The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Chemerinsky: "Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now"
"I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas and the blatant antisemitism that is being voiced."
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, authored a powerful essay in the Los Angeles Times. He recounts the anti-semitism he has seen with his own eyes and ears on campus:
But none of this prepared me for the last few weeks. On Friday, someone in my school posted on Instagram a picture of me with the caption, "Erwin Chemerinsky has taken an indefinite sabbatical from Berkeley Law to join the I.D.F." Two weeks ago, at a town hall, a student told me that what would make her feel safe in the law school would be "to get rid of the Zionists." I have heard several times that I have been called "part of a Zionist conspiracy," which echoes of antisemitic tropes that have been expressed for centuries.
These incidents are, regrettably, becoming more and more common. I've heard many horror stories over the past few weeks. Anti-Semitism is as old as civilization itself. It never vanishes. In every generation, anti-semitism simply manifests in different forms.
Virtually every law school has courses of critical racial studies. Query how much of that curriculum focuses on anti-semitism? Every law school has a DEI department. Query how much of that programming focuses on anti-semitism? I suspect the answer to both questions is very little. Indeed, in 2021, Stanford's DEI Department said the quiet part out loud. They do not focus on anti-semitism as not to diminish discussion of anti-black racism. And, anti-semitism is not as important because Jews can hide behind their white privilege.
I was first exposed to this line of thinking when I was protested at CUNY Law School in 2018. I saw, with my own eyes, a woke mob. I learned quite a bit. One of the more jarring experiences was being called a white supremacist and a Nazi. My grandparents, who were both Holocaust survivors, could never have fathomed their grandson would be called a Nazi. One of the students engaged me, and explained that as a Jewish person, I was both an "oppressor" (because of my white privilege) and I was "oppressed" (because I was Jewish). This sort of dichotomy is textbook CRT. Everyone must be separated based on their level of victimhood. Those at the top of the oppression pyramid can dictate the terms of engagement for those at the bottom of the pyramid. I was inserted somewhere in the middle of that pyramid, but still, my role was constrained. Anti-semitism simply does not matter enough when other, more oppressed people, are being victimized. David Bernstein's recent post is a must-read on this point.
Fast-forward to the summer of 2022. Before and after Dobbs, I wrote about Jewish people raising RFRA objections to abortion laws. I fully expected that I would be attacked for my views. Critics would say I am wrong about RFRA, wrong about Jewish teachings on abortion, and wrong to suggest that some people raising these claims are insincere. What I didn't expect was the claim that I was an anti-semite. I received many emails, voicemails, and other missives to this effect. (I do not read my Twitter notifications, so I'm sure that claim was rampant on social media). It was so easy for critics--including many Jews--to call me an anti-semite.
Yet today, there is an utter unwillingness to label anything anti-semitism. Here is Chemerinsky again:
Of course, criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitism, any more than criticizing the policies of the United States government is anti-American. I strongly oppose the policies of the Netanyahu government, favor full rights for Palestinians, and believe that there must be a two-state solution. But if you listen to what is being said on college campuses now, some of the loudest voices are not advocating for a change in Israeli policies, but are calling for an end to Israel. Students regularly chant, "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "We don't want no two states, we want all of 48," referring to going back to 1948 before Israel existed.
An oft-repeated mantra among some is that Israel is a settler colonialist country and should be forced to give the land back to the Palestinians. I have no idea how it would be determined who is rightly entitled to what land, but I do know that calling for the total elimination of Israel is antisemitic.
And Chemerinsky issues a call to all of the silent administrators across the nation:
There has been enough silence and enough tolerance of antisemitism on college campuses. I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas and the blatant antisemitism that is being voiced.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Unfortunately, what has now come into the open is no surprise. the number of closet anti-Semites is large.
Some of the protesters just say that they want a cease fire. what hey mean is that they want Israel to cease firing.
And when might firing recommence? Don't be surprised to hear "never."
Calls for a ceasefire just mean that Israel must live with a murderous Hamas,
Also guised as a humanitarian "pause." Were such a thing to happen, the ask would then of course to never resume. But in a way, that gives Israel a freer hand, the usual suspects are going to cry war crime no matter what Israel does, so they might as well do what they have to do and not worry too much about international opinion. And I think the messaging has been right to prepare for a long war. It may take a few years without water, fuel, food, or electricity for Gaza to reconsider its choice in government. General Summer may also help-- if Hamas is still doing this when it's 100 degrees and there's nowhere to cool off and nothing to drink, well, they may get to see the afterlife a little early just from the heat strokes.
The reason to not kill civilians that aren’t part of Hamas isn’t primarily about public opinion. But because inflicting such deaths is wrong.
We know that in any military operation, especially in an urban environment, will involve civilian deaths. But such deaths must be minimized because that is the right thing to do.
Israel is quite right to take out Hamas. Its main mistake was not to have done so earlier.
But if Israel goes and damages Hamas but leaves the people of Gaza under the control of Hamas or any similar one-party dictatorship, it will have done something that is morally wrong.
If you want to break a cycle (and in this area there is definitely a cycle) you can’t keep on playing the same game.
If you want to break a cycle (and in this area there is definitely a cycle) you can’t keep on playing the same game.
The 'same game' would be Palestinian atrocities that they barely pay a price for because world opinion loves dead Jews. The war aim should be unconditional surrender, the execution of every member of Hamas, a renunciation of the October 7 attacks, and a turnover of all surviving hostages. Hamas isn't going to turn themselves over for execution, so Israel must do whatever it takes to kill them all and execute any that are captured. Minimize civilian casualties, sure, but we could be looking at several hundred thousand dead. If you're troubled by this, take it up with Hamas, they started this war and could surrender at any time.
Several hundred thousand dead civilians? You are talking about 10% of the population of Gaza.
That doesn’t sound very careful to me. That level of killing would be completely unacceptable.
There are extremists, like you, who want a blank check to kill.
Sorry, but that is not something America would support.
We know civilian deaths will occur. But the word “minimized” isn’t without meaning.
Gaza can avoid this by unconditionally surrendering.
And Hamas can avoid it by separating itself from civilians and fighting openly. Until it does that, the culpability for Palestinian civilian deaths is on Hamas, not Israel.
Why would we expect Hamas to do anything???
Hamas is going to do the opposite, and that is use civilians as human shields.
Be that as it may, that doesn’t mean unnecessary civilian casualties are acceptable. Unless you want to be the moral equivalent of Hamas.
"Be that as it may, that doesn’t mean unnecessary civilian casualties are acceptable. Unless you want to be the moral equivalent of Hamas."
Who said anything about unnecessary civilian casualties? The civilian casualties are necessary to eliminate Hamas, and eliminating Hamas is necessary to prevent further Israeli civilian casualties.
And eliminating Hamas is also necessary for people in Gaza to have decent life prospects in the future.
Eliminating Hamas is a win-win.
'The civilian casualties are necessary'
The old lie.
There is no such thing as Gaza. There is Hamas.
And Hamas does not represent Gaza.
Sorry, but there is no license for mass murder here. Proposing to kill off 10% of the population, hundreds of thousands of people, is criminally insane. And far beyond what is necessary or can be justified by the laws of war.
Some people are blood thirsty. And those people will turn into the moral equivalent of Hamas. Revenge against those who did nothing wrong is not OK.
Eliminating Hamas is OK. Unnecessary civilian casualties is not OK.
Duh.
Well perhaps, but how many civilians died in Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki?
That was all out war, Israel is justified with an all out war.
But I agree that Israel should do their best to minimize civilian deaths, but if the civilians resist they are legitimate military targets.
But the first thing Israel should do is neutralize the tunnel, by removing any breathable air.
Dresden is a bad example. There were no military targets in Dresden. Its historic value to the Germans led them to keep those industries out of Dresden and to intern allied POWs there. Read Slaughterhouse 5. Vonnegut was there, as was my father.
The Allies bombed it as a favor to Stalin. It was meant to be a horrific attack on the Germans at their core.
