Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[Left Coast]

And likewise. I am giving my opinion, and trying to explain why it's my opinion. What exactly are you trying to do, here?
So you think they are beholding to you in some way?

This is a website where people discuss current events and political issues. Even ones that don't directly affect us.

Do I really have to explain that to you, Pure?

Really?

I don't pretend to have all the information about the situation. I've repeatedly said that throughout the thread. It's you who came in all dogmatic like a wrecking ball making demonstrably false assertions. Don't feign offense when others push back on that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The state as it exists today -- autonomous and self-governing

... and oppressing Palestinians. Seem reasonable to me to object to that.

And if Zionism means support for all that, then it seems reasonable to me to oppose Zionism.

I would assume so, along with being against many, many nation states, as many are predicated on the right to self-rule by one group or another.

... though how much that expression of nationalism means infringing on the rights of state residents not considered part of the "nation" varies considerably.

From my perspective, Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people isn't as bad as, say, Myanmar's oppression of the Rohingya, but I can't think of anyone opposed to what Israel is doing who doesn't also oppose what Myanmar is doing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

None of us do, and it's none of our business, anyway.

So, your position is, roughly:

I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm sticking to it!

 

[rosends]

... and oppressing Palestinians. Seem reasonable to me to object to that.

That is a matter of your perception of things beyond the existence. You asked a question about what the word means, not how its policies sit with you.

And if Zionism means support for all that, then it seems reasonable to me to oppose Zionism.

And what if it doesn't necessarily mean that? And what if you can't be sure what exactly it means because it could be one or the other?

 

[Revoltingest]

But, as you've clarified, all Zionists are bad guys.

A better way to look at it, hopefully the view
of the student groups doing the banning...
Zionism is bad, so they won't host speakers
advocating it. Whether each individual
zionist is a bad guy...a more complex matter.

 

[rosends]

A better way to look at it, hopefully the view
of the student groups doing the banning...
Zionism is bad, so they won't host speakers
advocating it. Whether each individual
zionist is a bad guy...a more complex matter.

Which version of Zionism is bad?

What if the speaker is an expert on an unrelated topic which is relevant to the group? Would they invoke an unrelated past affiliation to stop themselves from hearing from an expert on a locally important topic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what if it doesn't necessarily mean that? And what if you can't be sure what exactly it means because it could be one or the other

All right - we'll try again, then:

What meaning of "zionist" do you think they were missing and that should be seen as okay?

I asked you once to give a meaning of "Zionist" that shouldn't be seen as objectionable. Giving you extreme benefit of the doubt that your last try wasn't the best you can do, I'll ask you again to provide one.

 

[rosends]

I asked you once to give a meaning of "Zionist" that shouldn't be seen as objectionable. Giving you extreme benefit of the doubt that your last try wasn't the best you can do, I'll ask you again to provide one.

You asked about a meaning of Zionist that they are missing, that should be seen as OK.
I'm not sure what that means. There are a variety of meanings and it is up to them to explain which one they mean.

As it stands they provide no definition so I can't judge what they are missing. Also, what do you mean by "OK"? Are you asking me for a definition which would make their decision to ban someone because of his affiliation with a group a reasonable course of action? If I am a scholar on Shakespeare and I want to speak in front of a group of law students about Hamlet and the legal implications in the play, are you looking for any definition of "Zionist" which would be an acceptable reason for them to ban me? I can't think of one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You asked about a meaning of Zionist that they are missing, that should be seen as OK.
I'm not sure what that means. There are a variety of meanings and it is up to them to explain which one they mean.

As it stands they provide no definition so I can't judge what they are missing. Also, what do you mean by "OK"? Are you asking me for a definition which would make their decision to ban someone because of his affiliation with a group a reasonable course of action? If I am a scholar on Shakespeare and I want to speak in front of a group of law students about Hamlet and the legal implications in the play, are you looking for any definition of "Zionist" which would be an acceptable reason for them to ban me? I can't think of one.

This whole tangent started because - as I understand it - you were worried that an unqualified ban on "Zionists" would exclude speakers that shouldn't be excluded.

I've been trying to figure out what sort of people would fit in that category of wrongfully-excluded people in order to decide if you have a point with your objection.

So far, my feeling is that despite the fact that "Zionist" can be taken a few ways, I can't think of any ways to take it where my reaction to those people not being allowed to speak to a student club isn't "yeah - that's fine."

... so if you have some case where this wouldn't be fine, I'm interested to hear what it might be.

 

[Wirey]

Oppose religion? Go nuts. Tell people not to discuss God? Just nuts. Hating an idea isn't grounds for silencing those who don't. If it is, say goodbye to the civil rights movement.

