Timeline: Attempts to censor students and faculty who stand up for human rights on UC campuses

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 148 Comments

The University of California recently commissioned a report on the campus climate that accuses students and faculty who are critical of Israel of contributing to a negative environment for Jewish students. Under the false assumption that criticism of Israeli state policies constitutes hate speech against Jewish students, the report recommends wide forms of censorship to limit criticism of Israel. These include banning speakers from campus to enforcing “balance” at political events to prohibiting “hate speech” that is allegedly anti-Semitic under a controversial definition of that word.

Some Jewish students excluded from the report have blasted the assumption that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. The report has been widely criticized in the media and by Palestinian rights advocates, Jewish groups, and free speech supporters. But relatively little attention has been paid to the role of the UC Administration in contributing to a climate of fear, censorship, and intimidation for those speaking out against human rights violations in Israel/Palestine.

The infographic below documents some of the worst examples of the administration intimidating and censoring students and faculty who speak in support of Palestinian rights during the past three years. These incidents give much needed context to the recently released report, which calls for restrictions on speech so severe that even its authors acknowledge may “result in legal challenges.”

(Click on the image below to view it larger.)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

" title="UC Timeline" href="/images/2012/08/timeline-record-of-censorship.jpg">UC Timeline
  • January 2009 – A panel hosted by UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies titled “Human Rights & Gaza” features four professors speaking on Operation Cast Lead, the massive Israeli invasion of Gaza. Although not deemed newsworthy at the time, the event is later labeled as disruptive, anti-Semitic & threatening to the Jewish population in several media outlets.
  • February 2009 - UC Santa Barbara’s Academic Senate launches an investigation into Sociology Professor William Robinson and his use of course material referencing the Israeli assault on Gaza in the winter of 2008-9 in his class on global conflicts and struggles.
  • June 2009 - The widely criticized investigation of Professor Robinson is dropped after 6 months. Investigators find that he acted “in accord with the principles of academic freedom, especially when teaching a class whose content is the sociology of globalization.”
  • February 2010 – A speaking engagement by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at UC Irvine is interrupted by 11 students protesting Israeli human rights violations who briefly disrupt his speech while walking out. The students, known as the Irvine 11, were arrested and threatened with academic punishments. They also received numerous death threats.
  • March 2010 - UC Berkeley’s SJP proposes a motion to the student government seeking to divest from companies financially involved in the Israeli occupation. Although the motion passes by a large majority (16-4), it is vetoed by the student body president a week later. The UC Regents issue a statement supporting the veto.
  • September 2010 - The Third World Mural at UC Davis, which includes a Palestinian flag in the shape of a dove, is defaced and painted over with a Star of David.
  • February 2011 - Just under a year after the protest, the Orange County District Attorney charges the Irvine 11 with two misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to disrupt a meeting and disruption of a meeting.
  • March 2011 – Jessica Felber, UC Berkeley student, sues the University of California alleging that the UC abets a hostile climate against Jewish students by allowing SJP to protest Israeli policies on campus.
  • November 2011 – Felber’s lawsuit against the UC is dismissed, but plaintiffs are allowed to re-file.
  • November 2011 – In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, UC President Mark Yudof praises the efforts of UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake to impose additional time, place, and manner restrictions on activists protesting human rights violations in Palestine. Drake had directed that his students move their protest to outside his office so that he could personally monitor them.
  • January 2012 - California State Northridge Professor David Klein is targeted by supporters of Israel for petitioning against study abroad programs in Israel maintained by the California State University (CSU) system.
  • February 2012 - A silent walkout organized by SJP in protest of an event at UC Davis titled “IDF Soldiers Speak Out” is interrupted by a student not affiliated with SJP. Days later, UC President Yudof writes an open letter to the UC system in which he portrays the SJP as responsible for the disruption and without providing evidence, associates the group with other incidents, including the defacing of an Israeli flag and the hanging of a noose at UC San Diego.
  • February 2012 – Pro-Israel groups led by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin’s AMCHA Initiative attempt but fail to shut down a lecture series by Professor Ilan Pappe at California State and UC campuses.
  • March 2012 - The AMCHA Initiative asks the UCLA Academic Senate to investigate Professor David Shorter for referencing the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement in a class about indigenous struggles. Academic Senate Chair Andrew Leuchter violates university policy and publically reprimands Shorter.
  • June 2012 - The California Attorney General declines a petition by the AMCHA Initiative to sue Northridge Professor David Klein for alleged misuse of university resources for hosting online materials about the boycott of Israel using university resources. In declining the petition, the California’s Deputy Attorney General wrote that after carefully considering the complaint his office had found “no basis for any action on our part.”
  • July 2012 - The UCLA Academic Senate officially clears Professor Shorter of any wrong doing, finding that the investigation of his course was unmerited and that Academic Senate Chair Leuchter acted inappropriately when accepting the complaint of an outside group.
  • July 2012 - The re-filed Felber v Yudof case is settled, with the plaintiffs agreeing that the UC was not at any fault, and the UC agreeing to minor changes to campus policies surrounding protests.
  • July 2012 - Lawyers for Jessica Felber in the Felber v Yudof case, Joel Siegal and Neal Sher, initiate a Title VI complaint with the US Department of Education. The complaint asks the federal government to investigate an alleged climate of hostility against Jewish students on campus stemming from criticism of Israel.
  • July 2012 – The UC Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion releases its Campus Climate reports on Jewish and Arab/Muslim experiences on campus. The Jewish Students report recommends broad censorship to reduce criticism of Israel on campus. The Jewish Students report puts forth highly criticized recommendations for banning certain forms of speech on UC campuses that are deemed critical of Israel.

148 Responses

  1. seafoid
    August 23, 2012, 8:00 am

    I wonder for how much longer the bots will be able to hold the line in places like UC. The news coming out of Israel continues to get worse and there is no hasbara to defend it.

    • Winnica
      August 23, 2012, 9:55 am

      Think so, Seafoid? The past few years have seen the lowest casualty numbers between Israelis and Palestinians in decades. The number of Palestinians who work in Israel has climbed up to about 100,000. There are no new settlements being built, and the existing ones are mostly not growing, and what construction is going on is happening inside the settlements. Even Mondoweiss, which seeks bad news about Israel with all its energy, spends most of its time talking about non-lethal incidents which never make their way into broad-based media reports, which is no surprise given the amount of worse things happening elsewhere. Over the past few years most full-time foreign journalists have been pulled out of the country.

      The locals and the obssesives still obsess themselves with Israel and Palestine, but no-one else does anymore. Given that the report here deals with human rights, it’s instructive to note that even the international human rights organizations don’t have that much to say about Israel and Palestine these days, compared to times past.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 23, 2012, 10:17 am

        everything’s comin’ up roses ain’t it winnie?

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 10:30 am

        Not everything, Annie, but lots of things, yes.

      • seafoid
        August 23, 2012, 11:40 am

        “spends most of its time talking about non-lethal incidents which never make their way into broad-based media reports, which is no surprise given the amount of worse things happening elsewhere”

        The dam is cracking, Winnica. What Israel has turned into won’t be made better again by a PBS special. People are waking up.

        Rassenschande is a new low.

      • seanmcbride
        August 23, 2012, 10:54 am

        Winnica,

        Do you have your head buried in the sand somewhat? Israel’s relations with Turkey, Egypt, Europe, the United Nations, the United States, etc. are in a state of accelerating and disastrous deterioration — primarily because of its mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

        I would not rely on you as a source of accurate historical predictions.

      • seafoid
        August 23, 2012, 11:03 am

        Off the top of my head

        A new strain of MRSA in Gaza. Gaza has been turned into a hub of disease.
        Migrants firebombed
        Most Jewish 12th graders want refugees deported
        Jewish Rassenschande. Do not kiss our women. WTF ?

      • mikeo
        August 23, 2012, 11:13 am

        Yeah right.

        Even with all this great news israel ranked behind only Iran and Pakistan as the country that is most negatively viewed.

        Oh well at least you’re level with North Korea ;)

        link to timesofisrael.com

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 11:48 am

        mikeo – did you actually read the article you linked to? First, it rated only a handful of countries. Second, in the US, 50% now rate Israel favorably, compared to 44% last survey. (There are many other surveys which put the number higher). In Nigeria, it’s 54%. True, in Egypt Israel’s popularity is abysmal, but what exactly does that prove?

      • Annie Robbins
        August 23, 2012, 12:20 pm

        winnica, you plopped yourself right at the top of the thread with a highly diversionary comment with the purpose of highjacking the thread. do you have anything to say about free speech at UC?

      • mikeo
        August 23, 2012, 12:35 pm

        Winnica, over 24,000 people were surveyed in 22 countries. The overall trend is an increasingly negative perception of Israel around the world. Two African nations and the US – that’s it in terms of good news. How long would you bet on the propaganda working in the US? As many have predicted when the tide turns it ain’t going to be pretty, and the US veto is the only thing standing between you and sanctions and full on pariah status. Stick your head in the sand if you want. Tick tock tick tock…

      • libra
        August 23, 2012, 12:49 pm

        Winneca: “True, in Egypt Israel’s popularity is abysmal, but what exactly does that prove?

        Well Winnie, what it proves is that the closer you live to Israel, the less you like it. After all, how many of those admiring Nigerians have ever visited Israel?

        I’m afraid that one day you’ll have to face the fact that being a bad neighbour is never a winning long-term strategy. But then I’m sure you’d agree that only a freier looks to the long-term.

      • eljay
        August 23, 2012, 1:08 pm

        >> Second, in the US, 50% now rate Israel favorably …

        Let’s not forget: Bucking the global norm, a growing proportion of Americans … have a favorable view of Israel in 2012.” and “In the Western countries surveyed, views of Israel show improvement only in the US.”

        So, in a 22-country survey, a positive view of Israel has increased in only three countries: The U.S. (“bucking the global norm”), Nigeria and Kenya.

        Congratulations, “Jewish State”!

      • Citizen
        August 23, 2012, 2:01 pm

        I’m reminded of the very few micro and totally dependent (on US or Canada) states that were the swing vote for Israel gaining UN chair in the first place.

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 2:18 pm

        Annie – Read again. I responded to Sefoid. So if anyone hi-jacked the thread, it wasn’t me. I was then followed merrily by many others, yourself included.

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 2:35 pm

        eljay –

        The well-being of nations isn’t defined by popularity polls, but by hard facts such as economics, trade, the full gamut of diplomatic relations; and by the well-being of their citizens. By all these real measures, Israel is done reasonably well.

        Part of the problem with spending too mch time in an echo chamber such as Mondoweiss is that one misses the facts which are obvious to the people who aren’t in the echo chamber.

      • eljay
        August 23, 2012, 2:48 pm

        >> The well-being of nations isn’t defined by popularity polls …

        And yet you made a point of indicating to mikeo that Israel’s popularity in the U.S. had increased. Interesting.

        Anyway, the 22-country poll it’s not about a particular nation’s “well-being”. It deals with whether people view the 16 countries in question as positive or negative influences in the world, and Israel happens to score very poorly.

