‘NYT’ reports ‘surge of hostile sentiment against Jews’ nationwide — on what basis?

US Politics

Today The New York Times printed a long article at the top of its national section stating that the ugly prejudice of anti-Semitism has returned to the United States, on college campuses. Headlined “In U.C.L.A. Debate Over Jewish Student, Echoes on Campus of Old Biases,” the article says that the UCLA student council asked a candidate for the student government’s judicial board about the fact that she is Jewish and active in Jewish organizations, and that the council then debated her affiliations for 40 minutes before confirming her.

Reporter Adam Nagourney states that the questions about sophomore Rachel Beyda “seemed to echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries, students and Jewish leaders said.”

We are in no position to defend the student council for its conduct, but Nagourney undermines his credibility by going on to the following astounding assertion:

The session… has served to spotlight what appears to be a surge of hostile sentiment directed against Jews at many campuses in the country, often a byproduct of animosity toward the policies of Israel.

Let’s repeat that phrase: “what appears to be a surge of hostile sentiment directed against Jews at many campuses in the country.” That’s a very large claim, and the piece offers no evidence for “a surge.” None. If there really is “a surge” of Jew-hating bigotry, why isn’t the Times sending its army of correspondents out nationwide to track down this awful trend?

The Times does not cite any other example of alleged hostility against Jews besides the UCLA case.

The article is rocketing around the web. Joe Scarborough on MSNBC has called out UCLA over the case. Times columnist Nick Kristof tweets:

Charges of anti-Semitism are overused, usually against Israel’s critics. But this sure seems raw anti-Semitism

But again, the article’s documentation is laughably thin. No statistics, no research, not even a biased survey from the ADL. There is a citation of some Trinity College researcher:

Barry A. Kosmin, a Trinity College researcher and a co-author of a study issued last month that found extensive examples of anti-Semitism directed at college students, said he had not come across anything as striking as what happened at U.C.L.A.

As it turns out, that Trinity College study has a foreword from Kenneth Marcus. Marcus is a leading Israel supporter who has attempted to link campus criticisms of Israel to anti-Semitism.

Nagourney from Flickr

Nagourney from Flickr

This is another obvious problem with the Times report. Nagourney says that the anti-Semitism is “often a byproduct of animosity toward the policies of Israel.” Has he made any serious effort to separate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? It seems not. The UCLA case itself seems to have a strong component of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) in it. The Times alludes once to the movement’s effectiveness at UCLA, without saying how it touched on the Beyda case. Indeed, the BDS movement has rocked college campuses. Could it be that the student council’s questions to Beyda involved her views on Israel in light of crucial judicial issues on campuses? We don’t know. That’s not in the article. And as for Nagourney’s emphasis on the divided loyalty issue, this is inevitably going to be an issue when Jewish organizations assert that being Jewish means blindly supporting Israel. Just two days ago the New York Times raised the issue itself when it said that some Democratic congresspeople face “an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state.”

The Times’ message echoes the message of an urgent meetup of the pro-Israel group CAMERA at a Jewish Community Center in New Jersey this Sunday. The event is billed: “Battling Anti-Semitism on College Campuses” and “Stopping It Dead In Its Tracks: The Anti-Israel Movement On College Campuses.” So CAMERA is making no effort to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. And really, what’s the problem? Criticism of Israel. As CAMERA writes:

DID YOU KNOW? The number of anti-Israel events on American college campuses have DOUBLED in just the last year. Make sure you are aware and prepared.

Here is what your child faces at campuses nationwide:

Image from CAMERA, pro Israel group, of BDS campaign

Image from CAMERA, pro Israel group, of BDS campaign

We have to assume that Nagourney and the Times consciously or not are seeking to protect Israel from the BDS movement, and joining in the irresponsible effort to smear the movement as anti-Semitic. As Israel becomes more isolated internationally, this trend will only continue.

Thanks to Adam Horowitz.

About James North and Philip Weiss

Other posts by .


Posted In:

162 Responses

  1. a blah chick
    March 6, 2015, 11:26 am

    “Confront Zionsim Boycott Israel” They make that sound like a bad thing.

    Also I’m a little confoosed. I keep hearing from these folks how BDS is going nowhere and more of a bother than anything. Then they say it is the greatest menace since Hitler…which is it?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 6, 2015, 11:45 am

      It’s a bit like how Israel is under ‘existential threat’ from rockets which do little more than graze the roof tiles of houses in Sderot, and yet in the very next breath Israel is a ‘safe haven’ from the rising tide of antisemitism sweeping Europe….

      Make up your minds, folks!

      • Citizen
        March 6, 2015, 2:43 pm

        Or the existential threat from Iran (going on for 20 years), yet Netanyahu urges the Jews of France to save themselves by moving to said state under such dire threat.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        March 7, 2015, 6:43 am

        Why? Different propaganda lines serve different purposes. There is no need for consistency. It has nothing to do with their minds.

        As I keep on saying, Zionists are addicted to anti-Semitism. They crave it. Their deepest anxieties about the survival of Jewish identity arise out of the near-absence of anti-Semitism in Western societies. Talk of a “surge” of anti-Semitism is a sort of magical spell by means of which they hope to conjure more anti-Semitism into existence.

      • Keith
        March 7, 2015, 5:10 pm

        STEPHEN SHENFIELD- “Talk of a “surge” of anti-Semitism is a sort of magical spell by means of which they hope to conjure more anti-Semitism into existence.”

        While these types of anti-Gentile recriminations by Zionists undoubtedly lead to increased anti-Semitism, their primary concern seems to be the creation of PERCEIVED anti-Semitism in the minds of the targeted population of Jews. Obviously some low level actual anti-Semitism makes this task easier, however, the perception is the key. Relatively safe and empowered Jews fearful of their non-Jewish neighbors and committed to PERCEIVED defensive action are a valuable resource to be utilized by Jewish Zionist elites.

  2. PeaceThroughJustice
    March 6, 2015, 11:42 am

    “… without offering any evidence of such anti-Semitism”

    Everyone knows you don’t need to offer evidence for “antisemitism”. It’s the default state of the universe, like gravity.

    • Kathleen
      March 6, 2015, 5:44 pm

      Indeed. Don’t like the facts, don’t like people stating the facts on the ground…call them “anti-semitic” The awareness on college campuses will continue to surge.

      • tokyobk
        March 7, 2015, 1:52 am

        JWalters,

        Your link is not about the misuse of the anti-semitic charge. Its not about Palestinian rights. It’s not about Israel conforming to modern and moral conventions regarding all of its citizens. Its not about American foreign adventures or overreach.

        Your link purports to demonstrate how the Jews are the inventors and sustainers of every form of human evil from time immemorial.

        I support MW and will continue to do so because important conversions happen here that don’t elsewhere. But, imo, the Jew Watch contingency here is much worse than unhelpful to this or the general cause.

      • RoHa
        March 7, 2015, 5:00 am

        The link is to a specific essay about anti-Semitism. The essay is one of the essays on a site which does make sweeping accusations against Jews, but that is not a reason for rejecting the conclusions of the essay. The truth of the claims in the essay may well be independent of the truth of the other claims on that site. To reject it solely on the basis of the overall claims of the site is simply a variation of argumentum ad hominem.

        That said, given the current obsessions with “hate speech” , and the attendant lack of logic and rationality even amongst the allegedly educated part of the populace, I will agree with you that linking to such sites is likely (via guilt-by-association fallacy) to do more harm than good.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2015, 6:43 pm

        i deleted the link jwalters. i did so for the same reason i didn’t pass it thru moderation before. for one thing it was very very long and i didn’t have the time nor the where-with-all to read the whole thing. i’m not sure who did pass it but i doubt they did either.

        it’s best not to post these long controversial links w/tons of quotes, even if they are, allegedly by jews throughout history. from what i did read it was too generalized and would take massive amounts of research to verify and contexualize. . like your other link you posted here over 20 times before we quit posting it, it’s just too much.

    • MoCHo
      March 7, 2015, 12:55 pm

      Since last year when I finally opened my eyes and became aware of and started educating myself more on what is truly happening–the obvious attempts to get rid of the Palestinian people by whatever methods Israel can find (with the U.S. government’s willing capitulation and financial/moral support) — I have been accused of being anti-semitic or racist at least a couple of times. The first time it hurt; the second time I realized it is one more piece of intimidation in the propaganda arsenal to provide a cover for Israel to continue with its ethnic cleansing/apartheid agenda. On the wider scale, if there is NO anti-Semitism, there is no reason for the Zionists to play the victim card. If Jews are not hated and discriminated against, do they need their “safe” homeland? Do they need all that money from the U.S. and other supporters to provide security (and push all potential “enemies” out of the land they claim)? As soon as the label crops up, most of us goyim backpedal and go into the guilty bystander apologist mode. The truth is, I am not anti-Semitic and certainly not racist, unlike the Zionist government and many of the Israeli settlers; I have, however, become anti-Zionist, a political organization that I believe is very similar to our own Tea Party, willing to lie, cheat, steal, fear-monger, intimidate, whatever it takes to achieve its own selfish agenda. On the other hand, I know many wonderful people who are Jewish, by heritage or conversion, and those who truly follow the Jewish faith and believe the Torah and the prophets oppose what is happening in Israel and know it is very counter to what God has asked of them, and us.

  3. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    March 6, 2015, 12:07 pm

    This sounds rather like the survey done in the UK recently, which supposedly ‘proved’ that there was a ‘surge’ in antisemitism in Britain. We were told that about 1000 attacks on British Jews had been recorded over the past year. Sounds alarming, except that on closer inspection it turned out that the vast majority of those ‘attacks’ consisted of verbal attacks, many of them nothing more than criticism of ….. yes you’ve guessed it, Israel. Only 84 physical attacks on Jews were recorded. That’s 84 too many, obviously, but I’m willing to bet serious money that, even allowing for proportionality, British Muslims have suffered far more attacks – real attacks, that is, not criticism of some sacred cow.

    • John O
      March 6, 2015, 12:16 pm

      And even that survey conceded, IIRC, that the ‘surge’ correlated to the Gaza slaughter of last year. BTW, has Maureen Lipman f***ed off yet?

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 6, 2015, 12:34 pm

        Who knows? It’s not as though she’s constantly on our screens or in our theatres because of her oustanding cultural output, is it?

        But, last time I checked, she was still enjoying the benefits of life in a prosperous liberal democracy, while regularly checking for anti-semites under her toilet seat.

