#which emboldens Israel

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

i find conversations around palestine hard to navigate because often people will say that showing support for the people of palestine is anti-semitic and use really inflammatory language and then its difficult to move on from, do you have any advice?

I have thoughts and I hope they are useful. There is an underlying logic to what I'm suggesting - that I think might be useful to make explicit - because it's transferable to other situations. First of all figure out what your political purpose is - and then acknowledge that some of the things you are trying to do are hard and will take effort and you can't rely on your automatic instincts.

I should also say that I'm white and not Jewish and live in New Zealand. This advice is for someone who is also personally distant from Palestine in those ways - and may not be useful for you if you are in a very different situation.

The first step is to not be anti-semitic. This may mean you need to learn more about anti-semitism than you already know. You can't rely on thinking "I am not anti-semitic in my heart and therefore I can't be anti-semitic". Our culture has a lot of anti-semitic tropes that you may have learned without understanding. Do the work of unlearning anti-semitism. The best place to learn about is from Jewish people involved in Palestinian, but if you don't have access. Don't dismiss the possibility that you might be anti-semitic - take it seriously - but know enough that you can easily identify accusations of anti-semitism that you disagree with politically, or that aren't made in good faith.

I think it's worth understanding that not being anti-semitic is important not just morally or in an abstract sense, but that anti-semitism does active harm to the political project of building a Palestine solidarity movement in New Zealand (or anywhere else I've lived) I've always found this piece by Naomi Klein a touchstone

Then I think it's important to start with why you might want to talk about Palestine. I think understanding the political purpose of what you are trying to do. Sometimes the point will be to organise - but in that case you're probably not starting from scratch (organising rarely begins with an argument). But in the type of situation you are talking about - a place where there is hostility - I think the purpose is to legitimise Palestinian solidarity.

Huge resources and power are put into delegitimising Palestianian solidarity - it's always true and has become more clear than ever. Equating Palestinian solidarity with anti-semitism is a significant part of that.

The only way to fight this is to actively promote Palestinian Solidarity without anti-semitism - particularly in spaces where there is hostility and inflammatory. You won't necessarily win the argument - you're not going to undo everyone else's beliefs by the power of your argument. But what you can do is take a small step to insist on the legitimacy of Palestinian solidarity in the space you are in.

If people call you antisemitic for showing solidarity with Palestine and you disagree with them politically or think they're not made in good faith - it is absolutely crucial that you do not get distracted by that. Your purpose is to fight efforts to delegitimise Palestine - not to win arguments about what is anti-semitic and what isn't. The importance of not engaging may be counter-intuitive - they are arguing that solidarity with Palestinian liberation is delegitimate because it's anti-semitic - if you prove that they're wrong then aren't you legitimising solidarity with Palestine?

But in reality you're not - because you don't win arguments. Instead they are taking you away from your goal of showing that you think solidarity with Palestine is legitimate to arguing over whether or not solidarity with Palestine is legitimate - which is a much weaker position.

That sounds easy, but of course it's not. It can be very distressing to have someone call you anti-semitic - when you think that you're not and you believe that anti-semitism is wrong. And what solidarity demands in this moment is that you deprioritise that distress and do not act on it in a political way (although you can and should process it personally in non-political spaces way away from all of this).

If non-Jewish non-Palestinian people who were intending to offer solidarity go into a reactive space when they're accused of anti-semitism - and prioritise their feelings about being called anti-semitism - over the solidarity they were giving they can do incredible harm.

It's a horrific to watch genocide and to be so powerless, but it's all the more reason to focus on what you can do. Show your solidarity, don't get distracted from showing your solidarity.

[waywardworldhopper]

I... don't know how I feel about this statement. I mean, the statement itself is well written, and I like how they gently go "hey if you want to do activism there are better options than harassing some internet comedians."

But just... validating the complaints with this kind of response seems dangerous, especially given Dropout clearly recognizes they're tenuous at best. Like, I'm all for them taking an explicit stance on Palestinian liberation and directing fans to charities, but it feels like giving these accusations the time of day is encouraging more harassment.

