RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "Like it or not, free speech has to include the right to say hateful things in uncivil ways. If governments, or state universities, or private universities that take government funding try to regulate what students and professors can and cannot say, freedom of expression begins to wither away."

Approximately fifteen protesters erected two large barriers at Sather Gate as a public statement portraying Israeli-Palestinian relations and supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. (photo: Rachael Garner/Daily Californian)
Approximately fifteen protesters erected two large barriers at Sather Gate as a public statement portraying Israeli-Palestinian relations and supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement. (photo: Rachael Garner/Daily Californian)


Will Berkeley Ban Anti-Semitism?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

07 September 15

 

re you a Jew?” demanded the Palestinian, armed with a make-believe Kalashnikov. He was demonstrating at Berkeley during an annual “Israel Apartheid Week,” showing what it was like to be a Palestinian living under Israeli rule. He was also offending many Jews, both on campus and off, though many other Jews actively support the Palestinian cause. Either way, the whole thing may come to a head in mid-September, when the UC Board of Regents is scheduled to vote on a statement regarding anti-Semitism and other intolerance that could restrict pro-Palestinian efforts to boycott Israel and disinvest from companies that support it.

The regents’ consideration of the issue raises big questions. Is opposition to Israeli policies anti-Semitic? Do universities and governments have a responsibility to criminalize anti-Semitism and other “hate speech,” especially at a time when Jew- and Muslim-bashing feed far-right and neo-fascist movements in both the US and Europe? And where in all this does free speech and academic freedom fit in?

From a grubbier perspective, how much are the regents influenced by Israel-American businessman Haim Saban, casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, and their campaign to crush the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, especially on college campuses?

As Hillary Clinton wrote to Saban, a major donor to most of what her family does:

I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority. I am seeking your advice on how we can work together – across party lines and with a diverse array of voices – to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel….

I am also very concerned by attempts to compare Israel to South African apartheid. Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world – especially in Europe – we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.

An important indicator will be whether the regents adopt significant portions of a controversial definition of anti-Semitism that the US State Department has used since 2005 and that Hillary championed as Secretary of State. The definition includes several examples of possible anti-Semitism with regard to Israel. These include:

  • Demonizing Israel by using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions

  • Applying double standards for Israel by requiring of it a behavior not expected of any other democratic nation or focusing by multilateral organizations on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations

  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist

The State Department definition is quick to note that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.” But any university-wide definition of what is and is not anti-Semitic would, if enforced with punishment of any kind, directly challenge academic freedom, free speech, and the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the First Amendment.

Like it or not, free speech has to include the right to say hateful things in uncivil ways. If governments, or state universities, or private universities that take government funding try to regulate what students and professors can and cannot say, freedom of expression begins to wither away. This is the situation in most if not all European countries, with their laws against hate speech and Holocaust denial that end up strengthening the haters and deniers. That is not a wise course to follow.

Far better is to fight speech you don’t like with speech you do like. If you don’t like BDS, argue against them. If you don’t like their demonstrations, create counter-protests. If you think they are edging into anti-Semitism, call them out, or – even better – try to convince them that they are only hurting their own cause. But if you permit government or university officials to regulate the content of speech, they will not stop with shutting down only the speech you do not like. They will, as in Europe, shut down the speech you do like.

How likely are the regents to take that route? At their meeting in July, they appeared to step back from the definition, announcing that their September meeting would consider “a statement of principles against intolerance, including, but not limited to anti-Semitism and other types of intolerance.” Pro-Palestinian groups took this as a major victory, but as university officials told the Los Angeles Times, the regents were still discussing whether to include the full State Department definition.

None of the regents have asked me, but I would urge them not to make the same mistake that the university made 51 years ago this month, when its assault on free speech triggered the Free Speech Movement (FSM). Back then, the university was trying to stop us from using the Berleley campus to organize against racial segregation and discrimination by businesses in the San Francisco Bay area. Now, they are trying to stop a new generation of activists throughout the university system from creating a new reality in the Middle East and in US foreign policy. Have the regents and administrators learned nothing over all these years? Don’t they realize that they are risking a massive defeat, either in the courts or from the steps of Sproul Hall?



