Some Berkeley Legislation “Jew Free Zone” Updates – #historical past #conspiracy
(1) Ken Marcus, whose op-ed on the scenario spurred the controversy, responds to his critics right here.
(2) Jewish Berkeley Legislation college students discuss about their response right here. Be aware that College students for Justice in Palestine consulted with each affinity group on the legislation faculty earlier than issuing the boycott pledge *besides” the Jewish legislation college students group.
(3) One level I did not point out in my earlier submit is that SJP’s assertion appears half and parcel of a nationwide SJP marketing campaign to particularly attempt to exclude Jews from “progressive areas” until they may particularly denounce Israel’s existence. To take considered one of an sadly rising variety of examples:
Two Jewish college students on the State College of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz say they have been booted from a help group for sexual assault victims and harassed by members of the group attributable to their Jewish id, in keeping with a grievance filed with the Schooling Division.
One of many victims, scholar Cassandra Blotner, says members of the help group threatened to spit on her in public for proudly being Jewish, whereas others known as her a “dumb bitch” who helps “mass genocide” attributable to her help for Israel. The grievance alleges the college was “absolutely conscious of the scenario,” but did nothing to guard the scholars from the anti-Semitic hate marketing campaign.
Once more, this can be a political technique, moderately than merely remoted incidents. Recall that the Ladies’s March collapsed as a result of its founders determined that Jews weren’t welcome. Additionally be aware that Palestinian foyer mouthpiece Rep. Rashida Tlaib just lately acknowledged you could’t be a progressive and help “Israel’s apartheid authorities” and Linda Sarsour equally remarked that one cannot be a feminist and a “Zionist.”
(4) However, you would possibly object, that when Tlaib says “Israel’s apartheid authorities” she does not imply “Israel,” simply the insurance policies she objects to. That might make extra sense if Tlaib wasn’t on the document as supporting the substitute of all of Israel with “Palestine.” Equally, one commenter was fairly insistent that when SJP says “Zionism” it doesn’t imply “the existence of Israel,” “the apartheid state of Israel” means solely Israel’s dangerous insurance policies that they assume is akin to apartheid, and the “occupation of Palestine” means solely the occupation of the West Financial institution, not all of Israel. Anybody who is aware of SJP’s historical past and politics would know that they imply, precisely, that anybody who helps Israel’s existence ought to be forbidden from talking. However only for the heck of it, I perused SJP Berkeley Legislation’s Fb web page, which talks about “Israel’s apartheid” going again to the late Nineteen Forties, ie, when Israel was based, and nicely earlier than the “occupation” of the West Financial institution. So whenever you see Tlaib, SJP, and others discuss “apartheid Israel,” there’s a quite simple query to ask: Is there a time whenever you assume Israel wasn’t responsible of “apartheid,” and is there something Israel might do, in need of surrendering in favor of a Palestinian Muslim-majority state, that might make Israel “not apartheid?” As soon as they evade that query, or possibly even reply actually, you could be satisfied, if you happen to aren’t already, that in observe the apartheid libel has nothing to do with Israel’s insurance policies, and every thing to do with opposition to Israel’s existence and the will to switch it with a Palestinian Muslim majority state.
(5) Relatedly, one commenter acknowledges that SJP desires Israel to stop to exist, however provides that I neglect “as a Jewish state that privileges the Jewish majority.” Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there’s something inherently fallacious with having one tiny nation dedicated to preserving and defending a those that’s been topic to genocide and each type of oppression in need of it in simply the previous century or so (mass pogroms in the course of the Russian Revolution, expulsion from Arab nations, Soviet state antisemitism, and many others., along with the Nazis.). Each the Palestinian Authority and Hamas promise a “Palestine” primarily based on sharia, thus inherently privileging Muslims excess of Israel “privileges” its Jewish residents. If this bothers any of the activists who declare to oppose Israel as a result of it is “chauvinist,” I’ve but to come across it. And as detailed in Benny Morris’ One State, Two States, any Palestinians prepared to countenance a binational state or related preparations have been murdered or intimidated into silence by the dominant faction, leaving Jewish advocates of such an answer with nothing to go on.
Lastly, the dominant Palestinian nationalist factions need both 2 Palestinian Muslim states, one solely Arab-Muslim, and one majority Arab-Muslim with a maybe-tolerated Jewish minority, or one state with few if any Jews, the remainder murdered or expelled. Few if any Palestinian nationalists are prepared to publicly state {that a} Palestinian state ought to be contingent on the rights if Jewish Israelis being protected. Once more, this bothers their supporters in no way. So spare me the suggestion that the underlying drawback is inequality in Israel. Arab residents in Israel have far larger equality than Jews in an Arab Palestine might hope for in the perfect of circumstances. (Which is why the trending trope is that Israeli Jews are “settler colonialists” and due to this fact haven’t any rights.)