🍉🍉🍉

Additional resources to support the people of Palestine:

Demand a Ceasefire in Gaza

Palestine Children’s Relief Fund

UNRWA

UNICEF

Gaza eSims

[battybiologist]

While I am happy that the Hague's ruling is leaning towards a condemnation of Israel, we can't relent in our efforts.

Not only because this is merely a preliminary ruling, but because the ICJ does not have executive power over the Israeli occupation. The IDF is free to violate their ruling at any time, at the cost of being deemed international criminals, which has never stopped them before.

Moreover, even if the Israeli government complied, the legal outcome alone is a return to the status quo. Gaza was under siege long before 2023, and the apartheid still stands.

I am not trying to discourage you: this is an unprecedented amount of support behind Pro-Palestinian advocacy, and we now have to decide if we'll use this opportunity to work towards the end of Israeli occupation of Palestine, or walk away from the issue now that the genocide is reeled back in.

So if you're tired, if you're drained, please, let this small victory embolden you and let's double our efforts.

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

[stuckinapril]

Unprecedented does not mean unprovoked. Iran was within its right to retaliate against Israel, because prior to that Israel had attacked one of its embassies in Syria—a direct result of the US emboldening Israel to basically do whatever the fuck it wanted without repercussions.

However, this does not change the fact that it’s unprecedented: Iran has never directly attacked Israel before. It has indirectly done so, through other countries’ drones, but never directly. This is the first time in decades that any major state has retaliated against Israel directly. Does that mean it’s unprovoked? No. It absolutely was provoked. But it also is a first, which is why the SWANA region is teetering on an uncertain edge right now.

[gaelic-symphony]

Six hostages were found murdered in Hamas tunnels under Rafah, and initial IDF reports say they were likely killed only a day or two before their bodies were recovered. These six precious souls managed to hold on for almost an entire year in the horrors of Hamas captivity, counting on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to end the war and bring them home to their families, but for eleven months, the world has instead turned its backs on the hostages in Gaza and emboldened their captors. Netanyahu and his cronies have blood on their hands. Sinwar, Abbas, and every other Palestinian leader who continues to promote false narratives about Israel and encourage violence against Jews have blood on their hands. The UN, the Red Cross and other so-called “humanitarian” NGOs who have aided Hamas terrorists have blood on their hands. Privileged western leftists who have emboldened Hamas with their unabashed Jew hate and calls to “globalize the intifada” have blood on their hands.

In Judaism, the phrase we usually say for those who have died is zichronam livrachah, may their memories be a blessing. But there is another phrase which we use when our people are murdered so brutally and senselessly like these six hostages whose loved ones will never get to hold them again. We say: Hashem yikom damam. May Hashem avenge their blood.

Hersh, Eden, Carmel, Almog, Ori, and Alexander, we will never forget you. You were loved, you were valued, and you deserved so much better. You should be alive and home with your families. May your captors and your murders face swift justice and never know a minute of peace. May no more families experience the enormity of devastation and grief that your families are feeling today after nearly a year of screaming and fighting to bring you home.

Fuck Hamas. Fuck Netanyahu. End this war and bring the hostages home. 🎗️

[determinate-negation]

Vigilante violence is at an all-time high in the occupied West Bank. Emboldened by the war in the Gaza Strip and backed by the military, Israeli settlers aiming to annex more and more of the Palestinian territory have launched hundreds of attacks, displacing people from at least 17 communities over the past month, while soldiers and settlers have killed nearly 200.

And at least three New York nonprofit organizations are calling on donors to help outfit those settlers with combat gear, in a fundraising blitz funneling millions of tax-deductible dollars to the West Bank aggression.

By chipping in to a “thermal drone matching campaign,” donors can help the Long Island–based One Israel Fund buy remote-controlled aerial vehicles for settler militias. With a contribution to the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim’s “security projects,” they can equip settlers with accessories for their guns and tools to keep an eye on “Arab thugs” in occupied east Jerusalem. Donating to the Brooklyn-based Hebron Fund’s “Israel Is Under Attack” campaign helps expand one of Israel’s most extensive local surveillance networks. If New Yorkers contribute by the end of the year, they can write it off on their 2023 tax returns.

