Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[Left Coast]

I think part of the issue seems to be the term "zionist" itself. For example, I believe in Israel's right to exist as a state, but I would not call or consider myself a zionist. Most people I know use the term zionist to refer to people who support the state of Israel in the sense of supporting THEM in their conflict with Palestine. In the same way that I wouldn't call myself a "supporter of Russia" in the context of the Ukraine war just because I support Russia's right to exist as a nation. In this context, to say I "support Russia" indicates some support for Russia's actions in Ukraine, not solely supporting the sovereign right of the state of Russia to exist. In the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict, to say you are a "zionist" to me indicates more than mere support of the right of the state of Israel to exist, but of an implied agreement with Israeli foreign policy, flauting of international law, and the continued persecution of the Paelstinian people in aid of the state of Israel.

This may just be a linguistic difference in how the term is used versus how it is broadly defined.

Yes that's the issue, we're not sure how the term Zionist is being applied by these groups. Zionism originally meant (as I understand it) support for the establishment of the state of Israel. But it has become a word, particularly on the Left, that signifies more than that. But it's not clear from the bylaw whether it would also include that idea.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is NOT the criteria for being a Zionist.

Please post a photo-copy of your Word Police badge so that I might determine its relevancy. In the meantrime, refrain from characterizing me and those like me as genocidal violence promoters.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think part of the issue seems to be the term "zionist" itself. For example, I believe in Israel's right to exist as a state, but I would not call or consider myself a zionist.

So you would oppose those that would restrict access to self proclaimed Zionist organizations like J-Street. Good. What about organizations that refuse to support Israel's right to exist?

 

[rosends]

Few people would dispute that Israel has a right to exist.

Unfortunately, this is not accurate. In fact, entire political parties and huge groups of people advocate the removal of the entire state of Israel. They proclaim "from the river to the sea" which is the entirety of Israel. They have a nationalistic image which has the entire map of the state of Israel rebranded as not-Israel.

And strangely, many of those against the existence of the state of Israel cite Jewish groups which are against the political state (which includes people of all religions, throughout its hierarchy) but which favor a religious/theocratic Israel which would not give any presence or power to non-Jews. Those against the state don't really understand the position of those they align with.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately, this is not accurate. In fact, entire political parties and huge groups of people advocate the removal of the entire state of Israel. They proclaim "from the river to the sea" which is the entirety of Israel. They have a nationalistic image which has the entire map of the state of Israel rebranded as not-Israel.

I've never met or seen or heard of a one. I think you've fallen into a "victim syndrome". I don;t doubt there are Arabs that would like to see Israel gone, but that's to be expected since they were displaced to create the state of Israel. Other then that, however, there seems t be little opposition. I mean, there are probably native Americans that would like to see the U.S., gone. That's not surprising.

And strangely, many of those against the existence of the state of Israel cite Jewish groups which are against the political state (which includes people of all religions, throughout its hierarchy) but which favor a religious/theocratic Israel which would not give any presence or power to non-Jews. Those against the state don't really understand the position of those they align with.

It's that last part that most other people are against.

 

[PureX]

Please post a photo-copy of your Word Police badge so that I might determine its relevancy. In the meantrime, refrain from characterizing me and those like me as genocidal violence promoters.

If you want to understand the issue, you're going to have to accept the reasons why the issue is a issue. And this is the reason.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you would oppose those that would restrict access to self proclaimed Zionist organizations like J-Street.

I wouldn't call them zionists. Even their website seems to indicate that they knowingly and deliberately use an uncommon definition of the term:

"The term Zionism may be controversial for some, but I have no hesitation in saying that I am a Zionist – viewing the term to mean recognition of the collective right of the Jewish people to national self-determination in the land of Israel, no more and no less."
Source: J Street, Zionism and BDS - J Street: The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans

I would like to think that when people talk about restricting access to zionist sources, they would be willing to at least verify the policies of organisations like J Street before making the judgement as to whether or not they align with how they use the term.

Good. What about organizations that refuse to support Israel's right to exist?

