the heat of the moment, it's illegal and there can be consequences to a student and/or to the school or funding, I suppose

My school is actually considering akin to this, except that it is at the Academic Senate level and thus non-binding. They've already won in a way, because there's been very little open discussion; everyone is too afraid to actually voice any opposition to the draft statement, so it is likely to pass.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Antisemitism Awareness Act

This probably deserves a separate thread but it is also a spin-off reactionary bill due to criticism of Israel govt probably brought out of committee because of the college protests, trying to maintain the order of institutions that have created a bias and imbalance in favor of one side over the other and thus a default normalization of slaughters of Palestinian people.

Jewish Democrat on voting against bill: Anti-Zionism not ‘inherently’ antisemitism

Jewish Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said she voted against the bill that would crack down on antisemitism on college campuses because, in her view, anti-Zionism is not “inherently” antisemitism, and…

thehill.com

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

So criticism of the Israeli govt?

So there is some opposition from the QAnon mob, oops, I mean the Liberty Caucus in the GOP, for example, see here:

Gaetz dubs House antisemitism bill a ‘ridiculous hate speech bill’

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) labeled the House antisemitism legislation as a “ridiculous hate speech bill” ahead of the vote Wednesday. The House approved a bill that aims to crack down on antisemitism…

thehill.com

At issue, there is a reading comprehension fail by them but they are getting close to seeing an issue. It just doesn't quite materialize in full. So one of the examples reads:

• "...using the symbols and messages associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis."

It seems to me (maybe I am wrong) that Gaetz and MTG have not focused on the last part "to characterize Israel or Israelis." So if a person recounts a historical perception that Jews killed Jesus that's not on the table. But if they point to modern people such as the state of Israel or particular existing persons or maybe include Jews kind of amorphously in the context of existing, living Jews and say "Well, you know, they did kill Jesus," that would be anti-Semitic. Or at least that is my interpretation and where I think they fail. It seems like they have just stripped out the parenthetical phrase and not put it into that greater context.

However, there are other bullet point examples given that are referenced and that seem to be more problematic regarding criticism of the Israeli government. Some of these raise a lot of questions.

• "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."

There are many Jewish citizens of the United States and some particular individuals COULD have a set of priorities that puts Israel at the top. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is most or even a significant sub-population as I have no statistics available for such. HOWEVER, stating that 1 or 2 very specific individuals have more loyalty to Israel than to the US because of very specific observable actions they have done is not in and of itself anti-semitic. I would go so far as to say that any citizen, whether a foreigner OR NOT or a dual citizen, could end up with biased priorities in context meaning putting another nation first over the US interest. I do not think pointing out some observations of any citizen prioritizing other nations over the US is necessarily xenophobic or racist, but in specific instances, it might be.

• "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

I don't think that declaring attempts to create or maintain majority ethno-states are "racist" is necessarily anti-semitic.

• "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

To some people, this is a have you stopped beating your wife type rule. At issue, there is what constitutes democracy because there is a star of David on the flag, a requirement for many to serve in the military, a long-standing occupation that is almost a caste-like territory. What other democracies police an occupied border territory, and disallow food and such? To try to make a historical analogy, consider other democracies of the past like the US with Native American territories, forcibly moving persons there and denying due process and other equality. Does the full territory of occupancy have democracy? Yeah, I know, Hamas are the bad guys. I don't like Hamas, but a person can try to argue, whether successful or not, that it is not a double standard because some other democratic nations being compared are apples-to-oranges comparisons.

• "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

So, this seems to mean, any comparison at all to any policy at all cannot be compared to Nazis or it is anti-semitic. In politics, a comparison of any policy to Nazis is inevitable. It isn't necessarily anti-semitic when the country's policy happens to be Israel.