Since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, which killed around 1,200 Israelis, the New York–based nonprofits have raised millions for tactical equipment for settlers across the West Bank. The organizations—right-wing groups dedicated to Jewish rule over the Holy Land—work directly with the Israeli military and with the settlements, which are illegal under international law.

“The ties between New York state and war crimes being carried out by Israeli settlers are egregious,” said Jay Saper, a New York–based organizer with Jewish Voice for Peace. “It’s long overdue for the state to take action.”

[fairuzfan]

Anyways David Sheen, a Canadian-Israeli reporter, actually is pretty clear that the democratic party is supported by and enabling the Kahanist party to shift the entire conversation on Palestine entirely to the right where the complete and total ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a legitimate goal that israel actually pushes for. Like biden de-listed the Kahanist party in the 2020s from the terrorist list which has been on the American terrorist list for years, specifically so netanyahu could allow Ben Gvir into government. They aren't just sending weapons but their strategies and policies are half the reason Israelis feel emboldened to do whatever the fuck they want to Palestinians.

Here are David Sheen interviews you should watch to know just how complicit the entire democratic party is in the genocide of Gaza:

[probablyasocialecologist]

We come alongside fellow Christians in condemning all attacks on civilians, especially defenseless families and children. Yet, we are disturbed by the silence of many church leaders and theologians when it is Palestinian civilians who are killed. We are also horrified by the refusal of some western Christians to condemn the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine, and, in some instances, their justification of and support for the occupation. Further, we are appalled by how some Christians have legitimized Israel’s ongoing indiscriminate attacks on Gaza, which have, so far, claimed the lives of more than 3,700 Palestinians, the majority of whom are women and children. These attacks have resulted in the wholesale destruction of entire neighborhoods and the forced displacement of over one million Palestinians. The Israeli military has utilized tactics that target civilians such as the use of white phosphorus, the cutting off of water, fuel, and electricity, and the bombardment of schools, hospitals, and places of worship—including the heinous massacre at the Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Porphyrios which wiped out entire Palestinian Christian families. Moreover, we categorically reject the myopic and distorted Christian responses that ignore the wider context and the root causes of this war: Israel’s systemic oppression of the Palestinians over the last 75 years since the Nakba, the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the oppressive and racist military occupation that constitutes the crime of apartheid. This is precisely the horrific context of oppression that many western Christian theologians and leaders have persistently ignored, and even worse, have occasionally legitimized using a wide range of Zionist theologies and interpretations. Moreover, Israel’s cruel blockade of Gaza for the last 17 years has turned the 365-square-kilometer Strip into an open-air prison for more than two million Palestinians—70% of whom belong to families displaced during the Nakba—who are denied their basic human rights. The brutal and hopeless living conditions in Gaza under Israel’s iron fist have regrettably emboldened extreme voices of some Palestinian groups to resort to militancy and violence as a response to oppression and despair. Sadly, Palestinian non-violent resistance, which we remain wholeheartedly committed to, is met with rejection, with some western Christian leaders even prohibiting the discussion of Israeli apartheid as reported by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem, and as long asserted by both Palestinians and South Africans.

An Open Letter from Palestinian Christians to Western Church Leaders and Theologians

[tamamita]

Ok, genuine question cus I'd like to understand. Yes, Biden is an awful person for supporting Israel. But if he loses the election and the US gets Trump, what then? Gaza keeps getting bombed, and on top of that you have gays, trans people, women and POC losing their rights, they'll likely withdraw support for Ukraine, and all the other shitty stuff Trump did, except likely worse because he and his fans are emboldened now. Not saying you support that, but help me understand the logic, please?

You people care only about the domestic policies of your country while we continue to suffer under your foreign policies. Biden has caused more pain and suffering than Trump in terms of his foreign policies THUS far. Harm reduction does not exist within the two party system and it is absolutely pointless to face against a system which has repeatedly caused our inevitable suffering.

You can organize, join a union, call your presentatives, make an effort to change rather than ascribing to this defeatist approach by yielding to the illusion of democracy under borgeoisie rule. The point is to build class consciousness, to teach the working class, and then, and only then, can a socialist revolution take place. It takes time, but every second is far more productive than a useless vote.

