Brooklyn College BDS event appears likely to go forward (as JVP explains it is in no way anti-Semitic)

Israel/Palestine
on 177 Comments

Yesterday we reported on a panel discussion of boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel at Brooklyn College a week from tomorrow that is sponsored by the political science department and that is being attacked by Alan Dershowitz and other supporters of Israel. It appears that the panel– featuring Judith Butler and Omar Barghouti– will go forward, and with more attention than it might otherwise have gotten. See the Brooklyn College president’s letter below, upholding the principle of open debate.

Meantime, the New York Daily News is pulling out the stops to force the panel off-campus. Dershowitz has a piece in the pro-Israel newspaper calling for Brooklyn College to dissociate itself from a “propaganda hate orgy,” and the editorial page says that the panel’s views border on anti-Semitism.What a smear. Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace has a great letter below, dismissing these fearful tactics.

Karen Gould, president of Brooklyn College, sent out the following letter to staff on Monday.

Subject: Upholding the principles of academic freedom with respect and civility

Dear students, faculty, and staff,  

Each semester, student clubs, academic departments, and other groups on our campus host events and invite speakers on a broad range of topics. At times, the issues discussed may be challenging and the points of view expressed may be controversial.

Next week, Students for Justice in Palestine is hosting two speakers who will discuss their views on the BDS movement, which calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. The event is co-sponsored by several campus and community organizations, including the political science department.

As an institution of higher education, it is incumbent upon us to uphold the tenets of academic freedom and allow our students and faculty to engage in dialogue and debate on topics they may choose, even those with which members of our campus and broader community may vehemently disagree. As your president, I consistently have demonstrated my commitment to these principles so that our college community may consider complex issues and points of view across the political and cultural spectrum.

Unfortunately, some may believe that our steadfast commitment to free speech signals an institutional endorsement of a particular point of view. Nothing could be further from the truth. Brooklyn College does not endorse the views of the speakers visiting our campus next week, just as it has not endorsed those of previous visitors to our campus with opposing views. We do, however, uphold their right to speak, and the rights of our students and faculty to attend, listen, and fully debate. We also encourage our students and faculty to explore these issues from multiple viewpoints and in a variety of forums so that no single perspective serves as the sole source of information or basis for consideration.

In addition, as I have said on several occasions, our college community values mutual respect and civil discourse. We ask all students, faculty, staff, and guests on our campus to conduct themselves accordingly so that Brooklyn College continues to be a learning environment where all may discuss and debate issues of importance to our world.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Gould

President

Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace stood up for the panel:

Dear President Gould,

I am writing on behalf of Jewish Voice for Peace (www.jvp.org) in appreciation of Brooklyn College’s support for free speech and open political debate.  We commend you for supporting your Political Science department’s co-sponsorship of an event on February 7th about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement featuring Omar Barghouti, a leading Palestinian rights activist, and world-renowned Professor Judith Butler.

Recent efforts to shut down this event are a deplorable attack on free speech that has no place on a college campus.  As an organization inspired by Jewish tradition to work for equality and human rights for all the people of Palestine and Israel, we are especially troubled by the allegations that this event is anti-Jewish. Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions are non-violent tools with a long history of being used by civil society to make social change. Two recent examples include the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and the civil rights movement here in the United States.  

Contrary to reports in the media, the BDS movement has a broad array of support, including from Jewish students and community members.  In no way can it be construed as anti-Semitic. We urge you to look with skepticism on any claims to speak for the Jewish community in New York, which we know to hold a wide array of opinions on this issue.  In fact, our New York chapter is a co-sponsor of this event.

We urge you to continue to stand up to the pressure being exerted against this important event and in defense of free speech on campus.

If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to be in contact with me.

Warm Regards,

Rebecca Vilkomerson

Executive Director

Jewish Voice for Peace

Brooklyn, NY

Update: Donnybrook. The Jewish Week reports that Hillel, the Jewish student organization, is coordinating a petition against the event; Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the CUNY board member, has characterized it as anti-Semitic; and the Jewish Community Relations Council is also pressuring the college:

Students at Brooklyn College are conducting an online petition drive to have an academic department at Brooklyn College withdraw its sponsorship of what many members of the Jewish community consider an anti-Israel forum there next week.

The campaign, which has gathered nearly 600 signatures from students at the school and from members of the wider community, requests that the college administration “rescind its sponsorship” of the forum…

“Both Barghouti and Butler are publicly on record calling for the elimination of the Jewish state,” the petition states. “There is no doubt that the purpose of this event is to promote campaigns to boycott Israel, campaigns which the U.S. Department of State considers to be anti-Semitic, and the Jewish community considers to be an assault on the Jewish people…”

Hindy Poupko, director of Israel and international affairs at the Jewish Community Relations Council, called the school’s decision to let the forum carry the sponsorship by the political science department “deeply disappointing.”

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

177 Responses

  1. Cliff
    January 30, 2013, 11:42 am

    excellent news

    dershowitz and the pro-israel charlatans stand for censorship and propaganda

  2. Mike_Konrad
    January 30, 2013, 12:14 pm

    I agree there are some ugly tactics used to suppress free speech; so I am happy that free speech has prospered in this case.

    But is this free speech honest speech?

    In the Mid-East there are the despotic cesspools of Saudi Arabia, the tyrannies of Bahrain. Egypt is galloping back to 7th century jihadism. Mali required force to drive back the engines of Islamic despotism.

    Where are the calls to BDS these dark tyrannies?

    In theory this does NOT exonerate Israel; but it puts this clash in perspective.

    • American
      January 30, 2013, 12:37 pm

      ”In theory this does NOT exonerate Israel; but it puts this clash in perspective.”…Mike _Konrad

      No it doesn’t. None of those clashes are based on cleansing and aquiring someone elses ‘ land’ …which is what Isr vr Palestine is all about.
      Thoses clashes are within their ‘own borders’…. yours aren’t.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 30, 2013, 12:43 pm

      Transparent whataboutery. Did you honestly think anyone here was going to fall for it?

    • chinese box
      January 30, 2013, 2:52 pm

      @Mike_Konrad

      Is that the best you can do, carry on about Arab despots in every thread? You seem to be a one trick pony.

    • Cliff
      January 30, 2013, 3:13 pm

      Mike Konrad,

      Why do people concerned with the Palestinian issue have to also call for equal boycott calls everywhere else there is injustice?

      Their issue is Palestine. Ask yourself how many people behave as you think is the ‘correct’ way to behave.

      We are not one-man Amnesty Internationals.

      And this is all assuming you are correct in believing that Palestinian solidarity activists are indifferent to other issues. They aren’t and you should do some research and provide evidence if they are.

      The truth is that your suggestion is a common Zionist/hasbara meme.

      I care about the Palestinian issue. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support a boycott related to X, Y, Z non-Palestinian issues.

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 30, 2013, 3:54 pm

      “In theory this does NOT exonerate Israel; but it puts this clash in perspective.”

      Baloney. Your attempt to put it “in perspective” by raising racist boogiemen is an attempt to exonerate israel by changing the subject.

    • Avi_G.
      January 31, 2013, 7:11 am

      Egypt is galloping back to 7th century jihadism.

      From your ignorant comment, it’s clear that you do not understand the nonsense and the lies that you type; you are merely stringing together buzz words you read on some Islamophobic website.

  3. Hostage
    January 30, 2013, 12:40 pm

    dershowitz and the pro-israel charlatans stand for censorship and propaganda

    Worse than that. Khaled al Masri won an $80,000 judgment in the European Court of Human Rights from Macedonia for its role in assisting the CIA in his illegal rendition and torture. The UK agreed to a $3.5-million settlement with Sami al-Saadi, who was kidnapped from Hong Kong by MI6 and tortured in Libya.

    The B’nai B’rith and its affiliates have taken a US company, Twitter, to Court in France to obtain the identities of anonymous users who engaged in illegal forms of apologetics and hate speech regarding the Holocaust using the Internet. But Dershowitz still has essays on the Internet which publicly condone, deny, or trivialize cases of kidnap and torture like those of al Masri and al-Saadi. Why is Brooklyn College still giving him honorary degrees and listening to more of his Zionist propaganda?

    • seafoid
      January 30, 2013, 1:12 pm

      Who will replace the Dersh? He’s getting old and won’t be around for much longer.

      Zionism needs new Dershes and new John Boltons. Where are they?

    • sardelapasti
      January 30, 2013, 2:20 pm

      “Worse than that. Khaled al Masri won an $80,000 judgment in the European Court of Human Rights from Macedonia for its role in assisting the CIA in his illegal rendition and torture. The UK agreed to a $3.5-million settlement with Sami al-Saadi, who was kidnapped from Hong Kong by MI6 and tortured in Libya.”

      The objective being collective intimidation, they consider this kind of payments as operating expenses. They are not paying themselves. It’s taxpayer money. No one among the criminals is being punished. They are not being discouraged from continuing, let alone punished.

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2013, 3:13 pm

        They are not paying themselves. It’s taxpayer money. No one among the criminals is being punished.

        You can view that as a State’s responsibility for its leader’s misconduct. The lack of deep pockets and state responsibility has been one of the complaints about the ICC victims fund, since the damages and sums that can be recovered are limited to the defendant’s acts and personal assets.

        In any event, the Supreme Court has held that former government officials don’t enjoy immunity from alien tort claims. So individual offenders can be targeted nowadays.

      • sardelapasti
        January 30, 2013, 11:27 pm

        Hostage:
        “So individual offenders can be targeted nowadays.”
        You put your finger right where it hurts. Individual sentences, to be served (and paid) in person by the offender, are essential to the efficacy of these few cases that are at all likely to make it all the way to the court and deserve general mobilization to ensure some efficacy.

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 9:20 am

        You put your finger right where it hurts. Individual sentences, to be served (and paid) in person by the offender, are essential to the efficacy of these few cases that are at all likely to make it all the way to the court and deserve general mobilization to ensure some efficacy.

        That’s not exactly what I meant. You can only file a civil lawsuit, because the enabling legislation for the Geneva Conventions, like the 1996 War Crimes Act, do not “provide a private right of action” in the criminal courts. That still needs to happen, but there’s no prospect for such a development in our US lawmaking bodies.

      • Mooser
        February 1, 2013, 4:16 pm

        “That’s not exactly what I meant.”

        Doesn’t hurt my feelings. Considering what an momentous (and mountainous) acheivment justice for the Palestinians would be, I’m prepared to satisfied a way before individual Israel’s are being sued as individuals.
        There are, if I understand it right, much, much bigger fish to fry. Ohhh, bad word choice again… and I would think that frying those bigger tautogs would probably obviate most of the need for the little stuff, most. But I’m a criminal, not a lawyer.

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2013, 1:41 pm

        It would also be a momentous achievement the day I learn to spell achievement. C’mon, Mooser: “I before E, except after C, or in such words as neighbor and weigh.”

  4. eljay
    January 30, 2013, 12:41 pm

    >> In the Mid-East there are the despotic cesspools of Saudi Arabia, the tyrannies of Bahrain. Egypt is galloping back to 7th century jihadism. Mali required force to drive back the engines of Islamic despotism.
    >> Where are the calls to BDS these dark tyrannies?

    Which of those dark tyrannies is currently almost 70 years into its offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder…and still going strong?

    And why is it appropriate for nations of the world to impose harsh and punitive sanctions on a non-aggressor nation like Iran – which, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, is not developing nuclear weapons – but inappropriate for anyone to demand BDS of an overtly oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state like Israel?

    • eljay
      January 30, 2013, 1:04 pm

      And why, why on Earth do Zio-supremacists and other supporters of the “Jewish State” insist on reaching for the bottom of the barrel when it comes to morality and justice? If Israel is a better place, a Western-style democracy, a “beacon unto the nations”, why is the behaviour of the state of Israel dependent on the behaviour of “dark tyrannies” like Mali and Saudi Arabia? If Israel is as good as the best, why are its actions constantly excused by comparing it to the worst and pointing out that, hey, it’s not as bad as they are?

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 2:15 pm

        Personally, I often compare it to the US, another country that engages in targeted assassination. But in terms of human rights violations, these much-worse violators receive scant attention internationally compared to Israel, and I would think you’d care.

      • eljay
        January 30, 2013, 2:55 pm

        >> But in terms of human rights violations, these much-worse violators receive scant attention internationally compared to Israel, and I would think you’d care.

        I do care. I condemn injustice and immorality everywhere. I don’t believe that Saudi Arabia should be excused just because Israel happens to be an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

        Unlike you, I don’t think the wife-beater and thief should be permitted to continue beating and stealing just because the rapist and the murder have yet to be brought to justice.

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2013, 2:55 pm

        Personally, I often compare it to the US, another country that engages in targeted assassination. But in terms of human rights violations, these much-worse violators

        There really aren’t any worse crimes than the capital offenses Israel and the United States routinely commit against others.

        The United States killed hundreds of thousands and has turned millions into refugees in its wars of aggression against Muslims and other peoples in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Lately, our leaders have unabashedly claimed that they have a perfect legal right to assassinate and torture our own citizens or others – or to kidnap and imprison anyone forever without trial. The tyrants you babble-on so much about would be embarrassed to say the same thing in public.

      • sardelapasti
        January 30, 2013, 3:01 pm

        “But in terms of human rights violations, these much-worse violators receive scant attention internationally compared to Israel,…”

        Shameless propaganda again. If the official version is to be believed, the US received enough attention to have 9/11. We had our ass spanked all over the world for 60 years and counting, with peoples in most countries protesting and fighting us continually; that’s a lot of attention. The only difference is that we only relative recently started sh8ing openly and officially on decency and civilized conventions, while the Zionists have had the pre-Day D model all along. If you’re that clueless, you’ll soon become worthless to the Zio Propaganda Ministry.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 3:15 pm

        If by propaganda, you mean inconvenient facts, I agree with you.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 3:19 pm

        I often compare it to the US, another country that engages in targeted assassination. But in terms of human rights violations, these much-worse violators receive scant attention internationally

        have you looked at our front page today? i think drones are getting a lot of attention internationally.

      • sardelapasti
        January 30, 2013, 3:25 pm

        hoppmi “If by propaganda, you mean inconvenient facts, I agree with you.”
        No you don’t. Pretending that you can’t even read won’t help. What you shamelessly wrote is not a fact, as explained and not refuted.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 3:27 pm

        Yes, and so they should. Targeted killing is a lot less bloody than simply bombing a place to oblivion. This will continue to go on, whether the protestors like it or not, and international law needs to find a way to deal with it, rather than evade it. You’re not going to get the US, or anyone in the West, to say that killing OBL was a war crime because it was a targeted assassination.

        Again, it’s a matter of what you do in these situations where the enemy is not a state and is entrenched in a civilian population. I do not argue that it is the best way or the only way, but simply saying it’s wrong without suggesting viable alternatives is not a way forward or a realistic assessment given the realities.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 3:32 pm

        “much-worse violators”

        How many other states have held millions of people under an aparteid regime for two generations?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 3:34 pm

        “I do care. I condemn injustice and immorality everywhere.”

        Yes, but the zios and the judeo-supremacists don’t. They LOVE the fact that there’s oppression in other countries, because they think it gives them an excuse. Of course, even if every other state in the world was 100% compliant with human rights, the zionists would still bathe in Palestininan blood, because that’s a necessary element of their evil ideology.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 3:37 pm

        It is a matter of record that more than half the resolutions that come out of the UNHRC are about Israel. It is not propaganda to point out that other states with worse records receive comparatively scant attention. Sorry it’s so hard to accept.

      • eljay
        January 30, 2013, 3:46 pm

        >> You’re not going to get the US, or anyone in the West, to say that killing OBL was a war crime because it was a targeted assassination.

        This speaks poorly of Western morality and justice. And unless the West accepts that the “non-West” has a right to engage in targeted assassinations of Western figures deemed hostile or a threat to their security, it’s just another example of Western hypocrisy.

      • sardelapasti
        January 30, 2013, 3:48 pm

        “international law needs to find a way to deal with it, ”
        It did. It called it murder and war crime, and you are an accessory.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 3:59 pm

        hophmi, sometimes i think of it as a bouncing ball. the US, with her veto, acts like a wall to protect israel at the security council. so everytime the ball is thrown it gets bounced right back. and what is the response to that? the ball gets thrown again and again and again. and then you say ‘oh look how many times the ball has been tossed, more than the others,’ and i will just say to you take away the wall and get the ball on the road.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 4:00 pm

        2 generations? you need better math woody.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 4:08 pm

        “2 generations? you need better math woody.”

        Two generations since 1967. But you’re correct about the Palestinians suffering from this ideology in other parts of Stolen Palestine. They’ve been suffering at the hands of the enemy since the middle of the 19th Century. So I stand corrected, to that extent.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 4:13 pm

        “It is a matter of record that more than half the resolutions that come out of the UNHRC are about Israel.”

        Good, it’s good that SOMEONE in the world is trying to stop those human rights abuses. Or is it human rights abuses only a problem for you, hoppy, when Jews aren’t the ones committing the crimes?

        “It is not propaganda to point out that other states with worse records receive comparatively scant attention. ”

        No, it’s wholly irrelevant. It’s a political body, so the decisions will be political. Big deal. Deal with the substance: should israel be required, under the threat of international sanction, to stop its human rights abuses or do you condone human rights abuses when it is Jews who are doing them?

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2013, 4:23 pm

        “international law needs to find a way to deal with it.

        That’s exactly what it did:

        1) At the San Francisco organizing conference of the United Nations. The United States proposed that the General Assembly should be made responsible for the progressive codification of international law. That was eventually included in its responsibilities under Article 13 of the UN Charter.

        2) Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute made “Murder” a crime against humanity (no direct connection with an armed conflict is required).

        3) The United States was largely responsible for the inclusion of the “Crimes against Humanity” in codifications of international criminal law:

        It is recommended that the United States propose the following resolution for adoption by the General Assembly:
        The General Assembly,
        recognizing the obligation laid upon it by Article 13, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a) of the Charter to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification; and taking note of the London agreement of August 8, 1945 for the establishment of an international military tribunal for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals;
        1. approves the principles of international law established by the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal under the London agreement.
        2. directs the Assembly Committee on the Codification of International Law created by the Assembly’s resolution of [date] to treat as a matter of primary importance the formulation of the principles of the London agreement and of the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal in the context of a general codification of offenses against the peace and security of mankind or in an International Criminal Code.

        DISCUSSION
        Judge Biddle, in a letter to the President dated November 9, 1946 reporting on the Nuremberg trials, recommended that “immediate consideration be given to drafting such a code (code of international criminal law), to be adopted, after the most careful study and consideration by the governments of the United Nations.” The President in his letter of reply to Judge Biddle said, “The setting up of such a code as that which you recommend is indeed an enormous undertaking, but it deserves to be studied and weighed by the best legal minds the world over. It is a fitting task to be undertaken by the governments of the United Nations. I hope that the United Nations, in line with your proposal, will reaffirm the principles of the Nuremberg charter in the context of a general codification of offenses against the peace and security of mankind.”.