      • American
        August 23, 2012, 3:21 pm

        Winnica says:
        August 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm

        eljay –

        The well-being of nations isn’t defined by popularity polls, but by hard facts such as economics, trade, the full gamut of diplomatic relations; and by the well-being of their citizens. By all these real measures, Israel is done reasonably well.’>>>>>>>>>>

        You’re a total fool like the other zios here. Israel, economically and every other way is so totally dependent on the good will and willingness of other countries to trade with and tolerate it, and particularly on the US strongarming for them even economically, that if that changed it would disappear.
        Israel has not a single resource or unique product or service that the world can’t find or get from 100′ s of other countries.
        Fools and their delusions.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 11:29 pm

        This is all a falsehood Winnica invented in the first place.

        Israel’s popularity is abysmal. To quote from Haaretz:

        “…Israel is one of the least popular countries in the world, right down there with Iran, North Korea and Pakistan…”

      • mikeo
        August 24, 2012, 6:59 am

        “The well-being of nations isn’t defined by popularity polls, but by hard facts such as economics, trade, the full gamut of diplomatic relations; and by the well-being of their citizens.”

        So basically you are saying although Israel is one of the most negatively viewed countries on earth, that it doesn’t really matter because it has these factors in its favour:

        Economics/Trade: utterly dependent on Europe and the US and one US veto away from sanctions and complete meltdown.

        Diplomatic Relations: ruined with many previous allies (e.g. Turkey), strained and going against public opinion with most of the EU, disastrous with almost all of the developing world. Good with the US but how long can AIPAC et al hold the fort?

        Wellbeing of citizens: One of the worst income disparities in the developed world, rule of law and democratic institutions disintegrating, education system failing due to the ideological pressures of Zionism and Ultra-orthodox, quite possibly the most dangerous place in the world to live if one is Jewish.

        Is this really the best that you can do?

      • mikeo
        August 24, 2012, 11:56 am

        Oh and by the way Winnica – using the wellbeing of Israeli citizens as a marker of how well things are going is probably not a winning tactic when occurrences of self-immolation in protest at how bad social conditions are have recently made headline news around the world…

        Just sayin…

      • yesspam
        August 26, 2012, 1:46 pm

        The well-being of their citizen? I take it you mean the well-being of their Jewish citizens? Their Palestinian citizens are certainly no better off.

      • eGuard
        August 23, 2012, 11:19 am

        So, there is hasbara to defend it.

        Note that settlement news/lies is coming from the settlements, not Israel.

      • Citizen
        August 23, 2012, 11:42 am

        RE: “There are no new settlements being built, and the existing ones are mostly not growing, and what construction is going on is happening inside the settlements.”

        Not true, here’s only one example of current expansion of illegal Israeli settlements (other than the vertical):
        link to imemc.org

      • Hostage
        August 23, 2012, 12:14 pm

        There are no new settlements being built,

        Nonsense. The Middle East Quartet’s Road Map obligated Israel to remove outposts that were a clear attempt to unilaterally alter the status of the territory. Instead, the government and the Knesset have acted to “legalize” outposts. The Road Map also called for an end to construction in existing settlements for so-called “natural growth”.

      • Hostage
        August 23, 2012, 1:03 pm

        The University of California recently commissioned a report on the campus climate that accuses students and faculty who are critical of Israel of contributing to a negative environment for Jewish students.

        The University of California Regents aren’t empowered to act as gate keepers for speech that’s critical of the policies of the State of Israel. The same principle applies to them, that applies to the public transit authorities in New York and California with respect to Pam Geller’s advertising campaign.

        Our civil rights laws don’t protect religious or ethnic sensibilities about another state’s policies. That’s especially true if those policies 1) have been described as “unsustainable”, “illegitimate”, or “illegal” by our own government officials and the World Court; and 2) the State of Israel’s policies are based in whole or in part on an establishment of a public religion that discriminates against persons on the basis of their non-Jewish religion or ethnicity.

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 2:32 pm

        Hostage – here are the facts: there are no new settlements being built. The last wave was about ten years ago, and it was very limited in effect. Most of the settlements were built in the early 1980s, which is 30 years ago.

        There is limited construction going on inside the perimiters of some settlements.

        The Road Map was operative, if ever, remind me, when? 2004? That’s 8 years ago.

      • Shmuel
        August 23, 2012, 3:31 pm

        there are no new settlements being built… There is limited construction going on inside the perimiters of some settlements.

        Dishonest nonsense. The construction has not been “limited”, and the “perimeters” of settlements are drawn with the intention of passing off new settlements as “expansion” or “natural growth” of existing settlements. Much of this land “inside the perimeters” is in fact private Palestinian land that has never been expropriated – even by Israel’s own crooked and illegal rules. Then there are the land-grabs outside “the perimeters”, such as Ulpana Hill, which are called “neighbourhoods” of existing settlements, but are nothing of the sort. In short, there has been extensive settlement construction since the Road Map, despite weasely Israeli excuses and pretences. The current Israeli government has also approved a number of new settlements (for the first time since 1990).

        Here’s Peace Now’s settlement report for 2011: link to peacenow.org.il

        An article on the “natural growth” lie:
        link to haaretz.com

        And Peace Now figures on “approvals granted for construction”: link to peacenow.org.il

      • James North
        August 23, 2012, 3:52 pm

        Winneca: You present yourself as a calm voice of reason. So how are you going to respond to Shmuel’s detailed rebuttal of your whitewash about the expansion of Israeli settlements/colonies?

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 4:21 pm

        James,

        First, look at the links Shmuel gives. The “detailed rebuttal” contains various allegations about 10,000, and elsewhere 25,000 new housing units being constructed in the settlements… and one list (from 2009, that’s 3 years ago) with 1,820 housing units.

        Don’t you think that if thousands of units were being built now, not three years ago, someone might be able to say where they are, and perhaps even show pictures of them?

        Second, I didn’t say no construction was going on in any of the settlements. Here’s what I said:
        “There are no new settlements being built. The last wave was about ten years ago, and it was very limited in effect. Most of the settlements were built in the early 1980s, which is 30 years ago.

        There is limited construction going on inside the perimiters of some settlements.”

        In Shmuel’s comment there was no single fact to say otherwise, nor are there any such facts in the links he gave.

        This may surprise you, and will certainly surprise some of the shriller commenters here, but I haven’t defended the construction of the settlements. I’m pointing out the fallacy of describing the settlements as an ever-growing land-grab actively taking over the West Bank. It’s not happening. It was happening in the early 1980s, and it has happened to lesser extents in spurts since then, but it hasn’t been happening at all for the past decade. There’s a population of hundreds of thousands in the settlements, and very few additional housing units are being constructed there, while tens of thousands are constucted annually inside Israel; and the units that are being constructed in the settlements are inside the perimeters.

        Ah, and when construction does happen, it’s usually in a small number of large setlements, Modi’in Illit and Betar Illit together making the lion’s share of the growth; both straddle the Green Line and are likely to be swapped for territory elsewhere if the Israelis and Palestinians ever reach an agreement.

        The story about the settlements which are taking over the West Bank was ture, if ever, 30 years ago.

      • Shmuel
        August 23, 2012, 5:09 pm

        More smoke and mirrors, Winnica. Has there been extensive settlement construction over the past 8-10 years or not? Look at the population growth statistics, the newspaper reports over the years, the government expenditure figures as well as the figures for public construction, and look at all three of my links – including the report for 2011, which states:

        Main Findings
        20% rise in construction starts in the settlements – at least 1,850 building starts for housing units, 35% of them (650 units) in isolated settlements east of the planned route of the Separation Barrier.
        At least 3,500 units were under construction during 2011 (started to be built or continued construction from previous years).

        It’s all there at Peace Now, B’tselem, the Haaretz and even the Jerusalem Post archives, as well as many other sites and sources.

        Again you repeat the weasely claim about “perimeters”, and then back-pedal with some nonsense about most of the construction “straddling” the Green Line anyway and being “likely to be swapped”. Modi’in Ilit and Beitar Ilit are settlements in the occupied West Bank and construction in those towns is thus illegal and a violation of Israel’s international obligations. Should the Palestinians, at some future date, decide to renounce those areas, they will do so – but it will not change their current status. Israel does not accept such excuses from Palestinians, and there is certainly no reason Palestinians or the international community should accept them from Israelis.

        By the way, you might also want to check out the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Area C and the Israeli restrictions on Palestinian construction there, which are part and parcel of the dispossession entailed by the settlement project. See the EU report on the subject, cited by the Independent. B’tselem reports are also a good source of information on this ongoing process.

        I’ll repeat my question, which corresponds to your earlier assertion: Has there been extensive settlement construction over the past 8-10 years or not?

        The answer is that the “story” about the settlements taking over the West Bank is as true now as it was 30 years ago. (By the way, that “if ever” of yours is really sleazy – especially when combined with your cagey “This may surprise you … but I haven’t defended the construction of the settlements.”)

        What you have done here is to engage in dishonest apologetics for the ongoing (and historical) settlement project, while pretending to “simply point out [a] fallacy”.

      • seanmcbride
        August 23, 2012, 6:12 pm

        Winnica,

        We’ll be watching closely to see if you provide an *intellectually honest* rebuttal to Shmuel’s points. I am betting that you won’t — your general demeanor is redolent of heavy-handed pilpul.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 6:49 pm

        seanmcbride says ‘We’ll be watching closely to see if you provide an *intellectually honest* rebuttal to Shmuel’s points. …”

        Why watch? Without bothering to refresh my memory about whatever it was Shmuel said, I doubt if it can be done. It’s impossible to make an intellectually honest defense of much of anything to do with Israel. When was the last time you saw such a thing?

      • Hostage
        August 23, 2012, 8:10 pm

        Hostage – here are the facts: there are no new settlements being built. The last wave was about ten years ago, and it was very limited in effect.

        Winnica Israel is constructing thousands of new housing units in the OPT, including East Jerusalem. The Road Map called for an end to all construction of so-called new neighborhoods in the existing illegal settlements, including what you boffins try to pass-off as “natural growth”.

        No country on Earth accepted the plans for Har Homa or Givat Hamatos as legal and above board. Get some clue and stop trying to reframe the issue in order to peddle lame-assed hasbara talking points.

        The Road Map also required Israel to remove outposts that were set up since March 2001, not attempt to legalize them, like Givat Salit, or relocate them somewhere else in the occupied territory, like Ulpana.

      • seanmcbride
        August 23, 2012, 8:27 pm

        Colin,

        I haven’t observed a pro-Israel activist mount a rational defense of Israeli policies for a very long time now. From which one might reasonably conclude that they are emotionally mired down in defending a losing cause.

      • American
        August 23, 2012, 10:46 pm

        Forget it, he/she is just a liar. A passive agressive type that just wants to draw people into responding to her/him.

      • Winnica
        August 24, 2012, 4:57 am

        Sean, Colin, Hostage and American –

        Here’s a quick summary of your positions as I understand them.

        Zionism is evil. Israel, it’s creation, is an evil state. Israelis, it’s citizens, are evil people. Anyone who defends them are evil. Anyone who presents alleged facts which undermine the thesis of Israel’s evil must be lying. These liars can and should be defamed for their lies, and worse, for the enormity of the evil they employ their lies in defense of.