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+58 # Radscal 2015-09-07 13:59
I attended a pro-Palestine protest at UCB years back. It was peaceful and decidedly un-hateful.

Israeli infiltration of university and college campuses has become ubiquitous since then. Hasbara propagandists are often decidedly hateful, and often deceitful as anyone who reads online comments sections knows.

Meanwhile, anger at Israeli actions has grown in response to Israel's ever-more violent and repressive policies.

For my alma mater (and other organizations) to be stifling the speech of the oppressed without addressing that of the oppressor is unconscionable.
 
 
+28 # futhark 2015-09-07 20:05
This Berkeley alumnus agrees with Radscal 100%! Being anti-militant Zionist is not the same as being anti-semitic. After all, the Palestinians are a semitic people and deserve the right to live with dignity in a free and secure society.
 
 
+20 # jsluka 2015-09-07 20:28
I'm also a Berkeley graduate, and totally agree.
 
 
+10 # aljoschu 2015-09-08 03:00
Simitic or not - Palestinians have the right to live with dignity in a free and secure society - and exactly that is made impossible in Gaza and largely in the rest of Palestine by the state of Israel.
 
 
+1 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:29
Not all opposition to Israeli policies, or even anti-Zionism is Antisemitism--b ut lots is and that is what the working definition addresses. I agree with Steve about not banning it, but denying it is Antisemitism borders on Antisemitism and is a significant problem on the left these days. And Antisemitism is about Jews, not Semites, so spare us the bullshit word games about how Arabs and Palestinians are Semites.
 
 
+12 # yetti121 2015-09-08 00:12
Racism in any form has no right to exist. I am US born and bred. It is my only home, but I do not want white male special privileges denied others, nor do I want any one to be denied the right to drive on a highway, or to have their water access stolen, or their olive groves ripped up, or their houses bombed, not here, not anywhere.
 
 
+56 # Farafalla 2015-09-07 17:32
The Oakland based organization, Jewish Voices for Peace, played a big role in the Regents' failure to pass the proposal. They deserve everyone's support.

The use of the newly-revised State Dept. definition of anti-Semitism makes most criticism of Israeli policy a thought crime. It is broad and vague and could have been written by the Likud government.

Other actions against BDS: States passing laws against BDS; TPP treaty having an explicitly worded section making it a violation of the treaty to host boycotts of Israel.

Policy makers are willing to gut the 1st amendment to keep Israeli militarists happy. This is wrong to the core.
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2015-09-07 20:38
Thanks for making those points.

If I recall, several years ago a Palestinian artist was banned from a local museum, and JVP actually rented a store in downtown Oakland specifically to display the art.
 
 
+5 # Douglas Jack 2015-09-07 22:13
Agricanto, If Israeli militarists are honest & brave, let them call their perceived enemies to open public equal-time, recorded & published 'debate'. Speech never needs to be banned, but more-so exposed to the court of public opinion. If someone or a group want to tarnish their cause, then debate will make this apparent. If there is slander or hate, then given equal time issues are addressed specifically. Israel as an oppressive apartheid state has imposed itself upon Palestinians. Socrates Dialectic rights must become the foundation of human relations, giving all stakeholders the right to call for structured formal debate in the court of public opinion. I'm not surprised from Steve Weissman's other racist anti-Semite (Aramaic, Arab & Jew) articles that he's warning of banning rather than calling for open debate for all, feeding upon moneyed control of media, universities & public thought. Yes all may express whatever they like as long as they give equal opportunity to their perceived opponents to speak. Gandhi, "I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true non-violence is an impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness." We need transparency in all levels of human interaction including the military, government, education, business listening to both sides. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
 
 
-11 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:31
Another racist Antisemite playing word games about the meaning of the word Antisemite.
 