      • VoiceOfTheVoiceless
        March 15, 2015, 7:57 pm

        I seemed to be the only person on twitter asking that very question when she appeared on Comic Relief the other night (as a NUN, I kid you not!! She’d make a perfect genteel christian zionist ofc). I’m wondering how Maximus Decimus Meridius knows these things about her though. Her method of keeping our borders free of infidels (as ze describes) is just as I imagined it to be.

    • Kathleen
      March 6, 2015, 6:24 pm

      84 too many for sure. Criminal and should be prosecuted.

      • Giles
        March 7, 2015, 9:58 am

        Do you know how small a number 84 is? When talking about a population of @ 300,000 over a full year?

      • Kathleen
        March 8, 2015, 12:22 pm

        Accountability is important

  4. Giles
    March 6, 2015, 12:08 pm

    Anti-Semitism is the organizing principle of the entire Western world.

    All we non Jews are obsessed with and envious of Jews; this attitude informs everything we do, everything we think.

    Just ask Daniel Goldenhagen and his acolytes.

  5. Balfour
    March 6, 2015, 12:14 pm

    What is the difference between asking a member of Hillel, an organization with a stated Pro-Israel manifesto, and an anti abortion candidate belonging to an organization with a non negotiable membership platform about their ability to impartially perform a duty that might conflict with their private beliefs? None. If you belong to an organization with a finite manifesto, and you wish to be considered for a more general, democratic governing positions, your membership and its effect on governing ability must be allowed to be questioned.

    Would it be “anti-(fill in the blank)” to ask the same question if the young woman belonged to a strict fundamentalist Muslim campus organization and she agreed with what AL Qaeda or ISIS are doing? How about if she were a member of a Christian fundamentalist campus organization and her campus group opposed abortion, birth control , gay rights and women’s rights? Would it have then been okay to ask how her campus affiliations and her religious beliefs would effect her decision making responsibilities?

    What a tedious, misleading conversation.

    • philadelphialawyer
      March 6, 2015, 1:15 pm

      Yeah, I don’t get it either. And I would not concede, without a lot more evidence, that there is even one example of anti Semitism in the NYT article. All organizational affiliations, one would think, would be relevant to membership on a judicial board.

      As for questions of personal religious affiliation, that’s a little bit trickier. Nevertheless, personal religious beliefs, for better or worse, are typically dragged into discussions of qualification and aptitude for public office, elected and appointed. Not only are candidates for political office asked about their religious beliefs, and how these might affect their performance in office, but so are nominees for judicial appointments, when up for confirmation in, say the US Senate.

      Why Jewish students should be immune from such questioning is anyone’s guess.

    • Donald
      March 6, 2015, 1:17 pm

      They had a conversation about whether this student could be fair because she was a Jew. They might have been thinking about BDS and Hillel and support for Israel’s crimes or who knows what, but they made it about her Jewishness. That was anti-semitic and if they didn’t mean it that way, it still doesn’t get them off the hook. I’m glad they apologized, but it was a stupid and yes , anti-semitic thing to do and they have just given every BDS opponent an example that will be cited from now till doomsday. I agree with Phil and James about the awfulness of the NYT article and in fact I’d go further than that, and will in a minute, but these students made a bad mistake even if they didn’t mean it the way it sounded.

      The thing I’d add about the NYT article is that there is a strain of racism in all the accusations that harsh criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-semitism. What the accusers are really saying is that no one could be upset by American complicty in Israeli war crimes against Palestinians unless we are driven by secret feelings of hatred for Jews. So Palestinians aren’t important and nobody could have feelings based on other motives. We’re all guilty until proven innocent and the only way to prove our innocence is to follow the lead of liberal Zionists and keep our criticisms very mild and essentially toothless.

      • Donald
        March 6, 2015, 1:31 pm

        One other point. Kosmin in the NYT piece says that he has not come across anything as striking as what happened at UCLA. In other words, this gets massive attention because it’s a clearcut case of someone making an anti-semitic remark while others go along with it. Later they apologize. This was both bad and stupid, as I already said, but if anti-semitism is widespread on campus there should be many more such cases, and I doubt people would apologize.

        On the other hand, the US invades a country on false pretenses, torturers innocent and guilty alike, blows up families with its drones, supports Israel’s war crimes and Congress wildly applauds a foreign war criminal when he stops by to visit. And a man shoots three Muslims over a parking dispute after making clear his contempt for Islam. But no, that’s not Islamophobia and it certainly isn’t anything we need to worry about.

      • philadelphialawyer
        March 6, 2015, 4:49 pm

        “They had a conversation about whether this student could be fair because she was a Jew. They might have been thinking about BDS and Hillel and support for Israel’s crimes or who knows what, but they made it about her Jewishness. That was anti-semitic and if they didn’t mean it that way, it still doesn’t get them off the hook. I’m glad they apologized, but it was a stupid and yes , anti-semitic thing to do and they have just given every BDS opponent an example that will be cited from now till doomsday. I agree with Phil and James about the awfulness of the NYT article and in fact I’d go further than that, and will in a minute, but these students made a bad mistake even if they didn’t mean it the way it sounded.”

        Again, I just don’t buy it. I agree that membership in organizations is clearly within acceptable bounds, but I do not at all agree that questions about personal religious beliefs are anything unusual either. Perhaps, as a general rule, they SHOULD be, but that is not the practice in the USA. Religious beliefs, if taken seriously, certainly CAN impact political and even judicial decisions. Certain folks have religious views about, say, abortion and birth control, and if they are nominated for judgeships it is not all considered to be “anti Catholic” (for example) to inquire if those religious beliefs might impact a prospective judge’s decision making in cases involving those issues. Why should it be any different in this case?

        Moreover, even assuming some sort of connection between the questioning and BDS, I do not agree that folks in the BDS movement, on campus and elsewhere, should even try to walk on eggshells so as not to provide fake “examples” of fake “anti Semitism” to cite. As you can see from “CAMERA’s” propaganda, merely opposing some of Israel’s policies and/or supporting BDS are themselves conflated with anti Semitism. Of course, there should be no real anti Semitism, but that does not mean that Jewish students or Jews in general deserve, or should get for tactical reasons, a “pass” on questioning that folks of other ethnicities/religious traditions routinely endure.

        “The thing I’d add about the NYT article is that there is a strain of racism in all the accusations that harsh criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. What the accusers are really saying is that no one could be upset by American complicity in Israeli war crimes against Palestinians unless we are driven by secret feelings of hatred for Jews. So Palestinians aren’t important and nobody could have feelings based on other motives. We’re all guilty until proven innocent and the only way to prove our innocence is to follow the lead of liberal Zionists and keep our criticisms very mild and essentially toothless.”

        I quite agree.

        Which is one of the reasons why I refuse to concede, based on the “evidence” that has been presented, that anything at all “anti Semitic” occurred here.

      • tree
        March 6, 2015, 6:38 pm

        They had a conversation about whether this student could be fair because she was a Jew. They might have been thinking about BDS and Hillel and support for Israel’s crimes or who knows what, but they made it about her Jewishness.

        From reading the wording of the initial question, the written minutes and the long discussion on conflict of interest prior to the second confirming vote, I have to strongly disagree with your interpretation. The point brought up was concern about conflict of interest due to her Presidency of a Jewish Sorority at UCLA and her membership in Hillel, which has an obvious and stated political bent in favor of Israel, rather than simply being a support group for all Jews on campus, as has been amply illustrated by its recent actions.

        Donald, if the President of a Christian sorority at UCLA was questioned about her ability to put aside her bias, or recuse herself from judicial decisions in which she might have a conflict of interest, would you have considered such a question an example of religious bias against Christian students? Seriously? You believe that membership in a group that is religiously or ethnically exclusive should not come up for questioning when nomination to a judicial position is discussed? Or are you just accepting the framing as alleged by those with political agendas?

        As to her association with Hillel, it seems like another reasonable point on which to question her. After all, Hillel has chosen to take a clear political stand on Israel, rather than accept with open arms all Jews on campus regardless of what their political views are with respect to Israel. As such it functions as a political group which has a clear platform of opposition to BDS . See here for some background with specific regards to Hillel at UCLA:

        UCLA Hillel partners with PR firm to fight BDS movement – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/hillel-partners-movement#sthash.8EE07wzF.dpuf

        Funds to UCLA student political party came from outside sources, leaked emails show
        http://www.dailycal.org/2014/07/03/funds-ucla-student-political-party-came-outside-donors-leaked-emails-show/

        Costly pro-Israel PR campaign fails to stop UCLA divestment

        http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/costly-pro-israel-pr-campaign-fails-stop-ucla-divestment

        And a lot of the concern at the meeting seemed to be related to the UCLA Judicial board’s decision last year that two UCLA Student government leaders did not commit ethical violations by receiving free trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israel groups and then refusing to recuse themselves from last April’s vote against divestment.

        SJP Judicial Board Case Study
        http://www.sjpbruins.com/judicial-board-case-summary.html

        It seems to me that what we have here is a case of certain Jewish groups taking political positions in regards to Israel and then crying anti-semitism when their politics are questioned, thus trying to imply that their religion rather than their politics is the issue when it isn’t.

      • tree
        March 6, 2015, 6:57 pm

        Alex Kane covered the ethics case before the UCLA Judicial Board last year in this article:

        Documents open window into how Israel lobby courts student government members – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/documents-government-members#sthash.vnh8Ad18.dpuf

        Any news article that excludes this background to the questions and vote of the UCLA student council isn’t doing its job of covering the news.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2015, 10:28 pm

        tree, the year before alex’s article you linked to we co authored the divestment hearing on 10/22/2013 at UCLA when the conflict of interest first came up. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/divestment-resolution-legislators

        the main thrust of the hearing was about a “positive investment” anti-divestment resolution, which was highly contentious and voted down (which was a victory for bds).

        i had interviewed Rahim Kurwa the night after the event, late. the conversation was originally written in dialogue/interview form (we talked for about 20-30 minutes. question and answer was heavily edited for publication, unfortunately imho) but it was dramatically chilling from my perspective, and i will never forget it. after he briefly gave me a run down of the resolution i had asked him about highlights of the meeting and the public comments and why it went on til 3 am. that’s when he mentioned what happened (his first quote below), that someone during the public comment brought up the conflict of interest regarding the free trips to israel… i remember then asking kurwa to elaborate on that point, what it was like in the room, because the person who was first confronted (which was not specified in the article) was council member Sunny Singh, the sponsor of the resolution.

        his second quote below (again part of a longer conversation) was the riveting part – i added “[cut here]” to the blockquote below – the whole room went dead silent (i think he said you could hear a pin drop or something to that effect). anyway, that’s when he said “captivating”:

        The hearing, which extended until 3 am, had some riveting moments, according to participants. The meeting opened up with an impassioned discussion that shined a glaring light on how student legislators go on politically oriented trips to Israel for free on the dime of the Anti Defamation League.