There's no proposal to murder 10% of Gazan residents.
There's an acknowledgement that because Hamas terrorists use civilians as human shields, that the likely toll for Gaza could be quite high. The guilt for that lies entirely on the Hamas terrorists. Hamas chooses how many innocent people die.
VinniUSMC:
The IDF has an obligation to be careful. And if it isn’t, the fault for particular unnecessary civilian deaths caused by a lack of care will belong to the IDF.
The obvious evil of Hamas is no license here for carelessness. And pointing to Hamas will be no excuse.
In life, there is always enough blame to go around to everyone who deserves it. Contrary to some who think they can weasel out of accountability by pointing the finger at someone who is even worse.
How, precisely, do you propose to eliminate Hamas without civilian casualties? Especially given, as you yourself said, that Hamas is hiding behind civilians.
Once you accept that civilian casualties are inevitable, then you get to Truman's dilemma - do you best minimize total casualties by incremental attacks that drag on forever or though a single massive attack that ends the war?
Bear in mind as you do that calculation that while the deaths of Gazan civilians are regrettable, so are the death of Israeli civilians. Now quit your hand-waving, David, and tell us what military strategy you think Israel should follow to accomplish your goals (which, by the way, are also their goals).
And Hamas does not represent Gaza.
The governing body of Gaza does not represent Gaza?
Unnecessary civilian casualties is not OK.
Agreed. The problem is in defining "unnecessary civilian casualties" when you need to utterly destroy a combatant that hides itself among those civilians and uses them as human shields. If it's something as clear and unquestionable as, say, intentionally bombing a school full of kids where no military target(s) is/are identified then there's not much to discuss. But I don't know anyone who is advocating anything like that.
I said several hundred thousand dead, not several hundred thousand dead civilians. The core of Hamas, by itself, is estimated to be about 25,000 people. All of those 25,000 people must be exterminated. I support the lowest number of casualties getting from here to there, but they're so entrenched in the civilian population, it's going to get messy.
If they are Hamas combatants, their numbers are irrelevant SomeGuy2.
There is no obligation to minimize military casualties. Although if you can safely get military groups to surrender, that can be great.
Define "civilian". There's the problem. Hamas has been taught how to use the Media to it's advantage. A Hamas member shoots at Israeli soldiers, they return fire and the Hamas member is killed. When it is reported the Hamas member is in civilian clothing and there's no weapon around. Hamas says "See the Israelis are killing civilians."
Israel has been trying to get people to evacuate to the South. Hamas has been preventing them from leaving. They have to have their "human shields". They have to have dead and injured "civilians" so that the Leftist media can portray Israel as the aggressor. The more things change the more they remain the same. The old PLO has morphed into the "new" Hamas. The same PLO that was funded and trained by the Soviets. The same PLO who used to raise funds by inviting rich kids from Europe to come down to Beirut for sex and drugs. Even going so far as to hand them a sniper rifle and let them shoot at people from their hotel balconies.
"Israel is quite right to take out Hamas. Its main mistake was not to have done so earlier."
It is hard to disagree with that!
Yes = Israel is quite right to take out Hamas. Its main mistake was not to have done so earlier.
Mowing the lawn (conflict management) failed. So did Oslo, and so did disengagement. What a mess, policy-wise.
Unfortunately, pressure on Israel will continue to increase. We heard it today from Norway and Iran, that Israel had crossed a red line. Hezbollah keeps enough pressure in the north to try divert IDF focus on Gaza and to imply that continued IDF action in Gaza will precipitate a wider conflict that Hamas would welcome.
In the end, the choice for Israel is either to finish the job that it has now started or to accept living with a genocidal terrorist regime at its doorstep.
You want to know how Israel can best minimize pressure? It can make sure it minimizes civilian casualties.
Even the Unites States feels pressure to minimize civilian casualties in its military operations. The United States and Israel are good. Of course, there exist extremists in both countries who aren’t so good.
Minimizing civilian casualties is a laudable goal, of course. However, Hamas should not be emboldened to continue to use civilians as shields. Every call for Israel to "minimize civilian casualties" is implicitly excusing (and empowering) Hamas and minimizing the lives of Israelis.
Vinni,
The laws of war address this issue in a reasonable way. And using civilians as human shields is itself a war crime.
Oh yes, it is a clearly defined war crime, which Hamas routinely commits to ZERO FUCKING CONSEQUENCE. Not from the UN, the media, any world court or people. like. you.
Fuck off.
Trollificus:
I will be sure to send my personal military in to kill Hamas.
I support Israel eradicating Hamas while minimizing civilian casualties. Not exactly sure what more you could reasonably expect.
"It can make sure it minimizes civilian casualties."
Considering the amount of the air strikes, it is hard to imagine the absence of Israel's careful consideration to minimize civilian casualties. I suggest that they are trying as hard as Hamas' "human shield" defense will let them.
I'm all for Israel defeating Hamas, assuming they can do so without committing war crimes. But ...
strikes me as targeting civilians, which is a war crime.
In other words, using human shields (a war crime) is an effective means of not being brought to account for terrorism
I'm not following how Hamas' use of human shields justifies cutting of water, food, fuel and electricity from Gaza for years to come.
Was Hiroshima cut off from water, food, fuel, and electricity after August 6, 1945?
Of course it was. But the stated purpose of the bomb, unlike SomeGuy2's proposition, was not to cut off supplies to civilians.
Think a few more moves ahead.
Huh?
Cutting all resources to Gaza weakens the sustainability Hamas' war-fighting capability.
Civilians who can should move south where humanitarian supplies are being let in
Wouldn't "cutting all resources to Gaza" (as SomeGuy2 proposes, for years to come) include not letting in supplies in the south?
Josh<
I am not interested in defending what a poster wrote, only what Israel does.
So why was not Colonel Tibbets ever prosecuted for war crimes?
It saved lives.
We won.
little boy and fat man saved somewhere between 2m and 4m japanese, American Korean and chinese lives.
"strikes me as targeting civilians, which is a war crime."
Israel is under no obligation to supply its enemies with water, fuel, food, or electricity. Targeting civilians with military force is a war crime. Declining to deliver material good to your enemy is not.
SomeGuy2 said to cut off supplies to make Gazan civilians reconsider their choice of government.
So what? Israel is under no obligation to trade with Gaza. Declining to trade with your enemy in order to make them reconsider their choice of government is not equivalent to using military force against civilians to make them reconsider their choice of government.
Of course, blockading supplies provide through third party channels is only acceptable of deprive Hamas of supplies, but I'm not sure that's what's being suggested.
Trade? He said deprive them of water, fuel, food, and electricity. Israel controls whether those supplies are blockaded.
"Trade? He said deprive them of water, fuel, food, and electricity. Israel controls whether those supplies are blockaded."
Israel is free to embargo those supplies. AFAIK they are not preventing those supplies from being brough in through Egypt. To the extent Israel is preventing supplies from being brought in by sea, the purpose can't be to have civilians reconsider their government, but it's not clear that that's what someguy was referring to.
SomeGuy2 said:
And to the extent that that's the result of an embargo, there's nothing wrong with that.
There is nothing wrong with an embargo targeted at civilians? Good God!
As the occupying force, Israel is under obligation to the civilian population.
Its lack of care is one of the things pissing people off.
If you guys continue to blame the smokescreen of "closet antisemitism" for the negative reactions to Israel's bad behavior, Israel will just be seen as more and more of a pariah.
Israel left Gaza in 2005.
Among the many atrocities that Hamas committed, they put a woman's baby in an oven and raped her as she listened to her baby scream. That should be pissing people off too.
And there's nothing closeted about your antisemitism if you want to make Israel a pariah for trying to defend itself against these atrocities.
Hamas is pissing people off. They can both be pissing people off.
Israel left Gaza but they didn't leave it alone. Israel enforced a complete blockade. Anyway now they're back.
"Israel left Gaza but they didn’t leave it alone."
Maybe that had something to do with the damned missiles they kept launching into Israel from Gaza?
Endless whining of Israel's treatment of Gaza, and silence about missiles and death squads. It's easy to identify anti-Semites when they don't even feel the need to hide anymore.
Then there's the people who endlessly whine about missiles and death squads but silence about the IDF intentionally maiming and sometimes killing kids for years and years. I guess those people are all openly anti-Muslim, right?
Brett, TiP...You both nailed it.
Brett, you might want to think about the implications = It’s easy to identify anti-Semites when they don’t even feel the need to hide anymore.
I know that I have. It is happening again. And we are witnesses.
It's easy to spot the anti-semites - they're the ones urging the Israelis to commit war crimes and mire themselves in an endless bloody conflict.
"It’s easy to spot the anti-semites – they’re the ones urging the Israelis to commit war crimes and mire themselves in an endless bloody conflict."
Like I said: Endless whining of Israel’s treatment of Gaza, and silence about missiles and death squads.
At any time the Palestinians could have had peace with Israel. They wanted genocide instead.
Like you keep saying – the perpetual conflict was upposed to go on indefinitely, low-key, destruction and body-count always disporoprtionate to show which side was ‘winning,’ keeping hard-liners in power. They simply never imagined it could go so badly wrong the way it did.
'At any time the Palestinians could have had peace with Israel'
And vice versa. The worst people on both sides got to call the shots, though, and this is what happens.
Israel left gaza in 2005 along with Israel and a multitude of other nations providing considerable aid.
Dont cherrypick your facts
Nige 46 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
It’s easy to spot the anti-semites – they’re the ones urging the Israelis to commit war crimes and mire themselves in an endless bloody conflict.
Nige - get your facts correct
Israel is going to extreme efforts to avoid civilian casualties. Its Hamas using civilians as human shields that is the primary war crime along with directly targeting Israeli citizens.
'Israel is going to extreme efforts to avoid civilian casualties.'
No. They aren’t.
The occupation ended twenty years ago. The obligation to provide is Hamas. Despite that, Israel has donated supplies for decades. The reward for their charity was a massacre. Attempts to reason with and be charitable with Gaza failed. Of course Israel is going to take harsh countermeasures and cease supplying the enemy.
I don't know what story you think you're telling, but it's not the story of Israel and Gaza.
No, not "and vice versa." Hamas is an eliminationist regime; it has no interest in peace with Israel. In theory Israel could've had peace with the Fatah-led PA — the latter superficially rejected elimination as a goal — but they walked away any time it came down to actually reaching a final deal.
This is the Israeli line, but the rest of the world disagrees. It's one of the reasons people are angry with Israel. Again, if you blame everything on antisemitism, you're misdiagnosing the situation.
On peace, Israel hasn't been interested in peace for many, many years. They liked the status quo... at least until a few weeks ago. Another reason people don't like Israel.
‘Hamas is an eliminationist regime; it has no interest in peace with Israel’
Which is the way Netanyahu wanted it. Which is why he supported them.
"This is the Israeli line, but the rest of the world disagrees"
It's an objective fact that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip. There were 0.0000 Jews even in Gaza until Hamas abducted them.
"On peace, Israel hasn’t been interested in peace for many, many years. They liked the status quo."
There was peace-- Israel accepted the burden of providing for Gazans who refuse to provide for themselves and the world also sent tons of aid to Gaza. The reward for this charity was a massacre. It's high time Gaza learned a lesson. No aid, the war continues, let's see how they like it if they actually have to be self-sufficient. Good luck, I think you're going to find out choosing war wasn't worth it.
An objective and irrelevant fact!
The fact that you think a full blockade of Gaza and the constant shooting of Palestinian civilians across the border counts as peace should tell you everything you need to know about why people are angry at Israel.
It's "irrelevant" to the issue of occupation to note that there are no occupants?
Well, not "full." But the reason that "blockade" and "occupation" are spelled differently is because they're different words.
Randal 13 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Israel left Gaza but they didn’t leave it alone. Israel enforced a complete blockade. "
Randal - both you and Nige believe a lot of stupid BS. Most everyone in Gaza would have been dead 15 years ago from the lack of food and water if there was a complete blockade.
You also intentionally ignore the border with Egypt. Israel cant blockade the gaza egyptian border.
Pretty much. I'm explaining to you the view of basically the entire world, and you're arguing semantics. Your head is in the sand, at best.
a) Not ignored, I've answered this many times. The IDF is present on the Egyptian border and "helps" Egypt enforce the blockade there. b) It's another technicality that doesn't change the facts.
I like how TiP moved from 'supply' to 'trade' to 'not embargo.'
This is arguing for the sake of arguing, dude has no thesis.
Never mind what the guy said. Just consider what is done and the many military reasons for doing so if Hamas is to been eradicated.
Josh - Israel only controls the supply of electricity , water food because, no one else will.
Gazians could have developed the infrastructure to for the basics, but they chose to spend the humanitarian aid for war making purposes.
The various Conventions accept the fact that civilian casualties will be part and parcel to war.
- attackers should attempt to reduce civilian casualties
- defenders should not collocate military units with civilian populations
Israel attempts to comply
Hamas rejects the conventions, yet wants their protections
IMHO, Hamas operates outside the rules of war and deserves anything it gets.
Hamas deserves anything it gets. But Israel has an obligation to minimize civilian casualties.
People here talking casually about 10% of the population being killed are not talking in a way that is serious about minimizing civilian casualties.
Hamas doesn’t follow the laws of war. Its attack on innocent concert goers did not follow the laws of war. Its use of civilians as human shields doesn’t follow the laws of war.
Israel ought to follow the laws of war. Not primarily for public opinion purposes. But because unnecessary killing is wrong.
They really don’t get it. Their morals are dictated by the actions of others–in this and in all things.
@David Walker Ah, you concede Hamas war crimes, but only Israel is to suffer consequences for war crimes. You’re basically saying “Well, the Hamas war crimes worked.”
Take note, Western intellectual-approved terrorists.
How does approving of Israel militarily destroying Hamas while minimizing civilian casualties equal no consequences for war crimes???
You have been reading too fast, perhaps?
"Hamas deserves anything it gets. But Israel has an obligation to minimize civilian casualties."
When Hamas decides to use human shield as a major part of their defensive operations, Israel's hands are tied.
Hamas could place military installations away from civilian areas if they wished. They do not.
You cannot target a civilian electrical plant. Ain't no rule that says you have to affirmatively provide non-combatants in enemy territory with electricity. So, at minimum, Israel isn't obligated to provide and if that means Gazans starve, take it up with Hamas-- they're the government responsible and failing in their obligation to care for their own civilians.
More to the point, though, a blockade is exactly what we did to Japan and Imperial Japan/Hamas are quite similar. Yeah, civilians suffer too which sucks. Take it up with the Emperor/Hamas. Hamas could end this war today with a surrender, it's refusing to do so.
If the purpose the blockade is to degrade the military, that's permissible. But you said Israel should withhold Gazans suppplies supplies in order to pressure them into changing their government. That is not permissible.
Gazans haven’t even had a choice about their so-called “government” anyway.
Gazans did choose their government. Gazans are now living with that elected government they freely chose, and that is very problematic for them at the moment. Gazans chose a government of Judeocidal terrorists.
Concur on civilians. Many are innocent. That is why Israel has been telling Gazans for over a week to move south toward Rafah, and be south of Wadi Gaza. Israel has done their part to minimize casualties. Humanitarian aid is being provided in the south. The war is to the north (for now). Notably, Israel has not bombed fuel depots, a perfectly legitimate target in war, precisely to minimize suffering and misery.
Gazans who remain in physical proximity to Hamas members are making a very bad lifestyle choice. Their deaths are on Hamas.
You need regular elections, which haven’t occurred. Hamas has zero democratic legitimacy.
"You need regular elections,"
what Gazans need and what Hamas gives them are vastly different things.
Exactly.
You need regular elections, which haven’t occurred.
There was one election, in which they freely voted into power a group that is openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel, not to building a free and prosperous Gaza. Gazans have since opted to simply accept the result and have not tried to do anything about it.
'Gazans who remain in physical proximity to Hamas members'
Suggests a degree of precision very much not in evidence.
Nige,
How can you be so naive?
I'm naive to have little faith in the supposed precision of mass bombings of civilian areas?
Don - Nige is not naive - he has intentionally decided to create and believe his own facts.
Which facts have I created?
Nige 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Which facts have I created?
Nige - virtually every statement you have made on this topic.
Such as.
Blockade of Japan. Look it up.
If there was a blockade aimed at civilians, it would be a war crime today.
It's aimed at Hamas, because there's no way to supply Gaza without supplying Hamas. Gaza not having any supplies is an incidental side effect. Troubled by this, take it up with Hamas. They can end this war any time by surrendering.
I’m skeptical of that claim, particularly food and water. You gave yourself away (put pressure on civilians) when you said:
The blockade is against Hamas. That the blockade has the incidental effect of making Gazans think about their preferred form of government is mere fortuity.
If that's how you parse your own words, one can only imagine how well you do with other aspects of reality!
"I’m skeptical of that claim"
Only because you want to be. Even with a blockade pre-Oct 7, Israel did poorly in keeping weapons and military matials out of the hands of Hams. Hence it makes sense to close all potential holes.
Food and water?
Dude, you are totally demented.
Seek help.
According to the general consensus view of international law, Israel continues to occupy Gaza (it's still one of the "occupied territories") by virtue of Israel's complete control.
So they do have a continuing responsibility to the Gazans. Israel's two-decade attempt to skirk that duty is one of the reasons people are so angry with Israel. Not because it's predominantly Jewish.
By virtue of Israel's complete control.
Checks map. Yup, Gaza borders on Egypt. Just like the West bank border on Jordan.
How does that complete control work, where both areas have borders with Islamic countries?
Not even *interested* in how the relationship between Israel and Gaza actually works in practice.
Nor are you interested in Gaza's relationship with Egypt.
Continue to cherrypick your facts and you will continue to embarrass yourself with inane arguments
Egypt isn't currently bombing the shit out of Gaza.
They're just preventing Gazan civilians from leaving.
zztop8970 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"They’re just preventing Gazan civilians from leaving."
Egypt hasnt let them leave since 1948 - Nor has Jordan
Neither country likes the palestinians - for obvious reasons
And?
And you seem ok with that.
That's a bit odd coming from people who seem ok with all of it, the whole situation, and don't really care how or why it exists.
I am ok with using military force to end Hamas's reign of terror. And I understand exactly what led to this. I can go back to 1947 if you like, or to 1929.
Let's see if we can squeeze another hundred years of dead Jews and Palestinians out of it, eh?
What a disgusting remark. But I guess that what you need to resort to , in the absence of any meaningful arguments.
Israel has IDF deployed along the Gaza / Egypt border. They wouldn't let Egypt open the border even if Egypt wanted to.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The world considers Israel to be an occupying force in Gaza. They've proven to be a negligent one.
Randal 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Gaza borders on Egypt. How does that complete control work?
Israel has IDF deployed along the Gaza / Egypt border. They wouldn’t let Egypt open the border even if Egypt wanted to.
Randal - that is BS and you know its BS -
Randal's comment -"Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The world considers Israel to be an occupying force in Gaza. "
Correction to Randal's statement - Far leftists consider Israel to be an occupying force in Gaza and other leftists such as Randal repeat the falsehood.
Further they would know its a falsehood if they simply looked at a map.
So yes, Israel is still involved on the Gaza / Egypt boarder in several ways: surveillance, border control, and collaboration with Egypt.
Far leftists including the UN General Assembly and US and UK governments.
Egypt has been blocking the border since 1948
The UN is a leftist organization
Hamas has complete control of Gaza. The only Israelis in Gaza are the ones that were abducted. If you're troubled by the lack of supplies to Gazans, take it up with Hamas.
They seem to have plenty of Rockets
Funny that, right? the only thing they're not running out of is rockets.
the number of closet anti-Semites is large
Maybe!
But the focus on campuses does not alone allow one to generalize about the country.
Yes, the cease fire rhetoric is absolutely nonsense from people either naïve or deceitful. See also the same rhetoric about Ukraine.
'Calls for a ceasefire just mean that Israel must live with a murderous Hamas,'
They were happy enough to do that so long as a strong Hamas derailed the possibility of the emergence of a Palestinian state. I suspect the majority of Israelis would currently fall under the category of 'anti-semites' as dictated by commenters here for their attitude to their government and the bombing of Gaza.
So, Israel is guilty because...they did not dominate Gaza ENOUGH and determine who would be the leaders.
Interesting take.
A Palestinian state did not appear under Arafat or Fatah. It's not like Hamas is out of the ordinary.
Actually, calling for the total elimination of Israel is not, in and of itself antisemitic. A person might believe that this state should be dismantled DESPITE not because of the Jewish religion of many Israelis.
To be clear, I am totally against that. But such a view speaks to a particular political resolution and there is logically more than one motive that could lead to a preference for that resolution.
In general, a lot of people seem to think they can break the rules of American discourse by calling people racists or antisemites, or whatever.
They believe that these words are keys that open the door to censorship. Claiming that your opponent is an X or a Y is seen as the first step in canceling this person. It is often an act of an aggressor posing as a victim.
Cancel culture is un-American and a threat to democracy itself. We have an increasing amount of what I would call “grievance culture” where more and more groups want to get in on the censorship bandwagon and seek to cancel anyone with a different point of view. Needless to say, this is not how we properly handle differences of opinion in a democracy. It is unacceptable.
In America, people are ALLOWED to argue that Israel should not exist, that its establishment was a mistake, or that it should be ended in the future.
I disagree with such arguments. But people have every right to make them.
People trying to shut down these fringe arguments are really being self-indulgent. The idea that Israel should be eliminated as a country is an extremely fringe idea. There is zero chance that this view is going to become mainstream.
People are entitled to their own opinion. That is the American way.
In America, people are ALLOWED to argue that Israel should not exist, that its establishment was a mistake, or that it should be ended in the future.
If by allowed you mean legally protected, of course all of those things are. But I think you mean, within the normal range of political discourse. Which is odd, considering how many disputes there have been over just that question in the last several years.
The two are clearly different. "Gas the Jews" is protected by the First Amendment, but most people would agree that is far beyond the bounds of civil discourse. (Albeit not some recent pro-Hamas demonstrators.)
In any case, "Israel should not exist" and "that its establishment was a mistake" are historical assertions, which need not be (although they may be) antisemitic.
But "that it should be ended in the future" is, because the only practical way to achieve that is to exterminate 7 million Jews that are living in Israel. So that statement is the equivalent of calling for mass extermination of Jews. If that is not antisemitic, I don't know what is.
I think as a practical matter, ending Israel would involve a massive amount of murder. As you are saying. People there who constitute the present state of Israel would not leave voluntarily (nor do I think they should).
I think even if it could be done “humanely” it would be extremely unjust. Not only that, it would be extremely non-optimal. The existence of Israel ought to be a benefit to the region.
However, not everyone thinks everything through and even if they do, that doesn’t mean that they will come to the same conclusion as what would be likely as you and I would.
Like, what the logic that ending Israel = antisemitism comes down to is 1) the person who is advocating going back to this “pure” state (never mind that Jews themselves were expelled, so if the injustice is expulsion how is this more pure) understands that it would involve mass violence and 2) the person approves of mass violence against Jews in particular.
Point 2 is important, because a war over Israel’s existence would involve a lot of killing, and not just of Jewish people and because one may advocate for such a war regardless of one side of it involving Jewish people.
A final point. I don’t think we should be elevating this discourse. Israel has been around for 75 years. Its existence is not on the table. If some fringe wants to talk about that, fine. Why are we talking about it? It isn’t practical. It isn’t worth our time.
What is practical is talking about what happens in Gaza after Israel takes out Hamas. That is going to be the key move.
Overall, a lot of how cancel culture seems to work is to take the most extreme and fringe positions and elevate them. This is the first step to establishing “victim status” so that an act of aggression, namely “cancel culture” may be rhetorically justified.
My view is I am going to defend any political outcome being proper for discussion. If someone wants to talk about Louisiana being given back to France, OK. Not going to take it very seriously. But OK.
What is practical is talking about what happens in Gaza after Israel takes out Hamas. That is going to be the key move.
Yes. What to do with a people steeped and marinated in Judeocide? That is the biggest post-war question.
Prof. Somin says: bring them all here!
Nuts...
In any case, “Israel should not exist” and “that its establishment was a mistake” are historical assertions, which need not be (although they may be) antisemitic.
If we had it to do over, placing it in upstate New York or northern Nevada sounds a lot better than the Middle East. That would mean Israel's existence is largely dependent on its relationship with the USA, but that's true anyway. Israel is only slightly larger than New Jersey, we have the space.
Alas, we don't get do-overs and relocating it brick by brick isn't viable. So we play the hand we're dealt.
Well, in my view that would have just been a win for the United States. We would maybe have two Silicon Valleys instead of one.
That is water under the bridge, as you say.
The downside of that approach is, of course, that every Jewish and Christian holy place in the birthplace of both religions would have been destroyed by now.
Well, DB and DMN keep assuring me that Jews aren'r religious, so who cares? There's no such thing as a Jewish holy place, or so they tell me.
The Wizard of Oz called; it wants its strawman back.
I figured you would show up to defend the religiosity of the Jewish people now that it suits your needs, just as you opportunistically denied it when that helped you rhetorically.
The straw store called; it's totally out of straw now.
Well then here's your chance to correct the record. Is there a religious aspect to Judaism?
Huh. I guess I was right after all.
A populace that chooses war has to live with the consequences: war.
Which is a profoundly ugly thing, in which people die.
> Actually, calling for the total elimination of Israel is not, in and of itself antisemitic. A person might believe that this state should be dismantled DESPITE not because of the Jewish religion of many Israelis.
Actually, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism points out that calling for the total elimination of Israel is, in and of itself, very likely antisemitic unless you can do so without using a double standard against Israel and if you can do so without denying Jews their right to self-determination
Can you provide some examples of wanting to dismantle Israel that doesn't incur double standards or deny Jews their right to self-determination?
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
>Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
The IHRA stress that the examples they give are very important to help distinguish what is antisemitic and what is not
> Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
> Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
> Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
There are plenty of ethnic groups denied their right to self-determination.
Antisemitism is discrimination based on religion/ethnicity. If a person does not believe that every religion/ethnic group has a right to their own state, then it isn’t antisemitism to treat Jewish people like other religions / ethnic groups.
Your argument about the definition of antisemitism is not logical and is motivated by a desire to expand the definition of antisemitism to take certain political discussions off the table. And that is impermissible.
In a free society, people are free to discuss political opinions.
By the way, in no world is Israel not existing on the table. So, why are we discussing it??? The purpose of some is to demonstrate clout and power by canceling people. But that isn’t how we do things here in America.
We debate things.
I don’t particularly care about the specific political idea you are trying to make forbidden. In fact, I actually agree with you on substance. But I am going to oppose you if you try to shrink the realm of acceptable discourse.
Every little “victim” group thinks it can say, you can’t talk about X, Y, or Z. And that is poisonous to democracy.
We are going to talk about whatever we want. Period. This isn’t negotiable.
I have not proposed anything, or attempted to shrink anything.
I provided the IHRA definition and some of their examples and I asked you for your examples.
Your handwaving aside, you have failed to provide any.
Israel is a country and has been for 75 years, created by the UN for the self-determination of Jews.
It is no incumbent on you to show when other countries that provide for the self-determination of a population have been dismantled.
Your claim this is similar to non-countries of people who have not been able to obtain a country for their self-determination is irrelevant, apples and oranges.
Feel free to try again and answer my question, but I would appreciate it if you left the handwaving behind along with your implication that my question is somehow morally offensive.
Your argument that just because an ethnic group hasn’t achieved a state that it is different from one that has achieved one is completely arbitrary from a moral perspective. No one is obligated to believe that every ethnic group is entitled to their own state.
I personally think it might be desirable for ethnic groups to have their own states. I wouldn’t have been opposed to dividing Iraq between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds rather than keeping it one state. Combining ethnic groups can be problematic, especially if government discriminates for or against people based on ethnicity. On the other hand, maybe a unified Iraq (which is what happened) is actually better. This isn’t something that is self-evident one way or another.
Anyway, no one is obligated to think Israel is a good thing. I personally think it is a good thing. And I think establishing it was likely worth the cost. But I reject the idea that it is anyone’s right to tell me what I need to think about that or any other political issue.
If someone can dictate what you may or may not think, then they have effectively established their superiority. And that goes against democracy and basic American values. I reject these kinds of ideas, no matter who advances them. Cancel culture is un-American.
That's not really accurate. Certainly the UN proposed such a thing, but its proposal was rejected by the Arabs, and never implemented. Israel was ultimately created by self-help, not the UN, after the Brits washed their hands of the mandate.
There are. Are there any ethnic groups — other than Jews — that currently have self-determination who people argue that it should be revoked?
I think calling for the total elimination of Israel crosses the line into anti-semitism whether you mean it to or not. That is to say, it's so indistinguisable from anti-semitism that the distinction has no meaning. I also don't think you can fairly call for right for the Palestinian people to exist while calling denying the right of the Israeli people to exist.
'People trying to shut down these fringe arguments are really being self-indulgent.'
It's not the people trying to shut them down, it's the people funding them, arming them, elevating them, platforming them, because it's in their interest to boost extremist fringe views, that are the problem.
Certainly it’s true that you can hypothecate possible arguments against Zionism that aren’t antisemitic. I would hope that the events of the last few weeks have shown you that those aren’t the arguments motivating people in the real world.
Actually, calling for the total elimination of Israel is not, in and of itself antisemitic.
As a theoretical matter, possibly. As a practical matter in the real world as it currently exists...it's very much anti-Semitic.
"An oft-repeated mantra among some is that Israel is a settler colonialist country and should be forced to give the land back to the Palestinians."
Not just Israel, either. These radical Hamas sympathizers have taken to referring to "the so-called US and Canada"; We, too, are dismissed as 'settlers'.
Everyone is a settler and all major civilizations have resolved land disputes with violence.
The idea of going back to some “pure” state is 1) logistically impossible and 2) not aligned with justice even if it were possible.
Overall, we should be focusing on the future, not the past. In the context of Gaza, I believe that implies that a society must be setup there that can allow ordinary people who are just interested in living their own life rather than engaging in hostilities sufficient opportunities to thrive.
I agree with your last point, but the only way to achieve that is to occupy the area for a decade or two, and engage in massive re-education along the lines of the de-Nazification the Allies undertook post WWII in Germany. Which I highly doubt anyone is interested in undertaking.
"Which I highly doubt anyone is interested in undertaking."
And that has been true for decades, which is one reason we have the present crisis.
Does re-education ever truly work, Bored Lawyer? I am not being facetious. But I am not so certain that re-education works, once the virus (antisemitism) has taken hold. Is there a historical example one could point to (e.g. Germany) where we know that re-education worked and antisemitism was extirpated from society?
I saw the demonstrations in Berlin, Paris, Rome, London, and New York. This is why I am asking the question.
Those demonstrations are mostly Muslim immigrants, and leftist fellow travelers. The de-Nazification worked pretty well in Germany, at least insofar as the top levels of German society.
May it be as you say, and never goes further = mostly Muslim immigrants, and leftist fellow travelers
It is not so limited.
The problem is, Israel-supporters such as yourself have been making an "us or them" argument. Israel's policies over the last few decades have also suggested that peace isn't really on the agenda.
You can't complain -- or call it antisemitic -- if people take you at face value and decide "them."
There is no peace to make with Judeocidal terrorists (Hamas). Hamas will be physically obliterated within Gaza. They will be hunted down and die violent deaths. The world will be a measurable safer place. The UN should thank Israel for taking out the world's trash: Hamas.
Post war, the question of what to do with an entire people marinated and stewed in Judeocide is the biggest post war question to me.
The level of thinking needed to replace the failed policies of Oslo, disengagement and mowing the lawn will need to be higher than the level of thinking that created those failed policies.
'Hamas will be physically obliterated within Gaza.'
This is infantile. You know this isn't true. You know blanket bombing will only unleash a newer, bigger Hamas.
"blanket bombing"
False claim. There is no blanket bombing.
I'm sure the distinction of the exact nature of the widescale death and destruction resulting from the dropping of so much ordinance on Gaza will be decisive in some way.
Israel could try proving the indoctrination wrong by being nice to them and helping them build an actual self-sufficient society. It would involve some compromises by Israel, which is probably why the thought hasn't even crossed your genocidal mind.
Israel has been nice - who do you think has been supplying and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Certainly not Iran who has been supplying weapons.
Lol, if shooting harmless Palestinian kids in the knees is your definition of nice, that might explain why Israel is losing its PR campaign.
Randal 3 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Lol, if shooting harmless Palestinian kids in the knees is your definition of nice, that might explain why Israel is losing its PR campaign.
No Israeli soldier is shooting harmless palestinian kids in the knees, at least not intentionally . though apparently you are willing to believe Hamas propaganda.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shoot-maim-how-israel-created-generation-crutches-gaza
https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/stolen-childhoods-gazas-injured-children-struggle-complete-education
Denying it is just one more way people are fed up with Israel.
The problem here is that the Middle East was largely omitted from de-Nazification after WWII, and so served as a reservoir of genocidal anti-Semitism which reinfected the rest of the world.
The USSR was likewise omitted: https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-770738
Antisemitism is in no way limited to Naziism as the source.
What is this urge to unify all evils into one like Bad Guy Cinematic Universe?
As a theoretical matter, yeah, Nazism isn't the only source of anti-Semitism. Basically all totalitarian systems end up promoting anti-Semitism, because they need some internal enemy to direct the people's hate towards in order that it doesn't end up correctly pointed at them. Jews for various reasons make a good internal enemy, and so are the modern default.
But, as a simple historical matter, Hamas does have a Nazi connection, and extending de-Nazification to the Middle East probably would have been helpful. The USSR at least doesn't border on Israel, after all.
Actually purging the communists the way we did the fascists would have been helpful, too: Once you've dealt with the Nazi connected Islamicists and the communists, there isn't a great deal of residual anti-Semitism.
What would have been really helpful, though, is if the West hadn't mindlessly permitted, and later actively encouraged, mass immigration from anti-Semitic cultures. That's the source of most of the genocidal protests we're seeing now.
What would have been really helpful, though, is if the US didn't start a number of needless wars that went on for over a decade, destabilising the Middle East, and setting of a wave of terrorism funded and supported by the likes of Iran, Russia and North Korea while at the same time changing climactic conditions spread drought and cause floods and famines, displacing large populations. Yet you think some protests against civilians being bombed is the problem.
Basically all totalitarian systems end up promoting anti-Semitism, because they need some internal enemy to direct the people’s hate towards in order that it doesn’t end up correctly pointed at them.
I agree with the politics, but there are lots of examples of other groups than Jews being used for this.
Europe in the early 1900s had antisemitism in plenty of non-authoritarian places.
Once you’ve dealt with the Nazi connected Islamicists and the communists, there isn’t a great deal of residual anti-Semitism.
We don't know the counterfactual, but you're making some utterly unsupported connections here.
Zionism began as a response to Tsarist pogroms.
Anti-semitism and conspiracy theorying are intimately related, by the way. I used to think they were silly and kind of fun, but it became apparent that if your scratch deep enough any conspiracy theory will turn out to have anti-semitism at its core. That’s why the emergence of Qanon was always so alarming. Supporting the Israeli government in its prosecution of the war against Gaza is not the same thing as not being anti-semitic.
it became apparent that if your scratch deep enough any conspiracy theory will turn out to have anti-semitism at its core.
Yeah, I was skeptical when I first heard that principle some decades ago.
But it's held pretty true!
Umberto Eco knew it back when he wrote Foucault's Pendulum.
You mean like how Republicans use immigrants and trans people? Yup, it checks out.
It worked in Japan and Germany for 70+ years,
The problem y see in Germany today is to alarge degree fueled by the immigrants
What did? What actually happened? What was done, exactly?
Nige - you are seriously ill informed
Not an answer.
Nige 5 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Not an answer."
As I stated previously - if you were not so disinformed and or ill informed, then you would understand my response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
"[Denazification] was carried out by removing those who had been Nazi Party or SS members from positions of power and influence, by disbanding or rendering impotent the organizations associated with Nazism, and by trying prominent Nazis for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials of 1946"
Not re-education.
Re-education only really works in authoritarian context. Which makes those online lefties that invoke it telling on themselves.
When you are ignorant about a subject, it is best not to flaunt your ignorance.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745499916664465
"As Con O’Neill, then Secretary of the sub-committee of the Post-Hostilities Planning Committee, emphasised in a secret 1944 memorandum for the War Cabinet: ‘Germans alone can re-educate their fellow countrymen"
That's in the very first paragraph.
And if you read beyond one paragraph, you'll find that despite what O’Neill thought in 1944, there was in fact a re-education program put into place in 1945 and beyond, which included the assignment of University Education Control Officers (UECOs) to all universities. UECOs supervised the educational content, fired staff with past Nazi involvement, changed admission policy to screen pro-Nazi students, oversaw connections between the university and the outside world in a manner designed to politically ‘re-educate’ students, and forced students to become active members of both the student and local community. among other things.
You're in a pretty big hole, it is time to stop digging.
‘I saw the demonstrations in Berlin, Paris, Rome, London, and New York.’
Those people were educated as to the efficacy and morality of bombing campaigns on civilian populations, so maybe it does work.
Re-education doesn’t sound great. Students should be taught how to think, not what to think.
It is enough for Israel to establish a pacifist Constitution in Gaza and take charge of law enforcement.
With an independent judiciary that respect’s property rights and other individual rights, overtime the region would become prosperous enough that the focus of people would change.
Israeli intervention in local law enforcement etc. ought to last as long as reasonably necessary. What should not be allowed is the formation of private militias intent on attacking Israel or with the ability to violate the rights of Gazans.
The local government should be democratic with regularly scheduled elections that cannot be rescheduled. There should be checks and balances and an independent judiciary.
David, it seems somewhat 'pollyannish' (to me) to think one can import Jeffersonian democracy to Gaza. Consider the neighborhood: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and KSA. Not a single Jeffersonian style democracy to be had.
This also fails to account for the element of an entire people who have been stewed and marinated in the toxic belief that Judeocide is perfectly acceptable.
Last point: Oslo (and two state solution) has utterly failed as a policy.
What is your alternative?
Well, since you have asked the question, and this is an occasionally libertarian blog (heh). This assumes the war is over, Israel won. Hamas is no more. I foresee Israel extending sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the years after the war. Meaning, the territories are no longer in dispute; it is Israel. If Lebanon, or Syria, or Jordan, or Egypt have a problem with it; they can take it up with Israel. Everyone becomes an Israeli citizen, after a brief transitional period. Israel is currently 70% Jewish, that 'palestinian' demographic bomb we heard so much about fizzled.
Post war, there are three groups to address. For the palestinians who just want to kill Jews (i.e. Hamas, PIJ, IJ, etc), there is no future for them. They will choose to fight it out and die violently. So be it, the world will be a better place without them.
There is a second group of palestinians who do not want to live under Israeli sovereignty, but are not interested in Judeocide. It is this group that must be reached, it is a large group.
A far more humane alternative for this second group of palestinians is to implement an incentivized, voluntary emigration program. Israel's GDP is 325B. Spending the equivalent over a decade to encourage palestinians to build better lives elsewhere is a non-violent alternative that will be on the table (post war).
The third group of palestinians are the ones who will enjoy better lives as Israelis. There will be far less corruption, crime. And orderly courts.
This blog's fans (and a couple of its Conspirators) have indicated that they believe incentivized, voluntary emigration programs are evil.
On the other hand, their partisan hypocrisy might incline them to embrace your proposal.
It is a completely non-violent alternative, Arthur. That would be better than what we have currently.
It's only completely non-violent if people accept it. You kind of neglected to address those who decline to voluntarily emigrate.
What would you think of offering every Israeli American citizenship?
It would be easier than trying to protect Israelis in current conditions; the immigrants would benefit America; and would enable America to stop subsidizing a government operated by belligerent right-wing theocrats.
Another thought: Admit Israel to statehood (with D.C., the Pacific Islands, and Puerto Rico, ideally).
David, then they stay in Israel, subject to Israeli law. After all, they would become Israeli citizens. = You kind of neglected to address those who decline to voluntarily emigrate.
If they want to join their Judeocidal brothers in group 1, they can make that choice. The point is, they don't have to be in group 1, they could choose to have rewarding lives elsewhere - on Israel's dime.
Seems reasonable to me. As long as it practically ends violence and instability in the region and everyone who chooses to stay is treated as an equal citizen within Israel.
If there is emigration, it should be, as you say, strictly voluntary. But there is also the question of where the emigrants will go. For that plan to work, you need third countries willing to agree to accept these proposed immigrants.
The palestinians would have money, and are industrious. I don't think countries in the region will turn away people who have money to invest into their economy.
Doesn't that drop below 50% if Israel includes Gaza and the West Bank?
A: It does not.
Are you sure?
'of an entire people who have been stewed and marinated in the toxic belief'
I doubt you have a clue what the average Gazan thinks about anything.
Open your eyes, what else do you think kids are taught in madrassas?
Whatever you claim they're taught to justify killing them and locking the survivors up in camps, I'm sure.
Another stupid and ill informed comment from Nige.
You wanted an example of one of your ill informed comments - this is just another in a long history.
Apparently Tom skipped all the comments supporting the bombing of Gaza and pondering the desireability of re-educating any survivors.
Nige - again demonstrating how ill informed he is on the subject matter.
Everyone is a settler and all major civilizations have resolved land disputes with violence.
That's why land acknowledgments and the like are so curious. Even the supposed original owner probably won it by conquest-- the Native tribes clashed with each other long before white-y showed up. More to the point, though, everybody lives on "stolen" land in that it changed sovereign hands via conquest at least one time. The North Sentinel Island might be an exception, seems like they really have lived there forever and nobody has taken them over, although of course there's the possibility they've had internal civil wars at some point. But that's about it...
This is correct.
However, in modern times, conquest of land is highly disfavored. Because human life is more important than land.
So, we want to mostly freeze borders where they are and find non-violent solutions to problems.
However, in modern times, conquest of land is highly disfavored. Because human life is more important than land.
Given the fact that wars over land are still very much a thing it's clear that the above is not a universally accepted view.
"That’s why land acknowledgments and the like are so curious."
It’s just America-haters getting their digs in. Like many leftist statements, there’s not much thought behind it.
Agreed... but that undercuts the claim of antisemitism.
Sure, Randal. ethnic cleansing of 7 million Jews has nothing to do with anti-Semitism
There are definitely people who think that the world would be better off without Israel and not because it’s predominantly Jewish.
Fine, I'll send an apology to all three of them
Israeli settlers drive Palestians off their land and take it over, and they've been doing it for years. It's not radical to think this is bad and should be reversed.
What about Gaza, where the Israeli government drove Israeli settlers off their land and gave it to the Palestinians? Should that be reversed?
Palestinians took the land from Jews and Christians before.
You cannot choose how far back we go in determining who "deserves" the land.
Hey, this post took four paragraphs before Blackman made it about himself.
And one sentence for you to demonstrate that he lives rent-free in your head?
Actually DMN commenting about Blackman's post in that post seems a pretty normal Internet commenting thing to do.
I agree.
I actually think it is OK for Blackman to talk about his personal experiences. Our perspective in life is ultimately partially driven by personal experiences whether we mention them or not.
Using the greatest massacre of Jews in recent human history to as a springboard to talk about how people were kind of mean to you once five years ago strikes me as in somewhat poor taste.
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2112840-rent-free
What is truly unnerving is the frenzied nature of people grabbing the mic, as if they can change what has already happened if they just react fast enough.
Where is Kirkland today? I popped into this thread just to see him ping Chemerinsky for bitterly clinging to traditional values.
I am where I customarily am -- winning the culture war, spotlighting this blog's right-wing bigotry, mocking the Volokh Conspiracy's faux libertarians, prevailing at the modern American marketplace of ideas, occasionally smacking around Trump lawyers, dancing with my grandchildren, etc.
You yam what you yam? I hope you're "Where you customarily" are,
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
Jerry Sandusky talking about "dancing with his grandchildren", I hope that's only in your (Wet) Dreams
Frank
You do not seem to be winning the culture war in Harvard or Berkeley.
Or are you?
He has amply demonstrated that his crusade against "bigotry" is highly selective. I am not at all sure he minds the antisemitic campaign on campuses. He may actually approve of it!
Antisemitism is disgusting. Celebrating Hamas is despicable.
Clingers who do not acknowledge that they have lost the modern American culture war -- after more than a half-century of liberal-libertarian American progress, shaped against conservatives' preferences and efforts -- are hopeless dopes.
According to this story
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12253931/amp/White-Berkeley-Law-dean-tells-class-illegally-discriminates-hiring-boost-diversity.html
Chemerinsky is a guy who engages in an illegal conspiracy to violate the California constitution. And he said he’d commit perjury if anyone asked him about it under oath.
Who cares about what someone like that says about anything else? Someone who would lie under oath would likely also lie in an editorial.
Here’s the video:
https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1674548940522549248
Do you think it is just virtue-signaling, Ben?
I am not going to make up a story about it being anything other than literally what the video shows.
It is a fair point.
And so skilfully, you can't even identify a single one of them.
This is fascinating. Dean Chemerinsky admitted "he illegally discriminates against potential hires to boost diversity."
In his op-ed, he says:
Hmmm... Might there be a connection between the increased "diversity" in the faculty and the student body (engineered by Dean Chemerinsky and likeminded college officials across the country) and the "stunning" level of antisemitism?
compare:
https://reason.com/2020/12/20/would-the-aclu-still-defend-nazis-right-to-march-in-skokie/?comments=true#comment-8649081
Day after day on a single campus (but on many campuses) we see professors making anti-zionism and even antisemitic statements, calling for the end of Israel, bringing in those statements to classrooms where that material would seem to be irrelevant and a derailment from the syllabus. And then encouraging students to participate in demonstrations.
How does the totality of that not amount to Title VI harassment?
How can a Jewish student who believes in Zionism, or has relatives in Israel possibly get her work done when she has to worry about repeated tauntings, name callings, shunning, protests and even violence?
At what point, how long or how extreme does this behavior have to recur before protected speech and academic freedom tip into Title VI harassment?
Considering we are talking about colleges I thought I’d throw this sickening thing out there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12685639/Fury-Oxford-educated-Pakistani-senator-hatefully-shares-photo-Hitler-tweets-world-knows-did-did-GazaGenocide-amid-Israeli-strikes-Hamas-targets-Palestine.html
“An Oxford-educated Pakistani senator sparked outrage today by sharing a photo of Adolf Hitler alongside the message ‘at least the world knows why he did what he did’ amid Israeli strikes on Hamas targets in Palestine.”
"Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now"
Read a fucking history book!
We have been here before, and supposedly said "never again!"
Well, this must be never.
History is meaningless to progressive narcissists. Their plans will succeed where historical efforts failed because they’re so much better and smarter than anyone else ever was. If you can’t see their greatness and the inevitability of their success, they’ll say you’re dumb or evil or both.
True. But it doesn't mean you're not dumb, evil or both.
'Their plans will succeed where historical efforts failed'
Ah, we remember the success of the plans that came about after a previous shocking terrorist atrocity resulted in the bombing of lots of civilians. Or not.
He only needed to look at the critical theory syllabi and ask "how else can this be applied" and he'd be prepared, let alone a cursory examination of the state of undergrad instructors and teachings. An ounce of intellect and forethought and he'd have seen this anytime in the last 20 years or so.
'Read a fucking history book!'
For all the choads endlessly whining about CRT this is quite the rallying cry.
College professors have supported the progressive left for years and ignored the path DEI and critical race theory was putting our country on. It's just a "theory being taught in colleges" not something actually acted upon they insisted. Now they act surprised the progressives are attacking someone other than the "right-wing conservatives" (THAT they were fine with). Our country is now being divided by the left's perception of who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor. Once you participate in creating the monster don't be surprised when it takes on a form that can no longer be controlled by the creator.
Perhaps nothing could have prepared Dean Chemerinski for what he finds on campuses today. Same, apparently, for CindyF.
You mean professors at strong research and teaching institutions, rather than the faculties on fourth-tier (or worse), nonsense-teaching, conservative-controlled campuses.
The professors at better schools tend to be educated, reasoning people (rather than superstitious culture war casualties) residing in successful, strong, modern communities (rather than can't-keep-up backwaters). Would anyone genuinely expect professors at strong schools to be conservatives, Republicans, bigots, or superstition-addled culture war roadkill?
This made me laugh out loud.
This fucking guy!
What are you talking about? You were called antisemitic. Every VC commenter here has been called antisemitic by someone even more pro-Israel than them. Being called antisemitic every day loses its sting after a while, just like being called racist constantly.
Trump supporters get called anti-semites. Leftist student groups who advocate killing Jews are not. I get the pattern here.
Yes they are. What fantasy grievance universe do you live in?
This may look like antisemitism but it is more likely the result of years of indoctrination in the various critical theories. Israelis are viewed as “white” and are therefore “oppressors.” This means that all the intersectional “oppressed” groups can pile on. Among these demonstrators are Jews and LGBT. This could only mean that the oppression binary dominates.
Spiked has it right:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/10/28/the-dangers-of-decolonisation/?utm_source=spiked+long-reads&utm_campaign=043d17316a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_10_29_10_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-043d17316a-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D
'Israelis are viewed as “white” and are therefore “oppressors.”'
Israel is a wealthy country with a large military and nuclear capabilities and has been occupying a vastly weaker and impoverished disputed territory for decades now.
How do people not notice this?
Partisanship. Substandard education. Reliance on fairy tales rather than reason. Ignorance. etc. etc. etc.
No reason anti-Semitism can't be the result of years of indoctrination in various critical theories. The various critical theories are propaganda weapons of movements that are, themselves, anti-Semitic.
We're going full Qanon with this one, with 'anti-semitism' instead of 'pedophiles' and about the same real interest in actual anti-semitism and child welfare.
Are you insinuating the Brett Bellmore is an especially gullible, stridently partisan conspiracy theorist?
Why not both? Your Doug Stokes article doesn't posit that critical theory has a significant strain of anti-antisemitism.
https://sapirjournal.org/social-justice/2021/05/critical-race-theory-and-the-hyper-white-jew/
Right below this post, I get as "Recommended" from Reason: Berkeley Law's "Jew-Free Zone" Controversy
Some Berkeley Law "Jew Free Zone" Updates
This controversy erupted last year, when Erwin was dean. While he criticized the student groups involved, he also treated it as a mere difference of opinion, as if the student groups didn't quite realize they were acting as antisemites. He also publicly minimized the issue, writing that it only involved a handful of student groups, not acknowledging that this "handful" included almost all of the identity groups at his law school, and were among the most active student groups.
So: I'm glad Erwin wrote this, but when he says that nothing prepared him for what's been happening, I gotta say that what's been happening at his own law school should have prepared him.
Prof. Bernstein's objection to bigotry could be a good sign. Maybe he eventually will begin to object to this blog's rampant right-wing racism, conservative gay-bashing, Republican misogyny, red state immigrant-hating, right-wing Islamophobia, conservative white supremacy, everyday transphobia . . . or even try to stop the Volokh Conspiracy's attraction of right-wing bigots as a target audience.
Until then . . . carry on, clingers.
RFRA is Religious Freedom Restoration Act
It is a generally accepted practice to use an acronym only after using the fully expanded phrase it represents, that is not done in this article.
Hmmmm. Kudos to whoever invented a way for people to hate on Jews while believing they were hating on Israeli policies, with a clear conscience.
Some look in the mirror and believe themselves still pure. Nevermind. Your internal mental state was irrelevant. The goal was achieved, and you were played like a song.
People who do not object to Israel's longstanding right-wing belligerence -- immoral, violent, superstition-laced, bigoted -- are lousy people.
Better people dislike Israel's misconduct -- and in particular, object to subsidizing it -- and despise Hamas.
Convicted Pedofile Jerry Sandusky calling me "Lousy"??
I'll take it.
Frank "That's "DR" Right-Wing Belligerent Immoral Violent..bla bla bla bla"
"Before and after Dobbs, I wrote about Jewish people raising RFRA objections to abortion laws. I fully expected that I would be attacked for my views. Critics would say I am wrong about RFRA, wrong about Jewish teachings on abortion, and wrong to suggest that some people raising these claims are insincere. What I didn't expect was the claim that I was an anti-semite."
If I recall correctly, the criticism came because Prof. Blackman (who has supported numerous questionable RFRA claims in other circumstances) decided that, on this occasion, he would take it upon himself to determine who was, and wasn't, a "real Jew" for purposes of deciding the tenets of the religion.
This doesn't excuse any anti-Semitism, but I don't know that I would lump this in with the other issues.
compare:
https://alphanews.org/umd-med-student-objects-to-very-existence-of-catholic-group-on-campus/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10819781/Yale-Law-Students-Leah-Fessler-Melisa-Olgun-call-ostracizing-conservative-classmates.html
You call for "unrelenting daily confrontation" with fellow students, just because they happen to belong to a group whose politics you don't share -- and they are supposed to be the fascists?!
compare:
A couple of years ago, Slate published an article about how “Black Georgetown Law students” are being horribly mistreated by the law school administration. For example (quoting one of the students):
“They let Fed[eralist] Soc[iety] run amok … hosting insensitive events,” such as an event about “a multi-ethnic working class conservatism” hosted by three white men.
Oh, the horror!
I’d say it’s the complaining “Black Georgetown Law students,” who’re trying to get the law school to suppress talks they don’t like, that are being intolerant and fascist-like.
Exactly right. Are you listening, Queen Almathea?
"Anti-semitism is as old as civilization itself."
Actually, anti-semitism is as old as the jewish behavior that provokes it.
1: We didn't kill your make believe Surpreme Zombie-Being, it was Pompous Pilot and the Romans
2: Even if we did, wasn't that the whole point of His coming to Earth?
3: "Jewish Behavior that Provokes it" OK, sorry I'm good looking, witty, smart, and rich, that's a you problem.
Frank
What is "wokeness" all about if not a quest for power / freedom to use arbitrary double standards -- to protect / advance certain (favored) groups, while ignoring (if not denigrating) other (disfavored) groups' rights? "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Islam - a cult of conquest, subjugation, and brutality akin to Demunists.