[dragoneyes618]

"There is no future for the Jewish People or the State of Israel in a world in which an army of terror can reduce whole families to human ash and get away with it.

No future if Hamas emerges free and emboldened to do it again, as the hate parades through London want it to emerge from this war it started.

And so we fight, not because we want to, but because we must.

We don't want the world's sympathy. Israel exists because we're sick of its tears..."

- Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy in a speech given at Trafalgar Square in London, January 17

[drdemonprince]

okay as someone who is critical of performative activism can you explain to me how protesting isn't performative? not tring to 'gotcha' you, i just really don't get how standing holding signs in seattle impacts what's happening overseas. the 'block the boat' protest made sense to me bc they were stopping weapons sent to israel, and it makes sense when like laborers damage equipment as part of a work stoppage bc they're wasting the bosses money. but most protests seem to be about 'showing solidarity' and i feel like usually they're more for the benefit of the protestors and to make them feel good for getting involved even if the involvement doesn't directly affect the outcome of whatever they're protesting. i'm open to being wrong about that though?

I used to feel this way, anon. And then I saw Palestinian men full on crying at protests while Facetiming their relatives overseas to show them that people actually cared. And I saw young Palestinian kids walking in front of their parents, moms, dads, aunts, and uncles, leading the chants of thousands of people, filled with confidence, not afraid to name their home land and give a voice to their resistance. And I saw elderly Muslim people, people who have likely not attended many American protests before of this size, emboldened and waving Palestinian flags and recognizing old family friends in the crowd and embracing one another. And I saw the highway be stopped for hours by thousands of us, forcing the entire city's road system to be rerouted, forcing untold numbers to contend with the rage that is being felt. And I saw us shut down all Black Friday shopping on the north end of Michigan avenue, closing off Victoria's Secret (which has manufacturing plants on Palestinian land), and covering the largest Starbucks in the Midwest (an informal boycott Target) with dozens of pro-Palestinian banners and stickers. And I've seen us showing up for one another again and again and again, every weekend, blocking off boycotted stores, ending business as usual, disrupting traffic, exhausting the police (who have had to pull a lot of overtime to deal with us), drawing attention to the cause, ending politicians' fundraising and meet & greet events, and not allowing business to go on as usual our ourselves to be complicit any longer.

I get the jadedness. I do. I have been there, especially after seeing awful police violence against protestors in 2020 and then seeing very little legal change occur. But the meaningful change we need will not occur via legal avenues. Protest is a means of building up collective power, of training people to think more collectively, of helping to normalize the viewpoints that we are advocating for, of disrupting regular everyday activities such as shopping and work that distract people from what is happening, of wearing the police state, of making our political representatives fearful and tired, and of setting the stage for larger, bolder, more disruptive direct actions that prevent or end humanitarian crises.

Block the boat doesn't just happen out of nowhere. You have to have a dedicated team of organizers and hundreds to thousands of devoted activists, medics, legal observers, coordinators, and people on the side lines offering resources and food. You need people to feel uplifted, motivated, and confident. You don't just get that in one day. The west coast has been able to launch incredibly effective actions like these because their work is YEARS in the making. Every major protest, every autonomous zone, every organizing meeting, it has all led to this. It takes work. It takes people being willing to show up and do that work, regularly, even when it is not glamorous, even when they do not get a sticker for it, and even when they cannot always walk away feeling that they've done something personally in that moment. It is a collective, long term endeavor, and it requires toughness and commitment.

Besides, the protests we are talking about actually are direct actions. Protestors yesterday shut down Zara. And now the company has to contend with a lot of bad PR from thousands of us screaming outside Zara's flagship store in the Chicago, speaking out about its advertisements mocking the Palestinian people. Shutting down the highway multiple times and other boycotted stores and ruining political fundraisers is directly impactful too. Now if any protestors want to take it further than that, I welcome them and I'll be there to join them. The Black & Indigenous solidarity rally in 2020 was one really impactful example. It came to blows in a serious way, but we almost tore the Columbus statue down. The city was so afraid of another incident they took the statue down themselves.

