University of California President Janet Napolitano said Thursday that the UC should adopt the U.S. Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, which includes denying Israel’s right to exist.
Napolitano, who said she supports the definition in an interview, added that the regents must vote to adopt the definition before it becomes UC policy.
Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a UC Santa Cruz faculty member and co-founder of the AMCHA Initiative, an organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism at higher education institutions, said she thinks the UC’s adoption of the definition will help students better understand the issue.
Safwan Ibrahim, a fourth-year comparative literature student and vice president of Students for Justice in Palestine, said the organization condemns all forms of anti-Semitism but doesn’t agree with parts of the state’s definition.
“(The definition) equates political criticisms of the Israeli government with anti-Semitic hate speech,” Ibrahim said. “It’s a violation of the right to free speech.”
Rossman-Benjamin said she doesn’t believe the adoption of the definition is a violation of the First Amendment.
“It is a general understanding,” she said. “Just like people know what is sexist and racist behavior, they will know what anti-Semitic behavior really is.”
Napolitano said that the regents will be discussing whether to adopt the definition at their upcoming meeting in July.
Janet knows fully well that free speech rules written by an AIPAC sponsored hack in the State Department are a farce. Here’s one of the AIPAC sponsored definitions of anti-semitism.
“Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”
Therefore any campus organization that supports the rights of Palestinians is automatically anti-semitic. That could include even a church group. I’m sure the Courts are going to agree whole heartedly !!!!
I think you have a bit of a reading comprehension issue. “Multilateral” refers to international organizations like the United Nations that several governments participate in, and has nothing to do with campus groups or NGOs. It’s essentially saying that it’s discriminatory when, for example, UN bodies pass countless resolutions condemning Israel and initiate countless investigations into alleged Israeli wrongdoing while ignoring good things that Israel does, and while not subjecting any other nation to similar treatment. Which is what actually happens today, in reality.
Umm, you want to diverge from your Hasbara.
” The Christian Reformed Church in North America belongs to a number of ecumenical (multilateral) organizations. ”
http://www.crcna.org/ministries/denominational-ministry-programs/eirc-ecumenical-and-interfaith-relations-committee-3
Also, UN bodies pass countless resolutions on many countries. Pretending that they target Israel, is the usual victim spiel that the Hasbara folk use to actually avoid answering any of the accusations. Cause after all answering them would involve confonting the truth about Israeli apartheid. So much easier to howl antisemitism
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ajc-welcomes-un-clarification-of-secretary-generals-remarks-221195371.html
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan: http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=955
This isn’t even a question, numerous UN bodies discriminate against Israel. That’s a fact. Refusing to acknowledge this is essentially an admission that you yourself are biased against Israel and don’t deserve to be taken seriously. And I take it you’re retracting your claim about campus organizations?
Beyond that, the line you have a problem with is of minor importance within the larger definition. Here’s an interesting question – is this really just about one line that could easily be modified without altering the overall purpose of the State Department’s definition? Or is the real issue here that you’re afraid of losing legitimacy when employing demonization, delegitimization, and double standards against Israel?
No. Its just an age old victim technique used by Israel. Business a s usual.
“One line that could be modified” – Hmm, i’d rather stick with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I’m sure you’re gonna claim those documents are anti-semitic !!!
Right, because Ban Ki Moon and Kofi Annan are both representatives of Israel…
Basically what I got from this is that you have no argument so you’re just changing the subject to irrelevant nonsense.
Why ? Don’t Israelis whine about them too ? Cause they’re all anti-semitic !!!
‘”Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”Therefore any campus organization that supports the rights of Palestinians is automatically anti-semitic.’
Not true. I absolutely support civil rights for all Palestinians. It is not Israel that denies the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to right to ‘free speech’, or ‘freedom of the press’, or ‘freedom of religion’ or any of the civil liberties we’ve come to expect from our governments. Hamas and the PA are highly oppressive theocracies.
When was the last time you spoke out against how Hamas and the PA treats Palestinians?
If you haven’t, well, now you know who they wrote that definition for. 🙂
“Palestinian-Arabs who are Israeli citizens ” – what about the millions of others. Ooops.
The millions of Palestinian refugees should have a state in Gaza and the West Bank. The problem is as it has always been: The Arab leadership refuses to allow them their state. They funded the PLO, Hamas, and many other terrorist organizations and they have brought the Palestinian people nothing but misery. Let the Arab nations that cheated the Palestinians out of their Palestinian state make them whole again – as Israel did for Jewish refugees.
And thats why Israel builds settlements on the West Bank. Your tales don’t match up with reality.
My tales don’t match up???
You claim to be interested in justice for refugees…
but you have no interest in the plight of Jewish refugees – only Palestinian refugees.
You claim to be fighting for the civil rights of Palestinians…
but you have no problem with Hamas executing Palestinian protesters in the streets of Gaza. You only have a problem with the things Israel does to defend itself. You have no appreciation for the fact that Palestinian-Arab citizens have more civil rights than they could get from any Arab state in the region.