        – See: Resolutions proposed by the United States to the General Assembly of the United Nations to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification, pp. 525-543 of Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General; the United Nations page 540 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        *The International Law Commissions Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (Part II) – including the draft Statute for an international criminal court
        link to untreaty.un.org

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 4:47 pm

        “Again, it’s a matter of what you do in these situations where the enemy is not a state and is entrenched in a civilian population. ”

        Then it’s a police matter and you send in the police. (Of course, it might also help to consider whether those people you’re labeling ‘the enemy’ have legitimate grievences agaisnt you and whether you need to change to facilitate freedom and justice for all.) Murdering because you can and then begging the world to say it’s okay makes the state no better than a common criminal.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 5:36 pm

        Well, the only reason the US has to use the veto is because the issue is constantly forced onto the UNSC table by its Arab members. So there is a little more to it.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 5:45 pm

        No sardelapasti, international law has not comprehensively dealt with the issue of non-state actors. It hasn’t even devised a working definition of terrorism.

      • Cliff
        January 30, 2013, 6:02 pm

        The issue is relevant to ‘its Arab members’.

        It’s not ‘forced’ – it’s a matter of fact. A fact of life for people in the region. Hence it is brought up. Not everyone lives in bizarro Zionist-centric world, where everyone unjustifiably is against Israel.

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2013, 6:10 pm

        It is a matter of record that more than half the resolutions that come out of the UNHRC are about Israel. It is not propaganda to point out that other states with worse records receive comparatively scant attention. Sorry it’s so hard to accept.

        So what? It is also a matter of record that new States created through the cooperation or assistance of the United Nations have a special legal obligation to the Organization in form of minority rights agreements. Those rights have been placed under the protection of the General Assembly, the UN HRC’s parent organ. The General Assembly has given the HRC and its predecessor a legal mandate to report on violations of rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with the member States. More importantly, the Organization has reserved the right to step-in and insure the performance of those joint minority rights undertakings.

        Guess how many other member States have been 1) created by a UN resolution; 2) have acknowledged their minority rights obligation; and then 3) flagrantly violated those formal undertakings for decades on end? It’s really no mystery why the UN has devoted so much of its attention to the Israeli cluster f*ck.

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2013, 11:08 pm

        No sardelapasti, international law has not comprehensively dealt with the issue of non-state actors. It hasn’t even devised a working definition of terrorism.

        Wow, its been awhile since you cracked a law book. Here is a link to the text and status of the UN, Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Conference, EU, OAS, OAU, SAARC, and Russian Federation Conventions on Terrorism
        link to treaties.un.org

        FYI, There are eighteen universal instruments (fourteen instruments and four amendments) against international terrorism that have been elaborated within the framework of the United Nations alone. In 2006 the UN member states agreed to a common global strategy to combat terrorism. See UN Action to Counter Terrorism link to un.org

        Of course your history is off too. The subjects international law have never been limited to state actors. “Nations” are different than “States” — see Brierly, Whiteman, & etc.) Treaties have addressed the use of mercenaries since the days of the Magna Carta and Westphalia. The U.S. has had treaties with Indian nations (e.g., the Navajo nation) and tribes, as well as with free cities, and other non-state actors.
        * See for example: Jordan J. Paust, Non-State Actor Participation in International Law and the Pretense of Exclusion (November 2, 2010). Virginia International Journal of Law, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2011; U of Houston Law Center No. 2010-A-34. Available at SSRN: link to ssrn.com or link to dx.doi.org

      • sardelapasti
        January 30, 2013, 11:30 pm

        What “non-state actors “? We are talking about the Zionist leadership. All counts of Nuremberg apply.

      • American
        January 31, 2013, 9:23 am

        hophmi says:

        Targeted killing is a lot less bloody than simply bombing a place to oblivion. “…….

        I think if Israel uses targeted assassinations, everyone should.
        Fine by me if someone wants to assassinate Netanyhau, Lieberman and some of the other evil whackos in Israel…fine by me if someone takes out some of the head US Zios.
        Wouldn’t you agree that’s fair? Or are targeted assassinations another one of those special privilages Israel has but no one else can use?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 10:48 am

        “Well, the only reason the US has to use the veto is because the issue is constantly forced onto the UNSC table by its Arab members.”

        False. The US chooses to use its veto because US foreign policy is under the influence, if not control, of a lobby for a foreign state, aided and abetted by those in this country who have loyalty (whetehr primary, sole or additional) to that foreign state. It’s the same reason why the supposed “land of the free” doesn’t press this very same foreign state to clean up its undeniable human rights abuses.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 11:35 am

        Interesting, isn’t it, American, that hoppy is so against interrupting a criminal like Oren when he is speaking, but, apparently, has no problem with someone subjecting him to “targeted assassination.” (But, I’m sure hoppy will explain that in that particular case [i.e., where an israeli would be the victim], his support for targeted assassinations wouldn’t apply.)

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 12:48 pm

        hophmi says: Targeted killing is a lot less bloody than simply bombing a place to oblivion. “…….

        Once again, Zionists in France have taken the US company Twitter to Court and won a decision against it for permitting users to publicly defend or trivialize crimes against humanity, like Murder (Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute), because it is a prohibited form of incitement that is likely to result in violence or hatred.

        Here in the United States there is a long record of publicity and propaganda campaigns designed to influence public opinion in support of arming Israel with Apache helicopters, Hellfire missiles, cluster munitions, bunker buster bombs, and other weapons despite overwhelming evidence that those munitions will be used to target Palestinian civilians in ways that constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Arguing that extrajudicial killings which violate international humanitarian law are justified because they are less bloody than other violations of international humanitarian law is a classic example of hate speech that is likely to result in more violence against Palestinians.

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 4:38 pm

        “Once again, Zionists in France”

        The case was brought the Union of Jewish Students in France. Get it right, Hostage. It’s a Jewish group, not a Zionist group.

        The tweets included statements such as “The only good Jew is a dead Jew.”

        Others denied the Holocaust.

        Get it right.

        “Arguing that extrajudicial killings which violate international humanitarian law are justified because they are less bloody than other violations of international humanitarian law is a classic example of hate speech that is likely to result in more violence against Palestinians.”

        Not in the US it isn’t. In fact, this argument can be used to claim that anyone who defends drone attacks is engaging in hate speech because it might result in more violence against Pakistanis.

        These are laughable positions, both here in the US and in the EU.

      • pjdude
        January 31, 2013, 5:05 pm

        since when do zionists use facts?

      • pjdude
        January 31, 2013, 5:08 pm

        but no one else is going around saying what they are doing is legal and moral. they receive attention you just don’t notice it because all the attention is on Israel because it draws attention to it self.

      • Mooser
        February 1, 2013, 4:22 pm

        “Personally, I often compare it to the US, another country that engages in targeted assassination.”

        Right you are, Hophmi, and remember, every dollar the US gives the Zionist regime to make the people-less desert bloom is a dollar less to spend on targeted assassination, right, Hophmi?

        Hophmi, you better watch your step. Just be aware, almost anybody here could print your comment archive out, or put it on a drive, and show it to people. You really want people pointing and laughing at you in the street?

      • Mooser
        February 1, 2013, 6:29 pm

        It is also a matter of record that new States created through the cooperation or assistance of the United Nations have a special legal obligation to the Organization in form of minority rights agreements.”

        Thank you, Hostage. I always wondered about that. It did not seem reasonable that the UN would do this to itself, create with its eyes open, and approvingly, a regime like Zionism. Of course, unfortunately, when it comes to Zionists, in a way which is very typical of the adherents to ideologies like Zionism, what they agree to, what their obligation are, and what they do may be very very different things.
        I had always wondered if there weren’t some reciprocal obligations.

  5. pabelmont
    January 30, 2013, 12:49 pm

    BC President says: “allow our students and faculty to engage in dialogue and debate on topics they may choose, even those with which members of our campus and broader community may vehemently disagree.” PREFER SHE’D SAID “even those with which some members of our campus and broader community may vehemently disagree” just to make the matter clear.

    JVP says: “Recent efforts to shut down this event are a deplorable attack on free speech that has no place on a college campus. ” WHERE DOES IT HAVE A PROPER PLACE, THEN? (Well, in private places.)

    But I agree, it has no place on any campus that preaches and promises academic freedom of discussion, and no place in ANY public place that allows any sort of political speech. This is not a “campus” issue but a “public forum” issue, and Brooklyn College is part of the City University of New York, a public institution.

  6. HarryLaw
    January 30, 2013, 12:56 pm

    People who called for BDS against the apartheid regime of South Africa could, according to Dershowitz [the legalize torture supporter] have been involved in a “propaganda hate orgy” against all the people of South Africa, the man is an idiot.

  7. hophmi
    January 30, 2013, 1:32 pm

    No one is “is coordinating a petition against the event.” The petition merely requests that the political science department not sponsor it, not that the event be cancelled. That is what the Jewish Week article says. This is purely about the question of whether a partisan political event should be sponsored by an academic department, not a free speech issue.

    I have no problem with it if the history of the political science department is to routinely sponsor political events, regardless of their orientation. If this is not their approach, then they should not be sponsoring it.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 30, 2013, 1:50 pm

      Well, according to the email above:

      ”Each semester, student clubs, academic departments, and other groups on our campus host events and invite speakers on a broad range of topics. At times, the issues discussed may be challenging and the points of view expressed may be controversial.”

      And this:

      ”Brooklyn College does not endorse the views of the speakers visiting our campus next week, just as it has not endorsed those of previous visitors to our campus with opposing views.”

      So I’m guessing the college DOES ”routinely sponsor political events, regardless of their orientation.” And I’m also guessing that, despite your claims to the contrary, you DO have a problem with it.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 2:27 pm

        No, I don’t. I have no problem with BDS events on campus. Never have, never will, as long as pro-Israel groups are given the same access and as long as anyone is permitted to attend.

        I have problems when groups are excluded (such as when Zionist speakers were effectively banned at the School of Oriental and Asian Studies in England), not when they are included. I hope pro-Palestinian activists feel the same way. I’m not sure they do.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 3:36 pm

        “I have problems when groups are excluded (such as when Zionist speakers were effectively banned at the School of Oriental and Asian Studies in England), not when they are included. I hope pro-Palestinian activists feel the same way. I’m not sure they do.”

        I’m sure the Klan, too, had no problem with anti-racism speakers so long as they were permitted to spread their vile ideology. Nice company you zios keep, hoppy.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 30, 2013, 4:36 pm

        OK. Just for you, I’ll repeat one more time:

        The article *clearly* said that Brooklyn College ” has not endorsed those of previous visitors to our campus with opposing views”. In other words, it seems that they had previously hosted one of your precious ‘pro-Israel groups’. In any case, the notion that Zionists are some poor, persecuted minority in Brooklyn (!) is so ridiculous as to not even require a response. It’s transparent straw-manning to try to cover up your obvious unease at the notion that pro-Palestinian viewpoints just might be given a public airing.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 5:39 pm

        This is getting tiresome. No one is asserting Zionists are being persecuted in Brooklyn. No one asserting that BC endorses these views. The question is whether the PoliSci department should be in the business of sponsoring political events such as these, and whether they do it on an equal opportunity basis. That’s it. As I said here and elsewhere, if the PoliSci department regularly sponsors events like this across the political spectrum, I have no problem with it.

      • Cliff
        February 3, 2013, 10:10 am

        The PoliSci department shouldn’t have to be vetted by the Zionist community.

        The BDS movement is not discriminatory and is supported by Palestinian civil society. It is a grass roots non-violent movement.

        It SHOULD be supported. Zionism’s hypersensitivity is a form of Orwellian censorship.

        Nothing more and nothing less.

        Any ‘concern’ for ‘balance’ is Zio-Speak for Brand Israel damage control.

        IDF speakers regularly tour the US.

        This has nothing to do with fair play. It’s about competing narratives. For Zionists, it’s promoting Israel as an oasis of [whatever] while ignoring the continued colonization and apartheid practices in Occupied Palestine.

        It’s no surprise that the kinds of Zionists who support censorship of Palestinian children’s art exhibits or a BDS speaking engagement are hair-brain/tin-foil-hat-wearing nuts.

        And of course, you pay lip service to allowing BDS speakers on campus – but even then you ‘balance’ that speaking engagement with an equivocation (as if pro-Israel speakers are being persecuted, LOL).

        You’re one of those people who quietly support the fringe extremists (who are becoming more and more extreme) but pay lip service to a 2SS.

        Much like the ADL, AJC, and every other major Jewish organization involved intimately in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

        The only fair organizations that are humanistic are those like Jewish Voice for Peace.

        The problem isn’t some phantom lack of complexity among these opposing views being expressed on campus. The problem is Zionism. There are no two ways about it, just the illusion and farce of such complexity (while Zionists simultaneously demonize Palestinian agency and tar and feather solidarity activists as antisemitic/Islamists/etc.).

  8. Hostage
    January 30, 2013, 2:26 pm

    This is purely about the question of whether a partisan political event should be sponsored by an academic department, not a free speech issue.

    Hmm, let’s see. When UC Irvine sponsored Michael Oren’s address, interrupting the guest supposedly violated a number of university rules and it was deemed to be a criminal act: disrupting a state meeting.

    At the time you claimed that verdict was a victory for free speech.
    link to mondoweiss.net

    Most of us here have witnessed Oren’s shopworn performances of publicly condoning, denying, and trivializing Israel’s war crimes, like establishing illegal settlements. Those crimes have been enumerated in the ICJ’s findings of fact and by countless fact finding missions. In many countries, Oren’s hubris can be considered a form of prohibited hate speech.

    Now you say that University sponsorship of a partisan political event by an academic department isn’t a free speech issue. It might be wise for you to keep in mind that one man’s partisan political event, can be considered another man’s state public meeting.

    • hophmi
      January 30, 2013, 3:13 pm

      “Hmm, let’s see. When UC Irvine sponsored Michael Oren’s address, interrupting the guest supposedly violated a number of university rules and it was deemed to be a criminal act: disrupting a state meeting. ”

      Yes, it was an attempt by pro-Palestinian protestors to illegally disrupt the event and keep Oren from speaking. See, when you repeatedly interrupt someone in that way, to deny them their right to speak and others the right to hear, it’s against the law. Colloquially, you could call it “disturbing the peace.” In California, it’s called “Disrupting a Public Meeting.” In New York, it’s part of a violation called “Disorderly Conduct.” See New York Penal Law, section 240.20(4): “A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof: (4) Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons.” That’s what happened at the Oren event; these student chose, individually, and as a group, to disturb a lawful assembly. No one denied them the right to put on their own event. If the Irvine 11 had any guts at all, they would have pleaded guilty and acknowledged that they had tried to keep Oren from speaking.

      “In many countries, Oren’s hubris can be considered a form of prohibited hate speech. ”

      Which ones, pray tell? Not in the United States, chief.

      “Most of us here have witnessed Oren’s shopworn performances of publicly condoning, denying, and trivializing Israel’s war crimes, like establishing illegal settlements. Those crimes have been enumerated in the ICJ’s findings of fact and by countless fact finding missions. ”

      Cry me a river. He still has a right to speak and those who produce his event have a right to present it without endless disturbance. I’ve witnesses Arab diplomats repeatedly whitewash human rights violations in the Arab Middle East. They still have a right to speak.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 3:23 pm

        He still has a right to speak

        actually (and i think hostage provided the evidence for this previously) an agent of a foreign government does not have a right to speak at state funded universities.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 3:30 pm

        Come on, Annie. That’s ridiculous (not to mention utterly self-defeating). In the first place, it’s dead wrong. In the second place, it’s not just the free speech rights of the person who’s on the podium. It’s the free speech rights of the organization presenting him and the free speech rights the students attending the event who wish to hear what he has to say.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 4:03 pm

        hops, just find me the laws on what kind of speech rights are afforded foreign agents in this country. it shouldn’t be that difficult.

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 5:44 pm

        I’m not aware of any laws restricting the right of foreigners to speak. I highly doubt any such laws actually exist that would apply to this situation – the presentation of a speaker on an American college campus.

        As I already said, it’s not just about Michael Oren. It’s about the organization presenting him and the other student in the room.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 30, 2013, 8:35 pm

        I’m not aware of any laws restricting the right of foreigners to speak

        i didn’t say foreigners. i said foreign agents. does the US government provide an official representative of iranian government or the chinese government a ‘right’ of ‘free speech’ to come to state funded universities and lobby our students? surely not. if you think they do provide the evidence.

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2013, 10:34 pm

        hops, just find me the laws on what kind of speech rights are afforded foreign agents in this country. it shouldn’t be that difficult.

        Annie the problems I mentioned with respect to the Irvine 11 case was 1) the fact that FARA and Anti-Lobbying laws generally prohibit the government or aid and grant recipients from using appropriated funds to conduct publicity or foreign propaganda campaigns to influence US public opinion; 2) Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969) and a line of other cases have held that speech which amounts to incitement to lawless action is not protected by the 1st Amendment; 3) if Michael Oren’s lips are moving, then by God he is conducting propaganda that encourages listeners to support Israel’s right to commit the most serious crimes imaginable against Arabs or Palestinians with absolute impunity; 4) The US Civil Rights Commission and the Department of Education say that institutions which receive federal aid have a legal obligation to prevent the establishment of an atmosphere on campus which fosters harassment or discrimination against Arab Muslim students on the basis of their Palestinian ethnic or national origin. Telling people that you reserve the right to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against their families or people and asking Americans to support that position is racial incitement that is likely to result in more of those crimes being committed.

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 1:04 pm

        This argument is meritless. Bringing a foreign diplomat to speak at a college is not the same thing as conducting a foreign propaganda campaign to influence US public opinion. Columbia didn’t violate the law when it brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on behalf of Iran.

        Michael Oren’s speech does not constitute incitement; incitement involves a hostile crowd and a direct incitement to violence. It has a limited definition. Brandenburg and later, Skokie, defended the rights of neo-Nazis to speak and march. In Skokie, it upheld the right of Neo-Nazis to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. You’re doing what you do repeatedly – making a completely frivolous legal argument.

        “if Michael Oren’s lips are moving, then by God he is conducting propaganda that encourages listeners to support Israel’s right to commit the most serious crimes imaginable against Arabs or Palestinians with absolute impunity;”

        If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s lips are moving, then by God he is conducting propaganda that encourages listeners to support Iran’s right to persecute Jews, homosexuals, women, and Bahai with absolute impunity.