This is how we get things done. We show up, in large numbers, we give comfort and steadfast support to those most targeted, we show the state our true numbers, we wake other people up from their slumber, and we keep pushing to do more. We need as many people on the line as possible. The presence of every single person at a protest is powerfully felt. Numbers gives us confidence, it literally keeps us warmer in the cold in a noticeable way, it shows Palestinian people that we are with them, it broadcasts a message on the world stage, and it makes it possible for things like flipping over police cars and starting fires and closing bomb manufacturers possible.

[philosophicalconservatism]

These protests in America may sadly and ironically lead to even more innocent Palestinian deaths. For they will likely embolden the terrorist elements in that region, convincing them that they can get away with even more. They may attack Israel with a greater sense of boldness and Israel will be forced to further defend itself (leading to more civilian casualties, as Hamas commences with its tactic of hiding behind those civilians once again). We are communicating to these terrorist organizations that racking up civilian Palestinian deaths will allow them to successfully advance their ideological goals.

"[As for] the women, children, and elderly blood, I am not saying that blood is calling for our help. We require that blood to stir up the revolutionary spirit"

Isamil Haniyeh, a senior Hamas leader during an interview in 2023

In other words, they are not interested in protecting the lives of women children and the elderly, the movement needs their blood.

"we decided to turn that which is most dear to us – the bodies of our women and children – into a dam blocking the Arab collapse."

- Yahya Sinwar, Senior Hamas leader

For many Gen Zers too young to remember the Second Intifada or anything before that, this is their first real exposure to the Palestinian Israeli Conflict. They have no idea who the players are on the other side, and how utterly dark and cynical their methods are. Therefore they have no idea why so many of the adults around them seem to think in the way that they do ( in support of Israel).

[dostoyevsky-official]

Different anon just watching the drama go down. I'd hand you a lemonade or something because I don't want this to be vitriolic and combative, but unfortunately this is online. No-one's going to change their mind being screamed at and at the end of the day, we're not enemies, we're people who want the same thing and have a different idea about how best to reach that (and hell, maybe I'm wrong anyway, time will tell), so I'm gonna explain my point politely, and I mean no offense, which I hope gets through in my wording but hell, I'm terrible with tone so... let my intentions be known, at least.

I'll be real, I entirely get the revulsion to the presidential election and I agree on most points: something materially needs to be done to wrench the overton window left. The issue is, that not voting *isn't worth it*. It is an unmistakable truth that there will be more death and suffering under Trump. Abortion will almost certainly be nationally banned, transgender people will very likely be criminalized for their very existance, foreign policy will be significantly worse, the right will be emboldened to further violence, ecological damage will be significantly expediated with further fossil fuels, public education will be absolutely gutted, and there is a serious chance that all future efforts for progressive reforms will be sabotaged and made significantly more difficult. And whether or not *not voting* sends a message, it may very well not matter because any actual reform is going to be 10x harder. Plus, even excepting all that, voter turnout will likely not be attributed to Gaza but with mobilization efforts or just plain luck. The amount of people tumblr may be convincing not to vote this year is far closer to the number that could further jeopardize the election than to any amount that will convince Democrats that they should go back on years of self-selection for Israel support and the interests of Oil Executives who want the US to have a hold in the Middle East, if there even is a non-double-digits percentage of potential voters dissuaded by this for them to be convinced. These opinions are so widely-held that voting numbers would have to sway to an insane degree for them to get the message on this. And EVEN STILL, after all of that, if your opinion is to personally not vote, then while I disagree as a principle, I sympathize with the reality of it and I wouldn't chastise you. I get that it's far too utilitarian to suggest that *everyone* puts aside their issues with the Democrats, especially when those issues pertain to them in specific, like those with family in Gaza.

The issue comes in when someone campaigns for others not to vote. You don't have to campaign for anyone to vote but you can't claim that you're not doing harm when you actively tell people they're morally repulsive for voting. It is emperically non-neutral. Convincing other people not to vote is actively attempting to remove other votes, which is materially different from just not voting. Saying that you're not voting because of the Democrats' policy is entirely fair if you're being neutral and don't want to symbolically support Dems. Saying that anyone who doesn't refrain from voting is a morally reprehensible liberal is a step past that, and I do think it's fair to say that *at the minimum* this message and defense isn't honest, regardless of whether or not you believe it's worth not voting.