        The imperative to prove Israel’s evil is so complete, that arguments with them often deteriorate into uncivil discourse. When external agents or authorities – say, the UC administration – tries to cool the heat and insist on some level of dignified discussion, they thereby prove that they’re part of the problem, since no-one reasonable could possibly defend pure evil. If said authorites happen to have Jews among them: voila! That explains their eagerness to defend the defenders of the evil Zionists.

        The sad part of this is that it forces you into a intellectual position from which you’re impervious to facts, except the ones which bolster your position, and sadder, it prevents you from engaging in one of the most admirable human endeavors ever, the search for understanding. Since you know the answer in advance, you can’t allow in any other options. Nor can you deal with hues of gray, or with complexity. The facts must prove Israel’s complete evil, or they’re evil Zionist propaganda themselves.

      • James North
        August 24, 2012, 8:16 am

        Winneca: You changed the subject. Shmuel, Colin, Hostage and others calmly provided detailed information, with sources, rebutting your contentions on settlement growth. Instead of responding to them with facts of your own, you retreated into an emotional “argument” that accused them of avoiding “one of the most admirable human endeavors ever, the search for understanding.” Why don’t you drop the motherhood statements and try and answer Shmuel, Colin and Hostage, point by point?

      • Winnica
        August 24, 2012, 8:26 am

        I have, James, by pointing out the fallacies in their arguments and deficiencies in their linked sources. I cannot bring a link to a proof that there are no settlements, because… they’re not there.

        So instead of my proving that something which isn’t there isn’t there, let’s do the opposite. If there are any new settlements, surely they have names, addresses, and can be photographed? So how come no-one – here, or at all those other websites – is capable of naming any of them, telling where they are, or showing pictures of them? Not to mention telling how many people live in them.

      • Shmuel
        August 24, 2012, 9:11 am

        I have, James, by pointing out the fallacies in their arguments and deficiencies in their linked sources.

        You have done nothing of the kind. You have hardly addressed any of my points or sources – most of which actually point out the fallacies in your arguments.

        “New settlements” are not the issue (although one of my “deficient” sources cites at least 3 new settlements approved by the Netanyahu government); the “natural growth” argument does not stand up to demographic scrutiny (see another of my sources); a significant proportion of construction (some 35% in 2011 according to another one of my sources) is not in the large settlements relatively close to the Green Line; the “perimeter”/”expansion of existing settlements” defence is one big hoax (actually a number of hoaxes combined – see yet another of the sources I cited).

        You have used vague and evasive language, made false and deceptive claims, and cited no data or sources – yet insist (entirely without basis) that you have “pointed out the fallacies” of others, and now hide behind an actual fallacy: that you cannot be expected to prove a negative!

        It doesn’t really matter whether you have actually “defended the construction of the settlements” or not. You have engaged in the very same dishonest propaganda employed by those who would continue to build yet argue that they have done nothing wrong. Numerous studies and reports (some of which I have cited) have shown that they are lying through their teeth.

        One of your most telling comments on this thread was: The story about the settlements which are taking over the West Bank was ture (sic), if ever, 30 years ago (emphasis mine). What do you think the settlements are for? Future public housing for Palestinians?

      • seanmcbride
        August 24, 2012, 9:26 am

        Winnica,

        You wrote: “Zionism is evil. Israel, it’s creation, is an evil state. Israelis, it’s citizens, are evil people.”

        That is not my belief at all. I think Zionism is *antiquated*, not evil. It’s a 19th century ethnic nationalist ideology that is radically out of touch with modern Western democratic values. Many Zionists and Israelis are very good people indeed, and I respect them — but I think they need to acknowledge their intellectual errors and revise their views.

        I wouldn’t be discussing Israel at all if I didn’t think its influence on my own country, the United States, was highly negative. Generally I do not expend too much energy lecturing other nations on how to run their affairs — that is their business.

        I think Israel-obsessed neoconservatives and Christian Zionists together comprise the most dangerous and destructive messianic cult ever to arise in American politics. That is why I am in this debate. I think they may well succeed in destroying the United States if they are not effectively opposed and checked.

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 9:31 am

        Here’s a quick summary of your positions as I understand them.

        Winneca, I’ve been patiently reciting the terms of reference from the Middle East Quartet Road Map that require Israel to freeze all settlement construction, including natural growth, and remove the outposts established since 2001. Neither of those things appears in your summary. Frankly, I think you need to concentrate on summarizing the Hasbara Fellowship’s talking points adequately before branching out and offering your unsolicited help to others.

        If you aren’t able to discuss the Road Map terms intelligently, just say so and stop trying to change the subject. I notice that you’re still pretending that the international community hasn’t taken positions against Israel’s recent construction boom and efforts at “legalization” of the outposts. Here’s a few links to illustrate what I mean:
        *Russia joins U.S., EU in criticizing Israel’s legalization of West Bank outposts link to english.alarabiya.net
        *EU condemns Israeli settlement construction, evictions link to reuters.com
        *Russia calls new Israeli settlement construction ‘major concern’ link to rt.com
        *Russia urges Israel to halt settlement construction link to en.rian.ru
        *EU, UN call on Israel to stop Har Homa construction link to jpost.com
        *US State Department comes out against settlement report: We oppose any effort to legalize settlement outpost link to timesofisrael.com
        *State Dept. slams new West Bank housing approval link to jta.org

      • Citizen
        August 24, 2012, 9:37 am

        @ Winnica

        So you say the links provided to you about continued Israeli settler expansion in its myriad of forms (other than breeding), up, down, or sideways do not show any settler expansion at all, and yet you cannot provide any links to prove the contrary because none exist. And so? You disparage the information in the links given you, but have no links showing contrary information. Facts are facts.

      • James North
        August 24, 2012, 9:52 am

        Winneca: It looks like you have a busy few hours ahead of you, if you genuinely want to continue with “one of the most admirable human endeavors ever, the search for understanding.” Shmuel, seanmcbride, hostage and citizen have now all addressed your 8:26 a.m. post above, responding to both your (lack of) specifics on the settlement expansion issue, and your effort to change the conversation by accusing them of selectively searching for facts to follow what you call their “imperative to prove Israel’s evil.”
        We look forward to your thoughtful contributions on this “search for understanding.”

      • Blake
        August 25, 2012, 3:03 pm

        Winnica: Israeli settlers lured by subsidies
        Jewish migrants flock to the occupied West Bank as more Palestinians and Bedouin are evicted from their homes.
        link to aljazeera.com

        ENJOY reading.

      • Winnica
        August 26, 2012, 3:09 am

        James,

        Unlike many at MW, I don’t base my knowledge on websites. I go and visit. And following my recent visits to the West Bank I stand by my statement: No new settlements are being built, and there is very little outward expansion of the existing ones. Nothing in any of the links supplied here says otherwise. There is some construction going on in the existant settlements, I’d be an idiot to claim otherwise, but the oft-repeated claim made here at MW about how the settlements are gobbling up additional Palestinian land: Not true.

        This holds fully for the link Blake just added, from al-Jazeera.

      • Cliff
        August 26, 2012, 3:57 am

        The point is that the claim of ‘new settlements’ is irrelevant. You have not addressed the arguments raised by Hostage, Shmuel, et. al

        And you keep referring to the sources you’ve read without actually using them to substantiate your argument.

        Bad Zio-troll is bad. I’m sure your droves of Palestinian friend would support you though!

      • Shmuel
        August 26, 2012, 4:21 am

        Unlike many at MW, I don’t base my knowledge on websites. I go and visit.

        You just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Are you actually comparing your occasional casual observations to the long-standing and painstaking work of Dror Etkes, Hagit Ofran and the Peace Now Settlement Watch team, which combines methodical field observations with analysis of satellite photos and documentation of every kind?

        Once again, your stubborn apologetics about “new settlements” and “outward expansion” is addressed by Peace Now – most specifically in the document I linked to on the subject of “jurisdiction”. Built up settlement areas are still a relatively small percentage of the territory (albeit positioned strategically, with linking infrastructure, “security” policies and unchecked intimidation designed to control far greater swathes of land), but their declared areas of jurisdiction are quite significant (and changing). Now, if these areas are left unbuilt on, they mean one thing, and if they are built on, they mean quite another – in terms of the dispossession of Palestinians. Construction within these areas (often at a distance from other built up areas), technically described by Israel and its apologists as “expansion of existing settlements” or “construction within the perimeter of existing settlements” in fact do constitute “gobbling up additional Palestinian land”, and even the de facto establishment of new settlements. Most of the “outposts”, for example, are located within the “jurisdication” of existing settlements – but that doesn’t change their basic expansionist purpose and effect. If “jurisdiction” meant the land had already been definitively stolen from Palestinians, there would be no point. And of course, as Peace Now has painstakingly documented, there are also constant and significant deviations from the designated areas of “jurisdiction” (see e.g. the section on Ma’aleh Adumim).

        You continue to refer to “some” and “very little” expansion, without actually quantifying (unlike Peace Now, which provides detailed numbers of permits, construction starts, percentages of territory, population growth and visual documentation). If your “source” is your own occasional, casual and subjective impressions, it is no wonder you are unable to provide any real information, beyond simply repeating a couple of talking-point mantras.

        If you still believe that “Nothing in any of the links supplied here says otherwise”, you’ll have to give us more to go on than your own say-so, but first you’ll have to read them, and then you’ll have to address what they actually say about expansion, rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “no new settlements” and “natural growth”.

        And one final point that Hostage and I and perhaps others have noted: Settlement construction is not the only parameter of dispossession and “land-grabbing”. Prohibiting virtually all Palestinian construction in Area C and generally making their lives miserable, along with the more blatant ethnic cleansing of the Bedouin, would still constitute theft, dispossession and expansion, even if Israel were to actually live up to its international obligations regarding settlement construction.

      • Shmuel
        August 26, 2012, 4:55 am

        I go and visit. And following my recent visits to the West Bank I stand by my statement: No new settlements are being built, and there is very little outward expansion of the existing ones.

        This is really too rich. Peace Now counts 160 distinct settlements (120 “legal” and 40 of the 100 or so outposts). How many have you visited? Do you even know how far their jurisdiction extends? Can you tell where their “perimeter” is from the ground? How long have you been visiting and what criteria do you use for comparison? Do you have a photographic memory?

        If you weren’t an apologist for ethnic cleansing, your comments on this thread would be funny.

      • Citizen
        August 26, 2012, 5:04 am

        “If you [Winnica] weren’t an apologist for ethnic cleansing, your comments on this thread would be funny.”

        Understatement.

      • Winnica
        August 26, 2012, 5:54 am

        Shmuel,

        I think this conversation has exhausted itself. We’re all repeating the same things over and over. I assure you I know Dror Etkes, and am in contact with him, as I have been for decades, including tours with him on the West Bank. Hagit I know from e-mails, not personally, but Dror is the more important of the two, I think; Hagit deals much more with Jerusalem.

      • Shmuel
        August 26, 2012, 6:31 am

        I think this conversation has exhausted itself.