        We get it, Hostage, you’re not a supporter of free speech or the First Amendment. You’d like to pick and choose which political opinions students hear on campus. That much is crystal clear from your meritless legal position.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 31, 2013, 3:20 pm

        thanks hostage. yes thank you, that’s what i recall.

        not sure hophmi grasps how one of the jobs of a foreign ambassador is to ‘explain’ his country (hasbara), or maybe he imagines propaganda doesn’t fall into that category. of course foreign diplomats speak at colleges as part of propaganda campaigns to influence US public opinion.

        hophmi, i wasn’t arguing oren was violating the law when he spoke at irvine, i was arguing he didn’t have a ‘right’ to speak under the first amendment. even if he’s invited to speak as ahmadinejad was, i still don’t think that affords either of them first amendment rights. aliens have less protection under the Constitution than American citizens, the rights addressed in American courts are generally the rights of American citizens.

        again, if you think, as you claimed, our constitution provides “free speech rights” protection to an agent of a foreign government under the first amendment please produce the evidence.

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 3:25 pm

        I’m not sure you grasp the First Amendment, Annie, or that Hostage’s Brandenburg’s argument is complete nonsense, and that he has not remotely shown that the First Amendment does not cover the right of a college campus group at a state institution to present foreign diplomats as speakers.

        Again, Annie, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want, but you’re not entitled to your own facts or your own interpretation of settled law, and neither is Hostage.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 31, 2013, 3:59 pm

        i guess that would be a ‘no’, you have no supporting evidence foreign agents have protected speech afforded by the constitution under the first amendment.

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 4:16 pm

        You made the ridiculous assertion, Annie, that foreign diplomats have no First Amendment rights. You provided no support, and indeed, have shown no cognizance of the fact that when a campus group presents a speaker, it is their First Amendment rights that are implicated.

        You’ve presented nothing to support that assertion, not a single law or court ruling.

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 4:29 pm

        I looked this up. You’re just wrong, Annie. Foreign diplomats are exempt from FARA, which I assume is the basis of the claim that “foreign agents” do not have First Amendment rights.

        FARA says that foreign agents must register with the Department of Justice. It does NOT restrict what they can actually say once registered.

        link to cleanupwashington.org

        Foreign diplomats are exempt from FARA requirements. See 22 USC 613. link to codes.lp.findlaw.com

        And once again, and I’ll keep repeating it, it is not just about Oren’s free speech rights. It is about the free expression rights of the organization presenting him and the students who choose to listen.

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 5:58 pm

        This argument is meritless.

        You need to take that up with Kenneth L. Marcus, the US Civil Rights Commission, and the Department of Education then. They informed 20,000+ institutions that tolerating harassment or a climate of intimidation of Arab Muslims on campus is illegal and would be aggressively investigated.

        Nobody is inviting speakers to discuss targeted killing of Jews at state public meetings and arresting those who voice their disagreement., e.g. Why I Filed Title VI Complaint: California Professor Cites ‘Virulent’ Campus Anti-Semitism link to forward.com

        Its a matter of public record that Oren has defended the Israeli policy of targeting civilians for assassination without trial in situations where they are not engaged in any combat operations by simply labeling them “terrorists”. He says that Israel “reserves the right” to do that even though its an act that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits at all times and in all places. Here is a typical example of Oren’s hubris:
        link to usnews.com

        The Israeli Defense Minister murdered some civilians in Gaza that way as a “reprisal” for an attack that investigators subsequently blamed on a different group of Egyptian militants operating in the Sinai. Telling the Palestinian members of an audience that you reserve the right to arbitrarily murder their friends & relatives is obvious incitement and harrassment.

        There’s also no doubt that the ICJ found Israel guilty of violating Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention by illegally displacing portions of the Palestinian population in order to construct its illegal wall and by transferring portions of its own population into the occupied territory. Countless international fact finding missions have identified the settlements as the point of origin for illegal attacks against the Palestinian population. 172 state parties to the Geneva Conventions view the 1st Additional Protocol as a reflection of customary law. Both the Additional Protocol and the Rome Statute treat any violation of Article 49(6) as grave breach amounting to a war crime or crime against humanity. It’s a matter of public record that Oren defends Israel’s reserved right to create these “new demographic realities on the ground”. See Oren’s “Stop scapegoating Israeli settlements: Jewish apartment complexes aren’t preventing peace — Palestinians’ refusal to negotiate is.”
        link to nydailynews.com

        We all know that previous talks in Amman ended when Netanyahu refused to comply with the Quartet requirement that he provide a map of Israel’s proposed borders.

        Michael Oren’s speech does not constitute incitement; incitement involves a hostile crowd and a direct incitement to violence.

        Yes, Oren was obviously speaking to a hostile audience and he was advocating that Americans acquiesce or even support an on-going policy of murder and wanton destruction or expropriation at the expense of Palestinian nationals – and that has always resulted in violence in the past. His speech is most definitely aimed at perpetuating a climate of hatred and violence. The University official who told Palestinian peace activists that they should be ashamed of themselves was violating the content and intent of the Office of Civil Rights policy letter.

        The Jews suing Twitter in France are singing a different tune about what constitutes hate speech in their opinion too. They specifically claimed that engaging in apologetics for criminal behavior against Jews is a form of incitement. BTW, no Court ever upheld the right of Nazis to conduct a State meeting and advocate the targeted killings of Jews in Skokie or convicted Jews for shouting things during the Nazi March. I guess it’s been awhile since you reviewed the details in that case.

        Columbia didn’t violate the law . . . If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s lips are moving, then by God he is conducting propaganda that encourages listeners to support Iran’s right to persecute Jews, homosexuals, women, and Bahai with absolute impunity.

        The second point in Mr. Bollinger’s remarks acknowledged that there were reasonable objections to the University hosting that event. His third point was to apologize to those who were offended. He did not invoke the state public meeting law to prosecute anyone or tell them they should be ashamed of themselves. He also used the introduction to recite a litany of human rights violations and to ask Mr. Ahmadinejad to pledge that he would stop those abuses. Nothing remotely like that happened at UC Irvine.

        I have no objection to investigating Iran for crimes against humanity. There are any number of Zionist politicians and pundits who have proposed that Ahmadinejad be arrested for incitement to commit genocide too. link to timesofisrael.com

        Unlike the Palestinians, neither the Israelis nor the United States are willing to make an Article 12(3) declaration granting the ICC jurisdiction to investigate all of the crimes committed on their territories by all of the parties concerned. I suspect Iran has similar complaints about crimes committed by Israel and the United States on its own territory. It can probably be established beyond any doubt that many Israelis and Americans have engaged in discussions about “red lines” and “preemptive strikes” that have been “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action”.

        We get it, Hostage, you’re not a supporter of free speech or the First Amendment.

        I’m a firm believer in the proposition that Palestinians enjoy the very same legal rights and protections as the Jews who file complaints about harassment on campus and incitement over the Internet. You’re the one who is obviously trying to defend a double standard.

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 6:22 pm

        I’m not sure you grasp the First Amendment, Annie, or that Hostage’s Brandenburg’s argument is complete nonsense

        LOL my argument was based upon the Kenneth L. Marcus new Title VI policy letter regarding the atmosphere of harassment on campus toward Arab Muslims, but nice try. I’m not relying on the 1st amendment, I just noted that speech intended to incite lawless behavior is not protected – the same argument you seem to be using against the Irvine 11 in connection with a minor disruption. That same principle applies with even greater force to a speaker who is drumming-up public support for an on-going regime of war crimes and crimes against humanity that targets Palestinian nationals.

        The French Court seems to think it can go after Twitter here in the US for publicly condoning, denying, and trivializing war crimes and crimes against humanity that target the Jews. The Court’s and the Office of Civil Rights don’t seem to share your opinion about settled law.

      • Cliff
        January 31, 2013, 7:49 pm

        Hoppy,

        You haven’t substantiated anything you’ve said. Not to mention you’re implying that Hostage is some Iranian Islamist.

        You’re the only one here in this exchange who supports oppression of minorities. We aren’t Jewish nationalists who contort basic human decency to fit a nationalistic agenda.

      • RoHa
        January 31, 2013, 8:57 pm

        “Annie, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want”

        No she isn’t. She may be allowed to believe whatever she wants, but she is only entitled to believe that which is supported by evidence and argument.

      • RoHa
        January 31, 2013, 9:10 pm

        And the same goes for everyone.

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 10:53 pm

        She may be allowed to believe whatever she wants, but she is only entitled to believe that which is supported by evidence and argument.

        We know for a fact that Hophmi thinks the state can, consistent with the 1st amendment, outlaw disruptions of a public meeting regardless of the content of the disruptive speech. I’ll add to that the fact that the Supreme Court said in Morse v. Frederick that a School can, consistent with the 1st Amendment, prohibit students from engaging in speech that promotes the use of illegal drugs.

        The Office of Civil Rights deals with a number of federally protected activities. It thinks that, consistent with the 1st Amendment and Title VI, Schools that receive federal aid can prohibit anti-Semitic or Islamophobic harassment, intimidation, or discrimination on campuses. Hophmi nonetheless thinks Zionists have an unqualified right, consistent with the 1st Amendment, to convene public meetings on campuses to defend war crimes or crimes against humanity that target Palestinian nationals or Arab Muslims.

        The US State Department CERD report on Article 4 has always cited the authority of The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to protect Arabs and Muslims from that sort of intimidation, harassment and discrimination. link to state.gov

        There are general prohibitions throughout the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act against the use of any federally appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda aimed at influencing public opinion.
        link to gpo.gov

        The purpose of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and other Anti-Lobbying legislation is to insure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws and to clearly identify the materials and information that are disseminated. link to fara.gov

        In Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (Act) required registration, reporting, and disclosure by persons engaging in propaganda on behalf of foreign powers. The Act uses the term “political propaganda” to identify those expressive materials subject to its requirements, and defines the term as, inter alia, any communication intended to influence the United States’ foreign policies. Appellee, a member of the California State Senate, wished to show three Canadian films identified by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as “political propaganda” under the Act, but did not want to be publicly regarded as a disseminator of “political propaganda.” He therefore brought suit.

        The Supreme Court held that the Act’s use of the term “political propaganda” is neutral, evenhanded, and without pejorative connotation, and is therefore constitutionally permissible. link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

        So the question remains can a State official from an institution that receives federal aid convene a public meeting to assist a foreign agent in the promulgation of “political propaganda” on campus aimed at obtaining public support for policies and practices that include flagrant war crimes and crimes against humanity targeted at Palestinian nationals or Arab Muslims?

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 12:15 am

        “We know for a fact that Hophmi thinks the state can, consistent with the 1st amendment, outlaw disruptions of a public meeting regardless of the content of the disruptive speech.”

        It’s not what I think. It’s what the law says. I quoted the NY law to you. To date, it has not been found to be unconstitutional. A public disturbance of a lawful assembly is just that.

        “Hophmi nonetheless thinks Zionists have an unqualified right, consistent with the 1st Amendment, to convene public meetings on campuses to defend war crimes or crimes against humanity that target Palestinian nationals or Arab Muslims.”

        You can put any political spin on it that you want. Zionists have a First Amendment right to defend Israel, regardless of whether you disagree with the policies. There is no ruling I know of characterizing a pro-Israel speech as Islamophobic, and the mere act of speaking hardly subjects Arabs and Muslims to intimidation or harassment.

        I’ve already debunked, completely, your fatuous argument that FARA has anything to do with foreign diplomats.

        You will have to point out which provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act you’re referring to. I am not searching through a thousand page long law. It is a waste of time, and I doubt you have any kind of colorable argument that the free speech rights of the campus organizations that brought Michael Oren should be restricted.

        “The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (Act) required registration, reporting, and disclosure by persons engaging in propaganda on behalf of foreign powers. ”

        And as I said, the act does not cover foreign diplomats. So you’re blowing smoke once again.

        Look Hostage, if you really believe this, be a man and take it outside of this room and sue the next school who bring Oren to speak on this theory. Let me know how it pans out.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 12:24 am

        “BTW, no Court ever upheld the right of Nazis to conduct a State meeting and advocate the targeted killings of Jews in Skokie or convicted Jews for shouting things during the Nazi March. I guess it’s been awhile since you reviewed the details in that case.”

        Shouting something at a marching parade is different from shouting down a speaker.

        And there is no question that Nazis have the right to hold meetings and say whatever they want. That’s Brandenburg. You seem to suggest that it somehow matters that UC Irvine is a public institution. You keep using the meaningless term “state meeting.” It has nothing to do with the First Amendment question here.

        Are you seriously arguing that Palestinians do not have the right to present pro-Palestinian speakers on college campuses? Or that if this were Saeb Erekat instead of Michael Oren, and the protester did the same thing, that they would not have been arrested? I think you’re wrong on both accounts.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 1, 2013, 2:43 am

        hophmi, don’t move your goalposts. i did not address government ‘restrictions’

        you said: I’m not aware of any laws restricting the right of foreigners to speak.

        what ‘right’?

        do foreigners have a ‘right’ to speak here? you said “it’s not just the free speech rights of the person who’s on the podium.

        what ‘free speech rights’ does oren have here? your link says the law allows foreign agents who lobby on behalf of foreign business interests

        if the law ‘allows’ for something, does that translate into a ‘right’? because if it did it couldn’t be easily rescinded or denied could it?

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 7:51 am

        You can put any political spin on it that you want. Zionists have a First Amendment right to defend Israel, regardless of whether you disagree with the policies. There is no ruling I know of characterizing a pro-Israel speech as Islamophobic, and the mere act of speaking hardly subjects Arabs and Muslims to intimidation or harassment.

        That’s a lame and evasive response. Oren publicly defends extra-judicial killings which are prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. More to the point, violations of Common Article 3, including Murder, are defined as War Crimes under the 1996 US War Crimes Act.
        link to law.cornell.edu

        So I’m not putting political spin on it. Oren can engage in “political propaganda” that is aimed at influencing public opinion all he wants.

        But he has no unqualified right to do that in a federally-subsidized institution during a public meeting. That’s especially true if he is going to engage in hasbara that promotes and defends Israel’s right to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinian nationals or Arab Muslims – and that is exactly what he does when he defends the illegal settlements, the illegal annexation of captured Arab territory, extensive expropriation or destruction of Arab property, and targeted killings of civilians carried out without trial.

        Kenneth L. Marcus was the Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, when he first said that activities which intimidate and harass Arab Muslim students are prohibited under Title VI. You are studiously avoiding that issue. You can tap dance around it all that you’d like, but it just demonstrates your threadbare argument: When Palestinian students criticize Israel’s policies they are not inherently intimidating or harassing Jews, but when Oren defends and drums-up public support or acquiescence for Israel’s official policy of war crimes and crimes against humanity that target Palestinians and other Arabs on a federally-subsidized campus, he and his sponsor are violating Title VI according to the information contained in Kenneth L. Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 837 (2007) link to scholarship.law.wm.edu

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 9:10 am

        And there is no question that Nazis have the right to hold meetings and say whatever they want. That’s Brandenburg.

        Brandenburg did not take place during an international armed conflict in Germany and the Nazis were not allowed to promote public support for the extermination or extra-judicial killing of the Jews in a federally subsidized forum.

        You keep using the meaningless term “state meeting.” It has nothing to do with the First Amendment question here.

        The Irvine 11 were not convicted of violating the 1st Amendment as you lamely try to reframe the situation. They were convicted of violating a California state public meeting law. I’m pointing out that California can loose its federal subsidies if its public meetings violate Title VI. FYI, the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect the right to engage in federally subsidized “political propaganda” in your public meeting. That’s especially true if you are drumming-up grass roots support for lynching coloreds, gassing Jews, or shak n’ bakin Gaza school kids.

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 9:34 am

        I looked this up. You’re just wrong, Annie. Foreign diplomats are exempt from FARA, which I assume is the basis of the claim that “foreign agents” do not have First Amendment rights.

        The FARA says that diplomats are foreign agents. They are exempt from registering, since they present the State Department or President with their country’s credentials and reside here on diplomatic visas. There are no exemptions for the general prohibitions against using federal appropriations to support foreign agents who conduct “public propaganda” and the Civil Rights Commission prohibition under Title VI against incitement, harassment, or discrimination against Palestinian nationals and Arab Muslims on campuses which receive federal aid.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 11:16 am

        “That’s a lame and evasive response.”

        It is not, at all. You have a long record of substituting political arguments for legal ones. You STILL have brought no law, no case, and no authority remotely suggesting that Oren has no right to speak at Irvine and defend Israeli policy. You’ve made arguments about Israeli policy, not US law.

        “Kenneth L. Marcus was the Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, when he first said that activities which intimidate and harass Arab Muslim students are prohibited under Title VI. You are studiously avoiding that issue.”

        I am not avoiding the issue. You’ve not remotely shown that Michael Oren speaking at Irvine is tantamount to harassment of Arab and Muslim students. You’ve not remotely shown that OCR believes that it is.

        “When Palestinian students criticize Israel’s policies they are not inherently intimidating or harassing Jews,”

        No one has said that they are, and the bases of the Title VI cases make no such claim.

        You’ve cited Marcus’s law journal article several times. You claim that the article supports the view that “When Palestinian students criticize Israel’s policies they are not inherently intimidating or harassing Jews.” Once again, you’re citing a text few people here will bother to read, and you’re making a false claim about it.

        Marcus’s article argues that Title VI should cover Jews. That’s the main thrust of his article. One need not read very far to discover what he believe Title VI does NOT cover: “It should be noted that many recent campus activities, although arguably anti- Semitic, do not rise to the level of harassment and are therefore outside of the scope of this Article: divestment movements, anti-Israeli or anti- Zionist academic literature, Holocaust denial, intimidation of pro-Israeli speakers, anti-Zionist bias in programs of Middle East studies, anti-Israel boycotts, and refusal to provide religious accommodations to Jewish students.” 15 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. at 841-42.

        So the idea that Marcus is claiming that Title VI would cover a speech given on campus is rank nonsense.

        Here is what Marcus does categorize as harassment: [A]llegations of anti-Semitic activity appear to have increased on college campuses in recent years and have included physical assault, stalking, intimidation, vandalism, and various forms of hate speech. See Id. at 843.

        These are all quite common forms of harassment. They apply to Jews, Muslims, and Arabs.

        Let’s take a look at the case studies Marcus cites:

        1. San Francisco State: “On May 7, 2002, an ugly incident at San Francisco State University awakened public attention to this new emergence of an ancient prejudice. At that campus, which had already developed a reputation in some circles as an unwelcoming place for Jews, over “[f]our hundred Jewish students held a . . . ‘Sit-in for Peace in the Middle East’, [sic] hoping to engage the pro-Palestinian students . . . in ‘dialogue.’” As the rally concluded, “pro-Palestinian students surrounded the 30 remaining Jewish students,” shouting death threats. Professor Laurie Zoloff, a witness to the event, reported that, “[c]ounter demonstrators poured into the plaza, screaming at the Jews to ‘Get out or we will kill you’ and ‘Hitler did not finish the job.’” Others reported shouts of “F the Jews!” and “Die racist pigs!” Police allegedly refused to take any action other than to surround the Jewish students and community members, who were reportedly trapped while an angry mob chanted for their death. The San Francisco police then marched the Jewish group to the Hillel House and remained on guard. Some rally participants reported feeling “very threatened” and fearing that violence would ensue but for the police presence.”