I'm against them.

I was just pointing out that the term "zionist" tends to be used with more specific meaning that merely someone who supports Israel's right to exist, so when somebody says something like "I dislike zionists" it's important to understand exactly what THEY are referring to when they use the term.

 

[rosends]

I've never met or seen or heard of a one. I think you've fallen into a "victim syndrome". I don;t doubt there are Arabs that would like to see Israel gone, but that's to be expected since they were displaced to create the state of Israel. Other then that, however, there seems t be little opposition. I mean, there are probably native Americans that would like to see the U.S., gone. That's not surprising.
It's that last part that most other people are against.

I would suggest that you have heard of them.
This is the hamas symbol - note the image top center
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Hamas_%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3_logo.svg/1200px-Hamas_%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3_logo.svg.png

That's all of Israel. Hamas, not a little opposition.

 

[PureX]

I would suggest that you have heard of them.
This is the hamas symbol - note the image top center
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Hamas_%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3_logo.svg/1200px-Hamas_%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3_logo.svg.png

That's all of Israel. Hamas, not a little opposition.

What does this have to do with Zionist speakers at Berkeley?

Of course it's about propagandizing America's future movers and shakers. And justifying ethnic purging in Israel and in whatever land it chooses to annex. Lawyers often become politicians in this country, after all.

 

[rosends]

What does this have to do with Zionist speakers at Berkeley?

Of course it's about propagandizing America's future movers and shakers. And justifying ethnic purging in Israel and in whatever land it chooses to annex. Lawyers often become politicians in this country, after all.

I don't know if it does or doesn't other than it calls into question the uncertainty of the definition intended when the various groups employ the term "zionist" without qualification or explanation.

 

[PureX]

I don't know if it does or doesn't other than it calls into question the uncertainty of the definition intended when the various groups employ the term "zionist" without qualification or explanation.

What matters is that THEY know what they mean. We're just back-seat driving, here.

 

[rosends]

What matters is that THEY know what they mean. We're just back-seat driving, here.

I'm suggesting that they don't know what they mean and until they are clear about their intent, I can't think otherwise. For a bunch of law students, imprecision of language is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Stevicus]

I've never met or seen or heard of a one. I think you've fallen into a "victim syndrome". I don;t doubt there are Arabs that would like to see Israel gone, but that's to be expected since they were displaced to create the state of Israel. Other then that, however, there seems t be little opposition. I mean, there are probably native Americans that would like to see the U.S., gone. That's not surprising.
It's that last part that most other people are against.

One thing I've noticed in observing the ongoing argument over this issue is that it often seems a matter of "who started it" more than a "victim syndrome." After WW2, when certain European powers realized they no longer had the ability to hold on to territories and colonies in far-flung empires, they started the process of granting independence to these territories. And this also entailed drawing the boundaries and deciding who gets what. They did this in Africa, with India/Pakistan, and in the Middle East. And in typical Western colonial fashion, they screwed it all up and left these regions in a rather chaotic situation - economically and politically.

With Israel, there's also the fact that the territory is considered very important to Christians, as Christians have fought to gain control of it as well. This makes Israel somewhat unique in the geopolitical perceptions of Westerners. Some Christians even see it as having a role in Bible prophecy.

Setting aside the religious and historical significance of the territory, one can also look at the overall layout of the Middle East and see that the Arabic-speaking Muslim nations cover vast areas, from Morocco to the Persian Gulf, while Israel is smaller in size than some U.S. counties.

As to your point about Native Americans, I don't think their issue was that they didn't want to share the land. But as Geronimo once wondered "Why do you have to take ALL the land?" There's enough to go around, enough for everyone to share, yet throughout history, there have been those with the propensity to kill everybody and take everything for themselves.

 

[PureX]

One thing I've noticed in observing the ongoing argument over this issue is that it often seems a matter of "who started it" more than a "victim syndrome." After WW2, when certain European powers realized they no longer had the ability to hold on to territories and colonies in far-flung empires, they started the process of granting independence to these territories. And this also entailed drawing the boundaries and deciding who gets what. They did this in Africa, with India/Pakistan, and in the Middle East. And in typical Western colonial fashion, they screwed it all up and left these regions in a rather chaotic situation - economically and politically.