 
-1 # Douglas Jack 2015-09-08 16:20
SalzburgStan, Am I to assume that; you are not only anti-semite (Aramaic, Arab & Jew), but cowardly refusing to debate your perceived enemies? Do you refuse to offer your perceived enemies (brothers & sisters) opportunity to debate with you or those you are affiliated with? Do you support state violence, colonial creation of refugees, ignorance/viola tion of indigenous law & custom? https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
 
 
+23 # wrknight 2015-09-07 17:36
Anti-semitic speech should be shamed, but not forbidden. We have a right to our likes and dislikes and a right to express our feelings freely. But hatred by any group towards another should be shunned by everyone, and those who espouse such hatred should be publicly shamed.
 
 
+33 # Anne Frank 2015-09-07 18:10
Nobody ever again can say with a straight face that Zionist money does not own the U.S. government and dictate what Americans can and cannot say. Already, Zionist ownership of the media prevents criticism of genocide like the massacre of Palestinian civilians in Gaza last year. The attempted censorship may backfire, as it will become impossible to deny nearly total Zionist control of the U.S. In reality, Zionism no more is Judaism than Nazism is Christianity. But since the ruling Zionists claim they represent Judaism, antiSemitism will rise among Americans who don't make the distinction.
 
 
-11 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:33
26 likes so far for this Antisemitic rant on a supposedly left wing site.
 
 
-2 # kalpal 2015-09-08 05:30
Nobody can ever get away with the truth that those who virulently hate Jews will insist on donning disguises that equate with wolves in sheep's clothing.
 
 
+34 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-09-07 18:11
Let Netanyahu speak before The International Criminal Court.
 
 
+28 # Anne Frank 2015-09-07 18:17
Note that it is only criticism of Israel's war crimes and Ubermensch doctrines that the regents propose to ban. It will still be just fine to hate Muslims, Catholics, Mexicans, Africans, and everybody else. The bottom line is nothing more or less than Zionist money.
 
 
-11 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:34
Jew hatred with a fig leaf that it is about Zionism.
 
 
-7 # kalpal 2015-09-08 05:28
Euphemising the hatred of Jews by saying its all about Zionism indicates an ignorance of what Zionism and tries to obscure the underlying intent to rid humanity of Jews.

Arabs going to Europe and randomly murdering Jews clearly indicates the vicious lies behind behind anti-Zionism.

A culture of lies must be exposed and bleached for what it is.
 
 
+49 # Old Uncle Dave 2015-09-07 18:35
If you want to know who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
-Voltaire
 
 
+20 # Rpaige 2015-09-07 18:46
Individuals who speak of Anti-Semitism should look up Semite in the dictionary online and they will see that Arabs are included in that definition. To ban Palestinian free speech at Berkley would be just as much an act of Anti-Semitism as allowing hate speech against Jews. Americans should READ. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!
 
 
+4 # MJnevetS 2015-09-07 19:40
Quoting Rpaige:
Individuals who speak of Anti-Semitism should look up
The DEFINITION of the word!

an·ti-Sem·i·tism
ˌan(t)ēˈseməˌtizəm/
noun
noun: antisemitism
hostility to or prejudice against Jews

While etymologically speaking the term may be sourced from the word semite, the word antisemitism has ALWAYS referred to a hatred of Jews.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2015-09-07 20:47
"Always" began in 1881, when the term was first coined. "Semite" is a word with ancient roots, but "anti-semite" was created by and for the European Zionist movement.

Chances are, they knew they were using a linguistic term, instead of the more accurate "anti-Jew."

But what to do when the term "Jew" is alternatively used to denote a member of a religion, a culture or a biological heritage ("race")?

There definitely were people who hated or mistrusted or held some prejudices about Jews in late 19th century Europe. Why the Zionists chose not to use the term "anti-Jew" to describe this is a point of some contention.
 
 
-6 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:38
More bullshit. The Term Antisemitism wasn't created by Zionists, it was created by Jew haters who wanted to make it seem more respectable than the old term Judenhass by not being a religious prejudice.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2015-09-08 12:57
Well let's see what the Jewish Encyclopedia has to say:

"In February, 1881, a correspondent of the "Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums" speaks of "Anti-Semitism" as a designation which recently came into use ("Allg. Zeit. d. Jud." 1881, p. 138)."

"Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums" was a German-Jewish publication, and was the earliest publication of the term generally known, but I did find some one year earlier.

“So far as can be ascertained, the word was first printed in 1880. In that year W. Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," andWilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the "Neue Freie Presse" of January.”

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1603-anti-semitism


In Paris, the ”Neue Freie Presse" correspondent was Max Nordau, and from 1891, Theodor Herzl, both founders of the Zionist movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Freie_Presse

Although the Jewish Encyclopedia states, “It is, however, impossible to trace with certainty the first use of the word,” it first appears in print in Jewish publications, written by Jewish authors, including the very founders of the Zionist Movement.
 
 
-2 # kalpal 2015-09-08 05:34
Can we go back to the behavior of those wonderful Xtian crusaders who murdered nearly every Jew they ran across? Both Christianity and Islam abhor and deplore Jews relegating them to at best second class citizens. Both are of course gutter schismatic offshoots of Judaism and resentful of Jews declining to accept the benevolence of either Islamic cut throats and Christian murderers.
 
 
0 # Douglas Jack 2015-09-08 10:43
Kalpal, RE: "Both are of course gutter schismatic offshoots of Judaism". Let's trace back chronicled Semite (Aramaic, Arab & jew) exodus from Babylon/Mesopot amia. We know that; ecological-econ omic refugees fleeing & Nebuchadnezzar (those chasing them) destroyed the 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') Polyculture Orchard PO for 'agriculture' (L 'field') causing desertification , flood, human social, economic & ecological disaster. Aramaic head north-west to Turkey & eventually east all the way to China. Arabs south to the Arabian peninsula (still lush PO) & jews south-west to Philistine (Palestine) & Egypt. Instead of immigrating to respect the laws & customs of welcoming indigenous nations they arrive at, all these 3 refugee Semite groups invade, killing & imposing dysfunctional settler-colonia l ways spearheaded by 'religion' (L. 'religio' = 'to-relate').

Semites cut down indigenous PO with loss of:
- 92 - 98% photosynthesis, causing sea-winds to stop being drawn inland & shift towards the sea.
- Trillions of square kilometres of leaf & bark surface upon which water condensation depends.
- 40% precipitation (rain & snow) attraction.

Scarcity of food, materials, energy & water-cycle causes fear & development of hierarchal, patriarchal extractive war-fear based societies morphing into Jew, Xtian & Islam worldwide extractive war & finance conquest. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/design/1-indigenous-welcome-orchard-food-production-efficiencies
 
 
-1 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:35
This crap again--look up anti-Semitism, not Semite, and you will see it has always been about Jews, not Semites--the Nazis loved Arabs.
 
 
-23 # MidwestTom 2015-09-07 19:14
It is amazing to me that the American Jewish population has consistently voted heavily Democratic ( at least that is what was reported during an event at the local synagogue ), even though this Democratic administration has more than tripled immigration quotes fro Islamic countries. Then guess what happens next; the Muslims gain enough numbers that they start attacking Jews here for the behavior of Jews half a world away. This country and it openness are a result of our Judaeo-Christia n history; a history of tolerance and rule of law. Both concepts apparently intolerable to a growing number of Muslims.

Speech, no matter how hateful should never be restrained. Physical disobedience should not be tolerated. The pen is mightier than the sword.
 
 
+20 # jsluka 2015-09-07 20:21
Rubbish; a complete ignorance of history and the cultural roots of "Western civilisation" which are primarily Greek and Roman rather than "Judeo-Christia n." And don't get me started on "physical disobedience should not be tolerated." How about disobedience against injustice and oppression? Fascist fool.
 
 
+22 # tedrey 2015-09-07 19:35
Hilary goes on to say:
"I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions in the UN, the Human Rights Council, and other international organizations. I condemned the Goldstone Report, making it clear that Israel must be allowed to defend itself like any other country. And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the UN to unilaterally declare statehood. Time after time, no matter what the venue, I have made clear that America will always stand up for Israel—and that’s what I’ll always do as President."

That's pretty clear, I think.
 