        2. Columbia University – a student was told she could not be a Semite because she had green eyes, Professor Massad shouted down a student for expressing a political opinion in class, Hamid Dabashi wrote that Israelis have an inherent vulgar character.

        3. Irvine – This one is the longest, and all of it predates the Oren speech.

        “At the University of California at Irvine, numerous anti-Semitic allegations have been raised over the last few years. In 2000, a Jewish student was told to, “Go back to Russia where you came from” and called a “F ing Jew.” In January 2004, a rock was thrown at a Jewish student wearing a tee shirt that said “Everybody loves a Jewish boy,” barely missing him. The rock was thrown from the direction of a student group, which was using rocks as paper weights. In February 2004, two students uttered an Arabic phrase which translates as “Slaughter the Jews” when they saw an Arabic-speaking Jewish student wearing a pin on his sweatshirt emblazoned with American and Israeli flags. During the heated exchange which followed, the Jewish student was “surrounded and threatened” by other students. In March 2004, “this same Jewish student was . . . called a ‘dirty Jew’” and denigrated with “threatening language and hurtful ethnic slurs” by other students.

        In recent years, the campus has also experienced anti-Semitic vandalism, as well as anti-Semitic hate speech posted in campus signs, published in student newspapers, and presented at student-sponsored public lectures. For example, in 2002 a UC Irvine student publication argued “that Jews are genetically different . . . from non-Jews.” That same year, “signs began being posted on campus, picturing the Star of David dripping with blood, and equating [that Jewish symbol] with the swastika.” “In 2003, . . . a Holocaust memorial on the UC” Irvine campus was either “destroyed” or “disturbed”-depending on conflicting accounts of the incident. In early 2004, one student-sponsored speaker announced to a UC Irvine audience that “‘there are good Jews and bad Jews.’” Lecturing from behind a lectern bearing the UC Irvine emblem, the speaker explained that Jews exhibit an arrogance based on both white supremacy and the doctrine that Jews are the chosen people. Numerous other university-sponsored public lectures have criticized Jews, Zionism and Israel. Students have posted “signs equating Zionism with Nazism, signs with the Star of David dripping with blood, signs equating Israeli Prime Minister Sharon with Hitler, and signs of Prime Minister Sharon with a monkey face” next to signs advertising the Jewish Sabbath dinners. Another sign posted on campus read, “Israelis Love to Kill Innocent Children.” At least two UC Irvine students have recently left that campus because they perceive that it has developed a “hostile environment for Jewish students.”

        UC Irvine students have alleged, in unusual detail, the impact that this harassment has had on their educational opportunities at Irvine. According to the Zionist Organization of America (“ZOA”), some students have feared for their physical safety, have asserted that anti-Semitic hostility has adversely affected their academic performance, have feared identifying themselves as Jews, have avoided clothing that identifies them as Jews or supporters of Israel, have avoided affiliating with Jewish programs or activities on campus in which they would otherwise have participated, and have transferred to other universities to escape the anti-Semitism they allege at UC Irvine.”

        Much of the rest of the article is devoted to making the case that antisemitism is covered under Title VI.

        There is no question that OCR has long had a policy of protecting Muslim and Arab students from harassment. Almost immediately after 9/11, US SecEd Rod Paige wrote a “Dear Colleague” letter strongly urging teachers and professors to guard against harassment of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians. link to www2.ed.gov

        Ken Marcus’s Dear Colleague letter from 2004 indicated that the office was investigating incidents against Jews, Muslims, and Christians. link to www2.ed.gov

        The 2012 OCR “Enforcement Highlights” pamphlet indicates that the OCR investigates incidents targeting Muslims and Jews alike.

        The bottom line is that Marcus’s article contains no support for your assertion that Title VI covers something like Oren’s speech at Irvine; in fact, the article fairly explicitly says such activity has nothing to do with Title VI.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 11:26 am

        “There are no exemptions for the general prohibitions against using federal appropriations to support foreign agents who conduct “public propaganda” and the Civil Rights Commission prohibition under Title VI against incitement, harassment, or discrimination against Palestinian nationals and Arab Muslims on campuses which receive federal aid.”

        Keep spinning like Hannity. FARA does not in any way prohibit a speech like Michael Oren’s, and neither does Title VI. Neither is there any law, case, statute, ruling, administrative ruling, etc., etc., suggesting, in any way, that Oren’s speech on a campus constitutes incitement, harassment or discrimination against Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims. Kenneth Marcus, the person you cite as authority for this view, directly contravenes it in the article you cited.

        Keep trying, Hostage.

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 11:40 am

        You made the ridiculous assertion, Annie, that foreign diplomats have no First Amendment rights. . . . when a campus group presents a speaker, it is their First Amendment rights that are implicated.

        No one has a 1st Amendment right to carry-on a political propaganda campaign on campus to promote grass roots public support for illegal behavior using the federal taxpayers dime. You artlessly tap dancing around that question, but we’ve all noticed the pattern by now.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 12:48 pm

        Yes, there is a First Amendment right to conduct a political propaganda campaign, including when the goal is not to your liking, Hostage, including when what the speaker is advocating “violates international law” whether on the “taxpayer dime” or otherwise. It’s not against international law for Michael Oren to advocate Israel’s war in Gaza. People who advocate drone strikes are protected by the First Amendment, whether they are Americans or foreign diplomats. This will not change no matter how many times you try to say otherwise. You’ve still cited nothing in support of your assertion.

        The same is true when the speaker advocates violating American laws. The only question is whether the speech constitutes incitement (the proverbial crying fire in crowded theater or inciting an angry mob). Oren’s speech does not remotely meet that standard.

        You’re just another partisan trying to censor speech you don’t like, so just admit it. I suspect you know all of this very well.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 3:35 pm

        “That’s a lame and evasive response.”

        It is not, at all. You have a long record of substituting political arguments for legal ones. You STILL have brought no law, no case, and no authority remotely suggesting that Oren has no right to speak at Irvine and defend Israeli policy. You’ve made arguments about Israeli policy, not US law.

        “Kenneth L. Marcus was the Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, when he first said that activities which intimidate and harass Arab Muslim students are prohibited under Title VI. You are studiously avoiding that issue.”

        I am not avoiding the issue. You’ve not remotely shown that Michael Oren speaking at Irvine is tantamount to harassment of Arab and Muslim students. You’ve not remotely shown that OCR believes that it is.

        “When Palestinian students criticize Israel’s policies they are not inherently intimidating or harassing Jews,”

        No one has said that they are, and the bases of the Title VI cases make no such claim.

        You’ve cited Marcus’s law journal article several times. You claim that the article supports the view that “When Palestinian students criticize Israel’s policies they are not inherently intimidating or harassing Jews.” Once again, you’re citing a text few people here will bother to read, and you’re making a false claim about it.

        Marcus’s article argues that Title VI should cover Jews. That’s the main thrust of his article. One need not read very far to discover what he believe Title VI does NOT cover: “It should be noted that many recent campus activities, although arguably anti- Semitic, do not rise to the level of harassment and are therefore outside of the scope of this Article: divestment movements, anti-Israeli or anti- Zionist academic literature, Holocaust denial, intimidation of pro-Israeli speakers, anti-Zionist bias in programs of Middle East studies, anti-Israel boycotts, and refusal to provide religious accommodations to Jewish students.” 15 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. at 841-42.

        So the idea that Marcus is claiming that Title VI would cover a speech given on campus is rank nonsense.

        Here is what Marcus does categorize as harassment: [A]llegations of anti-Semitic activity appear to have increased on college campuses in recent years and have included physical assault, stalking, intimidation, vandalism, and various forms of hate speech. See Id. at 843.

        These are all quite common forms of harassment. They apply to Jews, Muslims, and Arabs.

        Let’s take a look at the case studies Marcus cites:

        1. San Francisco State: “On May 7, 2002, an ugly incident at San Francisco State University awakened public attention to this new emergence of an ancient prejudice. At that campus, which had already developed a reputation in some circles as an unwelcoming place for Jews, over “[f]our hundred Jewish students held a . . . ‘Sit-in for Peace in the Middle East’, [sic] hoping to engage the pro-Palestinian students . . . in ‘dialogue.’” As the rally concluded, “pro-Palestinian students surrounded the 30 remaining Jewish students,” shouting death threats. Professor Laurie Zoloff, a witness to the event, reported that, “[c]ounter demonstrators poured into the plaza, screaming at the Jews to ‘Get out or we will kill you’ and ‘Hitler did not finish the job.’” Others reported shouts of “F the Jews!” and “Die racist pigs!” Police allegedly refused to take any action other than to surround the Jewish students and community members, who were reportedly trapped while an angry mob chanted for their death. The San Francisco police then marched the Jewish group to the Hillel House and remained on guard. Some rally participants reported feeling “very threatened” and fearing that violence would ensue but for the police presence.”

        2. Columbia University – a student was told she could not be a Semite because she had green eyes, Professor Massad shouted down a student for expressing a political opinion in class, Hamid Dabashi wrote that Israelis have an inherent vulgar character.

        3. Irvine – This one is the longest, and all of it predates the Oren speech.

        “At the University of California at Irvine, numerous anti-Semitic allegations have been raised over the last few years. In 2000, a Jewish student was told to, “Go back to Russia where you came from” and called a “F ing Jew.” In January 2004, a rock was thrown at a Jewish student wearing a tee shirt that said “Everybody loves a Jewish boy,” barely missing him. The rock was thrown from the direction of a student group, which was using rocks as paper weights. In February 2004, two students uttered an Arabic phrase which translates as “Slaughter the Jews” when they saw an Arabic-speaking Jewish student wearing a pin on his sweatshirt emblazoned with American and Israeli flags. During the heated exchange which followed, the Jewish student was “surrounded and threatened” by other students. In March 2004, “this same Jewish student was . . . called a ‘dirty Jew’” and denigrated with “threatening language and hurtful ethnic slurs” by other students.

        In recent years, the campus has also experienced anti-Semitic vandalism, as well as anti-Semitic hate speech posted in campus signs, published in student newspapers, and presented at student-sponsored public lectures. For example, in 2002 a UC Irvine student publication argued “that Jews are genetically different . . . from non-Jews.” That same year, “signs began being posted on campus, picturing the Star of David dripping with blood, and equating [that Jewish symbol] with the swastika.” “In 2003, . . . a Holocaust memorial on the UC” Irvine campus was either “destroyed” or “disturbed”-depending on conflicting accounts of the incident. In early 2004, one student-sponsored speaker announced to a UC Irvine audience that “‘there are good Jews and bad Jews.’” Lecturing from behind a lectern bearing the UC Irvine emblem, the speaker explained that Jews exhibit an arrogance based on both white supremacy and the doctrine that Jews are the chosen people. Numerous other university-sponsored public lectures have criticized Jews, Zionism and Israel. Students have posted “signs equating Zionism with Nazism, signs with the Star of David dripping with blood, signs equating Israeli Prime Minister Sharon with Hitler, and signs of Prime Minister Sharon with a monkey face” next to signs advertising the Jewish Sabbath dinners. Another sign posted on campus read, “Israelis Love to Kill Innocent Children.” At least two UC Irvine students have recently left that campus because they perceive that it has developed a “hostile environment for Jewish students.”

        UC Irvine students have alleged, in unusual detail, the impact that this harassment has had on their educational opportunities at Irvine. According to the Zionist Organization of America (“ZOA”), some students have feared for their physical safety, have asserted that anti-Semitic hostility has adversely affected their academic performance, have feared identifying themselves as Jews, have avoided clothing that identifies them as Jews or supporters of Israel, have avoided affiliating with Jewish programs or activities on campus in which they would otherwise have participated, and have transferred to other universities to escape the anti-Semitism they allege at UC Irvine.”

        Much of the rest of the article is devoted to making the case that antisemitism is covered under Title VI.

        There is no question that OCR has long had a policy of protecting Muslim and Arab students from harassment. Almost immediately after 9/11, US SecEd Rod Paige wrote a “Dear Colleague” letter strongly urging teachers and professors to guard against harassment of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians. link to www2.ed.gov

        Ken Marcus’s Dear Colleague letter from 2004 indicated that the office was investigating incidents against Jews, Muslims, and Christians. link to www2.ed.gov

        The 2012 OCR “Enforcement Highlights” pamphlet indicates that the OCR investigates incidents targeting Muslims and Jews alike.

        The bottom line is that Marcus’s article contains no support for your assertion that Title VI covers something like Oren’s speech at Irvine; in fact, the article fairly explicitly says such activity has nothing to do with Title VI.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 3:36 pm

        “There are no exemptions for the general prohibitions against using federal appropriations to support foreign agents who conduct “public propaganda” and the Civil Rights Commission prohibition under Title VI against incitement, harassment, or discrimination against Palestinian nationals and Arab Muslims on campuses which receive federal aid.”

        Keep spinning like Hannity. FARA does not in any way prohibit a speech like Michael Oren’s, and neither does Title VI. Neither is there any law, case, statute, ruling, administrative ruling, etc., etc., suggesting, in any way, that Oren’s speech on a campus constitutes incitement, harassment or discrimination against Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims. Kenneth Marcus, the person you cite as authority for this view, directly contravenes it in the article you cited.

        Keep trying, Hostage.

      • Mooser
        February 1, 2013, 6:32 pm

        “I’m not aware of any laws restricting the right of foreigners to speak”

        Stupid me. I thought ignorance of the law is no excuse, and even Zionists could use Google. Two more things I’m wrong about.

      • hophmi
        February 2, 2013, 4:44 pm

        “Stupid me. I thought ignorance of the law is no excuse, and even Zionists could use Google. Two more things I’m wrong about.”

        Sorry Mooser, I know how you need these things spelled out. After searching, I was unable to find any such law, and Hostage has also apparently been unable to find one. He has suggested the FARA statute; it does not constitute a restriction on speech and diplomats are exempt.

      • Hostage
        February 2, 2013, 6:25 pm

        “I’m not aware of any laws restricting the right of foreigners to speak”

        I doubt that’s really the case. I’ve discussed the Supreme Court decision in Bluman v Federal Election Commission here in the past. It affirmed the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., decision which upheld federal campaign laws that make it illegal for aliens who lawfully reside in the U.S., but who do not have permanent residency status, to make contributions to candidates. More to the point the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality of the prohibition on foreign nationals making contributions or expenditures in connection with U.S. elections.
        link to fec.gov

        That decision came shortly after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wherein the Supreme Court held that campaign contributions are a form of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment and that Congress lacks the power to limit independent expenditures made by US corporations, unions, and other domestic organizations. link to law.cornell.edu

      • hophmi
        February 2, 2013, 7:46 pm

        “More to the point the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s challenge to the constitutionality of the prohibition on foreign nationals making contributions or expenditures in connection with U.S. elections.”

        We’re not talking about electioneering here. The election laws restrict various forms of speech of citizens and non-citizens alike (like the individual limit on campaign contributions to candidates). We’re talking as a general matter.

      • Hostage
        February 2, 2013, 10:21 pm

        We’re not talking about electioneering here.

        The D.C. Circuit Memorandum Opinion (8/8/11) talks about a lot more than just electioneering. It even mentions the legality of imposing restrictions on foreign citizens with regard to activities, like teaching in the public schools:

        The Supreme Court has long held that the government (federal, state, and local) may exclude foreign citizens from activities that are part of democratic self-government in the United States. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government may bar aliens from voting, serving as jurors, working as police or probation officers, or teaching at public schools.

        link to fec.gov

        Unless you are a very lousy lawyer, you know that I’m talking about consolidated appropriations and civil rights laws that the government uses to prevent harassment of minorities on campuses under Title VI and the general prohibition against using federal appropriations for publicity or political propaganda aimed at influencing US public opinion. There is a difference between a private individual or organization promoting war on their own dime and the US government subsidizing the same form of apologetics and war propaganda, i.e.

        Article 20

        1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

        2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

        – See The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
        link to www2.ohchr.org

        You keep trying to drag-in the 1st Amendment, but the Irvine 11 were not convicted of violating the 1st Amendment. They were convicted of violating a California public meeting law.

        So I’m still asking you where it says that public officials of a federally subsidized institution have an unqualified right to hold a public meeting to give an agent of a foreign government carte blanche to drum-up grass roots public support for an on-going regime of illegal settlements, annexations, targeted killings, & etc., when those acts constitute serious war crimes and crimes against humanity that have already targeted the students, friends, or family members of the Palestinian or Arab Muslim audience members for decades?

        I’m also pointing out the obvious. The 17th Criminal Chamber in France probably should be asked to cite the same EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia that the French Union of Jewish Students employed in their lawsuit against Twitter to demand that the Bnai Brith International, the Anti-Defamation League, and the French Union of Jewish Students themselves remove illegal articles from their own websites that fall within the scope of apologetics for crimes against humanity contained in the Rome Statute and incitement to racial hatred. It’s time to bring the double standard to an end, and see if these hypocrites can take some of their own medicine.

      • Hostage
        February 2, 2013, 10:50 pm

        Hostage has also apparently been unable to find one. He has suggested the FARA statute; it does not constitute a restriction on speech and diplomats are exempt.

        FARA specifically identifies ambassadors and diplomats as the only foreign agents who can engage in activities prior to filing a registration. They are not required to register or report, but the information that they disseminate to the public is still considered political propaganda that’s supposed to be identified as such and is not eligible for federal funding or subsidies.

        I’ve cited the Consolidated 2012 Appropriations Act prohibitions against agencies or grant recipients using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda; the Office of Civil Rights Letter on Title VI against harassment on campus, and the US government’s treaty obligations under article 4 of the ICERD and Article 20 of the ICCPR against engaging itself in or funding war propaganda or advocacy by others of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

      • hophmi
        February 3, 2013, 11:00 am

        Again, I’m curious as to which provision of the 2012 Appropriations Act you’re referring to.

        The OCR Title VI letter, again, certainly does not make the case that a speech constitutes harassment. I broke down the law review article you cited (though I’m not sure if it was sent through); Marcus specifically says, in the first couple of pages, that this is not the kind of thing Title VI covers. The case to extend Title VI protection to Jews was based on incidents of physical harassment and clear hate speech, not speeches about Israel.

        Indeed, it’s interesting that you’ve not presented a single actual quote from Oren’s speech indicating what part of it you think constitutes hate speech. You’ve, as usual, presented the usual pro-Palestinian political arguments. I once again invite you to test out any legal theory you’ve articulated here with OCR (save me the locus standi nonsense, since, as I said before, anyone can bring a complaint).

        You’ve also not pointed out what in Oren’s speech would even constitute “war propaganda.” Indeed, having heard Oren speak, I doubt anything he said is even close.

        And of course, you’ve not remotely made the case that anything Oren said could be remotely construed as incitement under any US statute. Israeli diplomats do not generally go around saying “Muslims bad”, and even if they did, it would not fit the definition of incitement under US law.