        It certainly has, because you have refused to engage in “one of the most admirable human endeavors ever, the search for understanding” or to exercise “intellectual rigor” – preferring to repeat baseless slogans and dismiss copious data, links and sources as “deficient” or “fallacies”, without actually addressing any of them.

        That you claim to know “Dror” and “Hagit” lends absolutely no credibility to your false and dishonest statements and preposterous assertion that you know better because you “visit” rather than relying on “websites” (i.e. the serious work of Settlement Watch). Since you’re so chummy with “Dror” and “Hagit”, you might want to actually read the report they wrote on the “Construction and development of settlements beyond the official
        limits of jurisdiction” (see link, above).

        By the way, Dror Etkes left Peace Now a few years ago and was working for Yesh Din, last I heard. Hagit Ofran is his replacement as head of Settlement Watch.

        Yes, this “conversation” has definitely exhausted itself.

      • Winnica
        August 26, 2012, 7:42 am

        Nowadays he works for Kerem Navot, where he does important work.

      • seanmcbride
        August 26, 2012, 9:26 am

        The conversation didn’t exhaust itself — it nicely resolved itself. Winnica failed to answer Shmuel’s important points. Once again, hasbara couldn’t stand up to fair, open, reasonable and fact-based discussion and debate.

        Winnica never did get around to my addressing my main point: Israel’s relations with much of the world — including Europe, the United States, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, the United Nations, etc. — are in a state of rapid disintegration, largely as a result of the settlements and the systematic mistreatment of Palestinians. How does Winnica feel about that? What does he imagine will be the final outcome of this political process?

      • yesspam
        August 26, 2012, 1:54 pm

        A clear attempt to try and avoid answering the question.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 1:58 pm

        Winnica says: “Think so, Seafoid? The past few years have seen the lowest casualty numbers between Israelis and Palestinians in decades….”

        All of which goes to show what happens if the Palestinians don’t rebel.

        They are stripped of all rights, quietly and methodically dispossessed of their land, and herded into the ghettos.

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 2:22 pm

        No-one’s being stripped of all rights, quietly and methodically dispossed of their land and herded into ghettos. There are a small number of Palestinians who claim, perhaps correctly, that they’re being pushed off their land. A small number. The rest is blatantly not true, no matter how often it gets trumpeted at Mondoweiss.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 23, 2012, 2:29 pm

        No-one’s being stripped of all rights, quietly and methodically dispossed of their land and herded into ghettos.

        it’s constant! winnie, here’s an excellent diary i read yesterday at dkos, only 4 comments: link to dailykos.com

        Military and Settler Vandalism Escalates as Court Battle over South Hebron Hills Heats Up

        On the court front, residents have last week achieved what seems like a minor victory. The Occupation regime now insists that “only” 8 Massafer-Yatta villages be evacuated and destroyed, instead of the 12 that the original 1999 edict declared to be part of an IDF “firing range”. According to lawyers who represent the residents, during the court battle the regime offered this reduction from 12 to 8 in exchange for stopping the struggle. Now the regime has been (apparently) forced to do so in exchange for nothing. The regime probably sees now that its flimsy – no, outrageous – arguments that it can declare a “firing range” over an entire stretch of populated land and pretend the people there have never existed, has very little chance of winning the day, even in the skewed playing field of Israel’s own courts. Therefore, it perhaps tries to appear more “rational” and “reasonable” by excluding 4 villages from the count. The High Court has responded by erasing the original 12-village petition, and inviting plaintiffs to resubmit an adjusted one for the 8 villages within several months, without any impact on their petition rights.

        That victory noted, the IDF still controls the region very tightly, and has continued to try and inflict misery and intimidation upon residents, in the hope that they leave of their own accord. This summer’s campaign has started, as reported here, with sweeping evacuation and demolition decrees, in apparent violation of the pending court case. Now, during the first week of August the IDF raided two of the 4 villages removed from its evacuation edict! Then, on August 7 it raided Jinba village, which is among the 8 still included in the court case. Images of this “heroic” use of military might and resources against defenseless civilians, are below.

        lots of photographs including a recent invasion of one of the villages the court dropped from the governments petition. i suppose that was the ‘reward’ the military saw fit to impose on the villagers since they were spared, for the time being.

      • Winnica
        August 23, 2012, 2:40 pm

        Annie – you mistake anecdotes (which can be true, I didn’t say otherwise) with the full picture. The full picture is as I said: no new settlements. Yes a very small number of Palestinians being forced off their land. So we agree about the anecdotes, and maybe it’s time we agree also that they’re not very significant.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 23, 2012, 2:43 pm

        “There are a small number of Palestinians who claim, perhaps correctly, that they’re being pushed off their land. A small number.”

        One is too many, and you’re not counting the millions who’ve suffered this to make way for your apartheid state for decades.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 23, 2012, 3:01 pm

        “Yes a very small number of Palestinians being forced off their land. So we agree about the anecdotes, and maybe it’s time we agree also that they’re not very significant.”

        It’s pretty vile to wave away the destruction of someone’s life as being “not very significant” soley because it’s your own ethnicity who’se doing it. What do they teach you people in place of morality and ethics, anyway? sheesh.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 4:58 pm

        Winnica: ” So we agree about the anecdotes, and maybe it’s time we agree also that they’re not very significant.”

        Even if you were right about the numbers (and I don’t think you are), it wouldn’t follow that it was therefore insignificant.

        So Israel is only dispossessing ‘a few’ Palestinians and that makes it okay? Suppose the New York police department took to occasionally shooting Black teenagers who hadn’t done anything? Say, fifty-sixty a month. Would it follow that this was okay?

        If in fact Israel is simply dispossessing Palestinians because they are Palestinians, the absolute numbers are really secondary (except to the victims). It follows that Israel is a nakedly racist state that denies people even the most basic human rights on the basis of ethnicity, and we have no business associating with it, much less supporting it.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 6:53 pm

        Winnica says: “No-one’s being stripped of all rights, quietly and methodically dispossed of their land and herded into ghettos.”

        Oh I dunno about that. Check out this map:

        link to promisedlandblog.com

        It all seems to be well on its way.

      • Winnica
        August 24, 2012, 4:26 am

        Colin,

        The map states very clearly that it’s from 2002. A decade ago, as I said above. Had the settlements been growing since, then someone would be able to supply an updated map. But they can’t, because the land on which the settlements stand today is about the same as 10 years ago. Minus the four settlements which were disbanded in 2005, of course.

      • Winnica
        August 24, 2012, 4:37 am

        Woody –

        I didn’t justify the dispossession, nor defend it. My point was that it hardly constitues proof of an Israeli policy of disspossessing the Palestinians of the West Bank, and there’s no hint in it of genocidal Israeli policies. And the reason I brought it up, I remind you, is to explain why the Israel-Palestine issue doesn’t particularly interest most people these days, except for the locals and the fanatics.

      • ColinWright
        August 24, 2012, 4:48 am

        Winnica:

        Okay, how about this? It’s from 2012, not 2002.

        “Population of Jewish settlements in West Bank up 15,000 in a year

        Number of settlers has almost doubled in 12 years, increasing obstacles to two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict…”

        — Guardian

      • ColinWright
        August 24, 2012, 4:54 am

        Winnica:

        And there’s this: “In recent years, a growing number of water springs in the vicinity of Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have become the target of settler activities that eliminated, or put at risk, the access to these springs and their use by Palestinians. A survey carried out by OCHA in the course of 2011 identified a total of 56 such springs, the large majority of which are located in Area C (93 percent), on land parcels recorded by the Israeli Civil Administration (ICA) as privately owned by Palestinians (at least 84 percent).

        Thirty (30) of these springs were found to be under full settler control, with no Palestinian access to the area. In almost three quarters of these (22), Palestinians have been deterred from accessing the spring by acts of intimidation, threats and violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers. In the remaining eight springs under full settler control, Palestinian access has been prevented by physical obstacles, including the fencing of the spring area, and its de facto annexation to the settlement (four cases), and the isolation of the area from the rest of the West Bank by the Barrier and its subsequent designation as a closed military zone (four cases).

        The other 26 springs are at risk of a settler takeover. This category includes springs that became the target of regular “tours” by settlers, and/or patrolling by the security coordinators of settlements. While at the time of the survey, Palestinians could still access and use these springs, farmers and residents reported that the constant presence of groups of armed settlers in the area has an intimidating effect that discourages access and use.

        Along with the elimination or reduction of Palestinian access, in 40 out of the 56 springs identified in the survey, Israeli settlers have begun to develop the surrounding area into a “tourist attraction”. Works performed for this purpose include, among others, the construction or renovation of water pools; the deployment of picnic tables and shading structures; the paving of leading roads; and the installation of signs announcing the Hebrew name of the spring.

        Such works were carried out without building permits, as required by the ICA. This practice is part of a larger trend entailing the development of the tourism infrastructure of Israeli settlements. This infrastructure contributes to the entrenchment of the settlement enterprise in at least three distinct ways: it expands the scope of territorial control of settlements; it adds a source of employment and revenue for the settler population; and it contributes to the “normalization” of settlements in the eyes of larger segments of Israeli society…”

        It seems to me the settlements are growing at a fine, hearty clip. Population doubled, wells fenced off and the land effectively annexed, villages declared firing ranges…

      • ColinWright
        August 24, 2012, 5:01 am

        And there’s this. From Peace Now:

        “… Sudden burst of construction tenders followed two-year period of de facto freeze on authorization of new settlement construction.

        In 2011, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government agreed to issue the largest number of West Bank settlement tenders — 1,577 units — more than were published in any of the last eight years, according to data issued Tuesday by Peace Now….”

        Sounds to me like that ship’s not exactly dead in the water.

      • Shmuel
        August 24, 2012, 5:03 am

        The best and most up-to-date map of the settlements is: link to peacenow.org

        The Peace Now map includes such information as population growth for each settlement, area (of which privately-owned – i.e. not illegally-expropriated, just plain stolen – Palestinian land) and the difference between the built up areas (visible on the satellite map) and the much larger “municipal jurisdictions” (what Winnica calls “inside the perimeters”), as well as the spaces between the various “neighbourhoods”, designed to grab as much land as possible. Of course, as construction continues, the difference between the artificially-created areas of “municipal jurisdiction” and areas that are actually built up, becomes less pronounced. Note also, the construction beyond the “municipal jurisdiction” in some settlements. This too is presented as “natural growth” and “construction within existing settlements”.

        The settlement project is not only a huge violation of international law and Palestinian human rights. It is also a gigantic sham, based on legal fictions and disinformation. This is very well documented. Just a couple of sources off the top of my head: Eldar and Zertal’s Lords of the Land and B’tselem’s By Hook and by Crook: Israeli Settlement Policy in the West Bank.

      • Shmuel
        August 24, 2012, 5:14 am

        More on the “jurisdiction” hoax: link to peacenow.org.il

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 7:47 am

        My point was that it hardly constitues proof of an Israeli policy of disspossessing the Palestinians of the West Bank

        The government of Israel announced plans to illegally transfer thousands of West Bank Bedouins from communities living in Area C, i.e. Jerusalem
        periphery, Jordan Valley, and south Hebron Hills. link to docs.google.com

        Israeli daily, Haaretz, published a report revealing that Israel had already revoked the residency rights of around a quarter of a million Palestinians since it occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, in 1967, until the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994.
        * link to haaretz.com
        *http://www.imemc.org/article/63710

        What was your point again?

