Anti-Semitism has a broad impact on college campuses, but when it comes to defining the issue, broader is not better.
In late March, Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 was introduced by several senators to approach anti-Semitism issues on University of California campuses. Last week, a hearing was held to discuss the language of the resolution, and suggestions were made to replace the U.S. Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, which includes references to Israel, with the Merriam-Webster definition because some thought it limited academic freedom.
Anti-Semitism has modernized into more political attacks referencing the Jewish state of Israel, and by using the U.S. Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, this problem will be properly addressed. Implementing the vague Merriam-Webster definition will not change the ongoing growth of anti-Semitism on college campuses.
The Merriam-Webster definition of anti-Semitism is, “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group.”
What happened to Rachel Beyda is a prime example of where this definition would serve little to address anti-Semitism on college campuses. Beyda was accused of “divided loyalties” due to her religion and its connection to Israel while she was being wrongly questioned during her appointment to UCLA’s student government judicial board.This politicizing of Judaism is strongly connected to Israel.
Being Jewish is now modernly associated with the Jewish state of Israel, and with divestment on the forefront of many public secondary education institutions in California, Jews become targets in attacks that are instigated by feelings of resentment toward Jewish students as the appropriators of human rights violations in the State of Israel.
UCs have become the bases of anti-Semitism. For example, the Jewish fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi, at UC Davis was vandalized with graffiti of Swastikas shortly after a divestment hearing and the term “anti-Semitism” was delegitimized by a member of the UC Student Association Board of Directors as not serving specifically to the Jewish people.
Currently, SCR 35 uses the Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, which acknowledges that demonizing Israel, holding Israel to a double standard and delegitimizing Israel are all forms of anti-Semitism.
Much of the anti-Semitism on college campuses has manifested itself through the malicious rhetoric around Israel, the polarization of specific political groups on campus and the unsuccessful attempts toward dialogue regarding the conflict.
From the start of Genesis, Israel has had a crucial importance in Judaism. The line between the two is blurred because of the deep roots in biblical history.
The Department of State’s definition has been criticized for limiting academic freedom and criticism of Israel; therefore, a suggestion was made at the hearing to use the Merriam-Webster definition of “anti-Semitism.”
The Department of State’s definition will not limit academic freedom but rather creates a structure for respectful criticism and disagreement with the Jewish state in a way that doesn’t offend or discriminate its Jewish constituents or Jewish people in general. It is by no means aiming to limit academic freedom, which was clearly stated in the hearing notes.
The brevity of Merriam-Webster’s definition, although it allows for a wide range of free speech, creates a possibility for hate speech and discrimination of Jews due to their relationship with the Jewish state of Israel. Times have changed. Anti-Semitism has distanced itself from the cliche stereotyping of Jews that this definition has referenced, and has become much more political. SCR 35 needs to address the reality of modern anti-Semitism, and using the U.S. Department of State’s definition is the only way to do so.
Last quarter, the Undergraduate Students Association Council passed a resolution titled, “A Resolution Condemning Anti-Semitism.” This resolution uses the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism and directly references specific acts of anti-Semitism that have occurred on college campuses and worldwide.
This distant conflict has become so close to home that students have felt other students as somewhat responsible for governmental actions, on both sides of the narrative. And creating a resolution that doesn’t address the centralized causation of anti-Semitism will serve little to no purpose in stopping anti-Semitism from continuing its rapid growth on college campuses.
First, israheili intel is running a worldwide propaganda op
with
its agents planting stories about “rising tide of anti semitism”. but
it is all a lie, just propaganda designed to get sympathy for the “poor
jews, i.e. zionist thugs” who are committing mass murder in gaza. Just google:
rising
tide of anti semitism…………you can see the operation for yourself.
Second, see the link below for an example of the zio mafia trying to turn
legitimate ciritism of israheil into a crime. under their definition saying
“that sure was horrible of israheil to mass kill all those kids last
summer” or “israheil killng all those kids in gaza reminded me of the
warsaw ghetto” would be hate speech and therefore a crime.
,
http://www.amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CNES-Report.pdf
go to page 16-17 and you will see the conspiracy.
Interesting example of what the author of this op-ed is saying. You see how the writer manages to infuse precisely the same hatred and language that is typically used in antisemitic attacks but changes all the key terms to ones that insert connection to Israel and Zionism instead. It sounds the same, it reads the same, it is the same.
Over 50% of the planet’s Jews live in Israel. the world’s only Jewish-majority state. Around 80% of the planet’s Jews are Zionists. When Israel and Zionism are singled out, it is no different than singling out Jews – note what happened with Ms. Beyda – but the attackers get away with it because they can hide behind the word “Zionist” or “support for Israel.” The State Department’s definition addresses this sleight of hand and UCLA students’ vote using that definition was wise.