 
+26 # jsluka 2015-09-07 20:27
That's one of the many reasons I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Not only is she a Zionist, she's a war monger who has supported every war the US has engaged in during her lifetime, and is basically a Neocon who supports the Plan for a New American Century and US "full spectrum domination."
 
 
+9 # gitelsura 2015-09-07 19:40
I completely agree with the author that the State Department re-definition of anti-semitism would work to silence those critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinian rights. If adopted by the UC it would be an unconstitutiona l restraint on political speech - the most highly valued form of expression under the First Amendment.

But what strange bedfellows have come together around this issue in their comments here, including those whose expression is indeed anti-Semitic ("nearly total control by Zionists of the US..."), or Islamophobic (our "Judaeo-Christi an history of tolerance and rule of law is...intolerabl e to Muslims."

Woe is me, what a species!
 
 
-5 # markovchhaney 2015-09-07 21:45
gitelsura: I've been reading these thinly-veiled anti-Jewish comments online for long enough to have developed an ear similar to yours. Sure, people should be allowed to express themselves under the 1st amendment. The growing repression of free speech on college campuses is a plague. However, these days, I'm sorry to say, more of the repression comes from the world of political correctness (and idiotic college administrators, drunk with power, who think they're helping matters by limiting speech within the very institutions that depend upon it for any meaningful justification for their existence!) than from the right.

This particular issue does have a neo-liberal, pro-Zionist flavor, but the battle should be about defending the 1st amendment and academic freedom. People of intellectual courage will almost always flock together to fight for that freedom, no matter whose nose is put out of joint.

But when people started straining to "prove" that speech against Israel can't POSSIBLY be antisemitic because - Surprise! - Arabs are Semites, too!, then we've left the realm of serious conversation and entered the twilight zone of rhetorical bull. Only a fool would make that lame argument and deny what's perfectly clear: some people who are vehemently defending Palestinians and attacking Zionism are ALSO Jew-haters. Some aren't. Denying the existence of the former is ridiculous.

Read some of the crazier comments and try to argue none of it is from Jew-haters.
 
 
-4 # lewagner 2015-09-08 00:01
"But when people started straining to "prove" that speech against Israel can't POSSIBLY be antisemitic because - Surprise! - Arabs are Semites, too!,"

Did someone say that here? Who?
I think you completely made that up out of thin air.
 
 
-3 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:41
look again at the comments above
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2015-09-08 07:53
I hate to break it to you, but Arabs ARE semites.

Look up, "semite definition".
 
 
+17 # CarolynScarr 2015-09-07 22:22
In that most democratic country resting on Judeo Christian principles, Palestinians are not given the necessary permits to build on their own land, drill wells for water on their own land. Their farms are redefined as military practice areas and their homes and barns are torn down. Israel has claimed the Jordan valley which is clear and away far from the proper border between Israel and the West Bank. The building of "settlements" are a clear violation of international law which forbids the transfer of populations into conquered territories. BDS seeks to make unprofitable building of roads and railway lines for Jews only as was done by Veolia under contract. Caterpiller is a boycott target because the design giant machines to tear down houses used by the Israeli "defense" forces to destroy whole villages in the West Bank and also Gaza before it was bombed to bits.

So much for the Judeo Christian based democracy. I seem to recall the ancient Jewish prophets denouncing those who shift the stones that mark the boundaries of the land. The letter of James (Jesus' brother) demands that Christians do not show preference to the rich -- check it out. Both democracy and Judeo Christian tradition are flouted by the practices of the Israeli government. It is not antisemitism to point out these facts of history and current practice.
 
 
+12 # CarolynScarr 2015-09-07 22:23
Oh yes, and the US government flouts these traditions also, all over the world.
 
 
+12 # MainStreetMentor 2015-09-07 22:38
"Like it or not, free speech has to include the right to say hateful things in uncivil ways. If governments, or state universities, or private universities that take government funding try to regulate what students and professors can and cannot say, freedom of expression begins to wither away." --- In March of this year, Florida Republican Governor, Rick Scott, banned the phrase "climate change", indicative of the hatred of Anything which is, or may be, contrary to Repubs' political stance. Donald Trump, too, echoes the "hatred" theme in nearly everything he utters.
 
