In a submission titled “University irresponsible for inviting controversial speaker to campus,” published on Nov. 5, Natalie Charney condemns several academic departments at UCLA for inviting Steven Salaita to speak on campus. She argues that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict constitute a “hate-filled incitement to violence.” But Salaita’s speech is not incitement and must be answered with reason, not censorship.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court held that incitement is speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The case involved a Ku Klux Klan leader who threatened to seek vengeance if the U.S. government continued to “suppress the white, Caucasian race.” The Court found that because the Klansman’s words were neither intended or likely to incite imminent lawlessness, his speech was protected by the First Amendment. So too is Salaita’s.
The best way to fight hateful ideas is to expose them and prove them wrong, not to force them underground where they may fester. Labeling distasteful ideas as “hate speech” to justify silencing them is ineffective and unconstitutional at a public college campus. That’s why Harvey Silverglate, the Jewish co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where I work, defended the rights of neo-Nazis to speak decades ago when he was an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. And it’s why I, also Jewish, support Salaita’s right to speak out now.
David Deerson is the program associate for campus outreach at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit educational organization that aims to promote individual rights at American colleges and universities.
Natalie Charney is part of the “victim” industry created by the Hillel. Its role is to divert any inconvenient discussion of Israeli ethnic cleansing and apartheid into the “victim” spiel. And of course claim “anti-semitism”.
The “victims” see no harm in Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing. They only see great “peril” in persons who point it out.
It is fascinating that David Deerson (who for some reason needs to tell us he’s Jewish) did not tell us what Salaita has said and why some people might consider his speech hateful. I will do so now. Here are two quotes from Salaita’s Twitter account:
“Zionists: transforming ‘antisemitism’ from something horrible to something honorable since 1948”
“You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not: I wish all the f*cking West Bank settlers would go missing.”
A man who justifies Jew hatred and openly calls for the murder of civilians does not belong at UCLA. If he wants to stand on a street corner and spew his hatred, he is free to do so. But UCLA is under no obligation to give him a platform for his bile.
First, I have to ask if you know what scare quotes are?
Now let me observe that speech derives its meaning in large part from the context in which it occurs. These tweets are no different. I, therefore, advise you to investigate the tweets by trying to understand their context. Here is a good place to start:
http://coreyrobin.com/2014/08/08/what-exactly-did-steven-salaita-mean-by-that-tweet/
When you’re done, come back and we’ll have a rational discussion.
There is no context for wishing thousands of people would “go missing.”
He didn’t say “disappear”; he said “go missing.”
But leaving that quibble aside, Salaita wrote the “go missing” tweet on June 19th. It wasn’t known that the young men had been killed until June 30th.
Context matters.
In light of that context, there is a non-violent reading for the tweet: the West Bank is chock full of illegal settlers who could solve the problem they created by leaving the West Bank.
Remember these are illegal settlers we are talking about. They have no right to be there and they terrorize the Palestinians who do.
Again, context matters.
Wishing people would ‘go missing’ is wrong. Maybe not as wrong as wishing them dead, but still wrong.
Salaita has shown himself to be a hate filled psychopath. UCLA has every right to hit him to the curb.
There is no context in Twitter, where those 140 characters get shared independantly. It is not the place for having context based nuance in your screeds.
Besides the context is three teenagers, including two children, disappeared and were feared kidnapped or killed. No one suggested they peacefully emigrated to the U.S. or something.
Ah, but there is context–unless you are willfully blind. There are tweets that come before and there is the context of his previous writings (in which he denounces antisemitism, btw). Either can be found with minimal or no effort. You should read them if you want to understand. But when a hater wants to hate instead of understand, there is very little that can be done…
Referring to them as children is slightly disingenuous. Let’s just say that two were minors (16 yo) and one an adult (19 yo). And while their fate is horrible, it occurred in a much larger context of organized Israeli oppression and terror of Palestinians in the West Bank. You should also note that all three were inhabitants of an illegal settlement in the West Bank. Tragically, such things will continue to happen as long as Israel continues its Palestinian land grab.
Suck on that context.
I don’t care the freaking context. They were murdered or kidnapped and he was happy about it. I know plenty of Palestinians who hate the occupation, who may even resist the occupation, but do not consider killing people on the way home from school to be a victory. They are decent people. He is not.
Unfortunately, the context is what really matters here. Not caring about it won’t make it go away.
In no way was Salaita “happy about” the murders and kidnappings. I also doubt that he considers that sad episode to be a victory. You have nothing indicating he does and are now just spouting bile.
Lot’s of people are dead and more will be, because partisan haters (like yourself) fail to understand that Israel is a sponsor of state terrorism directed at Palestinians. Israel has taken Palestinian land, burned their olive trees, and killed their women, children and elders by the thousands. The Palestinian response, while tragic, is puny by comparison.