        “Someone in the public comment mentioned the conflict of interest, the benefit of a free trip taken by a member of the council who sponsored resolution. And once public comment was over, the council started its own deliberations over this question before even talking about the resolution,” said SJP member Rahim Kurwa in our phone interview.

        [cut here]

        “It was a very captivating moment, the entire focus of the room was on this issue. The fact that the ADL, sponsors of these trips, has engaged in Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian campaigns was openly discussed in the room and at the council table,” said Kurwa. “The ADL’s free politically oriented trips for student leaders were now being discussed out in the open. Once it becomes a liability to take trips from pro-Israel groups with an agenda, once it becomes widely understood — and you can’t do it in the dark– the effectiveness disappears.”

        One of the recent beneficiaries of these free Israel trips, Sunny Singh, was one of the two sponsors of the resolution. Singh wrote an op ed in the Daily Bruin, UCLA’s student newspaper, on the morning of the hearing. But his op-ed came back to bite him that very evening, sparking criticism of student affiliation with the ADL’s agenda-driven trips to Israel.

        Another council member voting on the bill also took the ADL trip, and a third was a member of Bruins for Israel who attended an AIPAC conference as a delegate.

        this small passage here doesn’t begin to describe the intensity of that hearing. Singh op ed in the daily bruin (must read hasbara BS) was published the day hearing and in it he disclosed he’d gone to israel w/adl and seen the light. it was a brilliant move confronting him about conflict of interest. and then they confronted another senator and that’s when the third pipped up and said he’d gone too. (and as i recall the third ended up not voting for the resolution, but i am not positive about that).

        anyway, i called Kurwa back after our conversation because it seemed as tho everything had unfolded so suddenly, regarding the conflict of interest. as i recall (and i could be wrong) prior to the hearing this was not part of their overall strategy, but it became a strategy after that meeting (for good reason). when i called him back, because i wanted to get it right, the quote, that’s when he said “Once it becomes a liability to take trips from pro-Israel groups with an agenda, once it becomes widely understood — and you can’t do it in the dark– the effectiveness disappears.”

        and then after that and prior to the next student elections they asked the people running for student council to make a pledge not to take these trips. we covered that here too. i think it was almost 6 months after that first hearing before the issue came under judicial review. but that hearing was a real game changer.

        edit, one more thing. after public comments and before even discussing the resolution the council members discussed the adl trips (big discussion), so the trips really entered into the equations for the first time.

      • Rusty Pipes
        March 6, 2015, 7:54 pm

        The article was penned by “stenographer,” Adam Nagourney, not “reporter.” The piece reads as a worked over press release from an Israel Lobby group — like the ADL, Stand With Us or the Israel Project. The lede in the story is not just buried, the reporter apparently never bothered to dig into the background.

        The article expects us to take at face value that Ms. Roth and Mr. Block are entirely insensitive to the history of anti-Semitism. Rather, as tree and several others have noted, Roth’s line of questioning was directly related to the candidate’s background, motives and qualifications for serving on the Judicial Committee at UCLA, especially considering the recent campus political climate as well as particular controversial cases that have come before the Judicial Committee.

        If her leadership in campus Zionist organizations was not enough to raise general questions, the particular actions of Hillel in money-laundering donations from major Zionist donors into funds for “Student Government Leaders” some of whom just happened to be Hillel interns, as well as the identity of her sponsor for the committee post (one of the very same Bruins whose candidacy for the student council had been bankrolled by Hillel-money-laundered funds from Zionist donors, Avinoam Baral):

        The president of the student council, Avinoam Baral, who had nominated Ms. Beyda, appeared stunned at the turn the questioning took at the session and sought at first to rule Ms. Roth’s question out of order. “I don’t feel that’s an appropriate question,” he said.

        In an interview, Mr. Baral, who is Jewish, said he “related personally to what Rachel was going through.”

        “It’s very problematic to me that students would feel that it was appropriate to ask that kind of questions, especially given the long cultural history of Jews,” he said. “We’ve been questioned all of our history: Are Jews loyal citizens? Don’t they have divided loyalties? All of these anti-Semitic tropes.”

        He called Ms. Beyda a “stand-out applicant,” with strong grades, interest and experience in the law. The students who voted against her also praised her credentials, but kept returning to questions about whether she could set aside her religious affiliation when ruling on issues before the council.

      • Donald
        March 7, 2015, 10:39 am

        Tree and others–If I had an exact transcript of the conversation I might or might not tone down my criticism of the student who asked the question. I skimmed eljay’s link to a transcript and it seemed more of a paraphrase.

        I still think that asking someone about her being a Jew is a really stupid thing to do at best and the same would apply to any other faith–the student should have asked a more specific question about the student’s history of activism for or against BDS, if any, assuming that this is something relevant to the position. Couching it in terms of the candidate being a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian should be out of bounds. If a history of activism is relevant , ask about that.

        I agree, as already stated, that people screaming that BDS is anti-Semitic are using this one stupid question in deeply cynical ways.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2015, 11:49 am

        donald, i think it’s instructive to consider this in the context of the political climate here in the US and the kind of discourse that’s been normalized by the msm. it’s very normal here for pundits, talking heads, op eds, and people in our media to ask people, if they are muslim, to condemn violence carried out by other muslims. it’s normal for them to say – as a muslim – what do you think of this or why doesn’t the muslim community do more or say more. i don’t think this is right (at all, for many reasons) but one reason is because it assumes the person is political just because they are muslim. but if a person is part of a political group (like sjp) and also in a college group defined by their ethnicity (whether it be african america, muslim, asian, latino) then it’s fair play to ask how their ethnicity informs their politics. especially if these (ethnic) student groups have conferences and design political resolutions.

        check this out:

        “As a queer, immigrant Chicana I am often asked why I work with Students for Justice in Palestine,” Angelica Becerra, an SJP member at UCLA, wrote in an e-mail. “After seeing the solidarity from the rest of the communities with which I identify with come out to the council meeting, and voice their opposition to this resolution, the answer is simple. Everyone, regardless of their multiple intersecting identities should support Palestinian society’s self-determination. I will support the Palestinian cause until my last breath.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/divestment-resolution-legislators#sthash.F4e8XYYa.dpuf

        so, would it be bigoted to ask angelica ‘As a queer, immigrant Chicana why do you work with Students for Justice in Palestine’? or, is it bigoted to ask obama, as a black man with a white mother how does that inform your world view?

        i mean, as you say, it might be a “stupid thing to do” but, especially in the context of the way our media frames issues surrounding muslims i mentioned earlier, hasn’t it perhaps become normalized in the american discourse for everyone except jews?

      • philadelphialawyer
        March 7, 2015, 10:50 am

        Donald:

        “I still think that asking someone about her being a Jew is a really stupid thing to do at best and the same would apply to any other faith–the student should have asked a more specific question about the student’s history of activism for or against BDS, if any, assuming that this is something relevant to the position. Couching it in terms of the candidate being a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian should be out of bounds.”

        But that conflates two very different things. Namely what you think and what is standard practice. Personal religious beliefs are routinely brought up in the context of confirmation hearings. That you, subjectively, think all such questioning “should be out of bounds” does not mean that it is out of bounds, as a matter of practice and precedent.

        And, that being the case, nothing unusual, and thus nothing anti Semitic, was done here, even if the questioning touched on personal beliefs rather than strictly on organizational affiliations. If non Jews can be questioned in this way, and they can be, so can Jews. And it is not anti Semitic to apply a rule, however much you personally disagree with it, to Jews and non Jews alike.

        Nor is it “stupid” to do so, for fear of the very false cries of “anti Semitism” that have arisen. Again, those cries are inevitable, no matter what the actual facts. And for critics of Israel and supporters of BDS to have to hamstring themselves to the point where rules that apply to non Jews cannot be applied to Jews would undermine the entire effort. That’s kinda the point, no? That the rules that apply to everyone else also apply to Israel, despite it being run by Jews.

        I get it that you don’t like the general rule. I also get that you have a point: the general rule is a very dubious one. Nevertheless, it is the rule, and it should either be changed across the board, or not at all.

      • Donald
        March 7, 2015, 1:24 pm

        This is for Annie. I’m not sure where it will go–

        I agree that there are double standards galore on this subject–the Atlantic just put out that article which said that Muslims who think their religion is one of peace believe in a candy coated version of Islam. You get to say things like that about Muslims in our hypocritical culture–that doesn’t mean that we should accept it. I think Islamophobia is a vastly larger problem in our country than anti-semitism–setting aside the FBI reports on hate crimes, where anti-semitism is (I hear secondhand) worse, the fact is that we invaded Iraq, assassinate with drones, torture prisoners, and support Israeli war crimes in large part because it is easy to get people in the US to be afraid of Muslims.
        I also agree that many in the pro-Israel camp play a game where they say that Jews should support Israel and criticism of Israel feels threatening to them as Jews and in general do everything they can to conflate criticism of Israel ( except the toothless variety) with criticism of Jews, and then they pounce on anyone on the other side who is dumb enough to do the same thing, either deliberately or accidentally.

        The solution is to refuse to play the game by the rules of bigots. Bigots are the people who want to assume the worst of people because of their ethnicity or religion. Stick to specifics. if a particular individual or organization is an apologist for war criminals or terrorists or apartheid or whatever, you can talk about that person or that group and you can talk about how they use their religion to justify this or that crime, and you can do all that without making a statement that implies Muslims, Christians, or Jews are suspect simply because they are Muslims, Christians, or Jews.

        I actually think this article by Phil and James is insufficiently critical of the NYT piece–the people who scream anti-semitism at BDS supporters are demonstrating their own racism, because they can’t see how the violations of Palestinian rights could be important to anyone. The pro Israel side reeks of racism and mostly gets away with it. But they get to pose as the ones who lecture others about bigotry.

      • tree
        March 8, 2015, 12:39 am

        Donald,
        Tree and others–If I had an exact transcript of the conversation I might or might not tone down my criticism of the student who asked the question. I skimmed eljay’s link to a transcript and it seemed more of a paraphrase.