With Israel, there's also the fact that the territory is considered very important to Christians, as Christians have fought to gain control of it as well. This makes Israel somewhat unique in the geopolitical perceptions of Westerners. Some Christians even see it as having a role in Bible prophecy.

Setting aside the religious and historical significance of the territory, one can also look at the overall layout of the Middle East and see that the Arabic-speaking Muslim nations cover vast areas, from Morocco to the Persian Gulf, while Israel is smaller in size than some U.S. counties.

As to your point about Native Americans, I don't think their issue was that they didn't want to share the land. But as Geronimo once wondered "Why do you have to take ALL the land?" There's enough to go around, enough for everyone to share, yet throughout history, there have been those with the propensity to kill everybody and take everything for themselves.

With humans, it's more about control then actual possession. They'll let you own whatever you want, so long as they retain control over it.

Zionism is all about control, ... and ownership ... by Jews only.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wouldn't call them zionists. Even their website seems to indicate that they knowingly and deliberately use an uncommon definition of the term:

"The term Zionism may be controversial for some, but I have no hesitation in saying that I am a Zionist – viewing the term to mean recognition of the collective right of the Jewish people to national self-determination in the land of Israel, no more and no less."
Source: J Street, Zionism and BDS - J Street: The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans

On what basis do you assert this to be an "uncommon definition of the term"? More importantly, is it an illegitimate definition of the term?

FWIW, more than once I have recommended Howard M. Sachar's

A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time​

To the best of my knowledge, not a single RF member has shown an interest, much less taken the time, to do so.

I would like to think that when people talk about restricting access to zionist sources, they would be willing to at least verify the policies of organisations like J Street before making the judgement as to whether or not they align with how they use the term.

I would as well. Sadly, I've yet to see any evidence of this being the case, and I monitor a number of relevant news sources on a daily basis.

 

[rosends]

Zionism is all about control, ... and ownership ... by Jews only.

so you mean I and all of my community have been doing it wrong for a whole bunch of years? I would say that my position on what Zionism is (as an ardent Zionist) is a bit more authoritative than your summary, and my position and understanding are not in line with your claim.

 

[PureX]

so you mean I and all of my community have been doing it wrong for a whole bunch of years? I would say that my position on what Zionism is (as an ardent Zionist) is a bit more authoritative than your summary, and my position and understanding are not in line with your claim.

You're trying to argue semantics. And this isn't about semantics. No one cares what label is being used. It's the ideology that is being banned. And it's the ideology that is at issue. Call that ideology "Frank" for all I care. It's still ethnic cleansing by whatever label you put on it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On what basis do you assert this to be an "uncommon definition of the term"? More importantly, is it an illegitimate definition of the term?

Nah. I don't think there is such a thing as an illegitimate definition - and from this thread alone I can see that there are quite a varied number of definitions of the term. It's just not the way I understand and use the term.

FWIW, more than once I have recommended Howard M. Sachar's

A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time​

To the best of my knowledge, not a single RF member has shown an interest, much less taken the time, to do so.

I'd be interested. Any particular theses you like from it?

 

[rosends]

You're trying to argue semantics. And this isn't about semantics. No one cares what label is being used. It's the ideology that is being banned. And it's the ideology that is at issue. Call that ideology "Frank" for all I care. It's still ethnic cleansing by whatever label you put on it.

Actually, this is precisely about semantics. You have decided the meaning of a word but I don't agree that your definition is proper. The people who used the word in a by law have not taken a stand on which meaning applies so how can their edict be understood? They don't well identify an ideology distinct from another -- they use a label and don't explain which version of the label they mean. If they mean "ethnic cleansing" then they would have to confront the demographic evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

so you mean I and all of my community have been doing it wrong for a whole bunch of years?

Somehow we never manage to sway those who never allow evidence to unsettle their stereotypes.