I know the cognitive dissonance is probably a lot for you to take but, please, try to come to some broad-minded resolution that doesn’t damage or overlook the essential truth about illegal Israeli settlements and the damage they have done to the peace process.
Why would he make that post if he wasn’t reveling in the event? Are you saying he is just tone-deaf? Well, if so, he still should not get a platform at UCLA. War is not a good topic for tone-deaf people to pontificate on.
There is literally no other way to spin that comment. People went missing, and he says he wishes all of that kind of people would go missing. He did not care about them and in fact wishes that more people would be kidnapped. There is also no evidence that these people had burned any olive trees. One was not even a settler. Regardless of where you think their families should live, they had not personally done anything deserving of Salaita’s comment.
And shut up about what I do and do not understand.
I understand if you oppose current Israeli policies. I do not understand the blind impulse to defend Salaita, just because he also opposes the occupation.
More assertions made in ignorance.
Not really.
Yes, really.
You do not oppose current policies in Israel? You do. You defend Salaita because he agrees with you on the Occupation? Yeah, he does. And that is really it.
I was responding to “Divided on whether he should have been fired over it, not on what he said.”
It is quite clear I oppose current Israeli policies. Duh.
I do not defend Salaita because he agrees with me on the Occupation. I’m not sure we are in complete agreement. I’m much more interested in pointing out the willful ignorance by you and others who would like to shut down free speech, especially as it is manifested in the academic tenure.
Yeah, I admit I don’t think he should have been hired in the first place, seeing as he never did any worthwhile research on Native Americans. Once he was hired though, he deserved what he got, but I am still unsure as to whether the university had the right not to appoint him. Or whether they were stuck with their choice.
UCLA, on the other hand, had no reason to fete him. That isn’t free speech. They made no promise to give him a platform for his ignorant malice.
And I get the distinct impression you’d care a lot less if he got fired for hating Palestinians, rather than Israelis. So no, it is not a free speech issue.
Because you are in a position to judge his qualifications. Right. But at least you admit he was in fact hired, which is more than UIUC is willing to do.
Deserved what he got? Again, considering how you willfully distort and over-interpret, you are in no position to pass judgment. You really are a one-trick pony: you rush to judgment on matters you barely understand using the most specious of arguments to “bolster” your cause–whatever it is. Why do you care about UCLA? Or is that just the excuse du jour?
Of course I am. His body of work speaks for itself. Or lack of body of work, really.
“Of course I am. His body of work speaks for itself. Or lack of body of work, really.”
Hogwash. You don’t know how to do your homework do you?
Point to one thing he has written worthy of tenure. And pertaining to his job and not just a rant about Israel.
And remember many good academics never get tenure and have written dozens of papers while post-docs and assistant professors.
Again Elon has proven himself again. He fabricates quotes and context. And when you call him on it, he pretends his interpretation is the most accurate. And the rest of us are ignorant.
I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I don’t think you two are. You just want to defend the indefensible by attacking speakers, rather than engaging.
You engage in hyperbole. And want the rest of us to validate it.
The rest of us meaning you, who has nothing to do with the government of UCLA in any case and engages in more hyperbole, not for purposes of rhetoric but to lie and make ad hominem attacks.
Pointing out your false claims of “tweets” is now an “ad hominem” attack. You don’t seem to understand that your “views” don’t make fact.
No. But calling me a liar and belittling my intelligence and creating conspiracy theories are ad hominem attacks.
You have lied consistently. When you claim a tweet which does not exist, then that is a lie.
I didn’t claim it. I said he tweeted he was proud to be an antisemite, which in his mind means hating Israel and every Jew who doesn’t actively hate it. He tweeted those sentiments on a dozen occasions and wrote them in an attack on Norman Finkelstein, since deleted.
You were the one insisting on wording. Because you know he actually holds those views.
Which turned out to be a lie. Because the “tweet” was your interpretation.
Not mine. A normal interpretation, supported by his consistent talks on the subject.
Now you’re running away from your own interpretations. Great. Just more dishonesty.
I never interpreted it differently. You cannot read.
When a tweet claims A and you interpret it as B, now you claim you never interpreted it. Why do you lie so blatantly ?
It didn’t claim A. You claimed it claimed A.
You claimed it Stated A. And then later point to an interpretation. Why lies so blatantly ?
I never claimed such. I did not place quotation marks to indicate that was the langauge of a specific tweet. Rather, in general, he tweeted such.
You claimed there was a specific tweet by stating “he tweeted”. And ever since you’re trying have one lie on top of another lie to pretend otherwise.
“Steven Salaita fell victim to the anti-semitism crowd because he tweeted he was proud to be an anti-semite. Now he claimed he was tweeting ironically, but ironically hating an entire ethnic group in 140 characters goes over sooo well.”