Unfortunately, the very same people who led to the Beyda embarrassment are now cynically seeking to change the language of the antisemitism resolution so they may proceed with their singling out of one group. Please don’t let them. Using the State Department’s definition will ensure that no Jewish student will have to face what Ms. Beyda did.
let’s see some proof to back your claim that 80% of jews are zionists. i don’t believe it.
80% of Jews may not be Zionists, but 100% of the US government is ZOG.
Good question and a hard one to answer with specifics. But we should be able to analyze it. I have a bunch of links here so I hope the editors will let this through.
First, the question of defining Zionism itself is complex. Here’s a prominent Israeli leftist taking a stab at it: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:moIcgufeRqUJ:www.haaretz.com/opinion/defining-zionism-the-belief-that-israel-belongs-to-the-entire-jewish-people.premium-1.525064+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Let’s say that for our purposes we define it as support for a state where Jews enjoy self-determination. We can then look around the world to see which Jews support this concept.
Let’s tackle Israel first since it has the world’s largest Jewish population.
About 70% of Israel’s eligible 5.8 million voters vote – about 4 million people. Of these, about 440,000 Arabs voted. So we are left with 3.5-3.6 million Jewish voters in Israel. Of these, no more than 10,000 vote for Arab (non-Zionist) parties.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.646427
All the rest of the parties, except for ultra-Orthodox (I’m not counting Shas, because they are mostly Zionists), are Zionist. I’ll be generous and give the non-Zionist Ultra Orthodox 5% of the vote by assuming all their voters are non-Zionists (which isn’t the case at all). That’s another 175,000 people who voted non-Zionist on top of Arab party Jewish voters.
So we have 185,000 Israelis who voted for non-Zionist parties. That’s a little more than 5% of the voting population. If we extrapolate by measuring against Israel’s 6.5 million people (assuming kids will follow parents’ ideals once they get older and stop rebelling), you have 6 million of the world’s 12-13 million Jews who are Zionists right there.
However, that seems high to me, so for the sake of erring on side of caution, let’s add 10% more Israelis who are non-Zionists or post-Zionists but voted for Zionist parties because of other issues of interest. So now we have 15% of Israelis out of 6.5 million. That’s a million Jewish Israelis opposed and leaves 5.5 million who support Israel as Zionists.
As for American and European Jews, we can look at the recent Pew survey (http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey-overview.pdf) of American Jewry that gave us this: “30 percent of American Jews answered “very attached” when asked the
level of their “emotional attachment to Israel.” 39 percent said
“somewhat attached” and 22 percent said “not very attached,” with only 9
percent citing no attachment.”
At the very least, that means 7/10 American Jews feel some connection to Israel. Of the remaining 30%, only 9% spoke of having no attachment at all. That means that while some of these 30% aren’t Zionists, some almost certainly are, even if weak in their support for Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. (Also, on another note, Pew shows that the largest group of people who expressed the weak attachment to Israel are, as Pew puts it, “Jews of no religion,” which includes many people with a tenuous connection to their Jewish identity).
There are about 5.3-5.5 million Jews in the USA (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/02/how-many-jews-are-there-in-the-united-states/). 70% would mean 3.7-3.9 million Zionists. If we assume that half of the “weak” attached Jews who don’t reject Israel altogether are also Zionists, then another 10% or 500,000 Jews would be added to this total. Even if just a quarter would identify as Zionists per our definition of support of a Jewish-majority state, that’s another 250,000. Essentially, about 4 million US Jews are Zionists.
Canada has about 350,000 Jews. They tend to be more likely to be Holocaust survivors or their children than US Jews and more likely to come from the Middle East, North Africa, Israel or Russia than US Jews. Therefore, at the very least they are more likely than US Jews to be Zionists. For example, voting patterns of Jews voting for national parties changed after the Conservatives demonstrated they were very supportive of Israel. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/how-do-canadian-jews-view-israel.html. While actual numbers don’t exist, I would guess that if 70% in the US are attached with another 5-10% weakly attached, at least 75% (I’m being conservative) of Canadian Jews would qualify. So add at least 260,000 Zionists.
Latin America is more of the same. “A recent study on the demographic and ideological positions among
Argentinean Jews asserts that Israel is a central factor in Jewish
identity for at least 85% of them.” About 400,000 Latin American Jews translates to about 340,000 more Zionists.
There are about 1.4 million Jews in Europe. We can easily assume that their support for Israel exceeds that of US Jews because unlike US Jews, antisemitism and the need for a Jewish state are much clearer to them. Still, I’ll give you the same 70% as the USA, just for argument’s sake. So add another million Jews who are Zionists.
