Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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

 

[PureX]

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.

I don't care what you think the word means. I'm telling you why the people being attached to that term by those student groups are being banned. You want to fight about the word because you don't want to address the issue. And the issue is the ethnic cleansing of the state of Israel. It doesn't matter what we call those who support it. It is their speaking in support of it that is being banned.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Even if that was the case (and I'm not saying it is), they only seem to want to control a tiny sliver of land.

But it is a human problem. I've seen the pictures and read the stories about the conditions the Palestinians are facing in Gaza and the West Bank, and I would not defend the actions of the Israeli government any more than I would defend the U.S. government under similar circumstances.

But it seems that a lot of people are suffering and living in pretty crappy conditions and need assistance. It's pretty sad and disheartening, and it gives one a feeling of powerlessness, whenever one sees situations where people are in these dismal, hopeless positions. For much of my life, for decades, I've seen the news about all the various peace talks and conferences and discussions about what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the larger issue about peace in the Middle East. But there's never any real lasting peace, just occasional lulls in the fighting.

As for the West, we supply the lawyers, guns, and money. Our own governments are not entirely innocent bystanders here, as we've been meddling as well. I can sort of understand that these Berkeley students might be motivated by the overall cause of global justice and human rights - which I also support. But in targeting the various sources of global injustice, the question still remains, is Zionism a valid target, in and of itself? Does Zionism cause injustice, or is it just certain right-wing politicians, both in Israel and the US?

 

[Left Coast]

I don't care what you think the word means. I'm telling you why the people being attached to that term by those student groups are being banned. You want to fight about the word because you don't want to address the issue. And the issue is the ethnic cleansing of the state of Israel. It doesn't matter what we call those who support it. It is their speaking in support of it that is being banned.

Even the bylaws don't refer to ethnic cleansing, so what in the hell are you talking about?

The issue is that it's not clear whether support for the existence of Israel is included in their definition of Zionism. Does it? Do you support Israel's right to exist?

 

[rosends]

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

If they mean "Political Zionist" then they are talking about people who are in favor of the existence of the political state
a "religious Zionist" is different from a "messianic religious zionist". None of it has anything to do with an attitude about the political system, parties or policies of the state. The word has to do with the nationalistic autonomy manifested by an independent country.

 

[rosends]

I don't care what you think the word means. I'm telling you why the people being attached to that term by those student groups are being banned. You want to fight about the word because you don't want to address the issue. And the issue is the ethnic cleansing of the state of Israel. It doesn't matter what we call those who support it. It is their speaking in support of it that is being banned.

I don't care what you think the word means. Definitions exist regardless of your opinion. People are being labeled because it is an example of sloppy and loose thought. You want to rely on that same loose thinking because it is easy, in the same way that you want to invoke historical and statistical inaccuracies.

 

[PureX]

Even if that was the case (and I'm not saying it is), they only seem to want to control a tiny sliver of land.

But it is a human problem. I've seen the pictures and read the stories about the conditions the Palestinians are facing in Gaza and the West Bank, and I would not defend the actions of the Israeli government any more than I would defend the U.S. government under similar circumstances.

It's not just Gaza and the West Bank. It's all of Israel and Jerusalem, too. The "Zionists" (I am calling them this because I believe it's who these students are referring to in their ban) want all of these to be solely in Jewish hands and under Jewish rule. And that means the Palestinians still there will have to either leave or be willing to live as subjugated, second class citizens.

As for the West, we supply the lawyers, guns, and money. Our own governments are not entirely innocent bystanders here, as we've been meddling as well. I can sort of understand that these Berkeley students might be motivated by the overall cause of global justice and human rights - which I also support. But in targeting the various sources of global injustice, the question still remains, is Zionism a valid target, in and of itself? Does Zionism cause injustice, or is it just certain right-wing politicians, both in Israel and the US?

The Israelis have been riding the corrupt U.S. legislature bandwagon for many decades. Big campaign contributions go to those legislators that vote for big military aid packages for Israel, and that helps to make sure that the U.S. doesn't start decrying human rights violations by the Israelis. And some of these Berkley students are going to find their way onto that corruption band-wagon, eventually. So I have little doubt that they are a constant target for the Zionist propagandists.