He did indeed tweet such sentiments. You never denied that but objected that the word ” proud” was not in them. I never said it was, simply that he tweeted he was proud. Which he did by calling it honorable, by asking what choice does any person with a conscience have, by mocking the missing teenagers, by disparaging all Jews in the US for supporting Israel, and in a thousand other ways.
You stated “he tweeted” not “tweet such sentiments.”. Why lie ?
It was shorthand. He tweeted he was proud, as indeed he did on more than those occasions. I never insisted on the wording. I am sorry if you felt it was unclear.
But the specific words of the tweets was never my contention, specifically that he should not have been surprised that the “honorable tweet” the “conscientious choice” tweet, the one about American Jewish kids would indeed offend, because 140 characters is not enough to say he did not actually mean antisemitism, but remarks criticizing the Israeli government which are falsely called antisemitism to some people. That although there is genuine antisemitism on Twitter, some under the cover of antizionism, he condemns that and is only referring to political speech directed against the current policies of Israel which is the honorable and conscientious choice. That idea was what I said he could not convey in 140 characters.
It was not shorthand. It was a lie.
I can only surmise that you are purposely assuming bad faith on my part, which is a violation of comment policy.
I have sufficiently clarified my actions, and there is no call for your infantile harping.
No you repeatedly denied it. Your “interpretations” not only on this topic but others also have lead others to call you out on it. So much for an honest dialogue from you.
I never repeatedly denied that there wasn’t a tweet with the word “proud” in it. I repeatedly denied that I lied, because I didn’t lie. I never said there was a tweet with the word proud in it in the first place.
Of course you pretended there was such a tweet. Until it became obvious there was none such. Why you lie ?
Show me one comment where I said he tweeted the word proud, after it became evident that was what you were talking about.
It took dozens of posts questioning your honesty before you started hedging. Why do you lie so blatantly ?
It did not. You cannot even point them out, or answer the fact that you were shown one of the tweets I was paraphrasing when I said he was proud, even before I saw your initial complaint.
“You lied”
“I did not mean it in the way you intended”
“Why did you lie”
It took dozens of posts because you are a broken record and are overly pedantic and refuse to accept an answer. Because you want to perceive me as a duplicitous, evil overlord. Good day.
Go on. Right here. Right now. When did I insist that the word “proud” was in a tweet. When did I deny that it wasn’t?
You claimed there was a tweet. And there was never such. Why do you lie so blatantly ?
Show me where I claimed it. I gave you every chance, and you failed to do anything other than continue to rant.
You got things to do? Maybe you wanted to annoy people at the University of Kentucky today? I don’t care. Go on show me this moment. You started this thing. Now you are going to finish it.
Did you get your IDF paycheck today ? Or do you have to lie some more to earn it ?
So you cannot. And instead you resort to ludicrous conspiracy theories. I think Salaita is a jerk, so obviously I am in the IDF employ. Totally logical.
Right then. I gave you ample to to consider. I am going to stop responding to all inquiries on this subject, since it is obvious that you never were the slightest bit interested in what I actually meant and that you cannot show why you are convinced I tried to willfully deceive the world.
No you danced around it until it was painfully obvious you were lying. Why do you lie ?
He did tweet such sentiments. He tweeted it was honorable. He tweeted Israel made antisemitism the only conscientious choice. He attacked all American Jews as blind supporters of Netanyahu and genocide. I never claimed the specific word “proud” was in any of those tweets, simply that he tweeted hewas proud. All three are good indications he was indeed proud to hold that viewpoint.
Salaita’s work before the tweets was so partisan and political that it was never praised by anyone not already in the BDS movement. People liked it because it validated their opinions on Palestine, not because it was genuine research that was any good. Read reviews for his books.
And your point is ?
I consider tweets by plenty of people i don’t agree with partisan.
I’m not talking tweets. I’m talking “research”. Or in his case “my people are oppressed. This other people were oppressed. Here’s some half-assed theory to connect them. Here’s a quote that supports me if I take it out of context and squint a lot. BDS!”
And if you disagree with them it does not make them objectionable. Welcome to America Elon. This is not Israel nor the Hillel.
It does make them objectionable. That is not research. That is cable news talk show.
That is for his university tenure granting faculty and his peers in the academic field and journals to decide. Not you nor the Hillel.
But at least you admit my description of him is accurate.
I stated you have a right to disagree with him. I did not endorse your views. Big difference.
This has nothing to do with disagreeing with him and everything to do with furthering the cause of knowledge. Half-assed political screeds do not contribute anything about Native Americans in any way.
So says the Hillel censor.
What does this have to do with Hillel?
Are you saying you think research is connecting two unrelated fields with cherry-picked quotes, in order to advance apolitical agenda?
Whatever topic of history and culture, be it Native Americans, Palestine, Germany, or Tuva deserves more than Salaita was ever willing to give, and he was rewarded for it. Right up until the same standards got him in trouble, because they were in 140 character rather than a “research journal”.