I admit that the amount of people who are defending Kamala and saying that she and the current administration haven't been reprehensible (for more than just Gaza) aren't honest either, and I disagree with and refuse to support that message, either.

That's not to say I think that laying down and giving up are justifiable either. There are plenty of other constructive ways to make change, especially by voting in local elections and campaigning for these issues in your communities, and I want to give you credit for doing that, for voting on local issues. But the vast majority of these posts campaigning against voting and even your original post do not mention these, and frankly the carte-blanche "do not vote", even if it included an exception to vote for local issues, still would significantly decrease the number of people who vote for these, because it is ultimately still telling people not to vote.

Ultimately, I just don't find it worth it.

(P.S.: Not a liberal, absolutely a progressive who's just as frustrated, angry, and betrayed as you, I've just seen so much shit get worse over the years because of similar campaigns and I'm concerned this is happening again.)

this is the only honest and thoughtful response i've received, to which i would only add that i'm in large agreement with you—up to the point of voting in states like new york, california, etc, which is what i have been saying all day. they're clearly not up for grabs. both the RNC and the DNC know this, while people every four years forget: there's a reason there's no campaigning in massachusetts. the community of people nationwide who care about gaza and are voting is, ultimately, small. it's upsetting to see people read and watch about gaza and go vote in these states, knowing perfectly how the electoral college functions. the vantage point in those states is more or less the same as that of anyone else on earth: a participant to outcomes that are preordained and to which your voice does nothing. it is a symbolic, and therefore in its assent a reprehensible, hypocritical action, in my opinion. i've expressed my disdain for empty voting before in criticizing those russians who went to vote for nadezhdin, then davankov. it's theater signifying nothing

[zvaigzdelasas]

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Tuesday pressed lawmakers to urgently pass the Biden administration’s $105 billion national security funding request which includes significant funding for Israel and Ukraine’s war efforts, arguing that the two conflicts are connected and failing to pass the aid together will embolden US adversaries around the world.[...]

Blinken, Austin and a number of other lawmakers noted the links between the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, with Iran providing Russia with weapons for its war.

“Allowing Russia to prevail with Iran’s support will embolden both Moscow and Tehran,” Blinken said. “To put it succinctly, for our adversaries, be they states or non-states, this is all one fight and we have to respond in a way that recognizes that. If we start to peel off pieces of this package, they’ll see that, they’ll understand that we are playing whack-a-mole while they cooperate increasingly and pose an ever-greater threat to our security as well as to that of allies and partners,” he added. “In both Israel and Ukraine, democracies are fighting ruthless foes who are out to annihilate them,” he said. “We will not let Hamas or Putin win. Today’s battles against aggression and terrorism will define global security for years to come. And only firm American leadership can ensure that tyrants, thugs, and terrorists worldwide are not emboldened to commit more aggression and more atrocities,” Austin echoed.[...]

The administration’s request includes $61.4 billion in aid for Ukraine and $14.3 billion in aid for Israel, $9.15 billion in funding for humanitarian aid, $7.4 billion in funding for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region and $13.6 billion to address security at the US-Mexico border. In the Senate, the leaders of both parties have pressed to have any funding for Israel combined with Ukraine and border security funding.[...]

Blinken’s opening remarks at the hearing were quickly interrupted by a series of protesters who shouted for an immediate ceasefire.[...]

Much needed aid to civilians in Gaza has only trickled in, with “almost 60” trucks entering daily via the Rafah crossing from Egypt. Prior to the war, 500 to 800 trucks a day with assistance were entering the strip, Blinken said.

31 Oct 23

[eretzyisrael]

by Haley Cohen

The president of a new Columbia Law School group formed to combat rising antisemitism on campus told Jewish Insider that its adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism played a role in the Law School Student Senate’s vote to reject it as a recognized university group.

“A group of students were strongly opposed to our formation from the very beginning,” Marie-Alice Legrand, president of the Law Students Against Antisemitism, recalled, noting that some condemned its use of the State Department-adopted IHRA definition.

