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)
Will Berkeley Ban Anti-Semitism?
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.
|
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. |
 18 February 2019
|
 17 February 2019
|
 17 February 2019
|
 18 February 2019
|
 17 February 2019
|
 17 February 2019
|
 19 February 2019
|
 18 February 2019
|
 19 February 2019
|
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
-Voltaire
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.
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.
"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.
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
Speech, no matter how hateful should never be restrained. Physical disobedience should not be tolerated. The pen is mightier than the sword.
"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.
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!
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.
Did someone say that here? Who?
I think you completely made that up out of thin air.
Look up, "semite definition".
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.
- "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.
Is this true? I can't think of a substantive example. Got some names and citations?
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.
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!
RSS feed for comments to this post