A right wing political organization. Need i say more.
Thanks for your peer review Dr Elon.
Hillel is not a research paper or academic book. Hillel was not applying for tenure.
But, with the help of related organizations, does plenty to stifle academic speech.
Hillel’s alleged activities do not have anything to do with Salaita’s lack of academic rigor.
But has plenty to do with stiffling academic speech.
No it does not. You are changing the subject at hand, which is honoring a man who does not deserve the honor because of a spurious resort to free speech.
The only contention is hiring practice.
Hillel has nothing to do with it.
And who are you to decide that Prof Emeritus Elon. The Hillel and affiliate organizations have plenty to do with stifling free speech on campuses.
Again it has nothing to do with Hillel. We are talking about whether Salaita produced actual academic work. We are talking about whether Salaita should have been chosen for the position and whether the Chancellor should have denied it. Most of all, we are discussing why three departments of UCLA felt the need to honor Salaita with a platform to rant upon. None of that has to do with Hillel.
And who are you to decide that Prof Emeritus Elon ?
Who am I to decide the article you are commenting on? Who do I need to be to decide? The article concerns Salaita and not Hillel.
Someone with credibility who does not make up supposed tweets.
Anyone can read the article title for themselves. One does not need any credibility.
But you still lied when you made up tweets.
I never lied. As I said, from the earliest point I clarified my words. But you have no interest in actually discussing what Salaita said or my contention. Rather you insist on continuously harping on a supposed lie I made, which has no relevance to Salaita’s qualifications in the here and now whatsoever and nor to the subject of the article or to why your theories about Hillel are further evidence of your avoidance of the issue at hand
No. I repeatedly asked you to prove such tweet. Only when it became obvious you could not you started your “clarifications”.
Not true.
You were shown the exact tweet I was talking about before I had even seen your comment.
Nope. You claimed he tweeted such. There was never such a tweet so i asked you to prove it, which of course led to your long road of dishonest “interpretations”.
You can go back and see what actually happened. Anyone can.
Yes anyone can. And you can go back and reread your dishonest “interpretations”.
Exactly, anyone can see that you took this stupid misinterpretation of your into an extreme accusation that makes you sound like a broken record.
No, your dishonest “interpretations” are a pattern.
That is not true. Before I even saw your initial accusation, someone else divined what I was referring to, and he forwarded you a screenshot of One of Salaita’s tweets, upon which the original comment was based.
That is not so. Before I even saw your initial accusation that I had lied, someone had forwarded one of Salaita’s tweets to you. They correctly divined which one I was talking about.
I later sent you the same tweet. This entire accusation was based on an assumption of bad faith and insistence on literalism on your part.
But to me and people assuming good faith, being proud to hold a view and calling it honorable and the only conscientious are synonymous. I had no sinister intention of misquoting or misrepresenting Salaita, and had you not whistleblown, no incorrect information would have been conveyed by me. This whole tedious argument would have been avoided, however.
Now are you actually going to discuss the issue at hand, or are you going to continue to troll and falsely impugn my reputation? I do not want it to seem as though you are avoiding the issue, because to actually discuss Salaita would harm your viewpoint.
Nope. When you use the word “he tweeted” and none of us can find the words in the tweet. And we have to go around this long song and dance to finally find out its your interpretation and there was no such tweet it displays your dishonesty.
Others on this site, not just me, have pointed to your duplicitous “interpretations”.
No one else has. It is just you. N Owen was arguing for an entirely different reason. No else else has shown the slightest interest in your obsession.
N Owen also was pointing at your duplicitous “interpretations”. You wish to just blithely lie and pretend all is ok.
He was not agreeing with you that I meant Salaita tweeted the word “proud” and then pretended I did not. You are the sole person harping on that point.
At least he was actually talking about Salaita.
He has was pointing at your tactic of duplicitous “interpretations”. Just like the supposed “tweet” that proved to be a lie. Why do you lie ?
I gave you every chance to prove your contention I lied, rather than you deliberately misunderstanding me. That I did not try to explain myself in a timely manner. But you have not and can not. It is you who committed libel and slander, not me.
As for displaying my dishonesty, someone else did forward you the tweet, and you can see my initial response was to agree with him. And then it was only you who was obsessed with the word “proud” not being there, while I repeatedly told you I never meant he tweeted the word proud. I think you are quickly reaching the point of self-parody.
You mean the tweet that you “interpreted”. And now you invent a whole new set of events. Why do you lie ?
Anyone can read the article title for themselves. One does not claim what it is about. It is an objective fact it mentions Salaita and not Hillel.
Real research is based on facts, not extremist political views and angry rants.
And the Hillel will the arbiter. Great.
As for UCLA, perhaps I went there and have friends who still do?
Seriously, why did you think I would care? What kind of moronic question is that.
If you graduated from UCLA, the quality of their programs must be deteriorating. Maybe you dropped out after failing freshman rhetoric. That is much more likely considering your penchant for logical fallacy.
You are just engaging in ad hominem attacks at this point, because you cannot take the fact that Salaita might actually be an offensive ideologue.
“And I get the distinct impression you’d care a lot less if he got fired
for hating Palestinians, rather than Israelis.”
Come on, just use the word. Be honest about your feelings and don’t be a coward.
What word? You are the one falsely claiming this is a free speech issue.
“Reveling”! “Tone deaf”!! “Literally no other interpretation”!!! You do have a penchant for over-interpretation in support of your cause, don’t you? Or maybe you are just projecting…
I understand that you don’t like Salaita for pointing out Israeli oppression of Palestinians, but just remember these horrible things will inevitably continue to happen (to the guilty and innocent alike) as long as Israel continues its brutal occupation and people like you continue to blindly support them.
What else was he doing writing when people went missing from violence that he wished more people would go missing? And adding an expletive for good measure.
Give me a decent explanation of that tweet, worthy of a guest speaker and orator. I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. I really do. But there is no explanation other than that hatred and anger turned him into a jerk and made him unfit for academia.
“I want to give people the benefit of the doubt.” Yeah, right. I’ve read a lot of your posts, both here and elsewhere. You’re a deluded partisan who is so thoroughly invested in hating, that you can’t think straight on this subject. Your comments indicating that there is “no other interpretation” or that you know that he is “reveling” in the death of others or that he considers their death a “victory” are very telling in this regard.
However, if you want a good explanation of the context of the tweets and their interpretation, read the Corey Robin link I posted above. You should also read the comments section of that post as well. Many were written by some very circumspect people. Here’s that link again:
http://coreyrobin.com/2014/08/08/what-exactly-did-steven-salaita-mean-by-that-tweet/
But just remember: you can come to no judicious interpretation of those tweets without understanding the broad context of long-term Israeli aggression and terror against Palestinians.
He doesn’t explain anything at all. He doesn’t even touch on that tweet. Nor does he know that Salaita meant it that way. Nor can he justify why Salaita expressed the thought in the way he did. You have not, I noticed, offered any explanation for the F8cking (pun intended) tweet in question, save the lame excuse he didn’t know they were murdered yet. Or the equally laughable, perhaps he meant that they should leave peacefully, when it was posted during a search for teenagers in the aftermath of violence. If there is an explanation other than “He was angry at the occupation,” I would like to hear it. As I said, I know many people who are angry at the occupation, and yet they somehow did not tweet they wished more F(@king people to go missing. Unlike you and MXM, they also have worthwhile things to say and ideas about peace.
I am not a partisan shill. I am not a member of Bruins for Israel. I understand Palestinians have legitimate grievances in the West Bank. I am however disgusted at people who engage in dishonest tactics, tell-half truths, and engage in hatred like the SJP. One can see their revenge tactics against Sunny Singh or their instagram posts on OTI to see why I think they are dangerous fanatics. I also dislike people whose blind hatred makes them inflammatory ideologues, particularly if they cover as academics. That describes Salaita to a tee.
So in the space of 12 minutes you read that blog post and the comments, as I suggested? B.S. Much of the explanation is in the comment section.
You have obviously made up your mind about Salaita and can’t stand it when it has been shown that your raw assertions cannot pass for legitimate argument.
Since you’re the one who has interpreted those tweets so thoroughly, walk us through your logic. Just remember that assertion isn’t logic.
I actually read it before I made my first reply to you, but yeah I can read a few paragraphs in 12 minutes. I am not in Kindergarten.
And so now walk us through the logic of your conclusions regarding Salaita.
Fact: Three teenagers disappeared at that time. Two of them were settlers.
Fact: The word missing was constantly used in the context of them.
Fact: By the time Salaita had written his post, there was much evidence that the teenagers had disappeared under violent circumstances.
Fact: Salaita posted that tweet at exactly this time, when others, even Palestinians were offering sympathy and trying to cool tensions.
Fact: it begins with “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not.” He knew that the remark was crude and would probably produce widespread outrage. Even he did not shy away from what would be the probable interpretation.
So yes, he reveled in the event. He had no sympathy for people who were murdered. And he may not have exactly been encouraging more kidnapping and murder, but he sure as heck wasn’t too unhappy about it. And it would not be a stretch to say that his opinion was the teenagers deserved it.
Response fact by fact:
Fact 1: Duh.
Fact 2: So, what?
Fact 3: “much evidence”? Now you’re just making stuff up.
Fact 4: Does this matter? If so, how? Should Salaita be a perfect representative of what you think Palestinian thought is or should be? Hardly reasonable.