        You’re doing what partisans do – substituting political arguments for legal ones.

        I cannot urge you enough to file a complaint with the OCR outlining these arguments. There is no question that if you really do feel this way, particularly about the 2006 Dear Colleague letter, it is your moral obligation to do so, and your right. I wish you the best of luck. I am deeply committed, personally, to making sure Muslims feel welcome in this country; from my support of the Park51 project, to my work in Muslim-Jewish volunteer organizations, to my long and ardent criticism of evil people like Pamela Geller, I wish Muslims nothing but safety and security on college campuses.

        But not at the expense of the First Amendment, and not by restricting the rights of Zionists to speak on campus, whether foreign or domestic.

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2013, 1:48 pm

        “Sorry Mooser, I know how you need these things spelled out.”

        All anybody needs to get everything spelled out clearly is click on your name and access your comment archive. Don’t you have anybody else over there?

      • Hostage
        February 3, 2013, 5:24 pm

        Again, I’m curious as to which provision of the 2012 Appropriations Act you’re referring to.

        Try searching for the multiple occurrences of the term “publicity or propaganda” yourself. The Legal Information Institute says:

        The term “publicity or propaganda” is a term of art found in the omnibus appropriations bill passed by Congress every year: “No part of any appropriation . . . shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.”

        link to law.cornell.edu

        The term is not defined. The Supreme Court cases that I’ve cited held that foreign agents are free to disseminate their information, but that it is officially considered propaganda. The courts have also held that foreign citizens can be prohibited from teaching in schools by federal, state, and local governments, consistent with the US Constitution.

        The OCR Title VI letter, again, certainly does not make the case that a speech constitutes harassment.

        I didn’t say a speech necessarily constitutes harassment.

        I broke down the law review article you cited (though I’m not sure if it was sent through); Marcus specifically says, in the first couple of pages, that this is not the kind of thing Title VI covers

        Now you’re talking nonsense. Inviting a foreign agent to speak at a federally subsidized public meeting who routinely writes Op-Eds defending murders, illegal settlements, illegal deportations, torture, wrongful imprisonment, excessive destruction or expropriation of property, and a multitude of other war crimes and crimes against humanity is an example of blatant harassment and discrimination against Arab Muslim or persons of Palestinian national origin no matter how you “break it down”. That sort of thing is exactly the subject of the OCR letter.

      • Hostage
        February 3, 2013, 6:17 pm

        I cannot urge you enough to file a complaint with the OCR outlining these arguments.

        The OCR is not operating in an information vacuum. It should investigate the complaint The Muslim Student Union on the campus issued to the University the day before Oren’s lecture:

        The members of the Muslim Student Union at the University of California, Irvine, condemn and strongly oppose the presence of Michael Oren on our campus today. We resent that the Law School and the Political Science Department have agreed to cosponsor a public figure who represents a state that continues to commit human rights violations, thereby breaking international law and law of Israeli accord. We strongly condemn the university for cosponsoring, and therefore, inadvertently supporting the ambassador of a state that is condemned by more UN Human Rights Council resolutions than all other countries in the world combined.

        A year after the war on Gaza, in which 1,400 people were massacred, 700 of whom were women and children, Israel attempts to hide the war crimes it has committed behind the deceitful facades of so-called “academics” and “diplomats”. These public relations campaigns aim to secure more than three billion dollars of American taxpayer money that supports Israel’s military forces on an annual basis. The United States is going through the worst economic recession since the great depression, our tuition as UC students is increasing by more than 30% this year, our classes and services are being cut, and yet we continue to supply Israel with billions of dollars worth of brutal and illegal weapons used to oppress and inflict further suffering upon the Palestinian people.

        To further understand why we oppose Michael Oren’s visit to UCI, one must consider his professional and military background. Oren personally participated in the Israeli Defense Force in wars that took place in Lebanon and Palestine. Oren took part in a culture that has no qualms with terrorizing the innocent, killing civilians, demolishing their homes, and illegally occupying their land. Oren is an outspoken supporter of the recent war on Gaza and stands in the way of international law by refusing to cooperate with the United Nation’s Goldstone Report a fact-finding mission endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council. The Goldstone Report accuses the Israeli government of committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity in the densely populated Gaza Strip.

        As people of conscience, we oppose Michael Oren’s invitation to our campus. Propagating murder is not a responsible expression of free speech. Oren and his partners should only be granted a speakers platform in the International Criminal Court and should not be honored on our campus.

      • Hostage
        February 3, 2013, 6:32 pm

        He has suggested the FARA statute; it does not constitute a restriction on speech and diplomats are exempt.

        It is actually 22 U.S.C. Subchapter II: Registration of foreign propagandists. Diplomats and consular officials are included in the all or any persons definitions contained in § 611. They are specifically mentioned in § 613 where it is stated that they are only exempt when engaged exclusively in activities which are recognized by the Department of State as being within the scope of their official functions.

        That simply reflects the fact that international law on diplomatic immunity precludes the US government and its Courts from exercising jurisdiction over diplomats, consular officers, or foreign government officials when they are engaged exclusively in recognized official duties. But that does not mean that all of their speaking activities are exempt or that they are not defined as foreign propagandists by federal law.

      • hophmi
        February 3, 2013, 7:02 pm

        Like I said, your argument is purely political, and you think that because you demonize Israelis like Michael Oren, everybody HAS to agree with you. You’d simply like to exclude the speech you don’t like. At least those who are asking questions about the BC Polisci Department are not trying to exclude Omar Barghouti and Judith Butler, both people who are soft on condemning Palestinian murder, from their campus altogether.

      • hophmi
        February 3, 2013, 7:04 pm

        “But that does not mean that all of their speaking activities are exempt or that they are not defined as foreign propagandists by federal law.”

        And again, if you really believe Israeli diplomats and the organizations that bring them should be censored, or that they are violating FARA, I encourage you to pursue that theory, instead of stating it in the friendly state of Mondoweiss.

      • Hostage
        February 3, 2013, 7:55 pm

        You’ve also not pointed out what in Oren’s speech would even constitute “war propaganda.” Indeed, having heard Oren speak, I doubt anything he said is even close.

        Oren’s statement that: “It’s not London, its not Jerusalem, but its also not Tehran.” was a non-sequitur. He wasn’t being heckled by Iranians and it was an obvious and undiplomatic insult to another people’s culture.
        link to youtube.com

        The Iranians have the legal right to enrich uranium under the terms of the non-proliferation treaty. There was no evidence when Oren delivered his speech that they were trying to obtain nuclear weapons in order to threaten Israel, the Middle East, and the entire World as he claimed. That is pure propaganda that actually contradicted the official US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report.

        There were also a number of religious propaganda claims made that have no proper place in a federally subsidized state public meeting, i.e. the founding mothers and fathers concluding that, in order to be good Americans, they had a divinely ordained duty to help the Old Jews to get back to their promised land & the crap about Wilson and Truman making America the first country to recognize the “recreated Jewish homeland”. link to youtube.com

        The California authorities have no business arresting anyone for interrupting religious partisan horsesh*t when it get’s that deep.

      • Cliff
        February 3, 2013, 8:35 pm

        David Horowitz has spoken at the college before. I think he was sponsored as well.

        This entire Zionist censorship campaign is absurd.

        The PoliSci Dept. has the right to sponsor who they want. It’s not up to the Zionist community to dictate who is ‘appropriate’.

      • Hostage
        February 3, 2013, 8:54 pm

        And again, if you really believe Israeli diplomats and the organizations that bring them should be censored, or that they are violating FARA, I encourage you to pursue that theory, instead of stating it in the friendly state of Mondoweiss.

        Mondoweiss has published a copy of the letter from the Muslim student union complaining to the University the day before Oren appeared. Does the UC Regent’s policy not apply to investigating Muslim complaints? That’s not the way I read the report of the University of California President’s Advisory Committee on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion.

        But just to make it clear for you Hophmi, I do plan to contact the editor of the European Journal of International Law about an article addressing the legality under the EU Framework of these Jewish groups and Israeli officials using the Internet to engage in apologetics for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. It looks to me like 90% of their hasbara is just as illegal as the stuff they are complaining about in the French criminal courts.

      • Hostage
        February 3, 2013, 10:26 pm

        Like I said, your argument is purely political, and you think that because you demonize Israelis like Michael Oren, everybody HAS to agree with you. You’d simply like to exclude the speech you don’t like.

        Correction: as of 01/24/2013 appeals in The Irvine 11 case have been filed.
        link to electronicintifada.net

        I could care less if Oren and his friends want to setup their own events to say 1) Iran is threatening the World with its race for nuclear arms*; or 2) that in order to be good Americans, Christians have a Divine Mission to help Jews return and reconstitute their imaginary homeland. I’m cool with that – so long as they pay their own way and don’t harass others under the color of law, and don’t violate the criminal prohibitions against transferring populations into occupied territories, administering capital punishments without benefit of trials in regularly constituted courts, & etc. *Note that Israel did not deposit any reservations regarding the applicability of Article 20 of the ICCPR, so war propaganda could be considered a form of illegal incitement in that country.

        I’ve pointed out Supreme Court case law, federal appropriations statutes, and Office of Civil Rights policies which say that Oren and California state officials don’t have boundless discretion to host political propaganda events on the federal dole. That’s a privilege, not a 1st Amendment right or entitlement.

        You’d simply like to exclude the speech you don’t like.

        No, I’d like to enforce the civil rights laws on an equal basis. Especially the ones regarding student harassment. Those were reiterated in the “Dear Colleague” letter (October 26, 2010) from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Russlynn Ali, concerning recipients’ obligations to protect students from harassment on the basis of sex; race, color and national origin; and disability. The letter clarifies the responsibility of schools to prevent bullying or discriminatory harassment and reminding schools that they are responsible for addressing harassment incidents about which they know or reasonably should have known using mediums like written statements on the Internet:

        Harassing conduct may take many forms, including verbal acts and name‐calling; graphic and written statements, which may include use of cell phones or the Internet; or other conduct that may be physically threatening, harmful, or humiliating. Harassment does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents. Harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school. When such harassment is based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability, it violates the civil rights laws that OCR enforces.

        UC Irvine officials should have reasonably foreseen that Oren has used the Internet and other mainstream media to spread his message which defends Israel’s right to commit serious war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians and Arab Muslims. They also should have known, that after generations of continuous armed attacks and conflict, the Muslim Union and Palestinian students would find any official acceptance and promotion of Oren’s extreme views on the subject as an outrage and a form of humiliation and harassment. Anyone with average reading skills can determine that much from the letter they published in the days before Oren’s scheduled appearance.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 12:55 pm

        Keep spinning like Hannity. FARA does not in any way prohibit a speech like Michael Oren’s, and neither does Title VI.

        LOL! Keep beating that dead horse Hophmi. I never said FARA prohibited foreign agents from engaging in speech. It simply categorizes their activity as propaganda; and says that ambassadors and diplomats are not immune from the reporting requirements, except when they are actually performing official duties that are recognized, as such, by our government. Conducting grassroots publicity or propaganda campaigns to influence public opinion is not considered an official part of a diplomat’s government function in maintaining and facilitating diplomatic relations between two governments.

        For example, in Ambach v Norwick, the Supreme Court upheld a law requiring that public school teachers be US citizens, because of their part of a governmental function and their role in inculcating American values.

        I believe that any “reasonable man” who has read the Office of Civil Rights letters (cited by Kenneth Marcus in his law journal article and internet articles and interviews on the subject of campus anti-Semitism) can see that State officials violated OCR policy by inviting an author and speaker who routinely uses the Internet to defend Israel’s right to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. There’s no doubt that Oren condones and engages in apologetics for serious crimes that target Palestinians as part of Israel’s illegal settlement activities. He does the same sort of thing when he defends the illegal Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor while conducting propaganda for war against Iran, e.g. link to jpost.com

        The UN Security Council condemned the premeditated attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities as an act of aggression in clear violation of the UN Charter and international norms by a vote of 15-0; and called for Israel to immediately place its own nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA. See S/RES/487 (1981) link to un.org
        The Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear power plant also resulted in IAEA resolutions that declared the practice a violation of the UN Charter and international law:
        * link to iaea.org
        * link to iaea.org
        * link to iaea.org
        * link to iaea.org

        There is no right to a federally-subsidized pulpit from which a foreign agent can promulgate war propaganda on behalf of the State of Israel or deliver sermons about the Christian duty to help the Jews redeem their ancient homeland from the Palestinians. Oren has a perfect right to do those things on his own dime, but he and State Officials have no business doing that on the taxpayers budget or suppressing dissent under color of law. The Constitution places many limitations on the power of federal and state government officials that do not apply to ordinary citizens. The prohibition against the government conducting war propaganda or promulgating ideas of racial superiority contained in Article 20 of the ICCPR and Article 4 of the ICERD have been codified in enabling legislation which prohibits the use of any federal appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda campaigns.

        If you can’t tell the difference between the use of a federal subsidy by State officials and the exercise of a 1st Amendment right, then have an adult explain it to you.

      • hophmi
        February 13, 2013, 1:53 pm

        You’re entitled to your opinion, Hostage. As I said, I hope you pursue a complaint, as is your right. I appreciate that you have political views.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 4:06 pm

        You have a long record of substituting political arguments for legal ones. You STILL have brought no law, no case, and no authority remotely suggesting that Oren has no right to speak at Irvine and defend Israeli policy.

        I most certainly have. The Title VI prohibitions apply to any “activity” of a post-secondary educational entity that receives federal assistance, including public meetings conducted by school boards, the UC regents, their members, or their agents. See “E. Educational Institutions” and the cases cited under VII. “Program or Activity” in the Justice Department Title VI Manual. link to justice.gov

        We are talking about evidence of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment. The Justice Department stipulates that:

        Evidence of discriminatory intent may be direct or circumstantial and may be found in various sources, “including statements by decisionmakers,” and “the historical background of the events in issue”. Other evidence includes a departure from standard procedure (e.g., failure to consider factors normally considered), legislative or administrative history.

        We already discussed Oren’s history. In this case a spokesman for the UC Regents claimed that Oren was a “policymaker” and demanded respect for his views. It would be a guarded understatement to say those policies have had a disparate, discriminatory, and even criminal effect on Palestinians. I’ve mentioned that UC Irvine and California officials:

        1) invited a guest who has a long public record of defending the State of Israel’s right to illegally colonize Palestine and commit other serious crimes against Palestinians and Arabs on the basis of an ancient Jewish ethnic or religious entitlement.
        2) used a California public meeting statute to deprive Palestinians and Arabs of their rights under the color of law in violation of 18 USC § 242 .
        3) violated a general prohibition against using federal appropriations for conducting publicity or propaganda activities, including those of Oren on behalf of a foreign government.

        See also the Justice Department Legal Manual:
        V. Federal Financial Assistance Includes More Than Money
        VI. What is a Recipient?
        VII. “Program or Activity”
        VIII. What Constitutes Discriminatory Conduct?
        link to justice.gov

        The decision in Meese v. Keene illustrates that California officials have conducted publicity campaigns on behalf of foreign governments and that its appropriate to identify such efforts as propaganda campaigns.

        A spokesman for the UC Regents has rejected a recent resolution of the California Legislature, which among other things branded Palestinian BDS and Solidarity movement activities on campus as prohibited forms of anti-Semitism. Among other things, the resolution was aimed at prohibiting state funding of any such activities: “no public resources will be allowed to be used for any anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation.”. link to jpost.com

        At the same time, the spokesman noted that it’s other recommendations would violate 1st Amendment prohibitions if adopted. There’s quite a long history of States attempting to violate the 1st Amendment under color of their own laws and regulations, like the Prosecutor’s use of a public meeting law against the Irvine 11.

        The bottom line is that Marcus’s article contains no support for your assertion that Title VI covers something like Oren’s speech at Irvine; in fact, the article fairly explicitly says such activity has nothing to do with Title VI.

        I hope you are only pretending to be that ignorant about the contents of the article.

      • hophmi
        February 13, 2013, 4:20 pm

        “I most certainly have. The Title VI prohibitions apply to any “activity” of a post-secondary educational entity that receives federal assistance, including public meetings conducted by school boards, the UC regents, their members, or their agents. ”

        Yep. Sky is blue. Next?

        “We are talking about evidence of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment.”

        No, we patently are not. We are talking about a speech, not about discrimination or disparate treatment. The students on campus twho favor other POVs are welcome to bring their own speakers. Ken Marcus’s article makes clear the Oren situation is exactly what we are NOT talking about.

        “It would be a guarded understatement to say those policies have had a disparate, discriminatory, and even criminal effect on Palestinians.”

        Speaking about them does not.

        “used a California public meeting statute to deprive Palestinians and Arabs of their rights under the color of law in violation of 18 USC § 242 .”

        This is silly, silly argument. There is nothing about giving a speech that violates the rights of Palestinians. Again, I invite you to test this theory, anywhere.

        “See also the Justice Department Legal Manual:”

        I saw it. It doesn’t make your case.

        ” Prosecutor’s use of a public meeting law against the Irvine 11.”

        My prediction is that this will not be found to be an example.

        “I hope you are only pretending to be that ignorant about the contents of the article.”

        I know you are. Purposely. Because your main purpose is make political arguments to the cult here, not to make legal arguments, because these do not qualify as legal arguments.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 5:17 pm

        Yes, there is a First Amendment right to conduct a political propaganda campaign, including when the goal is not to your liking, Hostage, including when what the speaker is advocating “violates international law” whether on the “taxpayer dime” or otherwise.

        The U.S. government can’t stop citizens from exercising their 1st Amendment rights, but that doesn’t apply to self-imposed international obligations on the government itself regarding funding and support of publicity or propaganda campaigns in accordance with the terms of Article 20 of the ICCPR and Article 4 of the ICERD.

        Those are not self-executing agreements, but the State Department has cited Title VI and the CFR, regarding the Justice Department’s OCR, as enabling statutes or the applicable administrative law of the land in that connection. So those treaty obligations are enforceable in state courts. See Missouri v Holland.

        What part of the State Department’s ICERD report did you not understand?

        In addition, the Supreme Court has held that 1st and 14th Amendment rights don’t even extend to aliens who would like to obtain teaching certificates so they can instill their values in US students.

        Aliens are not part of our American polity and do not enjoy equal protection of law. What part of Ambach v Norwick, Meese v Keene, or Bluman v. FEC did you not understand?

      • hophmi
        February 13, 2013, 5:20 pm

        GO FILE A CASE. Go file! File now! I get your propaganda, believe me!

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 5:36 pm

        You’ve still cited nothing in support of your assertion.

        Hopmi I’ve provided links to the Consolidated Appropriations Act and the FARA statute which explain that ambassadors or diplomats are only exempt from certain reporting and registration requirements when engaged in their official duties. That doesn’t include conducting federally-subsidized grassroots publicity or propaganda campaigns.