 
+11 # aljoschu 2015-09-08 03:34
In response to Hillary Clinton:
- "Demonizing Israel by using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism": Israel has been deliberately destroying Gaza to a state where it becomes literally uninhabitable and they are blocking all efforts to rebuild it. What else is this policy than ethnic cleansing? Forcing people to leave their traditional home land to eventually render it Palestinian-fre e. How far is that from the Nazi's standard "judenfrei" (free of jews)?
- "Applying double standards for Israel by requiring of it a behavior not expected of any other democratic nation": The double standard is definitely existing, however it works diametrically in the opposite direction - no other nation in the world would be tolerated to behave as Israel does in respect to Palestinians, in fact, in respect to most of their neigbors. Bans and sanctions exist against the Iran and Russia - what for? The existing double standard protects Israel, and possibly also Saudi Arabia - two extremely rich and influential rogue states and best friends of the USA.
- "Denying the Jewish people their right to ... exist": Ridiculous! Gaza was bombed for weeks and months, children were shot to death on its beaches while the party was going on on the neighboring beaches of Tel Aviv. Israel are having their state and they are expanding it daily into the torso of remaining Palestine while at the same time Israel is barring all Palestinian efforts to create their own state and existence.
 
 
-4 # SalzburgStan 2015-09-08 04:44
The PA leaders have stated numerous times that a Palestinian State will be Judenfrei while Israel has a 20% Arab minority with the right to vote, sit in the Knesset, and on the top courts in the country. Nor are the other claims here true.
 
 
+3 # tingletlc 2015-09-08 13:17
Quoting SalzburgStan:
The PA leaders have stated numerous times that a Palestinian State will be Judenfrei


Is this true? I can't think of a substantive example. Got some names and citations?
 
 
+2 # jwb110 2015-09-08 10:12
The more important thing about this article are the comments. There is a greater division about support for Israel than in my living memory. The Holocaust has become an industry and is being used to treat people in different ways and by different standards. I certainly believe in a Jewish Homeland. Many others do. What I find most interesting is the erosion of uni-laterally forgiving bad policy based on past history. Israel is at some point going to need assistance from other nations and while those governments may supply it the citizens may oppose it. As we have seen in the US, the rise of wing nut politicians getting elected may pose a threat to Israel. The world is changing and the old ideas are not. Everyone, on both sides of these arguments, had best be paying attention to avoid huge backlashes. Building walls does not build peace.
 
 
+1 # tedlandau 2015-09-08 11:27
While I support Palestinian statehood and have been critical of Israeli policies, I have to wonder a bit about extreme and unilateral positions stated by some here. At a time when the headlines are being dominated by thousands of migrants risking their lives to escape the horrible conditions in Syria and other Arab countries, I would contend that Israel is not the greatest threat in the Middle East. I wonder how many of the anti-Israel protestors also support protesting against the governments of Syria and Afghanistan.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2015-09-08 16:06
The "horrible conditions in Syria and other Arab countries" are the deliberate results of NeoCon plans laid out as early as the 1980s, but finalized in 1996's "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

In it, the NeoCons describe how to utilize US invasions and Islamic Extremists to destroy and Balkanize Israel's "competition." They specifically name Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and finally Iran.

This is why ISIL has NEVER targeted any Israeli interests, and Israel is providing ISIL with both medical care and air support.
 
 
0 # MJnevetS 2015-10-01 08:32
Quoting Radscal:

This is why ISIL has NEVER targeted any Israeli interests.
Radscal, You are clearly (again) talking out your ass. Why don't you read this article from July of this year: "ISIL affiliate in Sinai claims rocket attack on Israel" http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/isil-affiliate-sinai-claims-rocket-attack-israel-150703192810233.html

Everyone who has been on this site knows your pro Palestinian positions and your hatred of Jews (uh, Zionists, wink wink). At least try to avoid the blatant lies, someone might call you on them!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN