How pervasive is antisemitism on US campuses? A look at the language of the protests (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Habahnow@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Article is very interesting and talks about the mix of goals in regards to the protests, and how speech negatively and positively helps accomplish those goals.

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 56 points 6 months ago

Those are some very well spoken college students representing the protests.

I'd also really like media to start demanding evidence of the claims of bald antisemitism. There are cameras everywhere, and these slogans are supposedly being shouted. You'd think they'd be pretty well documented and not just something you need to trust a claim on. A Jewish girl getting harassed in a corridor, sure, that just has to go on trust, but protesters chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab” should have some video of it. Don't just trust an Israeli professor who was with the counter protesters will relay totally accurate protest quotes.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 38 points 6 months ago

I'd also really like media to start demanding evidence of the claims of bald antisemitism

This is the worst part about reading/hearing about these stories in the news. Really early in this cycle, I heard a story on NPR where they interviewed a student at Columbia who talked about the pain and death happening in Gaza, and then they said, "but some people say the protests are anti-semitic," and they proceeded to interview a woman who was not a student and had not been to campus who said "I feel attacked."

There was absolutely no follow up on what was anti-semitic about what was happening, it was just taken at face-value that that woman saying it was anti-semitic made it so. I actually cancelled my $5/mo NPR contribution after that story

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

For real, I've heard some recordings, and the only similar thing I heard was "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free".

I think it's important to note as well, nearly ALL chants in most protests rhyme, so "... sea, Palestine will be Arab" just doesn't sound like something anyone would be saying.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 6 months ago

Yeah, just doesn't seem like a real chant, even if it weren't pretty unambiguously calling for ethnic cleansing. It does seem like something an pro-Israeli interviewee might try to say was what "Palestine will be free" means though.

[-] AnAnonymous@lemm.ee 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Antizionism isn't antisemitism, The premise is false.

[+] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works -11 points 6 months ago

Could you expand on that?

[-] AnAnonymous@lemm.ee 33 points 6 months ago

Being against Zionism is not the same as being anti-Semitic, anti-Semitism is a type of racial/religious discrimination, and anti-Zionism is being against the Jewish fascist elite not because they are Jews but because they are fascists.

The American media is deliberately confusing the population with the term anti-Semitism referring to anti-Zionism. mainly because mentioning the term anti-Semitic has a strong reaction from the American audience. and because obviously the American elite and the Jewish elite are very good friends.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Netanyahu is the primary source of that, before it even gets to western media. He repeatedly uses antisemitism as a defense of any criticism of his actions, or the actions of the IDF, and he’s been doing it for a long time. I know many American Jews that resent him for it.

[-] AnAnonymous@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It is the way in which fascism has operated throughout history and even more so in modern times with the mass media, they tend to hide their regimes under facades to act as victims while being victimizers.

They have been using these types of strategies for decades, for example the name of Trump's social network, "Truth Social" is just another facade to organize fascist groups and their agenda as well as everything that ideology entails.

[-] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

There are non-Zionist Jews.

There ya go. Expanded. Done. QED.

[-] pearable@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

The existence of Israel as a state has an antisemitic history. Britain, created Israel so Jews would have a place to go. So Britain wouldn't have to take them. The reaction should not have been let's create a place where Jews can be expelled to. We should have ensured refugees of all kind had places to go no matter where they came from. We should have made societies that Jews could feel safe in. Instead we created a people without a land.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

But doesn't this article also say that some Jewish people liked the idea of being near "their" holy land? I guess what I'm saying, wasn't this an option convenient for both sides? Britain doesn't want a lot/any Jewish people, but also, many Jewish people want to have their own land in current day Israel. Britain's reasons are antisemitic, but they also didn't force Jewish people to live in current day Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[-] pearable@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

You're not wrong, but that doesn't contradict what I said. Just because some Jews are willing to take anti-semetically motivated help doesn't make that help not anti-semetic. The added effect on diaspora Jews is destabilizing as well. Every antisemite can justify abuse by telling people just to go to Israel.

This is a tangent but, a common belief is that Jews needed an ethnically Jewish state in Palestine in order to live there. That is not true. Jewish folks have lived in that area continuously for millennia. In a lot of ways Zionism is a power grab. It's a way to grab land to get rich in a speculative land market. It's not dissimilar from how the genocide of indigenous peoples played out in the United States.

[-] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 20 points 6 months ago

Most of the media works for war. They want to see flags and make enemies. They don't want to report on people speaking up for basic rights in solidarity with other people against the machinery and "inevitably" of war.

Btw, I support the Guardian with a small monthly donation, and if you have the means I ask you to consider it

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's clear to me reading this that if people really want to further humanitarian concerns over the Palestinian civilians they should avoid the literal tribalism around the topic and the false dichotomy of 'sides.'

It would be a lot harder to criticize a protest branded as a "pro-civilian" protest that simultaneously called out the human rights abuses on the Palestinian people and the Israeli hostages.

That asked the university to divest from any investments funding either Hamas or Likud as long as either were carrying out war crimes against civilians. Yes, in one of those two cases it's a moot request, but by requesting both it furthers the comparison and similarities between the two and their extremist methods.

It would also give no cover to extremist voices calling for the destruction or harm of civilians on the "other side" of the conflict (as sampled in the article). It's no safe space for pro-Palestinian voices calling for the killing of Israeli citizens nor for pro-Israel voices calling for (or turning a blind eye to) the bombing of the Palestinian civilians. True antisemites or Islamophobes would have no safe harbor there.

It takes the conversation from being about two opposing political sides to the 'sides' of "protect civilians" or "kill civilians" which is a position that's incredibly hard to justify being on the other side of no matter one's political beliefs.

And as has been discussed in various literature about the importance of reconciliation, it creates the space for victims of violence against civilians and secondary trauma in this conflict to feel their trauma can be heard without facing minimization to justify the trauma of the other political side - something that's been happening far too much on both of the current sides of this discussion.

Disavowing violence against civilians should not be a political statement, and it being packaged as such is clearly a huge factor in how that message is being subverted and suppressed. Even the way Finkelstein straight up gave a messaging shift that would have improved the success of the core message he's been supporting for years before this and then immediately had someone lead a chant of the very message he pointed out as undermining the narrative was ridiculous. Polarizing messaging might find solace in either a "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israel" protest, but wouldn't be a good fit for a "pro-civilian" protest.

It would also be nearly impossible to brand a counter-protest to. What the hell do you call yourself if you are protesting against "pro-civilians"? The "pro-authoritarian" protest?

As long as the call for humanitarianism is wrapped up and divided into political sides and literal ethnic tribalism I have a feeling that the call is going to continue to get ignored and suppressed while local tribalistic tensions and conflict becomes more and more center stage instead. It might be smart to rebrand the messaging where the focus on humanitarianism is center stage and the only 'tribe' being championed is 'human.'

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

If it’s antisemitic to protest against Zionism, then it’s Islamophobic to protest those against the genocide in Gaza.

[-] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 4 points 6 months ago

I couldn't agree more with the quotes in the article from Jamil Mohamad and Jared. As I was reading them, in my head I was saying: THIS

this post was submitted on 04 May 2024

78 points (87.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers

3164 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News