      • Winnica
        August 24, 2012, 8:20 am

        Colin and others,

        Is it too much to wish for a bit of intellectual rigor? There are three separate amtters regarding the settlements. The first is their very existence. I agree with you that it were better if they weren’t there in the first place. But they are, which brings us to the second issue: are they multiplying, and even if they aren’t, are they growing ever outwards, and thus taking over more and more land. The answer to this is No. they are not multiplying, and they’re not significantly growing outwards, either (tho I won’t say this isn’t happening at all, anywhere, not even by inches, since I don’t know that to be true). All the links that have been supplied here fail to demonstrate any new settlements since 2002 (a decade ago), nor any significant outward growth. And the reason there are no such links is that there are no such phenomena.

        Finally, there’s the third issue of the population of the settlements. Where the first two were Israeli attempts to control the West Bank, mostly in the early 1980s, the third isn’t. Assuming 300,000 settlers, one could envision putting all of them into 10 World Trade Center-size structures half a mile over the Green Line, with that number of people, and there would be no issue of an Israeli policy of controlling the WB. The number of the settlers is less important than their geographic spread, especially as more than 80% of them live in a few concentrated areas. Most of the links supplied on this thread address the numbers, not the geographic spread.

        I never said the numbers aren’t growing. The birth-rate in the two Haredi settlements of Modi’in illit and Beitar Illit alone acconts for well over half of the entire population growth, and has nothing to do with construction. Haredi families are simply very large. Nor do they ask for permission from any government or international organizations if they may have additional children.

        So I stand by my statements, in spite of the irrelevant comments and links: no new settlements are being built, and very little construction is on new land.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 24, 2012, 8:32 am

        “I didn’t justify the dispossession, nor defend it.”

        Yes, you did. When you try to waive away the destruction of someone’s life as being “not very significant” you are both justifying and defending the dispossession. ANY dispossession is of great significance.

        “My point was that it hardly constitues proof of an Israeli policy of disspossessing the Palestinians of the West Bank, and there’s no hint in it of genocidal Israeli policies. ”

        The mere fact that the israelis are in the West Bank at all is evidence of these things.

        “And the reason I brought it up, I remind you, is to explain why the Israel-Palestine issue doesn’t particularly interest most people these days, except for the locals and the fanatics.”

        Yes, and your argument is nonsense. The issue has a great deal of interest to huge numbers of people. A large percentage of American Jews take great interest in this issue (mostly aligning themselves with the oppressor), and sufficient numbers of people in the American news and media outlets are interested enough in this issue to run interference and hide israel’s crimes while spreading bigoted lies about the Palestinian people. Further, a large number of politicians are interested in this issue as they stand in line to be fitted for puppet strings in order to accept money from israel money men like Adelson.

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 9:50 am

        Colin and others, Is it too much to wish for a bit of intellectual rigor?

        As the old saying goes, if I decided to get smart with you, how would you know?

        Why don’t you apply a little bit of that intellectual rigor to the actual Phase I Middle East Quartet Road Map terms of reference under the heading “Settlements” and stop trying to change the subject?

        *GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.

        *Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

        — See the full text of the Road Map here: link to news.bbc.co.uk

      • Citizen
        August 24, 2012, 10:06 am

        @ Woody Tanaka

        Furthermore, the American mainstream news never brings up the illegal settlements issue when discussing Israel, which it has been doing mostly in the context of the war on terrorism and, most especially, Iran’s nuclear bomb status–in short, there is a de facto “Don’t ask, don’t tell” main media policy both when it comes to (1.) Israel’s nukes, (2.) Israel’s refusal to join the NNPT, and (3.) the illegal Israeli settlements, and (4.) details on Israel’s occupation.

      • Cliff
        August 26, 2012, 4:00 am

        Palestinians are being stripped of their rights. Just recently, Israeli courts ruled that it was acceptable to take resources from Palestinian land.

        There are plenty of examples. The near-total lack of oversight of authority in the OT as reported on by Yesh Din. Palestinians being sentenced to years in detention for ‘incitement’? Etc.

      • ColinWright
        August 26, 2012, 4:11 am

        Winnica says: “No-one’s being stripped of all rights, quietly and methodically dispossed of their land and herded into ghettos. There are a small number of Palestinians who claim, perhaps correctly, that they’re being pushed off their land. A small number. The rest is blatantly not true, no matter how often it gets trumpeted at Mondoweiss.”

        Great. So go over to Kate’s article and debunk each claim about she’s made about what has happened in just the last week. I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

      • ColinWright
        August 26, 2012, 4:20 am

        Winnica says: “Colin and others,

        Is it too much to wish for a bit of intellectual rigor? There are three separate amtters regarding the settlements. The first is their very existence. I agree with you that it were better if they weren’t there in the first place. But they are, which brings us to the second issue: are they…”

        No…it brings us to the second issue — which is how to make them go away.

        Since they are completely illegal in the first place, it seems logical that Israel should just withdraw all services and all protection from them. In fact, it’s pretty clear Israel has no legal option but to do just that.

        In the interests of humanity, when the inhabitants ask to be rescued, I suppose it would be reasonable for Israel to send convoys to escort them out.

      • ColinWright
        August 26, 2012, 4:23 am

        Winnica says: “…Assuming 300,000 settlers, one could envision putting all of them into 10 World Trade Center-size structures half a mile over the Green Line…”

        I assume you mean half a mile over the Green Line on the Israeli side. It would be clearly illegal to put them in structures half a mile over the Green Line on the Palestinian side.

      • Citizen
        August 26, 2012, 5:10 am

        @ Winnica

        “a very small number”
        “not very significant”
        You mean like Gilad Shalit?
        What if one of them was you?

      • yesspam
        August 26, 2012, 2:01 pm

        just withdraw all services and all protection from them. Just as has happened with East Jerusalem.

      • LanceThruster
        August 23, 2012, 2:02 pm

        Slow motion holocaust is the new black, eh winnie?

      • Mooser
        August 23, 2012, 10:06 pm

        I’m waiting for Winnemucca to tell us he’s “not a Zionist”. I think we will be hearing Zionists tell us that a lot.

      • Mooser
        August 24, 2012, 12:41 am

        And I’m also expecting to see Winnie on all the threads on the Tel Aviv lynching, the threads on the control of Israeli women (don’t date Arabs) and oh, so many others. I’m sure he can explain it all.

    • MRW
      August 23, 2012, 2:36 pm

      seafoid,

      I think you’re overseas, aren’t you?

      This NPR Fresh Air interview with Seth Rosenfeld on his new book Subversives–30 years in the making–details how US Berkeley students were hounded and silenced by the FBI for their political speech. Timely. If I remember it’s about 20 minutes long. Looks like they’re still at it at UC. Maybe this book will wake someone up.

      Then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover suspected the free speech movement to be evidence of a Communist plot to disrupt U.S. campuses. He “had long been concerned about alleged subversion within the education field,” journalist Seth Rosenfeld tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross.

      So Hoover ordered his agents to look into whether the movement was subversive. When they returned and said that it wasn’t, Hoover not only continued to investigate the group but also used “dirty tricks to stifle dissent on the campus,” according to Rosenfeld.

      Rosenfeld’s new book, Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals and Reagan’s Rise to Power, details how the FBI employed fake reporters to plant ideas and shape public opinion about the student movement; how they planted stories with real reporters; and how they even managed — with the help of then-Gov. Ronald Reagan — to get the UC Berkeley’s President Clark Kerr fired.

      “Student ‘Subversives’ And The FBI’s ‘Dirty Tricks'”
      link to npr.org

  2. Erasmus
    August 23, 2012, 10:19 am

    Is such a record not shameful for the so-called “Land of the Free”???

    On top of that: that happens even in the spheres of academia!!

  3. piotr
    August 23, 2012, 10:47 am

    To paraphrase supporters of Israeli policies, Winnica seems upset that there are too few Palestinian lethal casualties. [This is ridiculous, but this is how they often phrase the troll attacks.] Or proud that victims are merely in coma and maimed, or that their life is rendered miserable by amazing variety of petty repressions. For example, to deprive villages of water IDF is destroying wells and even confiscating water containers to make it hard to bring water from other places. It is not lethal, but simply spiteful.

    I really do not know which state has such number of policies that are just like that: spiteful and pointless. Like using airport security (and other security measures, like strip searches of journalists before press conferences to humiliate those that do not have nice thoughts about Israel.

    • Winnica
      August 23, 2012, 2:26 pm

      Piotr –

      You’ve never met me, you’ve got no idea who I am, and actually, beyond the fact that I stand up for Israel on this site, you know nothing about me. Yet you blithely allow yourself to write that I regret not enough Palestinians are getting killed.

      I have never had such a sentiment in my life. On the contrary, as my Palestinian friends will tell you. Yet based on nothing, you make the assertion. This is what the psychologists call ‘projection”, and it says nothing about it subject and everything about the projector.

      Perhaps you’d be interested in explaining why you allow yourself this kind of projection?

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 23, 2012, 2:45 pm

        Projection?? Ha. You’ve pretty much demonstrated the correctness of Piotr’s conclusion through your past comments. Hell, “stand[ing] up for [i]srael” — given it’s past — is more than enough.

        And I’m sure many of your friends are black Palestinian.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 5:02 pm

        Winnica says: ” You’ve never met me, you’ve got no idea who I am, and actually, beyond the fact that I stand up for Israel on this site, you know nothing about me…”

        There is at least one other thing we know about you. We know that you attempt to rationalize the grossest forms of racism.

      • Cliff
        August 23, 2012, 6:17 pm

        You have no Palestinian friends, Winnica. I don’t – nor does anyone else – need to know you personally, to know you and the rest of the MW ZioBots are a bunch of pathological liars.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 7:02 pm

        Cliff: “…you and the rest of the MW ZioBots are a bunch of pathological liars.”

        Be fair. It’s possible (although I wouldn’t buy a used car from one of them) that in other areas of life they are perfectly honest.

        But if one assumes an overwhelming need to defend Israel, then it pretty much follows that one is going to have to lie to meet that need. So a defender of Israel may appear to be a pathological liar. It doesn’t follow that he necessarily is.

  4. Fredblogs
    August 23, 2012, 1:09 pm

    The MSU at Irvine was suspended because its leaders organized the protest and then lied to the school officials about having organized it. They got caught when their e-mails organizing it were discovered.

    • eGuard
      August 23, 2012, 1:52 pm

      So, Fredblogs, another illustration of the title.

    • Woody Tanaka
      August 23, 2012, 2:17 pm

      Sure, Fredo, I’m sure that the anti-Muslim pogrom at work in the UC system has NOTHING to do with the fact that it has a president, in Mark Yudof, who appears to be more interested in protecting Israel from criticism than protecting the rights of his students. (Well, his non-Jewish students, anyway.)

    • MRW
      August 23, 2012, 2:41 pm

      You make it sound as if organizing a protest were a crime, or not allowed. That’s not true.