        I believe eljay’s link was to the official minutes of the meeting. The video recording of the entire meeting was taken down from You-Tube, for reasons I’ll expand on later, but there is a short snippet of the meeting in a very inaccurate news report from the local CBS affiliate here which includes the question Beyda was asked . There are several words which are unintelligible, but it is quoted on the related article on the KCBS site as follows:

        “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community … given that recently … [inaudible] has been surrounding cases of conflict of interest, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view … [inaudible]?”

        http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/23/ucla-students-jewish-background-questioned-during-vote-for-judicial-board/

        Again, given the background and nature of some of the conflicts at the UCLA campus recently, including the fact that the UCLA Hillel organization was implicated in money-laundering political contributions from Adam Milstein to UCLA student candidates from Bruins United (a right of center pro-Israel student organization,of which Avinoam Baral, the current student President is a member) as well as the fact that organizations affiliated with Hillel paid for trips to Israel for other student body officials in the recent past, and that Hillel has hired a PR firm to discredit student BDS activity, the question about a possible conflict of interest and how she would handle it seems entirely within bounds to ask of someone who is being considered for a student judicial board.

        As to why the you-Tube video of the meeting was removed, I discovered this from the Daily Bruin, the student newspaper:

        The undergraduate student government recently took down a YouTube video of a controversial council meeting after several council members received death threats and hate mail accusing them of being anti-Semitic.

        ….Haq said the hate mail she received in response to her questioning at the meeting was so severe that she did not feel safe walking around campus.

        Some of the people who sent messages to her identified themselves as donors who would cease donating to UCLA until she and other councilmembers resigned, she said. Most of the hate mail she received did not come with identification, and Haq said she would not be surprised if many of the messages were from UCLA students.

        Sadeghi-Movahed said she also received death threats and rape threats in emails and that she has reported these threats to university police.

        Other messages were sent to her email, Facebook and Twitter account. Some of these criticisms used hateful language, including expletives and pejoratives.

        Most of the hate mail was from people outside the UCLA community, and she said she thinks they have come from all over the country.

        “It’s to the point where this story has been so exaggerated that I’ve been dehumanized in a way that most people don’t think our apology was genuine,” Sadeghi-Movahed said. “I was okay with (the video) staying up to be quite honest, but it becomes an infringement on our safety when other outlets take it and manipulate it into a different narrative.”

        Haq said she thinks that she and other councilmembers have been misrepresented by news outlets who did not reach out to them before publishing their names, and by Chancellor Gene Block, who issued a campuswide email calling councilmembers unfair without reaching out to them for explanations beforehand.

        Singh said he also received death threats following the meeting. He said he has received hate mail using racist language in the past, but he had never been threatened before. He did not report the threats to UCPD.

        Roth said she has also been threatened, but she could not disclose the nature or severity of all the threats because she has not read all of them. This is the first time she has received hate mail, she added.

        Haq said this is also the first time she has received hate mail and that it has only gotten worse since the video was taken down. She did not address the USAC Live! video when reporting concerns for her safety and did not ask for it to be taken down, she added.

        “It’s a lose-lose situation, really,” Haq said. “If you don’t take down the video, it’s just going to grow more and more. If you do take it down, people get angry.”

        http://dailybruin.com/2015/03/07/usac-removes-video-of-controversial-meeting-on-judicial-board-appointee/

        I have to say after reading the DB article that Phil missed a big part of the story in this case. Student council members were defamed as anti-semites for asking a question about possible conflict of interest for a prospective judicial board candidate and then faced death and rape threats and hateful derogatory racist comments about their ethnicity and yet that part of the story remains uncovered. I would have hoped that Phil could have dug this part out, or given it to Alex Kane whose covered the UCLA controversies in the past to dig into.

        Frankly, the whole issue seems contrived in order to create a false controversy and defame the student council members. After all, Rachel Beyda was appointed to the judicial board unanimously on the second vote after additional discussion at the very same meeting so seriously, where was the great harm in asking the question since she is affiliated with campus organizations that have been involved in cases alleging conflict of interest? Why was it morphed into a story of anti-semitism without hearing from the alleged perpetrators? Why does the racism and vicious hatred directed at the student council members go unmemtioned?

        I think Avinoam Baral bears some of the responsibility for the one-sided reporting of this incident, and the unsafe condition it created for his fellow student council members.

        According to EI,

        student body president Avinoam Baral, whose scandal-plagued election campaign was financed by Islamophobic anti-Palestinian property tycoon and convicted tax evader Adam Milstein, declared that the divestment resolution was “anti-Semitic.”

        http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/costly-pro-israel-pr-campaign-fails-stop-ucla-divestment

        so one can hardly claim that he understands the difference between anti-semitism and anti-Israel viewpoints.

        I did find this juxtaposition between Baral’s statement in the NY Times report and his statements made in emails to Milstein amusingly revealing.

        From the NY Times article:

        The president of the student council, Avinoam Baral, who had nominated Ms. Beyda, appeared stunned at the turn the questioning took at the session and sought at first to rule Ms. Roth’s question out of order. “I don’t feel that’s an appropriate question,” he said.

        In an interview, Mr. Baral, who is Jewish, said he “related personally to what Rachel was going through.”

        “It’s very problematic to me that students would feel that it was appropriate to ask that kind of questions, especially given the long cultural history of Jews,” he said. “We’ve been questioned all of our history: Are Jews loyal citizens? Don’t they have divided loyalties? All of these anti-Semitic tropes.”

        Versus his emails to Milstein:

        In an email thanking Milstein for his efforts, the candidates wrote that “[We] and the rest of the Bruins United slate are prepared to make sure that UCLA will maintains [sic] its allegiance to Israel.” More specifically, Oved and Baral pledged to ensure that their party would take a firm stance in support of the university’s continued investment in companies supplying Israel with arms. In the same email, the candidates express their excitement at representing “the ideologies of Israel.”

        http://electronicintifada.net/content/why-did-israel-intervene-convicted-us-felon-adam-milstein/14117

        So personally Baral admits, at least privately, that he has loyalty to apartheid Israel but wants us to disbelieve that any Jew might agree with him and have a similar loyalty, despite the fact that numerous American Jews have admitted as much with respect to their own feelings and some American Jews have even had the chutzpah to insist that most or all Jews have the same loyalty, if they are not ‘self-hating’.

        Further information about Baral, in regards to Milstein’s covert financing of Bruins United, concerns leaked Hillel emails regarding the scandal.

        One email includes an explicit request by Avinoam Baral, now president of the student government, the Undergraduate Student Association Council, for a Milstein employee to help conceal evidence of their relationship.

        see EI link above

        Sounds like Baral has his own ethics problem.

      • Donald
        March 8, 2015, 12:45 pm

        tree– Thanks. I’d suggest emailing Phil or Adam and urging them to write a follow up post on the death threats. If Annie reads your post, as I assume she will, she may save you the trouble. In fact, I will do it myself.

        I still think people should be sensitive with questions that are about a student’s religion. One can always ask a question about possible bias that cannot be fairly depicted as biased itself , though of course unfair accusations can still be made. Just stick to questions about the student’s activism or previous statements. But yeah, if we are talking about hatred then death threats are a quantum leap in seriousness above an insensitive question.

      • Keith
        March 8, 2015, 9:02 pm

        TREE- Daily Bruin: “The undergraduate student government recently took down a YouTube video of a controversial council meeting after several council members received death threats and hate mail accusing them of being anti-Semitic.”

        First of all, thank you for taking the time to research this and inform us of this aspect of the situation which most of us would otherwise be unaware of. This is raw intimidation by a group of Zionists who can be honestly described as Zionist Brown Shirts. This is organized harassment by those who whine about eternal victimhood. Who are the victims here? This is not an isolated incident. Both Israel Shahak and Noam Chomsky were harassed, Shahak enduring slurs along with attempts to get him fired, Chomsky receiving death threats. This is part of a pattern of intimidation which also serves the purpose of reinforcing Jewish tribalism. Targeted Jews will be propagandized about a rise in anti-Semitism, while Gentiles will react to blatant Jewish hostility. Perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism, good relations between Jews and non-Jews an existential threat.

      • eljay
        March 9, 2015, 8:24 am

        || Donald @ March 6, 2015, 1:17 pm ||

        Good post. I agree.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 6, 2015, 2:03 pm

      Also, do we have independent evidence of what was said during the interview? Is there a recording of it? Or are we going on the ‘evidence’ provided by certain people, who may very well have an agenda to stir up reports of ‘antisemitism’?

      We’re told that:

      ”the UCLA student council asked a candidate for the student government’s judicial board about the fact that she is Jewish and active in Jewish organizations, and that the council then debated her affiliations for 40 minutes before confirming her.”

      As others have said, there is nothing wrong with the board quizzing the candidate on her membership of ‘Jewish organisations’, just as there would be nothng wrong with them quizzing her on her membership of ‘Muslim organisaiotns, or any other sort of organisations. However, I’d be interested to know if the board really asked her ”about the fact that she is Jewish”, as opposed to her affiliation with certain organisations. If they did, that might well be an antisemitic line of questioning. But given how paranoid American universities are about political correctness, I’d still like to see a transcript of the conversation before passing judgement.

      • JustJessetr
        March 7, 2015, 10:24 am

        “As others have said, there is nothing wrong with the board quizzing the candidate on her membership of ‘Jewish organisations’, just as there would be nothng wrong with them quizzing her on her membership of ‘Muslim organisaiotns, or any other sort of organisations.”

        How you lie to yourself in the service of hiding your own animosity towards Jews. If anyone had questioned a Muslim the same way, MW, the blogoshphere and the press would be all over it too like stink on shit. And rightly so.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2015, 11:12 am

        If anyone had questioned a Muslim the same way, MW, the blogoshphere and the press would be all over it too like stink on shit. And rightly so.

        i don’t think so. the blogosphere perhaps but certainly not the press. here’s a perfect example of that. remember when Sadia Saifuddin was elected as the first muslim student regent? we covered it here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/muslim-student-who-likened-occupation-to-apartheid-is-voted-to-u-of-california-post-as-sen-feinsteins-husband-abstains
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/ucal-regents-decide-divestment-isnt-anti-semitic-except-for-feinsteins-husband-who-likens-it-to-north-korea-annexing-berkeley
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/the-latest-outrage-muslim-joins-university-of-california-board

        the usual suspects went ballistic, but the press didn’t call them out for racism or islamophobia.

        i’m curious what part of it you find so offensive? was it the “as a jewish student”?