        There is a general prohibition against anyone using funds appropriated by Congress to conduct publicity or propaganda, e,g. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, div. F, title VI, sect. 624, 118 Stat. 3, 356 (Jan. 23, 2004):

        As explained below, we [the GAO] find that the Department [of Education] contracted for Armstrong Williams to comment regularly on the No Child Left Behind Act without assuring that the Department’s role was disclosed to the targeted audiences. This violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition for fiscal year 2004 because it amounted to covert propaganda. As a result of this violation, the Department also violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. sect. 1341.

        link to gao.gov

        You can keep beating that 1st Amendment dead horse, but you just look silly while you’re doing it.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 8:47 pm

        You’re entitled to your opinion, Hostage. As I said, I hope you pursue a complaint, as is your right. I appreciate that you have political views.

        My views are that hate speech can be banned, consistent with the laws and Supreme Court decisions.

        Brandenburg did not advance the proposition that a criminal syndicalism act could not make illegal the advocacy and teaching of violent doctrines. It only held that the State could not ignore evidence indicating that advocacy and teaching wasn’t intended to actually incite imminent lawless action.

        In Black v Virginia the Court held that a State can, consistent with the 1st Amendment, ban speech or conduct intended to intimidate any person or group regardless of whether or not the speaker intends to carry-out the threat (a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence).

        The entire object of Israel’s policy of illegal attacks and reprisals has always rested on the use of true threats and imminent violent acts, with little or no warning, that targets Palestinians and Arabs. The notion that the State of California can command students to pay allegiance or grant a federally-subsidized pulpit to a foreign official to carry-on propaganda in defense of a policy of true threats and illegal violence is completely bogus. Using the color of a state public meeting law to deprive Arab Muslim or Palestinian students of their fundamental right to object also violates federal law.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 10:09 pm

        No, we patently are not. We are talking about a speech, not about discrimination or disparate treatment. . . . Speaking about them does not.

        A number Iranians scientists have already been murdered, and Oren has participated in the Israeli propaganda campaign that says the clock has run out on diplomacy and that Israel has the right to threaten Iranians with imminent acts of violence, e,g. link to spectator.org

        I’ve supplied you with verbatim quotes from:
        * The Justice Department Legal Manual on Title VI which explicitly states that circumstantial evidence of discrimination or disparate treatment may be found in various sources, “including statements by decisionmakers,” and “the historical background of the events in issue” and failure to consider factors normally considered;
        * The published policy statements made by Oren defending Israel’s on-going policy and practice of true threats involving extra-judicial killings; constructing illegal settlements implanted by force using Israel’s military; and the illegal use of force against Palestinian, Iranian and Iraqi civilians and their infrastructure. He explicitly calls for imminent violent acts against Iran and reserves the right of Israel to commit similar illegal acts and reprisals against other targeted groups in the future. He routinely uses his free speech rights to degrade, marginalize, threaten, and harass Palestinians and Arabs.
        * the disparate treatment in published policy statements from officials regarding Title VI, including Kenneth L. Marcus when he served as staff director of the OCR and the California Assembly, which state that appropriated funds can’t be used to degrade, marginalize, threaten, and harass Jewish students on campuses that receive federal aid.
        * the stated policy of the Congress and GAO that no official may use appropriated funds for any sort of publicity or propaganda activities.
        * the portions of the FARA which say that foreign ambassadors and diplomats are considered ipso jure promulgators of foreign state propaganda.

      • Hostage
        February 14, 2013, 3:54 am

        Yep. Sky is blue. Next?

        hophmi all you’re doing is engaging in artless pilpul and deflection. You’ve avoided making any comments that deal the particulars of the published complaints of the UC-Irvine Muslim Student Union prior to Oren’s scheduled appearance. link to mondoweiss.net

        University officials had a responsibility and should have known by then that Oren did openly and publicly defend serious crimes against Palestinians and other federally protected groups on the basis of (supposedly) superior Jewish/Israeli legal, ethnic, or religious rights and prerogatives.

        That is the very sort of pattern of student complaint, decisionmaker statements, background situation, and failure to consider factors that are “normally considered” which the Office of Civil Rights claimed it and Educators should aggressively investigate and eliminate. So where is the official response to the Muslim Student Union complaint?

        Here is another example of racially bigoted stereotypes being promulgated during a university lecture which advocates excluding Students for Justice in Palestine from participating in activities on campus on the grounds that 1) they are the primary source of information that poisons the minds of other students on campus; 2) the members associate with terrorists; 3) many of them come from cultures where anti-Semitism is the way they think about the world; 4) they haven’t been educated yet that it’s anti-Semitic to demonize or delegitimize Israel. link to electronicintifada.net

        That constant theme is being repeated by Jewish and Zionist groups on campuses across the country who falsely claim that criticizing examples of hate speech and discrimination on the part of Israeli government officials and on-going Israeli policies and practices involving serious war crimes and crimes against humanity listed in the Rome Statute and the 1996 US War Crimes Act amounts to anti-Semitism and discriminatory delegitimization of their cherished Jewish state.

        Promulgation of those offensive anti-Palestinian or Muslim racial stereotypes is intended to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive to listeners that they will effectively bar, limit, or preempt the victim’s access to participation in educational activities, events, and benefits. In short, it violates the standard on harassment adopted by the Supreme Court in Davis v Monroe County Board of Education; the policy adopted by the President of the University of California in his letter to the UC Regents; and the recommendations contained in the 2012 Report of the California Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights regarding “Equal Educational Opportunity and Free Speech on Public College and University Campuses in California. link to usccr.gov

        The Advisory Committee report observed that, despite the fact that Davis was decided over a decade ago, schools continue to adopt speech policies that violate its ruling on harassment. That’s hardly surprising, since even the Justice Department Title VI Legal Manual cites examples where the lower Courts had erroneously held that Title IX and Title VI didn’t provide a private right of action.

        So rather than suggest that I file a complaint, why don’t you address the ones that have already been brought to the attention of UC and other officials?

      • Hostage
        February 16, 2013, 2:55 pm

        GO FILE A CASE. Go file! File now! I get your propaganda, believe me!

        You’re the one who is engaging in propaganda. I’m not even a member of one of the injured class parties (Educational system employee, Students for Justice in Palestine, or the Muslim Student Union) that have a private right of action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

        Just the other day a Legal Advisor at Ken Marcus’ Brandies Center and a Brooklyn Trustee threatened to file a Title VI lawsuit and the Trustee claimed “We’re not talking about academic freedom,” said Wiesenfeld. “What this is is propaganda and propaganda is verboten” in universities. I wonder where he got that idea?

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 30, 2013, 3:29 pm

        Hoppy today:

        “Yes, it was an attempt by pro-Palestinian protestors to illegally disrupt the event … it’s against the law.”

        Hoppy in 1955:

        “Rosa Parks’ acts were an attempt by a radical to illegal disrupt seating on public busses… it’s against the law.”

      • hophmi
        January 30, 2013, 5:41 pm

        ““Rosa Parks’ acts were an attempt by a radical to illegal disrupt seating on public busses… it’s against the law.””

        Please. No one would assert that sitting on a bus as an act of civil disobedience would rise to the level of public disturbance that disrupting a lawful assembly with repeated interruptions would.

        You’re looking silly now.

        Why does it not surprise me that you do not understand the difference between civil disobedience and disorderly conduct?

      • yonah fredman
        January 30, 2013, 6:00 pm

        Woody Tanaka- You seem to be addicted to mediocre or outrageous analogies. The law prohibiting black people from sitting on a bus when there was a white person who wanted their seat and the law prohibiting disruption of free speech are two different things. I think you realize that. If instead your analogy had been to someone disrupting George Wallace (something which happened repeatedly in his race for president in 68) then you’d have an analogy. But Rosa Parks sitting on the bus. Lousy extremely mediocre stupid infantile analogy.

      • Cliff
        January 30, 2013, 10:09 pm

        Illegally disrupt? B.s.

        Protestors do that kind of disruption all the time. I don’t see them getting threatened with legal action unless they physically harm others.

        In fact, StandWithUs physically assaulted JVP members and audience goers at a Nonie Darwish Zionist Islamophobia hatefest assaulted Palestinian solidarity activists.

        Yet, when these Arab and Muslim students protest a propagandist and fanatically Zionist liar like Michael Oren, you frame their behavior as ‘illegal’.

        Anyways, there are tons of examples of Israel and it’s supporters suppressing free speech and non-violent activism.

        In Israel, Palestinian activists are jailed for ‘incitement’. What do you have to say about that? Put your American hat on for a moment and pretend to give a damn about any virtue free of the logical constraints by Zionism. If you can that is.

        Hearing you mention Rosa Parks and attempt to lecture others about civil disobedience is nauseating.

      • tree
        January 31, 2013, 2:25 am

        Why does it not surprise me that you do not understand the difference between civil disobedience and disorderly conduct?

        Hophmi, Rosa Parks was convicted of “disorderly conduct” for her act of civil disobedience. The difference between “civil disobedience” and “disorderly conduct” is in the eye of the beholder, much like one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.

        See, when you repeatedly interrupt someone in that way, to deny them their right to speak and others the right to hear, it’s against the law.

        The disruption of Oren’s speech lasted a total of one minute. As each man spoke a sentence, he was peacefully escorted out. It was a much milder form of protest than Rosa Parks’ protest. No one was denied the opportunity to hear Oren speak, nor was Oren denied his opportunity to speak. The students did not heckle or “endlessly disrupt” Oren’s speech. They simply added their own voices to the room for one minute.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 11:05 am

        “No one would assert that sitting on a bus as an act of civil disobedience would rise to the level of public disturbance that disrupting a lawful assembly with repeated interruptions would.”

        False. People not only would, but did. The racists who opposed civil rights for African Americans used the same exact appeal to law in opposing people like Rosa Parks and the people participating in the lunch counter sit-ins that you and the other racists who oppose civil rights for the Palesinians are using here.

        “Why does it not surprise me that you do not understand the difference between civil disobedience and disorderly conduct?”

        Because you have to believe it is so, because otherwise you would have to face the truth that your position is driven solely by your loyalty to israel and not to any adherence to principle.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 11:23 am

        Wow, yonah, I must have touched a nerve among you zios. First is hoppy’s high-chair-banging screed and now your post. “Mediocre” “outragesous” “lousy” “extremely mediocre” “stupid” and “infantile.” I’d say I was pretty right on the mark.

        “The law prohibiting black people from sitting on a bus when there was a white person who wanted their seat and the law prohibiting disruption of free speech are two different things. I think you realize that.”

        You completely missed the point. The point was not to draw a comparison between two moments of struggle for civil rights, but to put hoppy’s reaction in its proper context, as a stand in for the reaction of zionists generally.

        Many, if not most zionists have demonstrated that the limits they cares about civil rights extends solely as far as it might affect or even inconvenience israel, Jews and zionists. (Cf., e.g., Peter Beinart admitting that if he was forced to chose between his liberalism and his zionism, he would sacrifice his liberalism. In other words, he has no real principles. He just likes to pretend he does.) When it does, they adopt the same kind of “law and order” b.s. the racists in the South did in the ’50s and ’60s. Same old, same old.

        Sure one could draw fanciful, complex analogies (I have no doubt that if, a day after Kristallnacht, Hans-Heinrich Dieckhoff, Germany”s ambassador to the US, was at an American college and was interrupted while giving a speech extolling the Third Reich, by people rightfully protesting the treatment of Jews in Germany, that hoppy would not have been clamoring to throw the book at them, because of free speech concerns [and if he would have, he would have been as wrong for taking that evil position then as his is wrong for taking the evil position he takes today.]) but I guess I prefer ones that are clearer and cleaner. I guess that’s just me being “infantile.”

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 12:56 pm

        “The racists who opposed civil rights for African Americans used the same exact appeal to law in opposing people like Rosa Parks and the people participating in the lunch counter sit-ins that you and the other racists who oppose civil rights for the Palesinians are using here. ”

        Whatever, Woody. Go change the law if you don’t like it. Civil disobedience usually carries with it the risk of arrest; in fact, for real practitioners of civil disobedience, getting arrested is the whole point; getting arrest does civil disobedients a favor by lending notoriety to their cause. Few people would have cared about the Irvine 11 had they not been arrested. The story would have died within a couple of days. These cowards at Irvine seem to think they should be able to shut down whomever they disagree with politically with no consequence.

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 12:57 pm

        “Hearing you mention Rosa Parks and attempt to lecture others about civil disobedience is nauseating.”

        I didn’t mention Rosa Parks; Woody did. Get your facts straight.

      • Cliff
        January 31, 2013, 4:59 pm

        “These cowards at Irvine seem to think they should be able to shut down whomever they disagree with politically with no consequence.”

        Who the hell are you to call them cowards? They may have family in the ME who are dead or dying or under attack specifically because of people like Oren (and you). Furthermore, they are Arab and/or Muslim, which puts them on America’s ****-list for the foreseeable future.

        For them to be actual cowards, they’d have to be Zionist Jews on college campuses lying about the anti-semitic climate created by Palestinian solidarity activists.

        Repeatedly, these false accusations of anti-semitism by Jewish students belonging to right-of-Likud Zionist organizations demonstrate a total lack of honesty and decency.

        Those are the cowards. Cowards you support and represent here.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 6:11 pm

        “Civil disobedience usually carries with it the risk of arrest; in fact, for real practitioners of civil disobedience, getting arrested is the whole point; getting arrest does civil disobedients a favor by lending notoriety to their cause.”

        As usual, you’re full of crap and don’t know what you’re talking about.

        But at least now you recognize the truth that the protesters against this zio cockroach were committing civil disobedience.

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 6:34 pm

        Whatever, Woody. Go change the law if you don’t like it

        It isn’t clear to me why he needs to do that, when the Office of Civil rights has stated that it thinks the same prohibitions against condoning anti-Semitism on campus protect Arab Muslims against similar forms of harassment and discrimination.

      • Mooser
        January 31, 2013, 9:36 pm

        “Please. No one would assert that sitting on a bus as an act of civil disobedience would rise to the level of public disturbance that disrupting a lawful assembly with repeated interruptions would.”

        Gee Hoppy, then why did Southern States give bus drivers police powers to arrest violaters? They certainly saw it as a threat. Would you like to be arrested by Ralph Kramden as Sheriff Buford T. Justice ? Heck no you wouldn’t.

      • Mooser
        January 31, 2013, 9:38 pm

        “I didn’t mention Rosa Parks”

        You can’t, you’d choke on the name.

      • Mooser
        January 31, 2013, 9:56 pm

        “Woody Tanaka- You seem to be addicted to mediocre or outrageous analogies.”

        So which one is it? “Mediocre” or “outrageous”? It sorta makes a difference, you know? Look Yonah, it’s like the disapproving boss who said to his Secretary: “Ms. Finchley, there are certain words you use in the office. One is “swell”, the other is “lousy”. To which Ms. Finchley brightly replied “Okay, tell me which word is lousy, and I’ll stop using it!

        “Lousy extremely mediocre stupid infantile analogy.”

        Yup, kept us in suspense til the last sentence, Yonah, you rascal you.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 12:00 am

        I think it much more likely she’d choke on yours and the way you shamelessly use her to support censorship,

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 1:13 am

        “It isn’t clear to me why he needs to do that, when the Office of Civil rights has stated that it thinks the same prohibitions against condoning anti-Semitism on campus protect Arab Muslims against similar forms of harassment and discrimination.”

        Then call OCR and tell them to investigate any campus where Oren speaks for harassment. You won’t do this, because you know it’s nonsense.

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 8:51 am

        “Please. No one would assert that sitting on a bus as an act of civil disobedience would rise to the level of public disturbance that disrupting a lawful assembly with repeated interruptions would.”

        Just to keep the record straight. Hophmi keeps claiming that it was a “lawful assembly”. On many occasions I’ve commented here that Israel’s illegal occupation regime is a “joint criminal enterprise” that is being incited, aided, and abetted by many others – particularly hard-liner American Zionists. See Article 25 of the Rome Statute: link to untreaty.un.org

        For obvious reasons then, neither Israel nor the United States are parties to the Rome Statute or the Apartheid Convention. As a result, the ICJ could not simply say that Israel was violating its obligations under the terms of those particular treaties. But both of those instruments simply prohibit or prosecute the violation of human rights or rights protected by treaties on international humanitarian law that have been ratified by Israel and the United States.

        So, the UN Rapporteurs submitted fact finding reports, that the ICJ cited in its own findings, which noted that reliable sources in the public domain had advised that the government of Israel was pursuing a policy of Apartheid and Bantustanization in the occupied territory.

        The Rapporteurs also sat down and researched the corresponding obligations contained in the Geneva Conventions or UN Human Rights Conventions that Israel was violating by committing the constituent acts contained in Article II of the Apartheid Convention. So, the ICJs findings of fact contained in paragraphs 132 through 134 are just a recitation of the constituent acts of the crime of Apartheid.

        The Apartheid Convention provides that officials, like Ambassador Oren or members of other institutions or organizations, can be prosecuted for inciting, aiding, or abetting the crime of apartheid:

        Article III

        International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they:

        (a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of the acts mentioned in article II of the present Convention;

        (b) Directly abet, encourage or co-operate in the commission of the crime of apartheid.

        link to www1.umn.edu

        It is also a fact that “No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:

        (b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nurnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3 (I) of 13 February 1946 and 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.

        – Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity link to www1.umn.edu

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 10:02 am

        Then call OCR and tell them to investigate any campus where Oren speaks for harassment. You won’t do this, because you know it’s nonsense.

        I’m not a student or faculty member on any campus where they are stupid enough to invite Oren to speak. While you are fixing parking tickets, DUIs, and filing quickie divorces, look up “locus standi”.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 11:22 am

        ” While you are fixing parking tickets, DUIs, and filing quickie divorces, look up “locus standi”.’

        I believe the Irvine case was put together by the ZOA. I’m sure you could put together some Palestinian students to do the same. You can, can’t you? But you won’t. Because you know it’s nonsense, and you’re just shooting off your mouth.

        Locus standi. Again, you talk out of your ass. Here are the rules for filing an OCR complaint: “Anyone who believes that an education institution that receives federal financial assistance has discriminated against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age, or who believes that a public elementary or secondary school, or state or local education agency has violated the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, may file a complaint.”

        And oh! Look at this, Hostage:

        “The person or organization filing the complaint need not be a victim of the alleged discrimination but may complain on behalf of another person or group.”

        link to www2.ed.gov

        You better get started! Maybe you can tell them about locus standi.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 3:36 pm

        ” While you are fixing parking tickets, DUIs, and filing quickie divorces, look up “locus standi”.’

        I believe the Irvine case was put together by the ZOA. I’m sure you could put together some Palestinian students to do the same. You can, can’t you? But you won’t. Because you know it’s nonsense, and you’re just shooting off your mouth.