Oppose Zionism? Go nuts. Tell someone they can't talk about Zionism? Just nuts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've been trying to figure out what sort of people would fit in that category of wrongfully-excluded people in order to decide if you have a point with your objection.

How very convenient. Is there a particular reason why you would prefer not to clearly identify "what sort of people would fit in that category of justifiably-excluded people"? Or do you maintain the "those Zionist types" is a sufficient characterization?

 

[rosends]

This whole tangent started because - as I understand it - you were worried that an unqualified ban on "Zionists" would exclude speakers that shouldn't be excluded.

I've been trying to figure out what sort of people would fit in that category of wrongfully-excluded people in order to decide if you have a point with your objection.

So far, my feeling is that despite the fact that "Zionist" can be taken a few ways, I can't think of any ways to take it where my reaction to those people not being allowed to speak to a student club isn't "yeah - that's fine."

... so if you have some case where this wouldn't be fine, I'm interested to hear what it might be.

I wouldn't be fine with a second amendment scholar being banned from talking about guns and gun laws and their impact on the Asian community because in the past she has expressed support for the existence of the state of Israel. Would you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wouldn't be fine with a second amendment scholar being banned from talking about guns and gun laws and their impact on the Asian community because in the past she has expressed support for the existence of the state of Israel. Would you?

And, the other side of the coin is the sad fact that "no support for the existence of the state of Israel" rapidly translates into militant support for its eradication. And a major contributing factor is the many who are convinced that the Jews are just crying wolf because 'it' could never happen again, and are more that willing to bet our lives on it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wouldn't be fine with a second amendment scholar being banned from talking about guns and gun laws and their impact on the Asian community because in the past she has expressed support for the existence of the state of Israel. Would you?

Sure I would.

There are plenty of experts who can speak on Second Amendment issues, and the aim of a university student club that's trying to book guest speakers for their events is never "can we find a speaker with expertise in precisely (insert nuancey, arcane sub-discipline)?" it's "can we find a speaker who's knowledgeable, interesting, and relevant to what our members want to learn about?"

There are plenty of speakers who fit that bill even if every Zionist is excluded.

... and if enough of the club membership ever feels differently, the club can amend its bylaws.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which version of Zionism is bad?

In an earlier post I said the violent, thieving, oppressive kind.

What if the speaker is an expert on an unrelated topic which is relevant to the group? Would they invoke an unrelated past affiliation to stop themselves from hearing from an expert on a locally important topic?

I'm only addressing the groups' right to
exclude speakers...not whether they're
doing the right thing. (I disapprove.)

 

[PureX]

So, your position is, roughly:

I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm sticking to it!

And your position is let's not address the probable cause by any means or insults possible. Got it.

 

[rosends]

Sure I would.

There are plenty of experts who can speak on Second Amendment issues, and the aim of a university student club that's trying to book guest speakers for their events is never "can we find a speaker with expertise in precisely (insert nuancey, arcane sub-discipline)?" it's "can we find a speaker who's knowledgeable, interesting, and relevant to what our members want to learn about?"

There are plenty of speakers who fit that bill even if every Zionist is excluded.

... and if enough of the club membership ever feels differently, the club can amend its bylaws.

If you can book a Supreme Court justice to talk to law students but don't because said justice supports the existence of Israel and you can "get some other speaker" then you are doing a disservice to the legal education the students could get.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you can book a Supreme Court justice to talk to law students but don't because said justice supports the existence of Israel and you can "get some other speaker" then you are doing a disservice to the legal education the students could get.

This seems like a very elaborate fantasy scenario you've created for yourself.

... but just to play along, I would say that letting students witness their club executive prioritize ethics and principles ahead of the prospect of landing a high-profile guest speaker would be more valuable lesson for them than anything that high profile guest speaker could say to them if they caved.

 

[rosends]

This seems like a very elaborate fantasy scenario you've created for yourself.

Why is that? Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave many speeches (including at Berkley Law) and was a Zionist. If the "Women of Berkley Law" group turned down booking her because of that then they would be missing out.

... but just to play along, I would say that letting students witness their club executive prioritize ethics and principles ahead of the prospect of landing a high-profile guest speaker would be more valuable lesson for them than anything that high profile guest speaker could say to them if they caved.

If you think so...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is that? Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave many speeches (including at Berkley Law) and was a Zionist. If the "Women of Berkley Law" group turned down booking her because of that then they would be missing out.

I think there are other reasons besides the club's bylaws why Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be speaking to any Berkeley student clubs any time soon.

If you think so...

I do.