        “….would be wrong with them quizzing her on her membership of ‘Muslim organisaiotns, or any other sort of organisations.”

        How you lie to yourself in the service of hiding your own animosity towards Jews.

        from the second link above:

        Finally, if you’re wondering about the UC Santa Cruz lecturer whom Saifuddin condemned in a petition, well, it’s more of the same:

        “And who are the primary sources of this?” she asks in the video. “Primarily the MSA [Muslim Student Association] and the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] students … they are generally motivated by very strong religious and political convictions, they have a fire in their belly, they come to the university, many of them are foreign students who come from countries and cultures where anti-Semitism is how they think about the world … These are not your ordinary student groups like College Republicans or Young Democrats. These are students who come with a serious agenda, who have ties to terrorist organizations.”

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/the-latest-outrage-muslim-joins-university-of-california-board#sthash.wTh2tZpf.dpuf

        now this is an example of racism, not because the professor “quizzing her on her membership of ‘Muslim organisaiotns” or mentioned the student groups, but because blanket statements were made about students in those groups. saying a group is political in nature is different that saying “generally motivated by very strong religious and political convictions” or “[bigoted]is how they think about the world” or “ties to terrorist organizations” ..can you see the difference?

        and nowhere did the press go crazy over this at all. in fact, this person was the catalyst for a federal program to investigate the university based on this woman’s racist accusations. in the investigation the students and university were cleared, but nowhere in the msm were there accusations that the professor was a racist. in fact i don’t think it (the video) even made headlines except on mondoweiss. and she’s still a professor.

        plus this recent campaign accusing sjp of “hate”, how is that not stereotyping? how is that accusation not hate speech?

      • philadelphialawyer
        March 7, 2015, 10:57 am

        “How you lie to yourself in the service of hiding your own animosity towards Jews. If anyone had questioned a Muslim the same way, MW, the blogosphere and the press would be all over it too like stink on shit. And rightly so.”

        LOL! If that were the case, then “MW, blogosphere and the press” would be doing nothing but!

        The truth is that Muslims are constantly questioned and practically forced to justify themselves merely for being Muslims in official, quasi official and popular settings. Being a Muslim, in the USA, means being held responsible for every evil deed committed by any Muslim, anywhere, going back to the Crusades, if not before, and extending to the end of time. Every such deed must be specifically “condemned” by every Muslim, and, beyond that, every Muslim must be able to point to specific actions that he or she has taken to prevent such acts or see that they are punished.

        Being a Muslim means always having to say you’re sorry. Or else you are “with” the terrorists!

      • piotr
        March 7, 2015, 5:33 pm

        “Being Muslim…”

        As I drive from my home state to New York state, the first town after crossing the state line is Matamoros, “slay the Moors = slay the Muslim”. I wonder how long a village Judentoten would last without a name change.

      • Walid
        March 7, 2015, 6:20 pm

        “Matamoros, “slay the Moors = slay the Muslim”.

        It’s not about slaying Muslims but a name given to a fictional St James (San Tiago) the son of Zebedee and apostle of Jesus that came out of nowhere around the year 800 to help the Christians by slaying 5000 Moors on their behalf. The full name is Santiago Matamoros.

        I’m intrigued by your crossing a state line from NY state and arriving in Matamoros. The only Matamoros I know of is across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas. In which state is the one you are talking about?

        There’s a hamlet in France named ” La-mort-aux-Juifs ‘ which means death to the Jews and another in Spain “Castrillo Matajudíos ” Jew-killing camp.

        In 2014, Spain changed the name but France refused.

      • lysias
        March 7, 2015, 6:38 pm

        There was a restaurant named “Matamoros” on University Blvd. in Silver Spring MD near where I live that recently closed down. I would hazard the guess that there are many restaurants with that name in the U.S. Perhaps what was seen was a sign for a restaurant?

      • Walid
        March 8, 2015, 12:49 am

        “There was a restaurant named “Matamoros” on University Blvd. in Silver Spring MD ”

        Thanks, Lysias.

      • piotr
        March 8, 2015, 1:09 am

        Sorry, Matamoras is named after Matamoros, and it is a village in Pennsylvania at the state line with New York as you travel on Interstate 84 — a good method to get to New England from Pennsylvania without much traffic.

        If Saint James son of Zebedee was fictional, it is a separate question. In IX-th century his tomb was discovered in Galicia, then part of the Kingdom of Asturias, and few years later he appeared, as a posthumous miracle, during the totally fictional battle for the noble cause of abolishing the Tribute of Hundred Damsels. The apparition killed 5000 Moors and thus gained the name Matamoros (mata means kill in Spanish). You must remember that a Saint has to have witnesses to three miracles, and Saint James son of Zebedee had quite a bit more than this bare minimum. For this reason it is hard to logically comprehend what happened to him.

      • Walid
        March 8, 2015, 1:29 am

        “If Saint James son of Zebedee was fictional, it is a separate question.”

        Piotr, the fictional part I was referring to was his re-appearance in 840. Santiago was also reported to be Yakov, the brother of Jesus. Remember the hoax in 2002 about the discovery alleged Saint James ossuary? Of course, it turned out to be a gimmick being pulled by an Israeli art dealer. Not surprising and I wouldn’t be surprised either that a lot of the artifacts supposedly destroyed by Israel’s pals, ISIS,are now in Israeli hands to be resold for profit. Last month we saw a historic Iraqi Torah being whisked away from Iraq by Avigdor Lieberman to be placed at the Foreign Ministry. Nation of thieves.

      • Walid
        March 8, 2015, 5:29 am

        More on the subject of the “slayer of Moors” , the French too picked it up and still use it (Matamore) along with “fanfaron” de denote a braggard. The name appeared in a 1636 play by Corneille, “L’illusion comique”:

      • seafoid
        March 8, 2015, 11:15 am

        Matamoros the concept was related to the spanish reconquista of al andalus, the muslim kingdom in the south of modern spain with its capital at granada. It was a holy war and the spaniards invoked their saints.
        The last muslims surrendered in 1492. Most converted.

        Spain then introduced a pork cult to make sure they didn’t return. Even today spanish supermarkets allocate up to 10% of space to pig meat.

      • lysias
        March 8, 2015, 3:33 pm

        Cochinillo, suckling pig, is a delicious dish in Spain. So is the Cuban equivalent, lechon.

    • JWalters
      March 6, 2015, 6:39 pm

      Excellent parallel with the fundamentalist Christian example. There have been cases of fundamentalist Christians getting control of local school boards and then imposing their delusions on the kids of the community. She was obviously being questioned about her capacity to be objective, not about her Jewishness. Phil Weiss would have passed that questioning easily. The claim that this is about her Jewishness is another desperate, intellectually dishonest distortion. Nagourney sounds like he’s trying to hint at that, but without getting himself fired.

  6. amigo
    March 6, 2015, 12:44 pm

    It,s not as if there has never been a debate about Muslim students or pro Palestinian students or Professors .

    Amazing arrogance.You can question Arabs all you care to but never ever ever question a Jewish student,s background.

    Having said that , this sounds like desperation from the apologists for Apartheid and land theft .The ship is sinking and all the life jackets have been snagged.Grab on to any flotsam and jetsam going your way.

    SOS.

  7. eljay
    March 6, 2015, 12:55 pm
    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 6, 2015, 2:45 pm

      Thanks.

      Can’t claim to have read the whole thing, but this seemed significant:

      ”Roth says the issue isn’t that she’sJewish but the cases that keep coming are in regards to certain communities that the way its presented and I would never deny someone
      something because they are Jewish or their identity. This appointment is going to go for
      years and I understand the political significance of this position and
      I’m not antiSemitic”

      Seems to me that the discussion was about whether the candidate’s membership of Zionist organisations would affect her ability to be neutral – a quite reasonable line of discussion imho. There doesn’t appear to have been anything said about the fact that she was Jewish per se, that’s just the usual Zionist victim spin.

  8. Sycamores
    March 6, 2015, 12:58 pm

    did the Avi Oved scandal have anything to do with the student council conduct? http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/milstein-california-candidates

    • Abierno
      March 6, 2015, 3:40 pm

      This is an important consideration. Also, Mondoweiss’ Alex Kane
      wrote about the highly inflammatory anti Palestinian posters which were anonymously put up on the UCLA campus less than a month ago, as well as instances of overtly Islamaphobic slurs directed to female students wearing hijab.

      The roles played by Stand With US, an Israeli-funded organization, as well as other organizations, capped by the Avi Oved scandal would suggest that council members might be expected to have well founded concerns regarding this student’s bias and ability to address judicial issues beyond the framework of her own political meme. Also, again referencing Avi Oved, what other, additional organizations does she represent?

      Not surprisingly, none of the above issues have been mentioned
      as a plausible context for the judicial board’s actions. Also, Ms.
      Breda did not receive the necessary number of votes until a faculty member intervened. The larger issue being raised on UC campuses is whether outside players should be able to surreptitiously fund
      candidates for student positions in order to achieve larger political
      goals. Hillel donations were directly involved in the Adam Milstein,
      Avi Oved scandal.

      This story has a considerable back story, which any responsible journalist (as opposed to pamphleteer) should incorporate into the background. The jump to national anti Semitism is pure propaganda, particularly in omitting the Islamophobic activities,
      the tensions between Students for Justice in Palestine and Hillel,
      and finally the several numbers of outside Israeli organizations and supporters who are bringing their weight to bear in affairs that are
      ostensibly the provenance of the university campus and students.

  9. chet
    March 6, 2015, 1:16 pm

    I’m confused — does the definition now include “concern regarding
    anti – anti – Zionist views”?

  10. eGuard
    March 6, 2015, 1:30 pm

    Adam Nagourney/NYT themselves gives the cause: [anti-Semitism] … a byproduct of animosity toward the policies of Israel.

    Yes Adam, Israel is the cause. Its policies cause it.

  11. eGuard
    March 6, 2015, 1:34 pm

    Interview question: active in Jewish organizations? is to the point. Being active in Hillel means being prohibiting free speech.

    Silencing persons for their opinion. Such a person should not govern students.

    • Mooser
      March 6, 2015, 7:03 pm

      “Interview question: active in Jewish organizations?”

      And that can mean, or will be assumed to mean, only one thing until there is a visible, active non-Zionist Jewish denomination.

      • piotr
        March 8, 2015, 1:57 am

        Are Satmars invisible? As we are discussing miracles like slaying 5000 Moors after mere 800 years of being dead, now come 100,000 invisible Satmars. On edit: probably few Satmars at UCLA, and even less in Hillels anywhere.