You claim to be against racial and ethnic cleansing, and apartheid governments…
but you have no problem with the fact that all Jews have been expelled from Gaza and the population of Jews in Gaza today is exactly zero. You have no problem with the fact that the Jewish population in nearly every Arab country on earth has dropped – while the population of Arabs in Israel has actually increased.
You claim to be against racisim….
but your position on all of the above issues shows a consistent double-standard against Jews and Israel.
…and you say my “tales” don’t match up, Mr. hypocrisy?
Jewish refugees got the state of Israel. Need i say more.
The rest of your tales are just excuses to divert from Israeli apartheid. The next time you tell me of rights in Israel, do include the millions of Palestinians who have none. Else your’e just obfuscating (as usual).
Point 1: “Jewish refugees got the state of Israel.”
You’re wrong. It really is amazing how little you know about this conflict. The Jews who lived in Palestine became Israelis. Jews who lived outside of Palestine, in Arab countries, like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt and many other Arab countries were driven from their homes, lost their property, and were every bit as much refugees as any other group of refugees who were driven from their homes. Regardless of the fact that Israel took them in, many of these people lost every contact in their country, and everything they owned.
But clearly, you don’t like the idea that Jewish refugees suffered at all. It just doesn’t fit your narrative.
It’s becoming clear that you aren’t unwillingly ignorant of the facts. You want to ignore Jewish suffering. Hey, that’s your choice, but don’t pretend that you’re arguing for “social justice”. You obviously have a problem with Jews. That’s your real issue in this conflict. Nothing else.
Point 2: Regarding your request, I’ll gladly address the millions of Palestinians who have no rights in Israel. I’ll answer you honestly and directly: There are no Palestinian-Arabs in Israel without rights. Every Arab-Israeli citizen has more rights than they would get from any Arab country in the region. As far as Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel doesn’t suppress their freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of assembly, or freedom of religion. That suppression comes from Hamas and the PA. And as bad as Hamas and the PA treats Palestinian-Arabs and Muslims, they treat Jews and Christians much worse.
But you know this already. Again, this part of the truth is inconvenient for someone like you. You desperately try to ignore it and down play it. Such vehement denials and dishonesty about these facts tell us everything we need to know about your true feelings, Mr. hypocrisy.
I’m wrong ? Jewish refugees did not get the state of Israel ? Really, really, really ?
Yes, really. You obviously don’t know the actual history of this conflict. You read too much one-sided propaganda.
Israel was not “given” to refugees of Arab countries. Arab countries began expelling Jews after the 1948 war – after Israel was created. Israel took in the Jewish refugees.
The Palestinian-Arabs also qualified for statehood and the UN offered to recognize them, but the Arab leadership rejected it and never allowed them to set up a state. Arab countries also refused to take in Palestinian refugees.
During the fighting last summer between Israel and Gaza, a small group of Palestinians staged a protest against the violence. They were basically anti-war protesters, critical of their own government. Hamas arrested them, accused them of collaborating with Israel, lined them up in the street, forced them to kneel, and one-by-one, Hamas proceeded to shoot each one of them in the head.
So much for free speech in Gaza.
Did Mr.Ibrahim or the “Students for Justice in Palestine” stage a protest over this? Did any one from their organization speak out against it or write an opinion piece in the Daily Bruin about it?
Not one word did you hear from the so called “Students for Justice in Palestine”.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Mr. Ibrahim and his “Students for Justice in Palestine” aren’t interested in free speech and other democratic ideals. If they were, they’d be screaming about the way opposition voices in Gaza and the West Bank are treated. If they were really interested in the rights of Palestinians, they would have said something when seven Palestinians were publicly executed without even a trial.
Mr. Ibrahim and the SJP are concerned about restrictions on antisemitic speech because much of what they say is antisemitic. They don’t like Jews – inside or outside of Israel – and anyone who doubts this hasn’t read their literature.
I hate antisemitism and all other forms of racism, but I stand by free speech. I don’t support the idea that we need the government to define “good” speech and “bad” speech.
I’m aware that this may seem to put Jews and Israel at a terrible disadvantage. There are more than ten times as many Muslims than Jews, and many of them live in countries that don’t allow free speech at all. These Muslims countries continuously bash Israel and the Jews through state-run media, and they oppress any voices that try to offer a contrary opinion. And apparently, the hypocrites of SJP are fine with this.
I hope our government doesn’t do anything to limit free speech. I’m confident that in an environment where there is a free exchange of ideas, we’re hear both sides, understand the issues, and do the right thing.
If SJP condemns all forms of anti-Semitism, then I’m sure he would condemn the grilling given recently to a Jewish co-ed who was trying to get into the UCLA student government. As I recall, she was asked whether her Jewish identity might get in the way of casting the right votes when it came to such issues of vital concern to the campus community as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
You’re talking about the Rachel Beyda incident.
I think SJP did make a statement, but it was purely perfunctory.
SJP condemning antisemitism is like Las Vegas condemning gambling.
A very apt analogy. If you look at all the SJP incidents nation-wide, you would conclude they are a bunch of brown shirted thugs.