Fact 5: You say he “knew” it would produce widespread outrage. That is doubtful. Not very many people read his tweets until UIUC donors got involved. How do you know he had no sympathy for those who were missing? That is pure assertion. It could just as easily be that he was expressing exasperation and anger at an intractable situation. None of what he wrote means that he lacks basic human compassion. Indeed, it just may be that he wrote what he did, because he feels frustrated at the suffering of people he knows who never get attention in the press.
So, you see, there are other more reasonable interpretations than just asserting he “reveled” in other people’s suffering.
Finally, I must say that we see you once again making interpretations that are not warranted by the broader context of continuous state-sponsored Israeli aggression and terror directed at the Palestinians. You should be damned ashamed of yourself.
I didn’t make up number three. Read news from that time. People had known about the car and etc.
” Not very many people read his tweets until UIUC donors got involved.”
Apparently enough did that it did indeed get noticed, and in any case he certainly knew it would be horribly offensive.
If he had any sympathy, he wouldn’t have written what he did. That post is clearly blowing off the kidnapping. He didn’t deny it either. Even you don’t deny it, but list his anger and frustration as an excuse. It well may be. But so what? Then it did indeed harden him into lacking a sense of compassion. It hardened many other people too, but I don’t want them to have a platform at UCLA either. And I don’t feel compelled to defend them.
There were plenty of ways he could have expressed sympathy for the people of the West Bank who suffered in the crackdown. Many other people did.
This conflict has been protracted, and there is a lot of hurt and tension on both sides. That does not give people excuses to be blowhards. As an academic, if you publicly curse and express a wish that the relatives of missing persons should also go missing, you deserve the fallout. Doubly so, if you admit it is going to offend before you say it.
Love the loaded language!
“blowing off”
“harden him”
“blowhard”
No over-interpretation there. Sheesh.
Saying he wished the relatives of the missing would go missing is outright dishonesty.
So, he has to openly express sympathy for missing Israelis in order to be legit? Whatever.
Cursing on a private account is now a public offense? Who appointed you language police?
No. He could just not have mentioned the missing Israelis at all. But if he does so, then yeah, he has to be sympathetic. If you are going to allude to a missing person, decency demands that you do not joke about it. You do not wish other, similar, people go missing.
“Saying he wished the relatives of the missing would go missing is outright dishonesty.”
No. That is actually exactly what he said. “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not: I wish all the f&$*ing West Bank settlers would go missing.”
He listed his academic credentials on the account and used it to promote himself. It is not an offense, but it did attract bad publicity to the university because of him. People have been refused jobs for less.
“No. That is actually exactly what he said. “You may be too refined to
say it, but I’m not: I wish all the f&$*ing West Bank settlers
would go missing.””
You powers of dishonest over-interpretation are truly amazing. This says nothing about the relatives of the victims. If this is your kind of fact, you are sorely lacking.
The victims were teenagers. The quote is clearly aimed at their parents and all the other settlers, who are indeed their relatives.
BS
OK, so who is he expressing the sentiment about? Even if you say settlers in general, that he was thinking of a movement rather than people, the obvious connection is to the missing persons. He said it would be a crude remark.
You are grasping at straws now.
Not really.
Doubly sad that you can’t even see it.
If I am a crazed, blind, extremist, you certainly are.
We both know his tweet. I interpret it as a an attack on Settlers, because it mentions them. I assume that it is connected to the missing teenagers, because he wrote it at that time, in response to articles about them. I assume he had no sympathy for them, because he didn’t show any. They were settlers. They went missing. Would that all settlers go missing. I further base my contention that he made the remark knowing it would offend, because he said as much.
You assume he had the best intentions at heart and he only wanted to show compassion for the people of the West Bank. Well, that’s not in the tweet at all.
He talks about Settlers in general and then you think he is referring directly to the missing teenagers? That’s a stretch.
You shouldn’t assume what people people feel; you’re not very good at it. You have no real evidence of ill will towards the teenagers, but apparently really want to have some. So, you over-interpret, take out of context and generally distort a tweet until it suits your world view. So very sad.
He talked about settlers in general, at the time and in response to three people going missing in violent circumstances. It is not a stretch at all. That is plenty of ill will towards the teenagers, and if you are not even going to entertain the possibility of interpreting it the way everyone else did, then I must echo your last sentence back.
“Everyone else” Yeah, right.
Anyone agree with this tripe?
Crickets…
Professor Myers did for one. So did UIUC, evidently.
You obviously don’t follow the academic blogs. UIUC is a thoroughly divided campus on this subject. Hardly qualifies as “everyone”.
Still crickets…
Divided on whether he should have been fired over it, not on what he said.
Now perhaps he felt that there was too much coverage of the missing persons, and not enough of the innocents in the West Bank hurt by Israel’s incursions. That he was annoyed that these people who went missing were associated with the people he felt were oppressing his homeland. But though that makes it more understandable, that does not change the tweet nor excuse what he wrote.
The greatest oppression against Arabs is from other Arabs – look at ISIS. Anyone who is not sucked into the extremism and anti-semitic bs of the pro-Hamas propagandists can see that Palestinians have made their own problems worse by choosing terrorism and hatred over partnership with Israel.
You are mixing up Arabs, which is a linguistic group, with Palestinians, who are a nation. The Palestinians learned to use terrorism after studying Israeli history. Israeli acts of terrorism include the bombing of the King David Hotel and assassinated of UN mediator Folke Bernadotte and UN Observer Seraut.
Prior to 1948, the Arabs living in Palestine were called Arabs. Arab is an ethnic description, akin to Slavs or Turks. Describing them as Palestinian is a modern invention; there wasn’t any independent ‘nation’ called Palestine. They were under the Ottomans and other empires (Seljuks, Mamluks) prior. The last time the area was independent was as the Frankish Crusader kingdom in the 1200s.
And it’s completely false to say Arab violence against Jews didn’t occur until after Israel existed, there were a number of attacks, pograms and other acts of violence by Arabs towards Jews in British-controlled Palestine going back to the 1920s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
“Buraq Uprising (Arabic: ثورة البراق), refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence. The riots took the form in the most part of attacks by Arabs on Jews accompanied by destruction of Jewish property. During the week of riots from 23 to 29 August 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured, while 110 Arabs were killed and 232 were injured, most of them by the British police while trying to suppress the riots.”
Palestine was used by the ancient Greeks in the 5ht century BC (see //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine). Egyptian inscriptions from 1150 BC use a similar word to describe the neighboring people. The Philistines are also mentioned in the Hebrew bible as a people occupying the coastal lands. So your statement that here was not Palestinian is false, likely zionist propaganda, and one of the stumbling blocks to a peaceful solution (i.e. Israeli failure to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinians, let alone their human rights).
Slav is a linguistic identification. Croats and Serbs are both South Slavs, with similar if not identical languages, but consider themselves ethnically different. I think it is up to each nationality to determine their own identity. It is not for the Israelis to define other peoples national identity. More propaganda. Another impediment to a peaceful solution.
Violence by Israelites against the native peoples of Palestine goes back to biblical times. I was responding to your comment about Palestinian terrorism by pointing out zionist terrorism (there are many more examples). All terrorism should be condemned; your statement is unbalanced propaganda against the Palestinians that ignores relevant historic facts of terrorism by zionist Israelis..
I never disputed that Palestine was a place, nor named as such, it was called ‘palestine’ by Romans when under Roman rule King Herod of the Jews reigned. I merely pointed out the historical fact that it was never independent since the Frankish Crusader kingdom in the middle ages.
“It is not for the Israelis to define other peoples national identity.” Fine, but the Arab League members would be shocked at finding out their peoples aren’t Arab. Maybe you can petition to get the state of Palestine withdrawn from the Arab league, if they aren’t Arabs.
The #1 impediment to peace in the middle east is the pervasive belief in Jihad by muslim Arab extremists. Jihadism perpetuates violence. Violence against Jews by Muslim Arabs goes back to the birth of Islam under the leadership of Mohammed.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/qurayza_jews.htm
The secondary impediment is ongoing support from third parties who prop up these extremists, ie Hamas, with funding or ideological support.
Self-serving tripe.
So even if your assertion were true, Israeli oppression is okay because it isn’t quite as bad? I love your logic.
How can their be a partnership when the Israelis steal land, burn olive trees, restrict movement, unjustly imprison, and kill with impunity?
Israel has all the power here and could make the violence stop if they wanted.
Truth not tripe, and I’m an observer – ‘self-serving’ is ludicrous ad hominem.
“Israel has all the power here and could make the violence stop if they wanted.”
That’s 100% false. Israel left Gaza to rule itself and Hamas firing rockets into Israel caused the violence and war this summer.
The rights of Arabs in democratic Israel, where Arabs are in the Knesset, is indeed better than their rights in a number of countries in the area, such as Syria or Saudi Arabia.
You forgot to mention that Gaza is the world’s largest concentration camp/outdoor prison. It is no wonder that certain individuals act out in violence. When it comes to Israel’s human rights atrocities, you have a blind spot the size of NYC.
Oh yeah, are Palestinian parties illegal in the Knesset yet? Just about. There are only 12 members (10%) who are Palestinian and they are ruthlessly persecuted to the point where they can’t do there job.
You really need to get a new set of “facts”, bud.
Arabs in Israel as full citizens have more rights in Israel than Jews (and Christians as well) have in other countries in the Middle East. A Christian Arab Palestinian is certainly less persecuted than Christian Arabs in Syria or Iraq recently, getting killed by ISIS wantonly.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-beaten-tortured-and-killed-by-isis-for-refusing-to-convert-to-islam-125779/
ISIS in engaged in Jihad and they have no interest in leaving peacefully with Christians and other non-Muslims. Their goals are inherently violent and bigotted, their atrocities are wholly unjustified, their methods terroristic.