South Africa. 70,000 Jews of which 80% consider themselves observant. The US Pew survey shows very strong linkage between religious connection and support for Israel. I suspect the percentage is higher, but I’ll go with 80% in SA. That’s another 56,000 Jews.
Australia has 120,000 Jews. Recent survey put 80% as Zionists. Another 96,000. “http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=35112
Russian & Ukranian Jews: about 260,000. No stats on this community. I suspect the numbers are high, but for the sake of argument, let’s put them at 50%. 130,000 Zionists.
So we have, with what I hope was a conservative analysis:
Israel 6.5 m Zionists 5.5 m
US 5.4 m 4 m
Can 0.35 m 0.26 m
S Am 0.4 m 0.34 m
EU 1.4 m 1.0 m
SA 0.07 m 0.056 m
Aust 0.12 m 0.096 m
Rus/Ukr 0.25 m 0.125 m
Total 14 m 11.35 m = 81%
Even if I knock off another 5% of Israel’s population, so that we count only 80% of Israel’s Jews as Zionists (which I suspect is very conservative estimate), you then have about 10.85 million Jews who support Israel – 78% of Jews globally.
That was very interesting. Nice work.
You know what would be a more interesting question? How many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza actually support a 2 state solution?
It is a tough question to get answered because no one would dare speak their true mind in the Palestinian territories, particularly Gaza.
But if you could hold a legitimate policy referendum for Palestinians – without intimidation from Hamas and other radicals – what do you think would be the result of this question?
“Do you support:
A) Continuing the effort to destroy Israel
B) Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, creating a Palestinian state, and living in peace as 2 separate states.
I fear answer “A” would be the clear winner.
so after cutting through all the BS in your post we come to this: you just made up your claim about 80% of jews being zionist. in other words, you are not to be trusted to make accurate statements of fact.
No, after cutting through the targeted and referenced detail in my post, you will learn that my estimate was conservative. I know you wanted terribly for me to be wrong, but the fact is that around 80% of Jews around the world are Zionists.
pathetic Zio mafia toadie grasping at straws. so sad.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is your typical SJP activist.
lol
Well done, Ms. Shahmoon.
You wrote on a specific subject and you needed to stick to the point, but I hope you’ll forgive me if I add some background and reveal the extraordinary hypocrisy taking place here.
I find it very telling that these supposed “Palestinian supporters” who are so busy pressing for their “free speech” to criticize Israel, can’t seem to find the time to protest or make any political comments regarding the fact that the the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank aren’t granted any free speech from either the PA or Hamas.
It is a well documented fact that last summer, during the combat with Israel, a group of Palestinians in Gaza attempted to express their free speech and openly protested against the fighting. Hamas simply rounded up a few of them up and – without even a hearing or a trial – unceremoniously dragged them into the street, lined them up and publicly shot them in the head.
So much for “free speech” in Gaza.
There is only one country in the middle east actually guarantees all their citizens the right to free speech and press. There is only one country in the middle east that has an independent judiciary and court
system with a consistent record of supporting free speech – even when the speech is contrary to the policies of the sovereign government. Besides free speech, this country grants more rights to it’s 1.2 million
Palestinian-Arab citizens than any other country in the region – including Gaza and the West Bank.
It’s a country called “Israel”.
But here in UCLA, the righteous defenders of the Palestinian people are demanding a more narrow definition of antisemitism – so they can focus all their criticism on Israeli policies. After all, they certainly don’t want to appear antisemitic.
Whites are the worst people in the entire universe and should be hated and ridiculed by every liberal and leftist website, academic, and Hollywood film= perfectly normal
Criticizing Jews for anything= anti-Semitism
It’s actually anti-Semitic to draw attention to this, but not to pour white phosphorus on children you keep in a giant cage after stealing their land.
Criticizing the state of Israel for it’s practices and policies is NOT anti-Semitism.
Well, that depends. If you criticize Israel as you criticize other countries, than you’re being fair and not antisemitic. But if focus your criticisms on Israel and no one else – if you apply a double standard for Israeli policies while ignoring others in the region who are far worse – than that’s absolutely antisemitism.
Well, that depends.
If you criticize Israeli policies as you would criticize other countries, than you’re being fair and not antisemitic. But if you focus most of your criticisms on Israel and it’s policy – if you apply a double standard for Israeli policies while ignoring other countries who are absolutely far worse – than that’s antisemitism.
Do you have a specific criticism of Israeli policy that prompted you to make your post?
So eloquently written. Couldn’t agree more. Bravo! bravo!!
Would the author support a similarly narrow definition of racism towards Hispanics or Blacks? Will you grant that people who want to limit immigration are not anti-Hispanic?