        Locus standi. Again, you talk out of your ass. Here are the rules for filing an OCR complaint: “Anyone who believes that an education institution that receives federal financial assistance has discriminated against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age, or who believes that a public elementary or secondary school, or state or local education agency has violated the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, may file a complaint.”

        And oh! Look at this, Hostage:

        “The person or organization filing the complaint need not be a victim of the alleged discrimination but may complain on behalf of another person or group.”

        link to www2.ed.gov

        You better get started! Maybe you can tell them about locus standi.

      • Mooser
        February 1, 2013, 6:58 pm

        “I think it much more likely she’d choke on yours and the way you shamelessly use her to support censorship”

        You do? Really? And you would phrase it just like that? That’s funny, why am I not surprised?

        Hophmi, is there a turnover or retention problem over there? Think about it, Hophmi, an ordinary, reasonable person, with even a basal level of decency clicks over to Mondo from a link. While reading the comments, and deciding when he’s going to write the editors demanding this “Mooser” get banned, his curiosity is aroused by one of your comments, so he clicks your name, and starts reading your comment file! Could anything good for Zionism (oh who am I kidding, just say “good for the Jews”) happen after that? I don’t think so! Look, I know a reasonable way to settle this, Hophmi Why don’t you have a well educated, well informed friend, who is not a sociopath, read your file and…. oh, I guess that’s not a practical plan, sorry. Anyway, wouldn’t it be better to send somebody fresh, somebody who can’t be condemned as a hopeless obtusiac, with a bad case of ethnic agyrophobia, (not to mention teleophobia, although there may be pills for it, these days).

      • Mooser
        February 3, 2013, 1:52 pm

        “Wow, yonah, I must have touched a nerve among you zios.”

        Oh, don’t congratualte yourself, Woody! One only needs to be “mediocre” to do that, not “outrageous”. After all, haven’t we seen that Zionist are basically one big mass of exposed nerves? All you got to do is look in their direction and they have an “epellipsive” fit!
        A fit of ellipses! Well, I thought it was clever, considering “yrn”s comments. Oh, never mind.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 1:41 pm

        I believe the Irvine case was put together by the ZOA. I’m sure you could put together some Palestinian students to do the same. You can, can’t you? But you won’t. Because you know it’s nonsense, and you’re just shooting off your mouth.

        I’ve pointed out that the subject of the improper use of the California public meeting statute in the Irvine 11 case is still on Appeal before the Superior Court in Orange County. How do you know that the matter won’t eventually become a federal case under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law?

        I notice that US government and local officials recently lined-up to suggest cutting-off appropriations for the Brooklyn-CUNY Political Science Department. Politicians don’t have offer an explanation when making a vote against a budget line item. Israeli government panels have threatened the funding of the Political Science department at Ben Gurion University in much the same way.

        The same sort of thing is involved in the implementation of Title VI sanctions in line with the Office of Civil Rights policy on forms of campus discrimination and harassment.

      • Hostage
        February 13, 2013, 2:42 pm

        You better get started! Maybe you can tell them about locus standi.

        Hophmi Title VI states “no person” shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or national origin in “any program or activity,” any part of which receives Federal financial assistance.

        In the examples that you’ve mentioned, the ability of third parties to file a complaint doesn’t even require OCR to provide a written response, much less create a corresponding right of private action to pursue a writ from the Courts under the Federal rules of procedure or the other available legal remedies, including damages, outlined in Title VI Legal Manual, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (1998). link to justice.gov

      • hophmi
        February 13, 2013, 5:19 pm

        Complaining, complaining. Go try.

      • Hostage
        February 16, 2013, 3:00 pm

        Complaining, complaining. Go try.

        I don’t have the necessary legal standing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So you’re still not offering good legal advice.

      • Hostage
        January 30, 2013, 8:19 pm

        Yes, it was an attempt by pro-Palestinian protestors to illegally disrupt the event and keep Oren from speaking. See, when you repeatedly interrupt someone in that way, to deny them their right to speak and others the right to hear, it’s against the law.

        Well then, please explain why a University shouldn’t officially extend the same right to Mr. Barghouti and why you think this has nothing to do with free speech? You can’t have it both ways.

        “In many countries, Oren’s hubris can be considered a form of prohibited hate speech. ” Which ones, pray tell? Not in the United States, chief.

        See for example French court to Twitter: Hand over names of racist tweeters:

        According to AFP, the court’s ruling stemmed from a test case “that pitted the right to free speech against laws banning hate speech,” and answered a petition made in October by the French Union of Jewish Students (UEJF), which had claimed that many anti-Semitic tweets had violated the law in the European country.

        The UEJF had demanded that Twitter do a better job of policing obviously anti-Semitic tweets.

        link to news.cnet.com

        The Court’s in the EU and Canada don’t really care about the law in the United States, so long as individuals, companies, or other entities happen to be using the mainstream media or the Internet to spread their claptrap in their countries. Israel does that through the YouTube channels and Twitter accounts of the IDF spokesperson, The Prime Ministers Office, the Deputy Foreign Ministers propaganda videos, etc.

        Cry me a river. He still has a right to speak and those who produce his event have a right to present it without endless disturbance.

        That depends. I don’t think he or government employees in educational institutions that receive federal aid have an unqualified right to defend the perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity that Israel has committed against the Palestinian people on campus. That’s especially true for acts, like assassination, population transfer, deportations, and the establishment of settlements. Those are all defined as serious crimes by Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Rome Statute. That’s an internationally recognized form of racial incitement. US educators are not supposed to foster that sort of thing on campus in public meetings.

        For example the EU countries have criminalized that behavior:
        *The purpose of this framework decision is to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties in the European Union (EU). Furthermore, it aims to improve and encourage judicial cooperation in this field.

        Certain forms of conduct as outlined below, which are committed for a racist or xenophobic purpose, are punishable as criminal offences:
        •public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;
        •public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia;
        public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

        Instigating, aiding or abetting in the commission of the above offences is also punishable.
        link to europa.eu

        Kenneth L. Marcus, (then) Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights noted that OCR issued a public “Dear Colleague” letter informing recipient institutions of its new enforcement approach to take action when institutions fostered anti-Semitic or Islamophobic atmosphere on school campuses. This guidance letter, issued to over 20,000 colleges, universities, public school districts, and state education departments, announced OCR’s decision to “exercise its jurisdiction to enforce the Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination, regardless of whether the groups targeted for discrimination also exhibit religious characteristics” and thus “aggressively investigate alleged race or ethnic harassment against Arab Muslim, Sikh and Jewish students.” See Kenneth L. Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 837 (2007) link to scholarship.law.wm.edu

      • hophmi
        January 31, 2013, 12:43 pm

        “Well then, please explain why a University shouldn’t officially extend the same right to Mr. Barghouti and why you think this has nothing to do with free speech? You can’t have it both ways.”

        Please read what I write. I said nowhere that BC shouldn’t allow Barghouti to speak. The protest here is a very narrow one: whether the political science department should sponsor the talk. I have MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR, that the answer is in the PoliSci department policy on sponsoring political events. If the policy is to regularly support speakers from across the political spectrum, it’s one thing (and I suspect this is what they do, which is why, on facebook, I called the protest most likely a waste of time, and the attention it has been given counterproductive for the Jewish community). If the department refuses to support people who speak from a Zionist POV, I would support a protest, because it’s simply unfair, and might possibly be a First Amendment problem and a non-profit problem. But for me, it’s an issue of basic fairness. You’ve already indicated that you favor censoring Zionist speakers because you believe that pro-Israel speech is hate speech. That’s your right. It is not a widely-held opinion.

        “See for example French court to Twitter: Hand over names of racist tweeters:”

        The French case dealt with twitter users who were posting blatantly antisemitic comments under the hashtag #unbonjuif. The EU hate speech laws are different from what we have in the US, but there is no interpretation of them that I know of that would grade anything Oren said as hate speech. But feel free to bring a case in France if you feel differently. You have posted links here that, without doubt, constitute hate speech because they constitute clear Holocaust denial.

        “That depends. I don’t think he or government employees in educational institutions that receive federal aid have an unqualified right to defend the perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity that Israel has committed against the Palestinian people on campus. ”

        That’s your own opinion. The law is pretty clear. If you tried to make this argument in a US court, you would be laughed out of the courtroom, and you know it. I think you would probably be laughed out of most European courts as well.

        And frankly, your argument is self-defeating, and could easily be used to prohibit a Palestinian diplomat from speaking as well.

        Please name me a single case in the EU of an Israeli diplomat being prosecuted for defending Israeli policy on a college campus.

        The notion that defending Israeli policy is the same thing as encouraging Islamophobia is as stupid as saying that criticizing Israeli policy in any way is the same think as encouraging antisemitism.

      • yonah fredman
        January 31, 2013, 5:43 pm

        BDS advocates should be allowed to speak at Brooklyn College.
        Comparing disturbing Michael Oren and Rosa Parks sitting on a bus does not raise questions only of legality, but of morality. Although a country has a right to protect itself from foreign agents, in its essence free speech is an attempt to air all opinions in order to form an opinion based on fact. As in the only cure for democracy is more democracy. Whether foreign agents are protected legally by this constitutional amendment, there is a moral element involved. We are agreed though that giving white people the right to tell black people, “get out of that seat, that’s reserved for white people” is morally wrong.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 31, 2013, 6:14 pm

        Yonah,

        As far as I’m concerned, giving someone like Oren free speech to spread the evil ideology of zionism and his lies about israel and its treatment of the Palesinians in Palestine is as immoral as telling people where they can sit on a bus based on skin color. Zionism = Racism.

        The only difference I see is that I want the speech to be legal (because Hitler, Stalin and Netanyahoo [and the minions of each, such as Oren] should have the same right to speak as Ghandi, Mandela and Mother Theresa), but I want the discrimination in public accomodations to be illegal.

      • Hostage
        January 31, 2013, 6:51 pm

        Comparing disturbing Michael Oren and Rosa Parks sitting on a bus does not raise questions only of legality, but of morality.

        I didn’t. I compared 1) Jewish faculty and student Title VI complaints about a racist atmosphere on campus and 2) a French Jewish group’s hate speech lawsuit against persons who use the mainstream media or Internet to publicly condone, deny, or trivialize crimes that target Jews to similar situations on a campus that harass or target Arab Muslims for discrimination in exactly the same ways.

      • tree
        January 31, 2013, 7:51 pm

        We are agreed though that giving white people the right to tell black people, “get out of that seat, that’s reserved for white people” is morally wrong.

        But apparently you and hophmi are not agreed that giving Jewish people the right to tell Palestinian people “get off the land, that’s reserved for Jewish people” is morally wrong. And that, and worse, is in essence what Oren does as an official representative of the State of Israel. Which is why those who endorse Zionism or make excuses for it are moral hypocrites and opposing them by taking 1 minute of their time to verbally protest is just as much a moral act of civil disobedience as refusing to give up one’s seat on a bus.

      • Mooser
        January 31, 2013, 9:41 pm

        “We are agreed though that giving white people the right to tell black people, “get out of that seat, that’s reserved for white people” is morally wrong.”

        Most of the time, but if Jackie Gleason asked me to, I’d move. I’ve always admired his acting.

      • hophmi
        February 1, 2013, 1:02 am

        And as I pointed out and as you well know, the laws in the US and the law in France are different. You seem to think there’s some worldwide Jewish conspiracy here. Actually, you referred, disingenuously, to the French Jewish group as a Zionist group first. You seem to think that because a French Jewish group files a hate speech lawsuit in a country with clear hate speech laws, a US Arab or Muslim group should be able to file a similar suit in the United States, where such laws are do not exist.

        The hate speech law in France is perfectly available to Jews and Muslims alike, as are the civil rights laws in the United States.

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 11:23 am

        Actually, you referred, disingenuously, to the French Jewish group as a Zionist group first.

        The JTA and other sources indicate the suit was filed by Jewish organizations that also happen to be Zionist according to their stated public policy positions. There’s nothing disingenuous about labeling them as Jewish or Zionist.

        Some reports indicate the usual list of Zionist organizations filed briefs with the Court and intend to use the decision in their lobbying campaigns. In any case the Court ordered Twitter to implement a system so that they could flag illegal content, which would be reviewed by Twitter before removal and possible referral to the authorities. I’m simply pointing out that can work both ways when an IDF spokesperson happens to be the author.

        *http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/01/24/3117656/french-court-orders-twitter-to-reveal-details-of-users-posting-anti-Semitism
        *http://www.bnaibrith.org/4/post/2013/01/jta-twitter-must-reveal-details-of-users-posting-anti-semitism-french-court-rules.html

        The various reports quote the director of European Affairs at B’nai B’rith International, the ADL, or the European Jewish Congress who say that Twitter has been ordered to remove the offending posts and is being fined a sum for every day that it fails to reveal the identity of the authors. The Jewish groups say that social networks have to be prepared to defend themselves and that they must deny anyone the opportunity to spread illegal hate speech while hiding behind anonymity on the Internet.

        In the case of Kenneth L. Marcus, his campus anti-Semitism campaign is based, in part, upon the false proposition that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism tantamount to racial harassment or intimidation of Jews as an ethnic group. You need look no further than groups like Orthodox Jews against Zionism to discredit that whole proposition.

        But that isn’t the case with speakers who publicly condone, deny, or trivialize war crimes or crimes against humanity that target Jews, Arabs, or other groups on the basis of their ethnicity or national origin. That is a violation of the content and intent of Title VI and Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Full Stop.

        You seem to think that because a French Jewish group files a hate speech lawsuit in a country with clear hate speech laws, a US Arab or Muslim group should be able to file a similar suit in the United States, where such laws are do not exist.

        No I didn’t say that. I said that an Arab Muslim or person of Palestinian national origin could file a Title VI Civil Rights complaint for forms of harassment that are internationally recognized, like those in Article 4 of the ICERD or EU framework. I noted that the State Department has said as much in its periodic reports on US compliance with Article 4 of the ICERD. The last time I checked the ICERD and Civil Rights Act are enforceable in the State and Federal courts. The State Department has also reported that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division can act on the more serious cases. I’ve also noted that other countries could apply the terms of the Apartheid Convention, and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations without regard to US law. The Palestinian complaint was placed under seal by the ICC. I believe it probably did accuse Israeli officials of the crime of apartheid. Their dossier in the Wall case certainly did.

      • Hostage
        February 1, 2013, 12:20 pm

        Please read what I write. I said nowhere that BC shouldn’t allow Barghouti to speak. The protest here is a very narrow one: whether the political science department should sponsor the talk.

        If there’s a law that says Barghouti is an agent of a foreign state, that advocating BDS is illegal, or that it is designed to effect pending legislation, then the political science department probably shouldn’t. You keep talking smack about the 1st Amendment, but that’s not a line item in the federal budget. I’m interested in the statutory definition of “publicity” or “propaganda” and the Title VI Civil Rights strings that are attached to federal aid and grants to these universities.

        There is a difference between using the Internet and other forums, including taxpayer subsidized campuses, to promote non-violent action by NGO’s to attain their goals and using them to promote flagrantly illegal and criminal actions by the State.

      • hophmi
        February 13, 2013, 10:30 am

        “The JTA and other sources indicate the suit was filed by Jewish organizations that also happen to be Zionist according to their stated public policy positions. There’s nothing disingenuous about labeling them as Jewish or Zionist. ”

        There is when the offense had nothing to do with Israel.

        “In any case the Court ordered Twitter to implement a system so that they could flag illegal content, which would be reviewed by Twitter before removal and possible referral to the authorities. I’m simply pointing out that can work both ways when an IDF spokesperson happens to be the author. ”

        Yes, in France. I think you’re making an equivalency between defense of Israel’s policies, which would not violate French law and has not been found to violate it, and blatantly antisemitic rhetoric and Holocaust denial, which does.

        “The Jewish groups say that social networks have to be prepared to defend themselves and that they must deny anyone the opportunity to spread illegal hate speech while hiding behind anonymity on the Internet.”

        In France.

        “In the case of Kenneth L. Marcus, his campus anti-Semitism campaign is based, in part, upon the false proposition that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism tantamount to racial harassment or intimidation of Jews as an ethnic group. You need look no further than groups like Orthodox Jews against Zionism to discredit that whole proposition. ”

        His law review article explicitly said, again, that this is NOT what he believes Title VI covers. Title VI, in his view, addresses primarily situations where there allegations of physical harassment and intimidation, not anti-Zionist rhetoric.

        “But that isn’t the case with speakers who publicly condone, deny, or trivialize war crimes or crimes against humanity that target Jews, Arabs, or other groups on the basis of their ethnicity or national origin. That is a violation of the content and intent of Title VI and Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Full Stop. ”

        In your mind only. Not according to any decision of the OCR that you’ve cited. As I’ve said many times now, the way to test your proposition is to file a complaint with OCR, which, as I’ve already showed you, you need no particular standing to do.

        Full stop.

        “I said that an Arab Muslim or person of Palestinian national origin could file a Title VI Civil Rights complaint for forms of harassment that are internationally recognized, like those in Article 4 of the ICERD or EU framework.”

        And I invite you to pursue this claim. Anyone can file a complaint. The question is whether it has merit. I highly doubt it.

        “The State Department has also reported that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division can act on the more serious cases.”

        The more serious cases are cases of intimidation and physical harassment. Like what happened to Jewish students at San Francisco State.

      • hophmi
        February 13, 2013, 10:39 am

        “I’m interested in the statutory definition of “publicity” or “propaganda” and the Title VI Civil Rights strings that are attached to federal aid and grants to these universities.”

        It seems to me that if you hold that Michael Oren, or indeed, any Israeli national involved in hasbara is a foreign agent who defends war crimes, then Omar Barghouti is as well. He’s a Palestinian national. His speech is propaganda. He apologizes for the war crimes of his fellow Palestinians against Jewish Israelis.

        In some countries (Britain and France, for instance), advocating BDS may offend hate crimes or discrimination statutes. That is one reason why, despite many attempts, the British college lecturers union has never been able to effect a boycott of Israeli academics.

        Depending on what form it takes, it may also offend American legislation that prohibits discrimination based on national origin. But since academic BDS has not caught on anywhere in the United States, we haven’t crossed that bridge. I am fairly sure that if any university attempts to boycott Israeli scholars, they will lose whatever government funding they receive.

        “There is a difference between using the Internet and other forums, including taxpayer subsidized campuses, to promote non-violent action by NGO’s to attain their goals and using them to promote flagrantly illegal and criminal actions by the State.”

        You can call BDS non-violent. Not everyone would agree. The French case was not about promoting BDS. It was about promoting Holocaust denial and Jew-hatred. At a minimum, the BDS movement advocates discrimination based on national origin. That alone makes it problematic under the laws of several states.

      • Hostage
        February 14, 2013, 12:29 am

        It seems to me that if you hold that Michael Oren, or indeed, any Israeli national involved in hasbara is a foreign agent who defends war crimes, then Omar Barghouti is as well. He’s a Palestinian national. His speech is propaganda. He apologizes for the war crimes of his fellow Palestinians against Jewish Israelis.