      So there had to be something else going on.

      • Fredblogs
        August 23, 2012, 5:37 pm

        Organizing a protest is not a crime, and if they had merely held a protest outside the event, they would not have been prosecuted. Conspiring to disrupt someone else’s event is a crime. For which 10 of the 11 who actually did it were convicted and sentenced, the other did community service in return for the charges being dropped.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 6:23 pm

        Fredblogs says ‘…For which 10 of the 11 who actually did it were convicted and sentenced…’

        Find an example of pro-Israel hecklers being convicted and sentenced.

      • piotr
        August 23, 2012, 9:34 pm

        If Pussy Riot can be sentenced, so can be Irvine 11. And so should be the Congressmen who constantly interrupted the speech of Netanyahu with clapping.

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 12:16 am

        Conspiring to disrupt someone else’s event is a crime. For which 10 of the 11 who actually did it were convicted and sentenced

        LOL! Fred no one was charged with any counts involving criminal conspiracy, including the MSU. Maybe you should give your imagination a rest.

      • Fredblogs
        August 24, 2012, 12:37 pm

        @Hostage. The counts against the Irvine 10, the ones they were tried _and convicted of_ included one count each of disrupting a meeting, and one count each of _conspiring_ to disrupt a meeting.

        link to nbclosangeles.com

        The leaders of the MSU (other than the one who actually participated in the disruption), weren’t charged with it, but the e-mails made it clear that they were part of the planning process.

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 3:09 pm

        The leaders of the MSU (other than the one who actually participated in the disruption), weren’t charged with it, but the e-mails made it clear that they were part of the planning process.

        Fred the court slapped a gag order on the parties to the case and disqualified three top district attorneys and their lead investigator for misconduct, which included publicizing the contents of private emails that were obtained and used improperly, while withholding emails that were exculpatory. We know that Rackauckas convened a grand jury and obtained a felony warrant to collect evidence in a misdemeanor case. Yet for all that, he did not charge the MSU or its other members with any involvement in these offenses.

        As for the claims elsewhere (e.g. here) that Oren was prevented from exercising his right of free speech or censored, the evidence at trial showed that he finished his prepared remarks and left 15 minutes early to attend a Lakers game at Staples Center and meet Kobe Bryant. So it was Oren who cancelled the scheduled Q & A session.
        link to ocregister.com

      • Fredblogs
        August 24, 2012, 6:55 pm

        How unfortunate for them that their offense of disrupting the meeting was complete when they disrupted the meeting, rather than requiring that they succeed in preventing the man from speaking altogether. Also how unfortunate for them that the crime of conspiring to disrupt the meeting was complete as soon as one of them took a substantial step toward implementing the acts they conspired to do.

        Oh, and it wasn’t that the e-mails were private, it was that they were privileged communications between attorney and client. First I’m hearing about withholding exculpatory e-mails. Cite?

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 7:37 pm

        Organizing a protest is not a crime, and if they had merely held a protest outside the event, they would not have been prosecuted.

        Yeah, we’ve all heard that stuff before. It’s was perfectly okay for Rosa Parks to protest segregation on city buses, but it was a crime when she got on board one and refused to obey section 10 the Montgomery city bus segregation ordinance. You can read about the record of her arrest and conviction and the subsequent boycott here: link to tolerance.org

        Of course it was legal for Negroes to individually boycott the segregated bus lines. But the authorities quickly decided that it was a crime for them to conspire together to boycott the bus lines. You can read about Dr. Martin Luther King’s arrest and conviction for that here:
        *State of Alabama V. M. L. King, Jr. (1956) link to mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu
        *Wayne Phillips, ‘‘Negro Minister Convicted of Directing Bus Boycott,’’ New York Times, 23 March 1956. link to tolerance.org

        Of course Ghandi was a vocal critic of racial segregation and apartheid in South Africa, Palestine, and India. He was arrested, jailed, and convicted for his protests and boycotts on that issue. You can read about that here:
        *Gandhi begins fast in protest of caste separation link to history.com

        Many of us believe that asking Michael Oren “to STFU already” actually qualifies as a valuable community service and no amount of lawyering is going change that. link to haaretz.com

      • Hostage
        August 26, 2012, 2:20 pm

        First I’m hearing about withholding exculpatory e-mails. Cite?

        The DA published the emails that tended to incriminate the defendants, but not the ones that were exculpatory.

        link to ocregister.com

    • ColinWright
      August 23, 2012, 6:37 pm

      Fredblogs says: “The MSU at Irvine was suspended because its leaders organized the protest and then lied to the school officials about having organized it…”

      Even assuming this characterization of events is true (which it probably isn’t) why would they have felt it necessary to lie? Why were they being investigated in the first place?

      I grew up by a UC. Went there. Obviously organized heckling is perfectly routine (if not necessarily particularly edifying to watch).

      So what? Why were these particular students singled out? …and not merely hustled out of the hall, but prosecuted for a crime?

      Could it have had anything at all to do with their target having been a representative of Israel? Think that’s a faint possibility there, Freddo? I mean, I could form a little group of pro-abortionists or anti-abortionists or whatever and we could go at it for years and the campus police would just roll their eyes and frog-march us out of the hall yet again.

      But Israel? Wham comes the hammer. Why the hell wasn’t it all about the spotted owl or something?

      • Fredblogs
        August 23, 2012, 9:23 pm

        They were being asked about it because the people who deliberately and premeditatedly disrupted the school event included members of the MSU. And because the faculty suspected (with good reason, apparently) that they were behind the attempt to suppress the free speech rights of the people at the event. These students were singled out because they had committed two misdemeanors each. They were prosecuted for the same reason.

      • ColinWright
        August 23, 2012, 11:36 pm

        Fredblogs. You’re simply failing to answer my question.

        I wasn’t disagreeing that they deliberately and premediatedly ‘disrupted the school event’/heckled Israel’s ambassador. I would assume several of the hecklers would be members of the the Muslim Students Union. I don’t care if you transmogrify heckling into ‘suppressing free speech rights.’

        My point is that all of this is routine, and is never prosecuted — until the speaker is for Israel. And then it’s prosecuted. Why do you think that is?

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 2:26 am

        They were being asked about it because the people who deliberately and premeditatedly disrupted the school event included members of the MSU.

        LOL! You’re talking about an overly broad application of a misdemeanor statute against disrupting a public meeting. Fortunately, Mr Oren is a registered foreign agent who was only disseminating Israeli government propaganda.

        FYI:

        June 30, 2011 The judge will decide on the alleged misconduct by the District Attorney’s office. The defense has motioned for the DA’s Office to be removed from this case.

        July 1, 2011 Due to the prosecution team’s misconduct in obtaining, reviewing and using these documents, the lead investigator and three of the attorneys (including a lead attorney) were removed from the case.

        July 21, 2011 Charges against one of the Irvine 11, Hakim Kebir, are dropped due to the misconduct of the D.A.’s office and misuse of privileged information to bring charges against him.
        link to irvine11.com

        That sort of conduct does seem to be a little bit out of the ordinary.

      • Fredblogs
        August 24, 2012, 12:25 pm

        @ColinWright
        Maybe the level went beyond the usual level of heckling. Maybe they were unusually obvious in their organization. From what I heard of the event they didn’t all shout at once, they timed it so that as soon as the disruption from one of them ended the next would start their disruption. I suspect that the main reason was that this got a lot of publicity because it was such a prominent person whose free speech rights were being infringed. Prosecutors are more likely to prosecute a high profile case than a low profile one, even if the crime is the same.

      • Fredblogs
        August 24, 2012, 12:31 pm

        @Hostage
        They used an investigator who didn’t recognize some communications as privileged communications among a large number of papers relevant to the case. Screw ups happen. The charges were dropped because he agreed to do 40 hours of community service. If the charges had been dropped because of the misconduct alone, he wouldn’t have had to do 40 hours of community service. That suggests that they could have kept prosecuting him on other evidence had he not made a deal.

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 3:19 pm

        They used an investigator who didn’t recognize some communications as privileged communications among a large number of papers relevant to the case. Screw ups happen.

        It actually appeared to be a case of misconduct, since the Judge removed three district attorneys and the lead investigator from the case for acquiring and maintaining possession of privileged attorney-client communications and attempting to use them to bring charges against one of the students. That’s frankly more troubling to me than someone telling Michael Oren to STFU.

      • ColinWright
        August 24, 2012, 4:12 pm

        Fredblogs says: “Maybe the level went beyond the usual level of heckling. Maybe they were unusually obvious in their organization…”

        Maybe it was a matter of Israel being the object of attack? What justification can you offer for the fact that you keep avoiding this rather obvious explanation?

        If I let my dog piddle on Bob’s lawn, and then I let my dog piddle on Alf’s lawn, and then I let my dog piddle on the mayor’s lawn — and that’s when the police seize my dog and slap me with a citation — then it seems reasonable to assume their action had as much to do with whose lawn it was as it did with the actual gravity of the offense.

        You[‘re sitting here trying to say ‘it was because your dog piddled more that time,’ or ‘it’s because that grass was newly planted.’ I think it’s kind of obvious it was because it was the mayor’s lawn.

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 4:57 pm

        That suggests that they could have kept prosecuting him on other evidence had he not made a deal.

        Fred I understand that Prosecutors can be dickish about the 1st Amendment and that they occasionally get lucky with Judges and juries. I’ve authored quite a few comments here on that subject. That doesn’t mean that they are correct when they succeed. Here are the usual objections: First off, 3/4 of the states ratified an amendment to the Constitution which admits no exceptions. It plainly stipulated that Congress shall make “no law” abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Secondly, the Courts have engaged in a great deal of sophistry over the years to get around that constitutional prohibition in order to permit statutory infringements on political speech.

        This article highlights yet another of the many reasons Mark Yudof and the University of California Regents are gaining a well-earned reputation for offering students budget cuts, tuition hikes, layoffs, program eliminations, and ham-handed policies which trigger student unrest, campus building occupations, teach-ins, protest dance parties, and public dumpster burnings. University of California is one of the most expensive public university systems in the country, i.e. there are competing institutions out there vying for the consumer’s hard-earned dollars.

        Oren is a credentialed agent of a foreign entity who was given a publicly-funded forum by the State of California to disseminate political propaganda on behalf of his employers. It’s hardly the first time that California officials have gone out of their way to protect the right of others to disseminate foreign propaganda, e.g. See Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

        The bottom line is that Oren delivered his canned talking points and decided to cancel the scheduled Q&A session in order to leave 15 minutes early to attend a Lakers game at Staples Center and meet Kobe Bryant. He’s never said anything since the day he was appointed that hasn’t been faithfully echoed on the Hasbara Fellowship RSS feed.

      • Fredblogs
        August 26, 2012, 2:41 pm

        @Hostage
        And this conviction does not abridge freedom of speech. It upholds the right of people to speak freely, but has time, place, and manner restrictions on when, where, and how, they can speak. Content neutral, constitutionally valid restrictions. This would have been just as much a crime if they had been shouting gibberish at the top of their lungs instead of whatever slogans they were shouting. You are committing a crime (disturbing the peace) by blasting any message at 3 AM over loudspeakers in a residential neighborhood. Similarly, you are committing a crime by disrupting a lawful meeting of someone else, regardless of what you are yelling.