  12. Walker
    March 6, 2015, 2:21 pm

    Unfortunately the key question was phrased poorly.

    Ms Beyla never should have been asked “Given that you are a Jewish student . . .”. It never follows that because someone has a particular background they automatically think and act a certain way.

    Her leadership in Hillel could certainly be grounds for discussion. But not the fact that she’s a Jew.

    • MRW
      March 6, 2015, 7:43 pm

      Her leadership in Hillel could certainly be grounds for discussion. But not the fact that she’s a Jew.

      Why not? It was organizations, not just Hillel. President Kennedy got asked if he could be fair to all Americans even though he was a Catholic. Big deal.

      What I want to know is who ran to the NYT with this story? Or who tipped off the NYT to send one of their longtime reporters–instead of relying on a local stringer–to cover a candidate interview for the judicial board of a university student government across the country?

      Where’s Norman Finkelstein when you need him?

    • Ellen
      March 8, 2015, 9:30 am

      Yes, if it was phrased like that it is very poor style. Asking a question filled with stated assumptions. Best would have been to simply ask if Ms Beyla could have any potential, real or perceived, conflicts of interests?

      That is a standard question for anyone taking a leadership position.

  13. hophmi
    March 6, 2015, 2:52 pm

    Just can’t accept that your rhetoric is hateful, can you? No, no, you guys couldn’t be bigots. Even in a situation as obvious as this you can’t acknowledge the pervasiveness of antisemitism.

    • seafoid
      March 6, 2015, 3:36 pm

      Do you think Jews should be congratulated for Gaza, Hoppy ?
      Anti-Semitism has been reduced to meaninglessness when legitimate criticism of Israeli barbarity is classed under the term.

    • echinococcus
      March 6, 2015, 3:38 pm

      Hophmi, how can you brag of the fact that an overwhelming majority of Jewish people do support Zionism and at the same time deplore the fact that people believe your claim and act on it? This almost sounds like an advanced mental condition.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 11:56 am

        “This almost sounds like an advanced mental condition”

        Make sure to read Hophmi’s manifesto, “The Phills will Fall away”. That’s where Hophmi comes in to see what condition the Jewish condition is in.

    • eljay
      March 6, 2015, 3:48 pm

      || hophmeee: Just can’t accept that your rhetoric is hateful, can you? No, no, you guys couldn’t be bigots. Even in a situation as obvious as this you can’t acknowledge the pervasiveness of antisemitism. ||

      Anti-Semitism exists. Homophobia exists. Homosexuals are not entitled to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state. Jewish people are not entitled to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

      Jews and homosexuals – along with all other people in the world – are entitled to justice, accountability and equality, universally and consistently applied.

    • Keith
      March 6, 2015, 4:33 pm

      HOPHMI- “Even in a situation as obvious as this you can’t acknowledge the pervasiveness of antisemitism.”

      Anti-Semitism as in Jew hatred? Jeez, Hophmi, I can almost feel your fear. Perhaps one day you will be able to flee your Wall Street Ghetto and make your way to Harlem where you will be free, free at last!

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 10:43 am

        “Perhaps one day you will be able to flee your Wall Street Ghetto and make your way to Harlem where you will be free, free at last! “

        Somehow, I have a hard time seeing Hophmi getting on board the “A” train!

    • Chu
      March 6, 2015, 5:42 pm

      Bigot? I recall you want Jerusalem as the undivided capitol of Israel, which means eradicating Palestinians from their city. ~Actual that’s more about blind support of a criminal action than bigotry. But it’s standard fare for zealots.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2015, 7:17 pm

        “chu” I am pretty sure “Hophmi” believes Israel has already annexed at least half of Jerusalem.

    • Mooser
      March 6, 2015, 7:15 pm

      “Just can’t accept that your rhetoric is hateful, can you?”

      Of course not, who wants to have hateful rhetoric? Nobody, except haters. And the Jewish religion mixed into the Zionist project creates additional difficulties in talking about the subject.
      And so in light of that, people will, as they are doing here, work on and refine their rhetoric, to make sure it addresses the subject in an exact and non-prejudicial way Thanks for helping in this process, Hophmi. After all, why shouldn’t critics of Israel allow themselves the same rhetorical latitude you appropriate when, say, analyzing an article of Phil’s on Netanyahoo’s speech and the Jewish condition? That stuff about the “disease” of “self-hate” and “internalizing persecution” and oh yes, the motives of Jews who convert will really liberate the rhetoric around here.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 12:23 pm

        So I ask you again, Hophmi why can’t other people talk about the Jews the way Jews talk about each other?. You don’t recommend your own standards in talking about Jews to others?
        Life doesn’t work that way, Hophmi.

    • MRW
      March 6, 2015, 7:47 pm

      Just can’t accept that your rhetoric is hateful, can you?

      To hear Danaa tell it, hate speech against us (Jew and non-Jew alike) is worse in Israel.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 7, 2015, 10:05 am

      here’s what i find confusing. it’s very common for people to use their self identities when running for public office. ie: my christian faith informs this and that bla bla bla. another example, the other day there was a video of some msm w/pundits about the netanyahu speech and one of the guys was from the log cabin republicans, and he started out saying he supported israel because as a gay person they are free in israel or some such. however, we are supposed to think it is then un polite to initiate a question to a gay/out politician by saying – does being gay inform your opinion on this issue? is that the case? is that something so obviously “hate speech”? or only when it’s applied to jewish people?

      because i can really see this as being confusing to comprehend. we’re continually being informed that being jewish means caring about israel (even tho i don’t think that is the case, but that doesn’t stop the watch dogs from saying this left and right). and then someone, a foreigner actually, perhaps not completely indoctrinated about how things are supposed to be framed here in our ‘normal’ discourse, asked a simple question of someone who has held leadership roles in the university jewish groups (groups that are political in nature via their own ‘rules’) about how that identity might inform their decisions, and all hell breaks loose about how this is so blatantly anti semitic.

      i mean, how is a normal person supposed to understand this as being hateful? embarrassing perhaps to a closeted (or not) gay politician but like the example of the log cabin republican, where being gay is part of their political identity, if a person holds a leadership position in a politicized jewish (zionist) organization (like hillel) and the issues being considered by the student government deal directly with the issue, why isn’t it fair to ask questions about it?

      not really that different than asking a jewish politician, like say wasserman, how being jewish informs her support for legislation favoring israel? it’s a fair thing to ask. and it would be normal for her to say, i support israel therefore i would oppose legislation seeking to sanction companies profiting from the occupation.

      does anyone think that beyda doesn’t have an opinion about bds? why is it wrong to ask her, as a jew, do you support israel? or does being jewish inform your opinion about israel?

      i really don’t get how this is hate speech at all, much less “obvious” hate speech.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 10:51 am

        Annie, I think we should model our discourse on the exact, non-prejudicial, almost clinical language that Hophmi uses in his “The Phills will Fall Away” essay. ( March 1, 2015, 7:30 pm)

        Certainly, one can find no “obvious hate speech” in that epistle!

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2015, 12:11 pm

        you mean this shrill screed? http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/netanyahus-speech-israel#comment-751062

        oy vey. did you noticed i used his exact wording (switching out the characters of course) beneath him to make a point? he didn’t respond to my creative approach.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 12:43 pm

        ” oy vey. did you noticed i used his exact wording (switching out the characters of course) beneath him to make a point?”

        Of course I did, Annie. Just shows to go you that when you’ve got a great out-reach strategy, it works for everybody! Wouldn’t surprise me if Hophmi moved from the Boards-of-Directors, to the Presidency of both out-reach organizations he can’t tell us the names of.

        From what I’ve heard while in a trance, Hophmi’s essy “The Phills Will Fall Away” has been picked up by Adelson’s paper as an editorial.

      • tree
        March 7, 2015, 5:01 pm

        annie

        i really don’t get how this is hate speech at all, much less “obvious” hate speech.

        Just remember that the hophmi working definition of hate speech is any speech that hophmi hates, and then you’ll understand.

        There was nothing “hateful” about the question, but it did give hophmi a chance to vent his own spleen in a hateful way, so therefore it qualifies as hate speech. His logic is warped but its consistent in this regard.

    • pjdude
      March 7, 2015, 11:49 am

      because despite what you and yours claim its not all that pervasive. blind hate is very rare. anti semitism is only pervasive if you include legit criticism of Israel in it which i’m willing to bet most recorded incidients are. zionist college groups have trained colligiante jews to be hypersensitive to criticism of Israel and treat as a personal attack on them and hence they label it anti semitic when its not.

  14. Marshall
    March 6, 2015, 3:18 pm

    This BS article probably just means there’s something very damaging to Israel in the pipeline, or maybe the Times just got scared of what I’m sure were many accusations that their coverage of Bibi’s speech was Bad For The Jews. Either way, the NYT editors have more or less stated openly that they consciously try to balance coverage of I/P issues out of cravenness, so when they’re scraping the barrel to produce this kind of thing, it’s probably good news.

  15. John Douglas
    March 6, 2015, 4:36 pm

    I’m wondering if there isn’t an end-of-Israel, end-of-the-dream anxiety floating around among American Jews. Just a feeling, no real evidence.
    But I was with a friend last evening on the M train to east 86th Street in NY. I was telling her of a Israel group-travel company owned by a close non-Jewish relative of mine and her Jewish husband and how, when they broke up, they split the existing groups into Jewish and Christian. There was a young man facing us seeming to take an interest in what I was saying, though I doubt he could pick up anything more than occasional words. As I walked out of the train he came quickly past me from the rear, looked over and said, “You better be careful what you say about Jews because I’m one Jew who’ll kick your ass,” and walked on. I twice called him back but he rushed out. Somehow he formed the idea that I was dissing him or his Jewishness. He didn’t at all seem like a punk. I couldn’t help the impression that something had him deeply scared.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2015, 10:54 am

      ‘I’m wondering if there isn’t an end-of-Israel, end-of-the-dream anxiety floating around among American Jews. Just a feeling, no real evidence.”

      That, my friend, is Pre-traumatic Stress. I shouldn’t wonder they have got a hell of a case of it.

  16. atime forpeace
    March 6, 2015, 4:56 pm

    These Zio zealots will lobby for making Israel bashing a hate crime based on some Hollywood style incident. Anti semitism is their historical traveling companion. We live in the age of “”Never waste a good crisis”.

    Their arrogance causes them to go further than anyone would expect, hubris is their mothers milk.