(6) Even that apart, you’d should be completely blind to the historical past of antisemitism to assume that it “simply so occurs” that of all of the nations on this planet, the one folks singled out for this boycott are supporters of the existence of Israel, no matter how the person would possibly really feel about all or any of Israel’s insurance policies, and that the one ethnic/spiritual group, ever, that might be nearly solely excluded by a Berkeley Legislation scholar boycott is Jews. It could be pointless for instance, ask the Muslim and the MENA scholar teams why they do not rule out audio system who help Assad’s Alawite Syrian dictatorship, liable for the dying of half 1,000,000 Arabs, primarily Muslims far worse than even the craziest “antizionists” accuse Israel of doing. No Jews concerned, so no purpose to care.
(7) I can not discover the hyperlink proper now, however Berkeley’s chancellor was quoted as stating that there isn’t any authorized rationale for prohibiting the coed teams in query from exercising their “freedom of speech.” I am unsure that is true. First, California’s public lodging legislation may be very, very broad, principally prohibiting excluding anybody from any public place (outlined broadly) for any purpose. There was even a case during which a German restaurant was sued by the ACLU for excluding folks carrying Nazi insignia. After all, nobody would argue that SJP is obligated to usher in a pro-Israel speaker; that might violate its First Modification rights. However can Berkeley Legislation Ladies decline to ask a speaker on abortion rights as a result of that speaker has endorsed the existence of Israel? I feel that is lower than clear. Second, it is true that not all Jews help the existence of Israel, and never all individuals who publicly help Israel’s proper to exist are Jews. Nevertheless, think about an anti-gay rights group on campus obtained different organizations to signal a pledge that they won’t invite any speaker on any subject who professes to help the proper of same-sex {couples} to marry. Would the Chancellor be so assured that this may not be thought-about by civil rights businesses and courts to represent discrimination primarily based on sexual orientation, as a result of same-sex marriage is so carefully tied to that? I will not be belabor the analogy. I am really not a fan of the selections universally holding that refusing to bake a cake for a identical intercourse wedding ceremony constitutes sexual-orientation discrimination even when the patrons are at all times homosexual, but when that is going to be the kind of rule we reside below, it must also apply to Jews. And going again to level 3, if anybody who *is not* Jewish has confronted harassment on campus for being a “Zionist,” I’ve but to come across it.
(8) Adam Pukier of the Jewish Pupil Affiliation at Berkeley Legislation, writes: “If I might do it over once more, I’d have requested LSJP to incorporate the Jewish scholar group within the dialog. I’d have inspired different teams to hunt out Jewish voices on campus. I’d have engaged on a person degree in an open dialogue about Zionism and the BDS motion. I’d have defined how it’s doable for somebody to harbor a deep sympathies for the Palestinian folks, help the existence of the State of Israel and strongly criticize a lot of Israel’s insurance policies all on the identical time — it’s doable to be a Zionist and condemn the actions of Israel.”
Mr. Pukier’s efforts to face up for Jewish college students at Berkeley Legislation, which is hardly the favored factor to do there, are commendable. However certainly he is aware of that SJP has little interest in having a dialog or dialogue with him or anybody who helps Israel’s existence. SJP Tufts, for instance, not solely refuses “dialogue” with even left-wing teams like J Avenue that assume Israel ought to exist, however urge others to boycott them solely.
They aren’t focused on compromise, listening to different views, or the rest. They need Israel to get replaced by Palestine they usually haven’t any different precept. Even the opportunity of the genocide of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel will not be a big concern. Once more, the purpose of calling Israeli Jews “settler colonialists” is that they need to haven’t any human rights, and simply as, e.g., there are few regrets on the left for the numerous Frenchmen killed and in the end expelled from Algeria, the identical is true of Israel. After all, most would possible want that the Jews give up peacefully, however that is a desire, not a requirement.
As for the remainder of Mr. Pukier’s paragraph, it is lacking one thing necessary. It is also doable to have a deep concern for the well-being of the Palestinian folks and help the insurance policies typically of the Israeli authorities, if one believes that it is not the Israeli authorities’s insurance policies which can be the barrier to enhancing the lot of Palestinians, however the refusal, for the reason that Thirties and persevering with right now, of Palestinian leaders to countenance a settlement that might permit a Jewish state of any borders in “Palestine.” By suggesting that solely harsh critics of Israel fear about Palestinian well-being, one is wrongly conceding that “Zionists” who’re usually sympathetic to Israeli insurance policies are inherently anti-Palestinian and implicitly dangerous folks.