      • Fredblogs
        August 26, 2012, 2:44 pm

        @Hostage
        As for the budget cuts, complain to the voters of California, they are the ones who refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances. In a state where the legislature can’t raise taxes without a 2/3 majority, and more than a third of the legislators are Republicans with a blood oath to never raise taxes no matter how bad the situation gets.

      • ColinWright
        August 26, 2012, 3:21 pm

        “As for the budget cuts, complain to the voters of California, they are the ones who refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances. “

        As a voter in California, I can relate to that. Every bond or tax measure that comes up, I automatically vote ‘no’ on.

        We already have a sales tax that runs close to 10%, and I pay $3000.00 a year in property taxes on an 800 sq. foot house in Richmond.

        For this, I get schools that are worthless, and no medical care, among other absences of benefits. Should I decide to go to one of the State Parks I have supposedly already paid for, I’ll be charged $16 a night to stay in it. If I want to cross the bridge, I’ll be paying a toll that is twelve times what it was when I was a kid. The irony there is that the toll was supposed to go away once the bonds to build the bridge were paid off.

        Well, that theory kind of got quietly dropped, didn’t it?

        These clowns are not getting more of my money. For one, as the bridge toll demonstrates, if they ever get their hands on a revenue stream, you can forget about them letting go.

      • Hostage
        August 26, 2012, 4:31 pm

        @Hostage As for the budget cuts, complain to the voters of California, they are the ones who refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances.

        Anyone with a well-rounded education should know that all of the primary UN organs and the international community of states have repeatedly advised and documented the fact that Israel is a flagrant violator of international criminal laws and the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. So, why not complain about the propriety of public administrators putting our government’s facilities, campus police, grand juries, and judicial system at the disposal of a credentialed agent of Israel to disseminate political propaganda on behalf of his employer?

        Thousands of jobless families made homeless by foreclosures are obviously unwilling to raise taxes or borrow more money to finance these sort of abuses, indulgences, and perks in their state’s universities and government.

      • Hostage
        August 26, 2012, 4:47 pm

        @Hostage And this conviction does not abridge freedom of speech. It upholds the right of people to speak freely, but has time, place, and manner restrictions on when, where, and how, they can speak.

        LOL! That would be a winning argument if the Constitution said: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press – except for laws respecting time, place, and manner restrictions on when, where, and how, they can speak.

      • Hostage
        August 26, 2012, 5:29 pm

        You are committing a crime (disturbing the peace) by blasting any message at 3 AM over loudspeakers in a residential neighborhood. Similarly, you are committing a crime by disrupting a lawful meeting of someone else, regardless of what you are yelling.

        The government isn’t holding public meetings at 3 AM in residential neighborhoods. If they were, it would certainly be constitutional to show-up and voice opposition and grievances. Magistrates in Great Britain, Spain, and many other civilized countries found there was sufficient evidence to issue arrest warrants for Israeli officials like Tzipi Livni, Doron Almog, et al Michael Oren and the University of California don’t have a constitutional right to conduct public meetings in order to present unopposed political propaganda on behalf of the government of Israel and its illegal policies.

        The government may decide that the Nazi party has a constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble and march through the public streets of Skokie, Illinois. But it definitely doesn’t have the delegated power to muzzle the speech of the hecklers who decide to make an appearance and complain about the Nazi agenda.

      • Citizen
        August 26, 2012, 8:33 pm

        @ Hostage, Fredblogs,

        The legal issue of “the heckler’s veto” is interesting: link to scholarship.law.marquette.edu

        I lived in Skokie when Frank Colin got his permit to march in Skokie, and I was at Marquette Park when he did speak and was heckled there. The little bunch of brown shirts were outnumbered there by far. There was a sea of Israeli flags brandished by rows of non-locals who came to the white working class park. Chaos reigned in the end.

      • Fredblogs
        August 27, 2012, 1:06 pm

        @Hostage
        Time, place, and manner restrictions are both approved by the U.S. Supreme Court (you know, the people who decide what the Constitution means) and absolutely necessary. They are what keeps pro Israel people from parking a speaker equipped van on your doorstep and blasting pro-Israel slogans at your house at 180 decibels at 3AM. There is a difference between freedom and anarchy.

      • Fredblogs
        August 27, 2012, 1:11 pm

        @Hostage
        Grandstanding Magistrates doing that for the publicity, not because they had committed any actual crimes.

        And Michael Oren, or anyone else invited to speak by the University of California has a Constitutional right to conduct a meeting open to the public at University of California and a legal right to not have that meeting disrupted. Hence the convictions.

      • Fredblogs
        August 27, 2012, 1:17 pm

        @Citizen.
        Thank you, that is an interesting link. I think this quote put it very well:

        Thomas I. Emerson wrote:
        “Up to a point heckling or other interruption of the speaker may
        be part of the dialogue. But conduct that obstructs or seriously
        impedes the utterance of another, even though verbal in form,
        cannot be classified as expression. Rather it is the equivalent of
        pure noise. It has the same effect, in preventing or disrupting
        communication, as acts of physical force. Consequently it must
        be deemed action and is not covered by the First Amendment.
        The speaker is entitled to protection from this form of interference as from any other physical obstruction.”

      • Hostage
        August 27, 2012, 8:51 pm

        @Hostage Time, place, and manner restrictions are both approved by the U.S. Supreme Court (you know, the people who decide what the Constitution means)

        They appointed themselves to that job after the fact. The Congress and the states have nonetheless amended the Constitution and adopted legislation to deny the Courts jurisdiction whenever they think it has overstepped its proper bounds, e.g. the 11th Amendment (Chisholm v. Georgia); 14th Amendment (Dred Scott); & etc.

        BTW, the Irvine 11 weren’t accused of violating the Constitution.

      • Hostage
        August 27, 2012, 9:25 pm

        And Michael Oren, or anyone else invited to speak by the University of California has a Constitutional right to conduct a meeting open to the public at University of California and a legal right to not have that meeting disrupted.

        I think that there is an appeal still pending, so that remains to seen. FYI, if you’re going to cite exceptions to the 1st Amendment, then Bluman, et al. V. FEC affirmed that non-resident aliens have no first amendment right to make campaign donations or participate in our polity, even if UC decides to invite them. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case affirmed that political campaign contributions are a form of protected speech.

        Oren renounced his US citizenship and is living in this country on a non-resident “A” visa as an employee of a foreign government. There are a number of constitutional and statutory limitations on non-resident aliens that prevent them from serving on juries, or enjoying various offices of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

        If you want to invite employees of foreign governments to disseminate political propaganda on behalf of accused war criminals without being heckled, you should probably use a private venue, not a public meeting on state property.

        There is a difference between freedom and anarchy.

        So far as I recall, Stand With Us members disrupted a JVP Chapter meeting at a Seniors Center and even pepper sprayed the participants without anyone being convicted of committing a crime. Go argue that the Irvine 11 did something worse under the relevant California statutes. link to jewishvoiceforpeace.org

      • Hostage
        August 28, 2012, 12:46 am

        But conduct that obstructs or seriously impedes the utterance of another, even though verbal in form, cannot be classified as expression.

        Once again that would be a winning argument if there were any basis for that proposition in the text of the Constitution itself, but there’s not.

        In fact the federalists routinely used conspiracy, sedition, and alien laws (similar to the post 9/11 Patriot Act) to silence resident and immigrant alien groups like the Palestinians. See Thomas F. Carroll, “Freedom of Speech and of the Press in the Federalist Period: The Sedition Act.” Michigan Law Review 18 (1920): 615, link to jstor.org — cited in Craig R. Smith, Silencing the Opposition: Government Strategies of Suppression, SUNY Press, 1996.

        Jefferson wrote that the Courts and Congress had erred

        “I discharge every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition Law, because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity as absolute and palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.”

        The Supreme Court waited until 1964, but it finally noted Madison and Jefferson’s condemnation of the Sedition and Alien Acts with approval, because they were an unconstitutional exercise of “a power not delegated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto”.

        The Court noted “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) link to supreme.justia.com

      • Fredblogs
        August 28, 2012, 1:49 pm

        @Hostage
        No, they were accused of and convicted of the crimes of disrupting a lawful meeting and conspiracy to disrupt a lawful meeting. Laws put in place to protect the Constitutional rights of the people from the “heckler’s veto”.

      • Hostage
        August 28, 2012, 6:11 pm

        No, they were accused of and convicted of the crimes of disrupting a lawful meeting and conspiracy to disrupt a lawful meeting. Laws put in place to protect the Constitutional rights of the people from the “heckler’s veto”.

        That would be a winning argument if the 1st Amendment excluded hecklers. FYI, the Sedition and Alien Acts were put in place to protect politicians from hecklers. It only took the Supreme Court 164 years to notice that those acts violated an explicit constitutional prohibition about adopting laws that abridge the freedom of speech. So based upon past experience, I find your arguments completely unpersuasive.

  5. yourstruly
    August 23, 2012, 1:34 pm

    Is it likely that U.C. President Mark Yudof’s coming down on the Students for Justice in Palestine was influenced by his and his wife Judy having been co-recipients of the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life award, or by his wife having served as the first female international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism? Student protesters who staged sit-ins back in the civil rights era would have had about as much chance of receiving a fair trial from a judge toting a KKK membership card as the SJP had of getting a fair hearing from someone as unwaveringly pro-Israel as Yudof.

    • Mooser
      August 24, 2012, 12:47 am

      “Is it likely that U.C. President Mark Yudof’s coming down on the Students for Justice in Palestine was influenced by his and his wife Judy having been co-recipients of the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life award, or by his wife having served as the first female international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism?”

      Gee, why do I think a guy would have no problem what-so-ever finding all sorts of wonderful Jewish-ethical-value stuff saying Yudoff should have recused himself from this affair, and let objective people judge and determine? And yet he didn’t? Hard to believe. Or maybe “Jewish ethical values” are different from less chosen kinds.

  6. ColinWright
    August 23, 2012, 2:04 pm

    Fredblogs said: “The MSU at Irvine was suspended because its leaders organized the protest and then lied to the school officials about having organized it…”

    The MSU at Irvine was suspended because they were acting against Israel rather than on behalf of Israel.

    • seafoid
      August 23, 2012, 3:26 pm

      That will come to be viewed as the golden age for Zionist influence before it all went tits up. Whichever Ziobot ideologue that follows Michael Oren will have an impossible job.

  7. Don Bacon
    August 23, 2012, 4:23 pm

    Under the false assumption that criticism of Israeli state policies constitutes hate speech against Jewish students, the report recommends wide forms of censorship to limit criticism of Israel.

    This is entirely consistent with US policy. According to the US, criticism of Israel and Zionism is “the new anti-semitism.”

    Anti-Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel often escapes condemnation since it can be more subtle than traditional forms of anti-Semitism, and promoting anti-Semitic attitudes may not be the conscious intent of the purveyor. Israel’s policies and practices must be subject to responsible criticism and scrutiny to the same degree as those of any other country. At the same time, those criticizing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of Jews.