    • Pixel
      March 7, 2015, 12:20 am

      “You never let a serious crisis go to waste…”
      — Rahm Emanuel, November, 2008 Wall Street Journal Forum
      ……………………………….
      “First of all, what I said was never let a good crisis go to waste…”
      — Rahm Emanuel, January 11, 2011 press conference

  17. Minglewood
    March 7, 2015, 7:37 am

    I question whether the whole incident was a set-up, considering Roth is also a Jewish name.

    “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

    • Annie Robbins
      March 7, 2015, 9:09 am
      • traintosiberia
        March 7, 2015, 9:50 am

        This fact exposes her real interest. She comes out of a different country and lodges herself with strongly pro Israeli groups who maintain strong round the year presence in the campus devoting the time and energy advocating Israel.
        Its like having a student from Ural region in 1970 who comes to US and joins socialists parties and groups or hobnobs with Troskytes orSocial Democrat and then face a situation where the student has to be included on the board that seeks to inquire freedom of expression, human right, religious sensitivities, free market economy and issues of self rule .

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2015, 10:17 am

        She ….lodges herself with strongly pro Israeli groups who maintain strong round the year presence in the campus

        roth? are you just speculating? maybe she’s pro bds. the article just says she’s “active in student government”.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 7, 2015, 12:48 pm

        Interesting that Roth is not American. I think that explains a lot. English is not her first language, and she is probably not fully aware of the extreme paranoia of appearing to be even the teensiest weeniest bit ‘antisemitic’ in America.

        I suspect an American interviewer, rather than refer to Beyda as a ‘Jewish student’ – which admittedly is not right – would have said something far more PC like ”given that you are active in certain campus organisations…” And while the ‘antisemitic’ accusations would no doubt have still been made, as they always are, there would have been much less of a fuss about it.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2015, 11:07 am

      “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

      One day, I hope, a Ms. Beyda would be able to look her straight in the eye and say “Jewish”? Please don’t confuse Zionism with my Jewish religious and cultural activities and interests.”

      One day, I hope.

      • Waterbuoy
        March 7, 2015, 11:29 am

        We live in hope.
        I DO believe that there are some, small minded or intellectually lazy (in my judgement), who may be moved to antisemitism by the increased awareness of Israel’s actions.
        The expanding number of Jews from Chomsky, through ‘present company’, to today’s youth, who are active……. in fact LEADERS….. in criticizing Israeli human rights abuses, is the best antidote.
        I love the following article for that reason:
        http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/corey-levine/israeli-reservists_b_5625743.html

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 2:04 pm

        “We live in hope.”

        Up until recently, it was the right of, and the frequently used strategy for, an American Jew who was displeased (or worse) by any aspect of the religion or indeed, its cultural and social ramifications, to simply modify or attenuate his/her relationship with organized Judaism.

        But that my not be enough any more.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2015, 12:54 pm

      “considering Roth is also a Jewish name.”

      Yes, I still get such nachos thinking that David Lee is one of the tribe.

      • eljay
        March 7, 2015, 1:16 pm

        || Mooser: Yes, I still get such nachos thinking that David Lee is one of the tribe. ||

        But is he your ice-cream man and do you stop him when he’s passing by?

        On second thought, I don’t want to know. ;-)

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 4:56 pm

        I like David Lee Roth quite a bit. He never seems to take himself too seriously.

      • gamal
        March 7, 2015, 9:19 pm

        “considering Roth is also a Jewish name.”

        of course as God Himself was Roth

      • eljay
        March 8, 2015, 9:17 am

        || Mooser: I like David Lee Roth quite a bit. He never seems to take himself too seriously. ||

        Funny, I’ve always gotten the impression that he takes himself far too seriously – that the world revolves around “Diamond Dave”. Doesn’t make me like “classic” VH any less, though. :-)

    • piotr
      March 8, 2015, 3:01 am

      Roth is a frequent Jewish name, but in itself it is a German name and there are many non-Jewish German Roths. There are also Roths native to Britain.

      • OyVey00
        March 8, 2015, 3:18 am

        Yeah like Claudia Roth, head of Germany’s eco-marxists.

      • Mayhem
        March 8, 2015, 7:48 pm

        Having a name like Roth doesn’t mean that you aren’t anti-semitic? Also it is well known that some of the most ferocious anti-semites are Jews.

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2015, 10:57 am

        ” Also it is well known that some of the most ferocious anti-semites are Jews.”

        Name one, chump! Go ahead, fool! You stepped in it, now try and wipe it off. Please, tell us about “ferocious” Jewish “anti-semites!

        Remember, “Mayhem”: “The Phils Will Fall Away!”

      • lysias
        March 9, 2015, 11:02 am

        Also it is well known that some of the most ferocious anti-semites are Jews.

        “Как известно.” It is also well-known that “it is well known that” is a phrase that was much favored by Stalinists. (And by Stalin himself, in its Russian version.)

      • seafoid
        March 9, 2015, 11:23 am

        If “anti-Semite” means putting Jews in harm’s way then the Zionist leadership are up there with the best of them.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC5E8ie2pdM

      • eljay
        March 9, 2015, 11:46 am

        || Mayhemeee: … it is well known that some of the most ferocious anti-semites are Jews. ||

        Yup, especially Zio-supremacists who:
        – conflate all Jews with Zionism; and
        – claim that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews.

  18. JustJessetr
    March 7, 2015, 10:14 am

    If this article was to be written about Mexican, or Blacks, or Asians, or women with all the attendant demands for extra evidence which would be ignored or laughed at in the comments section anyway, it would be a classic right-wing article article defending bigotry. And leftists would deplore it by saying that Mexicans, Blacks and Asians and women encounter hostility at all socio-economic levels, we all know it, so why should they be put in a position of having to defend their claims of hostility?

    The clearest indication of a bigot is the ever-repeated demand for evidence (evidence that is summarily dismissed as insufficient, or isolated, or ignored) that bigotry has taken place. Jews are tired of having to give evidence time and time again. BDS supports lots of Jew-bashing tropes disguised as animosity towards Israel. Some people in the movement aren’t Jew-bashers, some are. It’s easy to spot the difference.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2015, 11:02 am

      “Jews are tired of having to give evidence time and time again.”

      Well, get a good night’s sleep “JustJessetJr”, there’s plenty more depositions to come. Better get used to it. Some of them will be a lot tougher.

    • pjdude
      March 7, 2015, 11:54 am

      maybe people wouldn’t ask for evidence if it weren’t for the mulitude of times jews have been caught fabricating or misrepresenting things as anti semitism. and at the same time those groups don’t have a history of labeling anything critical toward them as automatically bigoted.

    • traintosiberia
      March 7, 2015, 12:22 pm

      Do they? Can you give one example?
      BDS has been called Antisemitic . Denying the neocon’s assertion that Iran has a nuclear program is Antisemitic. Sending aid to Gaza has been termed Antisemitic.
      . Calling neocon movement a Jewish movement has been called anti Semitic . Often the image of Neville Chamberlian and Hitler have been used instead of Antisemitic charges by Osraeli leaders and supporters to distort Syria, Iranian,or Palestinian issues .
      Government activities against Israeli espionages have been labeled as Antisemitic. Public utterances against the war on Gaza by politicians have been called Antisemitic. UN has. Been called same. Goldstein report has been called Antisemitic. Withholding financial supports to illegal settlement construction has been called Antisemitic.

      Antisemitism is a charge that is used to defame those who criticize Israeli political military, Intelligence ,,economic activities ,and coercive lobbying activities .
      How one would react if tomorrow anti war activities in college campuses are seen discussing ,sitting down,sharing,and exchanging money with say Russian or Syrian lobbies or if ever they did with Libyan or Iraqi regime’s supporters?

    • eljay
      March 7, 2015, 3:50 pm

      || JustJessetreee: The clearest indication of a bigot is the ever-repeated demand for evidence (evidence that is summarily dismissed as insufficient, or isolated, or ignored) that bigotry has taken place. ||

      You are so right. Every time Zio-supremacists like you deny the Nakba and make references to “Pallywood”, you’re showing your true, hateful and immoral colours.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2015, 5:15 pm

      ” And leftists would deplore it by saying that Mexicans, Blacks and Asians and women encounter hostility at all socio-economic levels, we all know it,”

      And you are saying the same thing applies to Jews in America? That anybody who had the compassion and insight to understand even the subtle forms (let alone the outright ones) of racism and sexism directed at those groups (” Mexican, or Blacks, or Asians, or women”) would, in an honest and ethical world, be a supporter of Jewish self-determination, normalization and legitimation? Have I got that right?

    • oldgeezer
      March 8, 2015, 4:07 am

      “Jews are tired of having to give evidence time and time again ”

      So in your words, JustJessetr, the intersection between Jewish and western values is that we should dispense with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

      I’m good with that(facetious). Are you? Israel being serial violator of international law and human rights law may not like the consequences.

      It’s not like we have ever seen false statements, charges and cries of AS from Israel and it’s immoral supporters. Nosiree.

  19. traintosiberia
    March 7, 2015, 11:12 am

    Annie
    Sorry. I should have been more explicit . I made the comments only after reading the posts penned by tree on this site regarding the involvements with Jewish sorority and Hillel on one side and involvement of various outside players with Hillel

    • Annie Robbins
      March 7, 2015, 12:01 pm

      well, i’m just not sure where roth stands on the issue. she may or may not been part of the hillel group but somehow i doubt it. or doubt she was a plant, although i suppose she could have been or she could have been asked by someone to lob that question on their behalf to garner publicity. i really have no idea.

  20. tommy
    March 7, 2015, 11:43 am

    Several years ago while vacationing in LA, driving down Wilshire Blvd past the UCLA campus to visit LACMA, students were waving several huge Israel flags. I honked and flipped them off. At the time I did not think that response appeared to be anti-Semitic. The response was meant to demonstrate opposition to Israel’s crimes against humanity, and these students support of it.

  21. Marlene P. Newesri
    March 7, 2015, 11:51 am

    What I have major issues with (as always) are the double standards that are utilized.
    For instance, if this student was registered with the U.S. government as a “Jew.” and if she carried identification which specifically noted that she was a “Jew.” then no one would have to question her identity. But of course, there would be a major uproar in this country and the allegations would be like reviving the Nazi era (which I would 100% agree with).