        I’ve never seen any evidence that Barghouti defends war crimes committed by anyone.

        You’re awfully slow on the uptake. I’ve already pointed out that:
        * Mr. Bollinger’s remarks acknowledged that there were reasonable objections to Columbia hosting Ahmadinejad link to mondoweiss.net
        and
        *If there’s a law that says Barghouti is an agent of a foreign state, that advocating BDS is illegal, or that it is designed to effect pending legislation, then the political science department at Brooklyn-CUNY probably shouldn’t sponsor his talk.
        link to mondoweiss.net

        I personally don’t see any reason why he can’t be considered an agent of a foreign principal as defined in § 611 – Definitions of 22 USC Chapter 11, Subchapter II “Registration of Foreign Propagandists”. Anyone who lectures on behalf of a organization located outside the United States can be considered a “publicity agent”. There’s no doubt that ambassadors and consular officials are foreign propagandists, since they are specifically cited as examples in § 613 and exempted from registration and most reporting requirements, when engaged in official duties recognized as such by the US State Department.

        * That a cultural boycott that targets Israelis on the mere basis of the nationality, without regard for their expressed beliefs, policies, or practices might violate civil rights laws, if the individual is engaged in a state protected activity.
        link to mondoweiss.net
        link to mondoweiss.net
        link to mondoweiss.net

        * That targeting Israeli national civilians with rockets is war crime and that publicly condoning that can also be considered a crime in many jurisdictions
        link to mondoweiss.net

        In some countries (Britain and France, for instance), advocating BDS may offend hate crimes or discrimination statutes. That is one reason why, despite many attempts, the British college lecturers union has never been able to effect a boycott of Israeli academics.

        Advocating BDS doesn’t implicitly offend any hate statutes, European laws, or WTO rules and regulations. FYI, James Crawford, Professor of International Law at Cambridge University, has written a well-argued legal opinion on obligations with respect to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It was commissioned and published by the UK Trades Union Congress (TUC). The opinion addresses your bogus contention and notes that the applicable international law and WTO rules confirm that settlement trade bans can be enacted by EU Member States individually, without breaching any laws.
        link to tuc.org.uk

        The French case was not about promoting BDS. It was about promoting Holocaust denial and Jew-hatred.

        No sh*t Sherlock and Oren’s Internet Op-Eds promote superior Jewish rights to commit murders, illegal deportations, torture, wrongful imprisonment, excessive destruction or expropriation of property, construct illegal settlements, and a multitude of other war crimes and crimes against humanity that target Palestinians and other ethnic or national groups in violation of the very same EU Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia.

        You’d be hard pressed to prove the absence of a true threat of imminent violence in line with Brandenburg, Virginia v Black since the citizens and government that he represents commit examples of all of those illegal violent acts on Palestinian civilians nearly every day. For that matter, I’ve always been amazed that more Zionist organizations haven’t run afoul of the laws that apply to racketeering and corrupt organizations. After all the WZO openly coordinates the illegal settlement program out of the Prime Minister’s Office.

      • Hostage
        February 14, 2013, 12:40 am

        Hostage: There’s nothing disingenuous about labeling them as Jewish or Zionist. Hopmi: ”There is when the offense had nothing to do with Israel.”

        Oh please! Israel invented the Holocaust Remembrance industry, lobbied for the Holocaust remembrance laws, an elected itself to judge Nazis (like Eichmann) and Nazi Collaborators who committed “crimes against the Jewish people” in Europe before the State of Israel even existed.

  9. DICKERSON3870
    January 30, 2013, 4:56 pm

    RE: “Dershowitz has a piece in the pro-Israel newspaper calling
    for Brooklyn College to dissociate itself from a ‘propaganda hate orgy’, and the editorial page says that the panel’s views border on anti-Semitism.”
    ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: The hasbaraists love to use that “border on anti-Semitism” technique. I recall an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution back in 2006 about Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid wherein Abe Foxman was quoted as having said that Carter’s book was “anti-Semitic by implication” ! ! !
    By implication, y’all!

    SEE: “Manufactured Hatred: The Politics of Islamophobia”, by Andrew Levine, Counterpunch, 1/29/13

    [EXCERPTS] . . . Not surprisingly, therefore, anti-Semitism has been on the wane in the past half century; indeed, it has all but disappeared in most quarters. Revulsion over the Nazi Judeocide accelerated the process, but it was inevitable that modernity would eventually undo what modernity began when anti-Semitism replaced the anti-Judaism of old.
    Zionists today have different agendas than their predecessors did, and therefore roll out the old justifications for Zionism only when it is convenient to conjure up notions of eternal victimhood. But it is important to recall that the original Zionist idea was that a Jewish state was needed to provide a refuge from the scourge of anti-Semitism. Ironically, the state Zionists concocted is now the main factor keeping anti-Semitism alive.
    This is because criticism if not of the Zionist project, then at least of the policies of the Israeli state, have become all but morally obligatory, while the Zionist establishment and its allies throughout the world have worked assiduously for decades to establish the transparently untenable contention that all but the most anodyne criticisms of Israel are at least implicitly anti-Semitic.
    They think that charge trumps all other considerations, and they use it to beat the opposition down. But it rings increasingly hollow
    , especially to young people for whom Hitler’s Judeocide, and the lesser, but still deadly, manifestations of anti-Semitism that preceded it happened long ago in another age and time.
    By hurling around charges of anti-Semitism the way they do, Zionists risk making anti-Semitism respectable; indeed, irresistible.
    Nevertheless, it has been well resisted, and that is unlikely to change. But this has very little to do with the snake oil the Zionist establishment and its lobbies around the world peddle.
    Anti-Semitism remains on the wane because, with advances in science and political morality and with Christian religiosity on the decline, it has become impossible to maintain the perception of otherness. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org

    • JennieS
      January 30, 2013, 11:19 pm

      “But it is important to recall that the original Zionist idea was that a Jewish state was needed to provide a refuge from the scourge of anti-Semitism.”

      A logical but impractical idea since there was nowhere to create a Jewish state without gross interference with some other people’s property, political, social and religious rights. Or, as my late (English) father-in-law once put it “Britain’s decision to support a state for the Jews was a noble one, but Kent was not offered”.

      I fear that in the long term the creation of Israel may turn out to be the worst thing that ever happened to the Jews.

      • eljay
        January 31, 2013, 8:17 am

        >> I fear that in the long term the creation of Israel may turn out to be the worst thing that ever happened to the Jews.

        It certainly didn’t prove beneficial to the indigenous population of that region…

      • Mooser
        January 31, 2013, 10:23 pm

        “But it is important to recall that the original Zionist idea was that a Jewish state was needed to provide a refuge from the scourge of anti-Semitism.”

        Yeah, but then it sorta turned out that those Jews weren’t really such “good human material”. So the whole scourge-refuge idea sorta played second fiddle to building the Zionist State. You need strong bodies built twelve ways for that.

        “I fear that in the long term the creation of Israel may turn out to be the worst thing that ever happened to the Jews.”

        One could contend, if they weren’t timid like me, that it was the worst thing that ever happened to us, in a way, the day it happened. It was a fraud from the beginning. By the time Israel was established as a state wasn’t it pretty well established as a fact that Jews do best in egalitarian societies (or societies moving in that direction) as proven by the experiences of Jews in the US? To try and contend that another type of society, one based on religio-ethnic (or, if you like ethno-religious) supremacy will be better for Jews is simply a fraud. By any possible measure (except possibly Ziocaine production figures.) it is not.
        And by keeping, by perpetual mendacity, the Zionist idea alive limping along, they are committing (in my tentative surmise) a crime against Jews.
        I know a lot of people may not agree with that. Like I give a husky…. I mean, I beg to differ.

  10. DICKERSON3870
    January 30, 2013, 5:14 pm

    RE: “The Jewish Week reports that Hillel, the Jewish student organization, is coordinating a petition against the event; Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the CUNY board member, has characterized it as anti-Semitic; and the Jewish Community Relations Council is also pressuring the college . . .” ~ Weiss

    SEE: “The Trial of Israel’s Campus Critics”, by David Theo Goldberg & 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

  11. DICKERSON3870
    January 30, 2013, 5:27 pm

    RE: “The Jewish Week reports that Hillel, the Jewish student organization, is coordinating a petition against the event; Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the CUNY board member, has characterized it as anti-Semitic . . . ~ Weiss

    SEE: “Kushner Foe In Biggest Brawl of His Long Career: CUNY Fight Only the Latest For Controversial Trustee”, By Josh Nathan-Kazis, The Forward, 5/11/11

    [EXCERPTS] The son of two Holocaust survivors, Wiesenfeld, 52, grew up on East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx. And from the start, friends say, the future FBI agent, political operative and Wall Street investment consultant was a tough kid.
    He “grew up in a world where Jews that weren’t tough paid a price,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a prominent Democratic political consultant and longtime friend. “When the Irish were still there, they beat him up because he was a Jew, and when the Puerto Ricans took over from the Irish, they beat him up, too, because he was a Jew still in the neighborhood, and they thought he had money.”
    Decades later and a borough away, Wiesenfeld remains ever ready for a fight — often over Israel, a topic with which one friend called him “obsessed.”
    But the fireworks Wiesenfeld set off in some of his previous brawls are a handful of sparklers next to the barrage that he inadvertently launched May 2, when he delivered a short speech to his fellow CUNY trustees, calling on them to reject a proposed honorary degree to Kushner over his alleged attitudes toward Israel — specifically, a quote attributed to Kushner in which he said it would have been better had Israel not been created. . .
    . . . The ensuing debate has grown into what looks to be the biggest fight of Wiesenfeld’s career. On May 9, the CUNY board reversed the decision it took in response to Wiesenfeld’s protest at its May 2 meeting to effectively deny Kushner his honorary doctorate.
    And now it is Wiesenfeld’s own head that many — including his friend, former New York City mayor Ed Koch and the union representing CUNY faculty — are calling for in the wake of the conflagration. . .

    SOURCE – link to forward.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      January 30, 2013, 5:48 pm

      P.S. RE: “When the Irish were still there, they beat him [Jeffrey Wiesenfeld] up because he was a Jew, and when the Puerto Ricans took over from the Irish, they beat him up, too, because he was a Jew still in the neighborhood, and they thought he had money.” ~ Josh Nathan-Kazis, The Forward

      MY COMMENT: Consequently, there is something in Jeffrey Wiesenfeld that is very “dark and sticky” and “[a]ll the time it’s getting strong”. But unfortunately, he has “[n]o way of dealing with this feeling” (at least no constructive way of dealing with his feelings, like therapy to “open up the places [where he] got hurt”), except to become “obsessed” with Israel (which is not a very effective way of dealing with his feelings)! ! !

      A LATE AUTUMN EVENING’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, proudly brought to you by the makers of new Ziocaine Über-Xtreme®: It’s guaran-damn-teed to blow your effing mind!™

      Something in me, dark and sticky
      All the time it’s getting strong
      No way of dealing with this feeling
      Can’t go on like this too long
      [Chorus]
      This time you’ve gone too far [x3]
      I told you [x4]
      This time you’ve gone too far [x3]
      I told you [x4]

      Don’t talk back
      Just drive the car
      Shut your mouth
      I know what you are
      Don’t say nothing
      Keep your hands on the wheel
      Don’t turn around
      This is for real

      Digging in the dirt
      Stay with me, I need support
      I’m digging in the dirt
      To find the places I got hurt
      Open up the places I got hurt . . .
      ~ Peter Gabriel, 1992

      Peter Gabriel: Digging In The Dirt [VIDEO, 05:30] – link to youtube.com

      • DICKERSON3870
        January 30, 2013, 6:31 pm

        P.P.S. A RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY: Buck, 2011, PG, 89 minutes
        Buck Brannaman, inspiration for “The Horse Whisperer,” is revealed as a complex figure in this Sundance Audience Award winner for Best Documentary by Cindy Meehl. The master horseman reveals details of his troubled childhood and his dawning awareness of new ways that humans and horses might work with one another. As Buck learns more about horses, he finds that the ways we communicate with our animal companions offer lessons on how we relate to fellow human beings.*
        Netflix format: DVD and streaming
        Netflix listing – link to dvd.netflix.com
        Internet Movie Database – link to imdb.com
        Buck – Official Trailer [VIDEO, 02:31] – link to youtube.com

        * At about the 21 minute mark in this film (1hr 7min remaining), Buck demonstrates (using Robert) what is so wrong about the way that the U.S. deals within Iran. I recommend viewing from the 18 minute mark (1hr 10min remaining) through the demonstration using Robert.
        I suspect that John Bolton and his ilk are a lot like Buck’s natural father.

      • DICKERSON3870
        January 30, 2013, 7:48 pm

        RE: “Buck demonstrates (using Robert) what is so wrong about the way that the U.S. deals within Iran.” – me (above)

        CORRECTION: Should have been “deals with Iran”.

    • Mooser
      January 31, 2013, 10:41 pm

      Dickerson, it is indeed true that the children of Holocaust (or other very traumatic events) survivors can have severe emotional and psychological challenges. We can only shudder with empathy at the kind of inner turmoil which makes a man become a “FBI agent, political operative and Wall Street investment consultant” It can’t be good in there.

  12. ToivoS
    January 30, 2013, 5:56 pm

    This debate reminds me of “The politics of antisemitism” (ed Cockburn and StClair, 2003) a surprisingly relevant book written a decade back. link to amazon.com

    The big difference between now and then is that this is now encroaching on the MSM, back then there was no debate, all one heard from them were the accusations of antisemitism. Maybe soon it will not just be encroaching on MSM but actually become part of the news. The harder the fanatics push this charge of antisemitism, the sooner that day will come to pass.

  13. DICKERSON3870
    January 30, 2013, 7:17 pm

    RE: “The Jewish Week reports that Hillel, the Jewish student
    organization, is coordinating a petition against the event; Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the CUNY board member, has characterized it as anti-Semitic . . .
    ~ Weiss

    SEE: “Wiesenfeld: ‘My Mother Would Call Tony Kushner a Kapo’” ~ by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, 5/06/11

    [EXCERPTS] Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the bomb-throwing CUNY trustee who has blocked John Jay College from awarding the playwright Tony Kushner an honorary degree, told me a few minutes ago that, as the child of Holocaust survivors, he has no choice but to call out Kushner for making the “blood-libel charge” that Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing.
    “My mother would call Tony Kushner a kapo,” he said
    in a telephone conversation earlier this morning. “Kapos” were Jews who worked for the Germans in concentration camps. “If I’m confronted by anti-Semitism in my face, I’m going to call it out.” I asked him if he had any doubt Kushner was an anti-Semite. He said: “Anyone who accuses the Jews of ethnic-cleansing is participating in a blood libel, so yes, he’s a Jewish anti-Semite.” (I disagreed with Wiesenfeld’s view here ). . .
    . . . Wiesenfeld argued that Israel never engaged in systematic ethnic-cleansing: “The Jews never did this on a systematic basis. The Jews don’t plan genocide. If there was ethnic-cleansing, how come there are more than a million Arab citizens of Israel today?”
    On this issue, both Kushner and Wiesenfeld have good, if partial, arguments. . .
    . . . Wiesenfeld is on shakier ground when he asserts, as he did to The New York Times, that “people who worship death for their children are not human.” He then said, in response to the question, Did he mean that the Palestinians weren’t human?, “They have developed a culture which is unprecedented in human history.” The reason he is on shaky ground here is because he is generalizing about Palestinians the way he believes Kushner generalizes about Israelis. I asked him about these quotes in The Times: “I told (the writer), people who worship the death of their children are not humans. Did I say all of them do? No. I would say that every Palestinian who supports the development of their child into a shahid (martyr) is not human.” . . .

    SOURCE – link to theatlantic.com

    • DICKERSON3870
      January 30, 2013, 7:39 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “A University Trustee Expands on His View of What Is Offensive”, by Jim Dwyer, New York Times, 5/05/11

      [EXCERPTS] “I want to say something,” Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld said. “The question is offensive. Before you even finish.”
      Mr. Wiesenfeld is the City University of New York trustee who rose this week at a board meeting to block an honorary degree to the playwright Tony Kushner
      , declaring him an “extremist” opponent and critic of Israel. . .
      . . . I tried to ask a question about the damage done by a short, one-sided discussion of vigorously debated aspects of Middle East politics, like the survival of Israel and the rights of the Palestinians, and which side was more callous toward human life, and who was most protective of it.
      But Mr. Wiesenfeld interrupted and said the question was offensive because “the comparison sets up a moral equivalence.”
      Equivalence between what and what? “Between the Palestinians and Israelis,” he said. “People who worship death for their children are not human.”
      Did he mean the Palestinians were not human? “They have developed a culture which is unprecedented in human history,” he said.
      But is there no reason to hear from Tony Kushner, or have a more thorough airing of his views? “Tell you what,” Mr. Wiesenfeld said. “Your question tells me — and I am saying this not to insult you — tells me that you don’t know” what you are talking about.
      Two years ago, John Jay gave a medal to Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and human rights commissioner with the United Nations. Many who see the world as Mr. Wiesenfeld does also revile Ms. Robinson for having presided over a conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, at which a number of delegates were unabashedly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
      Mr. Wiesenfeld said he had confronted Jeremy Travis, the president of John Jay. “I said, ‘Jeremy, this is crazy. . .’” . . .
      . . . Mr. Wiesenfeld was appointed a trustee of City University in the late 1990s by Gov. George E. Pataki, for whom he worked in the 1990s as a political fixer, an essential and often honorable function that can lead scrupulous people into a blizzard of trouble. In Mr. Wiesenfeld’s case, his work, and his actions, put him at the center of a scandal over paroles that had allegedly been sold to campaign contributors. He was never charged and said he had done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, a federal prosecutor described a memo Mr. Wiesenfeld had written urging leniency for a prisoner as “outrageous.”
      Did Mr. Wiesenfeld see no comparison between what had happened to him and his characterizing of Mr. Kushner’s views without giving his target a chance for rebuttal?
      “That’s absurd,” Mr. Wiesenfeld said.

      SOURCE – link to nytimes.com

  14. jayn0t
    January 30, 2013, 9:55 pm

    “Contrary to reports in the media, the BDS movement has a broad array of support, including from Jewish students and community members. In no way can it be construed as anti-Semitic.”

    The anti-apartheid movement had a broad array of support, including from white students and community members. In no way could it be construed as anti-Aryan.

  15. subconscious
    January 31, 2013, 5:21 am

    Maybe the opponents of this event can employ the tactic that the Christian Zionist students at UC Irvine are participating in, namely cultivating supporters through high-tech job prospects:

    The student leader in the clip claims that “anti-Semitic” activism is not popular at UCI anymore, which must be why they’d rather entice students w/ high-tech prospects than engage in human-rights debates. Sounds like a birth-right trip for those w/ no such birth right.

Leave a Reply