    In contrast, new anti-Semitism, characterized by anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism that is anti-Semitic in its effect—whether or not in its intent—is more subtle and thus frequently escapes condemnation.

    However, disproportionate criticism of the Jewish State and/or Israelis and demonizing them as barbaric, unprincipled, selfish, inhumane, etc. is anti-Semitic and has the effect of causing global audiences to associate those bad attributes with Jews in general.

    link to state.gov

    • ColinWright
      August 23, 2012, 6:27 pm

      …Anti-Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel often escapes condemnation since it can be more subtle than traditional forms of anti-Semitism, and promoting anti-Semitic attitudes may not be the conscious intent of the purveyor…”

      In other words, even if I am authentically not anti-semitic myself, if I criticize Israel, it can be anti-semitism, because it might encourage anti-semitic attitudes in someone else.

      …so (of course) we should always be very circumspect in our criticism of Israel.

      Even if it is the closest thing to a Nazi state that’s existed since 1945. Mustn’t say so.

    • Annie Robbins
      August 23, 2012, 9:04 pm

      According to the US, criticism of Israel and Zionism is “the new anti-semitism.”

      don, it says right on the first page ‘A report provided to the US congress’, that doesn’t translate into ‘policy’. then in the preface it says it was ‘released’ by the state department from the office of the special convoy to ‘monitor and combat anti semitism.’

      the very first thing in the report is legislation where it explains the congress passed legislation ‘to review’ anti semitism (globally,not in the US)

      the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law (Public Law 108-332).
      The Act requires the U.S. Department of State to document and combat acts of anti-Semitism globally. To advance these goals, the Act mandated a one-time report on anti-Semitic acts, which the U.S. Depart- ment of State submitted to the U.S. Congress in January 2005.

      ……..

      Consistent with the U.S. Department of State’s commitment to assess and counter anti-Semitism, this report is provided to the U.S. Congress to further assess contemporary anti-Semitism by exploring anti- Semitic themes and practices.
      This report is meant to be used as a resource for increasing understanding of and informing public discourse about contemporary forms of anti-Semitism and for shaping policies to combat anti-Semitism worldwide.

      ……….

      While the report describes many measures that foreign governments have adopted to combat anti-Sem- itism, it does not endorse any such measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the U.S. Constitution.
      Because the mandate of the U.S. Department of State pertains to foreign countries, this report does not include a review of anti-Semitism within the United States,
      where anti-Semitism also remains a problem.

      iow, this is not ‘US policy’

      • Mooser
        August 23, 2012, 10:11 pm

        If criticism of Israel is the new anti-Semitism, there’s going to be a lot of anti-Semitism going around. Count on it.

        Of course if crioticism of Israel is the new anti-Semitism, the defdense of Israel is, as Winnie so deftly shows us, the same old Hasbara.
        Yes, I know, Winnie, they haven’t built any new settlements in the last fifteen minutes.

      • Don Bacon
        August 23, 2012, 10:39 pm

        So your position is that the “new anti-Semitism” is a US policy that applies to foreigners but somehow doesn’t apply to Americans. Obviously UC doesn’t agree with you and UC isn’t alone. Criticism of Israel is forbidden. Remember when Obama lost his bearings and tried it? He’s still paying the price for that.

        Criticism of Israel in any public institution is punished. Professor Juan Cole, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney — injured for it. And that’s because anti-Israel statements are considered to be anti-Semitic, as I said above. It’s what it is. It’s forbidden, by anyone.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 23, 2012, 11:05 pm

        So your position is that the “new anti-Semitism” is a US policy that applies to foreigners but somehow doesn’t apply to Americans.

        no, i repeat, my position is this is not ‘US policy’. US policy requires legislation. the only legislation referenced in this article was the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 and this is the ‘review’ which was ‘released’. in europe this is official policy codified in law.

        Criticism of Israel is forbidden

        i suggest you scroll up to the title of this article for review (“Attempts to censor”). there is a difference between what is attempted and what is actually forbidden. if criticism of israel were forbidden on UC campuses there would not have been the boycott debate at berkeley last year.

        Criticism of Israel in any public institution is punished

        what’s your definition of ‘punishment’? i attended the bds conference at penn last february.why don’t you explain to all of us how this conference was allowed to be hosted if criticizing israel was ‘forbidden’. and last i heard no punishments have been metered out to the organizers by the university.

        i think you are jumping the gun don. obviously all the shenanigans mentioned in this article would not be going on if this was already a done deal. they are trying to accomplish this, it’s not a done deal yet and my guess is it will end up in court if they try to shut down or criminalize criticism of israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 23, 2012, 11:12 pm

        also, when you say ‘according to the US’ who do you mean? something has to be codified in law to make it official and as the report(review) you linked to clearly states:it does not endorse any such measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the U.S. Constitution.

        let’s presume that includes our first amendment rights including freedom of speech which (last i heard) is (official) US policy.

      • ToivoS
        August 24, 2012, 12:09 am

        Annie, you are of course right in this little spat with Don Bacon. I think he is being just a bit too much pessimistic about where this country is going. We still have the constitution on our side. Nevertheless, there are some powerful forces out there in the UC system that are trying to define criticism of Israel as hate speech and anti-Semitism. It is up to us to prevent that from happening.

      • Mooser
        August 24, 2012, 12:53 am

        As I’ve said many, many times before, I don’t see why the American debate on I-P issues (assuming we are going to have one, which I’m still not sure of) will be conducted differently than the American debate on any other issue. In terms of quality of debate, I figure it’ll rank somewhere between race, abortion (and other issues re sex), and gun rights.
        So steel yourselves.

      • Hostage
        August 24, 2012, 1:26 am

        Obviously UC doesn’t agree with you and UC isn’t alone. Criticism of Israel is forbidden.

        It doesn’t have anything to do with the State Department. It was a failed effort spearheaded by a former director of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. See Kenneth L. Marcus, “Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964″ link to ssrn.com

        I’ve commented before that if Palestinian or Muslim citizens or employees of the San Francisco and New York transit authority can’t file complaints with EEOC about religious or national origin harassment, then Jewish faculty and students can fold-up their lawsuits against the state over the so-called anti-Semitic climate on campuses. link to mondoweiss.net

        If you think Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits anti-Zionist discrimination as a form of racial discrimination, then it has to be subject to the general exception for discrimination based exclusively on the tenets of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, & etc. religious belief. In short, you can’t protect Zionists from Jewish Voice for Peace, et al using the US Civil Rights Act – and that’s before you even begin to examine the political content of the speech. Even the Jewish bureaucrat who attempted to square the circle admitted that much.

        A Federal Judge subsequently tossed out a lawsuit against UC Berkeley based on the theory saying that the alleged harassment constituted protected political speech. — See Judge Dismisses Claim That UC-Berkeley Fostered Anti-Semitism link to chronicle.com

      • Don Bacon
        August 24, 2012, 11:45 am

        ‘according to the US’ means the people in government who run the country, whose policies don’t require codification. One of their principal policies, which you (Annie) seem oblivious to, is to never speak ill of Israel. Never. And when they do, like Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, they become pariahs.

        The policy is spelled out in the document published by the State Department. Criticism of Israel is the “new anti-semitism” and we all know that anti-semitism, which used to be okay in America, is now NOT okay. While there is no law against anti-semitism, it is common knowledge that society and The Lobby will get you if they suspect anybody of anti-semitism.

        So that is why you won’t find ANY criticism of Israel or Zionism by anybody of importance. It’s the new anti-semitism, not by law, but by common agreement of the PTB. US Vice president Biden, a career politician from Delaware, has declared that he is a Zionist.

    • American
      August 23, 2012, 11:03 pm

      ‘However, disproportionate criticism of the Jewish State and/or Israelis and demonizing them as barbaric, unprincipled, selfish, inhumane, etc. is anti-Semitic and has the effect of causing global audiences to associate those bad attributes with Jews in general.”

      Oh that’s right Blame the victims! why dont you!….we non Jews are the victims here, we, the world and the Palestines are the victims of Israel and your censorship! That’s right, you nasty Israelis zios you’re blaming us victims, blaming us victims…..!!!!!! The fucking nerve!
      I demand reparations for my human right of free speech being victimized!
      Get me a lawyer, I wanna sue!
      And it’s Apartheid!!!! Yes, it’s Apartheid directed at non Jews-non Israelis!!!! More Israeli Apartheid!! Boycott the censorship!
      ROTFLMAO

  8. DICKERSON3870
    August 23, 2012, 4:32 pm

    RE: “The University of California recently commissioned a report on the campus climate that accuses students and faculty who are critical of Israel of contributing to a negative environment for Jewish students.” ~ Rahim Kurwa

    ALSO SEE: “The Trial of Israel’s Campus Critics”, by David Theo Goldberg and Saree Makdisi, Tikkun Magazine, September/October 2009

    [EXCERPT]. . . It is an extraordinary fact that no fewer than thirty-three distinct organizations – including AIPAC, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Jewish Congress, and the Jewish National Fund – are gathered together today as members or affiliates of the Israel on Campus Coalition. The coalition is an overwhelmingly powerful presence on American college campuses for which there is simply no equivalent on the Palestinian or Arab side. Its self-proclaimed mission is not merely to monitor our colleges and universities. That, after all, is the commitment of Campus Watch, which was started by pro-Israel activists in 2002. It is, rather (and in its own words), to generate “a pro-active, pro-Israel agenda on campus.”
    There is, accordingly, disproportionate and unbalanced intervention on campuses across the country by a coalition of well-funded organizations, who have no time for — and even less interest in — the niceties of intellectual exchange and academic process. Insinuation, accusation, and defamation have become the weapons of first resort to respond to argument and criticism directed at Israeli policies. As far as these outside pressure groups (and their campus representatives) are concerned, the intellectual and academic price that the scholarly community pays as a result of this kind of intervention amounts to little more than collateral damage. . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to tikkun.org

  9. ColinWright
    August 23, 2012, 5:06 pm

    Dickerson3870 ““The University of California recently commissioned a report on the campus climate that accuses students and faculty who are critical of Israel of contributing to a negative environment for Jewish students…”

    This is such bullshit.

    I wish my dad were still alive. He went to Cal Berkeley in the thirties.

    I assume there were plenty of critics of Nazi Germany on the campus. Did the University censor them for ‘contributing to a negative environment for German-American students’?

    Why is everything connected with supporting Israel so consistently a lie of some kind? One would think that at least occasionally something would be inadvertently true — just by the law of averages.

    But no. With almost awesome consistency, almost everything is some kind of falsehood: a distortion, an invalid analogy, just a simple lie…but always a falsehood. Just as an abstract proposition, it’s amazing that something could be this consistently false. It’s like Israel and truth are mutually exclusive propositions. One never finds them both in the same place.

    • yourstruly
      August 23, 2012, 9:45 pm

      yes, when it comes to the zionist entity, the truth is always the opposite of what the entity or its backers claim it to be. as for campus climate at u.c. that’s detrimental to the well being of students there, why hasn’t u.c. president mark yudof called for a commission to look into the effect of Islamophobia on Muslim students?

Leave a Reply