Hamas and ISIS are similar in outlook and goals. Do you share the goals of ISIS to create an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq? I hope not; I doubt it.
But do you share the goals of Hamas create an Islamic state in what is now Israel? It’s one thing to desire legitimate self-determination for palestinian arabs, but another to endorse the goals and methods of Hamas, which vows the destruction of Israel. That project / that goal is inherently destructive and only perpetuates the cycle of violence, for surely Israel is not going anywhere.
The Hamas charter is a Jihadist Islamicist charter, similar to ISIS in ideology and goals:
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397
“The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian
Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of
life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”
Do you share that goal? An Islamic, ISIS-like state in what is now Tel Aviv, etc.?
Hamas is not above media manipulation, lies, terrorism, using palestinian children as human shields, and abusing / misdirecting economic aid for violent ends:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/08/05/Top-9-Facts-The-Media-Wouldnt-Tell-You-About-Hamas
That’s what my comment about Hamas choosing terrorism over partnership was about. When groups engage in terrorism and don’t even acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to even exist, engage in violence solely for provocations, with a goal to ethnically and religiously cleanse the population in the country they are attacking, there is a perpetual state of war, caused by palestinian extremists themselves, desiring the land and the destruction of a people that is now a thriving state.
Israel, despite being a Jewish state, is also a modern democracy that extend rights and citizenship to people of all religions and allows a freedom of worship non-existent in much of the Arab middle-east (consider how under Islam, they killed and drove out of the Arab peninsula all Jews and Christians, and that historical fact animates Jihadist behavior even today). Israel is on the front lines of a Jihad, and its folly not to see nor understand that.
This is not new, and its not Israel’s existence that caused it. It’s been going on far longer than you can understand. Open your eyes and see the bigger picture of the roots of Jihad and religious conflict.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/qurayza_jews.htm
The true solution is for palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist and work towards a solution of co-existence, recognizing the rights of all the people’s there to live. Politically, that framework is called the two state solution. Alas, Hamas and other palestinian extremists reject that, since it would acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Peace will come to palestine if and when palestinians reject Jihadist thinking and embrace coexistence.
You really don’t know how to listen, do you?
For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter what other countries do vis-à-vis their population; Israel’s actions are the topic of discussion–and they’ve got a horrible human rights record.
Trying to conflate ISIS and Hamas, is like trying to conflate Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein: stupid and unproductive.
Countries do not have a right to exist. Countries are abstract concepts that do not have any rights. People have rights. I will be the first to admit that the people living in the piece of land known as Israel have a right to self-government–just like every other people on Earth. But that does not give them the right to oppress their minorities or attack neighboring countries and take their land.
Take your right-wing talking points elsewhere.
WOW. Murder justified in some cases – some ‘context’.
You are spouting bile. Israel defended itself from multiple attacks and continues to do so, and the only reason others are dead is because of those attacks on Israel that have happened since its founding. Your overlooking the real reason for ongoing conflict in that area – terrorist attacks by those who want to destroy Israel. Hamas terrorism has done all the damage to the peace process.
You aren’t either.
What are you talking about?
I just commented. Read them.
You know little or nothing about me or my travels.
Since your previous posts have been debunked, you may no longer honestly call him “hate-filled”. As for your usage of the term “psychopath”, I think we can safely call this “hater’s hyperbole”.
In any event, you still fail to understand the context. I’m beginning to think you are either willfully ignorant, a paid troll, or both.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on my previous posts being “debunked.”
You can bleat about context as much as you want. UCLA is under no obligation to give Salaita a platform to scream his bile.
I think it is clear to everyone who is reading this that your arguments lack merit, but that you can’t admit when you’re wrong. If all you got is some sputtering about university prerogative, you have nothing pertinent left to say.
Just remember that the larger context was and remains illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank who terrorize Palestinians. That’s what Salaita was referring to. If you don’t like it, tough. TTFN.
UCLA decided not to give Salaita a platform to scream his hatred and lies. If you don’t like it, tough.
More irrelevant sputtering about university prerogative…
No one is asking to silence him. They are saying it is irronsponsible and disgusting that three UCLA departments would fete a guy like him. There is a difference between letting him stand on a soapbox somewhere and honoring him.
One note on Brandenburg v. Ohio: It is important to understand the KKK leader’s exact words, which were edited out of my letter. He said “it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” A more credible threat to take vengeance could be incitement, if it was intended to or likely to cause the listeners to take imminent lawless action.
This is a show of support for an extremist. It’s inappropriate and wrong. But it tells us something worse than if Salaita speaks at UCLA. It tells us the faculty at UCLA that teach everyday are similarly inclined in their mindset, which is very disturbing.