“They have accused us of using that definition to silence free speech. We have assured them that is not our mission, we want to educate,” she continued.

Twenty-three of approximately 33 senators voted against the Law Students Against Antisemitism group in an anonymous vote on Jan. 23, the Columbia Spectator reported, noting that nine organizations have requested recognition this year, and Law Students Against Antisemitism is the only group that has not been approved.

Before the senate meeting, where LSAA presented, individuals referring to themselves as “Concerned Jewish Students at CLS,” who identify as “Jewish pro-Palestine students,” signed a letter to the senators.

According to Legrand, the individuals printed out copies of the letter and brought them to the meeting to “urge the Senate to decline to charter,” raising their concern that “LSAA has adopted a pernicious and insidious definition of antisemitism.”

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by JI, the students wrote that the IHRA definition is one “that conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In doing so, the IHRA definition effectively labels as antisemitic large groups of pro-Palestine Jewish and non-Jewish students on campus.”

The letter went on to say that, “Many individuals accurately believe that the creation of a State of Israel was a racist endeavor because doing so involved killing more than 15,000 Palestinians, expelling more than 700,000 Palestinians, and creating a refugee crisis that has resulted in over 2 million Palestinian refugees worldwide.”

Legrand said that during the group’s presentation, they faced more than an hour of “hostile questions accusing us of all kinds of things [like that we] want to police our fellow students… other groups got approved within five minutes. The same principles and rules don’t apply to every person at the university.”

Without university recognition, LSAA cannot host events on campus, reserve rooms or receive funds or a university email address, according to Legrand, who is not Jewish and grew up in Germany in a house that belonged to a Jewish family killed at Auschwitz.

A spokesperson for Columbia Law School did not immediately respond to JI’s request for comment.

Legrand noted that the denial of LSAA signals a larger antisemitism problem at Columbia. “The administration’s lack of leadership has only emboldened the antisemitism that is on campus,” she said.

[schraubd]

Campus Antisemitism Monitors Will Fail in Extraordinarily Predictable Fashion

Trying to capitalize on the latest headlines, a bipartisan group of legislators is seeking to create government "antisemitism monitors" that will be dispatched to colleges and universities across the country. Fail to meet their scrutiny, and colleges could lose gobs of federal funding. If enacted, this policy will fail in spectacular fashion. How do I know? Because we have a template in state anti-BDS laws, which backfire in similarly predictable ways. The problem is that while it's conceptually possible to craft valid and legitimat anti-BDS legislation, in practice the laws will be enforced by some mixture of apathetic mid-level bureaucrats, terrified associate deans, and hotshot headline-chasing politicians. Put that cocktail together, and the result is such lovely headlines like "homeless hurricane victims can't get disaster relief until they sign anti-BDS pledge." Indeed, if the antisemitism monitors do come into play, I can predict exactly the scenario that will go down shortly thereafter at Any College, USA. A student group invites some Palestinian poet to give a talk; Canary Mission or similar digs through the poet's instagram and finds a post where they say something that many people might find troublesome: "from the river to the sea" or "the Zionist state will be dismantled" or something of that ilk. They shriek that this is a violation of IHRA and federal law and the university risks losing all its federal funding unless it acts. Some associate dean for student affairs panics and cancels the talk. There's a massive backlash from the students (possibly including protests) as well as various academic freedom/civil liberties watchdogs who call the cancellation out as censorial bullshit. Pro-Israel/Jewish groups make surprised-Pikachu face at how they once again somehow became the poster child for heavy-handed campus censorship. Who could have predicted? (Answer: Everyone. Everyone could have predicted). And for all the grousing about "only the Jews don't get ..." X Y or Z protections on campus, it's worth noting that no other campus minority currently has a monitoring program like this. A good rule of thumb for whether one is advisable here is if one also would support a similarly empowered and emboldened "anti-racism" or "anti-Islamophobia" monitoring program. If your answer is something along the lines of "while racism and Islamophobia are serious problems, I don't trust the implementation adn I'm worried about the possibility of abuse and/or chilling free speech" -- congratulations! You've identified the exact reasons why such a program is inadvisable for antisemitism as well. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/F4KqnL6