Not all Israelis and certainly not all Jews want to see an all-Jewish and exclusively Jewish state. But many do. And some are willing to go to extremes to make it so.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I see zionism as what is practiced, not what various
people say it is or should be. It's history is riddled
with thievery, oppression, & violence.
Whether Israel has a right to exist (where it is) isn't
an issue to me. It (like Taiwan) currently exists &
won't go away, despite all the things said about it.
So existence is a given.
Zionism has it's been practiced & is practiced is
the problem. Separate that issue from existence,
& perhaps discussion can be had.

 

[PureX]

Even the bylaws don't refer to ethnic cleansing, so what in the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about why those college students would choose to ban "Zionists". And it's not because they don't want the state of Israel to exist.

The issue is that it's not clear whether support for the existence of Israel is included in their definition of Zionism.

That's just a smokescreen. It's that old claim of antisemitism anytime someone accuses any Jew, anywhere, of anything, negative.

It wasn't the student's responsibility to explain to you to your satisfaction exactly what they meant by their ban. Or who exactly they were referring to. It was obviously quite clear to them as a whole collection of student groups joined in the ban. And it's a good bet that there were many Jews among those groups. So it's very unlikely that they were banning all Jews or anyone that thought Israel has a right to exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm talking about why those college students would choose to ban "Zionists". And it's not because they don't want the state of Israel to exist.
That's just a smokescreen. It's that old claim of antisemitism anytime someone accuses any Jew, anywhere, of anything, negative.

It wasn't the student's responsibility to explain to you to your satisfaction exactly what they meant by their ban. Or who exactly they were referring to. It was obviously quite clear to them as a whole collection of student groups joined in the ban. And it's a good bet that there were many Jews among those groups. So it's very unlikely that they were banning all Jews or anyone that thought Israel has a right to exist.

Responses to criticism of zionism seem to always shift away from zionism.
Reminds me of...

 

[rosends]

The "Zionists" (I am calling them this because I believe it's who these students are referring to in their ban) want all of these to be solely in Jewish hands and under Jewish rule.

That must explain the current authorty of the Waqf and the ban on Jewish prayer on the temple mount.

 

[PureX]

Responses to criticism of zionism seem to always shift away from zionism.

Yep. "We can't be the bad guys, we're still the VICTIMS, here!"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That must explain the current authorty of the Waqf and the ban on Jewish prayer on the temple mount.

Stop with the Jewish buzz words. Oh ... wait ... never mind.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep. "We can't be the bad guys, ..."

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they mean "Political Zionist" then they are talking about people who are in favor of the existence of the political state

What political state, though?

- the state of Israel as it exists today?
- some idealized state? If so, based on which ideals?

a "religious Zionist" is different from a "messianic religious zionist". None of it has anything to do with an attitude about the political system, parties or policies of the state. The word has to do with the nationalistic autonomy manifested by an independent country.

So someone who is opposed to nationalism generally would be justified in opposing Zionism?

 

[rosends]

What political state, though?

- the state of Israel as it exists today?
- some idealized state? If so, based on which ideals?

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

So someone who is opposed to nationalism generally would be justified in opposing 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.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm talking about why those college students would choose to ban "Zionists". And it's not because they don't want the state of Israel to exist.
That's just a smokescreen. It's that old claim of antisemitism anytime someone accuses any Jew, anywhere, of anything, negative.

It wasn't the student's responsibility to explain to you to your satisfaction exactly what they meant by their ban. Or who exactly they were referring to. It was obviously quite clear to them as a whole collection of student groups joined in the ban. And it's a good bet that there were many Jews among those groups. So it's very unlikely that they were banning all Jews or anyone that thought Israel has a right to exist.

You're guessing about all of this. You have no clue what the situation is on the ground there.

 

[PureX]

You're guessing about all of this. You have no clue what the situation is on the ground there.

None of us do, and it's none of our business, anyway. Those student groups run themselves. As it should be.

 

[Left Coast]

None of us do, and it's none of our business, anyway. Those student groups run themselves. As it should be.

If none of us do, then please stop acting like you do.

Student groups can "run themselves," within limits. They're not entirely autonomous, nor should they be. They're using the resources of a public university. How they interact with other students on campus matters. If you don't think it's your business...why are you commenting on this thread? Go do something else.

 

[PureX]

If none of us do, then please stop acting like you do.

And likewise. I am giving my opinion, and trying to explain why it's my opinion. What exactly are you trying to do, here?

Student groups can "run themselves," within limits. They're not entirely autonomous, nor should they be. They're using the resources of a public university. How they interact with other students on campus matters. If you don't think it's your business...why are you commenting on this thread? Go do something else.

So you think they are beholding to you in some way?