    On the other hand, a foreigner entering Israel can be asked that question and all citizens of Israel do carry identification as to what their religion or ethnic backgrounds are (which are noted as their “nationality”. ) You will be treated accordingly at the airport in Israel according to your identity. All Jewish citizens are registered as “Jews” and the same is noted on their identification cards. So why isn’t there an uproar about this Nazi-like system? The answer is obvious. Because being “Jewish” in Israel gives you privilege over everyone else. Everything in Israel is according to your “identification.” Yet, when “privilege” is concerned, then it is perfectly acceptable.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 7, 2015, 12:56 pm

      ”All Jewish citizens are registered as “Jews” and the same is noted on their identification cards.”

      Is that still the case? I read somewhere that the ID cards were changed a few years ago, and no longer mention the holder’s religion. Though I’d imagine that in most cases, the holder’s name would make such explicit identification superfluous.

      • a blah chick
        March 7, 2015, 2:06 pm

        I believe they did take this off their ID cards but if its got a magnetic strip on the back, as many ID cards all over the world do, then they still have access to which “tribe” you belong to.

      • yonah fredman
        March 7, 2015, 3:23 pm

        There is no black strip on the back of the Israeli ID card.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 4:52 pm

        “There is no black strip on the back of the Israeli ID card.”

        Nobody cares what color the strip is, Yonah. The point is, Israel registers its citizens by categories of their own devising, with different rights and laws afforded each category. Do you deny that?

      • yonah fredman
        March 7, 2015, 5:20 pm

        I don’t deny that.

        But that doesn’t mean that falsehoods are suddenly true.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 7:38 pm

        “But that doesn’t mean that falsehoods are suddenly true.”

        So then we will retract the falsehood with this retraction: Although Israel uses a racist system of classifying residents for the purpose of denying Palestinians and others, their rights there is no “black strip” on an Israeli ID card.

        We got it, Yonah, lots of racism yes, but “black strips”, no. You good with that?

    • oldgeezer
      March 8, 2015, 3:56 am

      @yonah
      “yonah fredman
      March 7, 2015, 5:20 pm

      I don’t deny that.

      But that doesn’t mean that falsehoods are suddenly true.”

      That also does mean you are more interested in deflection than discourse despite all your previous infantile whines.

      • jon s
        March 8, 2015, 8:17 am
      • Marlene P. Newesri
        March 8, 2015, 9:55 am

        ]
        Let’s face it folks. Israel is obsessed with the “identification” of its citizens, none of whom are “Israelis” because there does not exist an “Israeli” nationality, and therefore all are designated as having many various nationalities, including “Jewish.” True that the new identification cards does not show in writing the religion/ethnicity of a citizen, however, you must still be registered with that information, and there are other ways that one can determine your “identification.” It can be a Hebrew date of birth on your card, it can be a series of asterisks where the “nationality” once was in writing, it can be by other methods, including an ID number. If you take these cards and put it into an electronic system, you would know immediately who is the bearer of the ID card. How do you think that one knows who are officially designated as “Arabs” that go to the airport so they can be treated differently. There are Arab Jews who also have Arab names. I am a citizen of the United States, which renders me an “American.” There is nothing else to define me other than how I personally choose to define myself. Israel defines who you are and no one is is an “Israeli.” I know this can become complex, but it is again Israel’s obsession with who are Jews and who are not that is the problem. Just because it’s used for privilege does not make it acceptable.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2015, 12:29 pm

        “Jon s”, how dumb do you think the people who read Mondoweiss are?

        Do you really think they are that stupid or that badly informed?

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2015, 12:31 pm

        “oldgeezer”, I’m with Yonah! Never again the yellow star, and Never again the “black strip!”

      • Marlene P. Newesri
        March 8, 2015, 2:08 pm

        An article from Ha’aretz dating back to 2011. This is pure sickness, but again, it is Israel’s obsession.

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/interior-minister-plans-to-return-nationality-clause-to-id-cards-1.368780

      • eljay
        March 8, 2015, 2:43 pm

        || Marlene P. Newesri @ Let’s face it folks. Israel is obsessed with the “identification” of its citizens … ||

        Well, sure. You can’t properly run a supremacist state unless you keep track of who’s “in” and who’s “out”.

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2015, 1:12 pm

        From Marlene’s Haaretz link, the headline:

        “Interior Minister plans to return ‘nationality’ clause to ID cards
        Eli Yishai said however that he still opposes classifying Reform and Conservative communities as Jews;”

        At Israel Farm, some Jews are more equal than others.

  22. Kay24
    March 7, 2015, 12:02 pm

    A very good article by Farhang Jahanpour in Informed Comment/Juan Cole.

    He gives Philip Weiss credit too:

    “As Philip Weiss, one of the most thoughtful Jewish commentators, has pointed out the great success of Jewish lobbies in America had been due to the fact that they acted quietly and beneath the radar. Pro-Israeli lobbying was like a “night flower” that could only bloom in the dark. However, by bringing it into the glare of publicity and also involving it in partisan politics, he has weakened it. Weiss argued: “The scandal over the Netanyahu speech to Congress is in the end a story about the Jewish condition in the United States.”

    http://www.juancole.com/2015/03/insulting-netanyahu-everything.html

  23. Scott
    March 7, 2015, 12:55 pm

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/who-knew-haven-monahan-had-transferred-from-uva-to-ucla/#comments

    There’s a post and some interesting comments on this affair on Steve Sailer’s (generally right wing) blog. Comments, including one with a photo of Ms. Roth, perhaps interesting to some. Apologies to anyone offended by my linking to Steve.
    If anyone asks, I’ll explain the many “Haven Monahan” references.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2015, 1:52 pm

      Yes, there’s a lot of confusion around this issue, and a lot of rather unfortunate tropes going around. It’ll all have to be cleared up and refined to facilitate understanding and dialogue.
      After all, it should be no problem to make clear which of the activities related to self-identifications as a Jew are religious, cultural or social in nature (and of no concern to anybody) and which are Zionist.
      And I am sure that out of sense of tribal unity and respect for non-Jews, (and Jews of differing opinions and principles) Zionists will assist us in making these delineations quite clear.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2015, 7:31 pm

        Shorter Mooser: “I wonder when the first ‘Don’t blame me, I’m anti-Zionist’ bumper-stickers will appear?”

      • Philemon
        March 7, 2015, 9:06 pm

        I say you should copyright them now – of course, if you don’t, I will. I’m probably gonna want one.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 7, 2015, 10:35 pm

      oh my. someone in comments on your link left a pdf to the next ucla council hearing and it opened w/public comments and 3 jewish students read the riot act to the 4 people on the council who originally voted against the appt. the week before (including their demands!) it’s right on the top of the pdf and worth the read: https://www.usac.ucla.edu/documents/minutes/Minutes%2002%2017%2015.pdf

      • oldgeezer
        March 8, 2015, 12:07 am

        Well these kids(?) are likely to succumb to the pressure and do as demanded of them. I would hope not.

        There is no argument that the question – given your Jewish background – was inappropriate and potentially an indicator of bias.

        To suggest the entire exchange was AS against the entire Jewish student body is asinine and that is further compounded by the error of those speakers suggesting that Hillel is anything but a political group. I have no doubts it didn’t start that way but it is what is at the moment. Nothing but another zionist indoctrination and disinformation organization.

      • tree
        March 8, 2015, 1:22 am

        They weren’t just “3 Jewish students”, annie. They self-identified as representatives of the Hillel Student Board, who were incensed that Hillel was categorized as a political group and part of a “community that’s very invested in USAC and very specific outcomes”, despite the fact that UCLA Hillel was intimately involved in the financial scandal of outside funding from an Islamophobe for the USAC candidates of Bruins United. UCLA Hillel IS a political group that seeks to wrap itself in a cloak of a religious fraternal organization in order to pre-empt any criticism of its political activities with the bogus charge of anti-semitism.

      • oldgeezer
        March 8, 2015, 3:18 am

        @tree

        They certainly were incensed at being classed as a political group but they certainly were just that when hillel decided to filter dissenting voices to their agenda,

        I would think that these students are smart enough to know the difference and tell these scummy reps from hellall to talk a long walk off a short wharf but that is not likely.

        Whether it’s killing them in Palestine or indoctrinating them elsewhere the zionist preoccupation with children is unhealthy for everyone. You there dersh????

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2015, 12:39 pm

        You know, it’s really pretty simple; when talking to somebody about Zionism, talk about Zionism. Don’t even mention the word “Jewish” LET THEM BRING THAT UP!!!! And they will, you can count on it.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2015, 1:03 pm

        “To suggest the entire exchange was AS against the entire Jewish student body is asinine and that is further compounded by the error of those speakers suggesting that Hillel is anything but a political group.”

        Hillel is so much more than just a “political group”! A lot more! Hillel is also a delicious dessert topping and an excellent floor wax.

  24. traintosiberia
    March 7, 2015, 5:11 pm

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/07/ted-cruz-bob-menendez-indictment-political-motivation
    This story is getting complex . Menendez is being supported by Cruz. against Justice dept and Obama . His theory itsbeing done to retaliate.
    But NY times takes a different route. Does mention this angle though.

    But one thing we learn from the charges that Menendez exchanged favors with Dr Melgen like donation,free vacation,free flying from doctor . He returned the favor by lobbying Medicare .
    Isit something new? Hasn’t he been doing same thing for Israel for years?

  25. Kay24
    March 8, 2015, 3:44 am

    If this is not hostile treatment, and collective punishment of Palestinians, the I don’t know what is:

    “IDF cancels status of firing zone to enable expansion of nearby settlement
    Order signed in January will allow for expansion of Ma’aleh Adumim; army continuing to demolish Palestinian homes in the Jordan Valley claiming they are in firing zones.

    GOC Central Command Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon signed an order in January canceling the status of an army firing zone in the Jordan Valley, which will allow for the expansion of the settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. However, the army continues to demolish Palestinian homes in the Jordan Valley claiming they are in firing zones. ”

    Haaretz

    US TAX MONEY AT WORK.

    • oldgeezer
      March 8, 2015, 3:54 am

      It’s a violation of the Geneva Conventions which dictates the land should be returned to the inhabitants once it’s no longer required for valid military purposes.

      Wait a few hours. Hophmi , Yonah or Dabakr will be along shortly to detail how someone looked at them sideways when they were 5 years old therefore justifying this crime.

      • Kay24
        March 8, 2015, 4:07 am

        “Wait a few hours. Hophmi , Yonah or Dabakr will be along shortly to detail how someone looked at them sideways when they were 5 years old therefore justifying this crime”

        You certainly have studied their habits well OG. You are right, if a Palestinian sheep passes gas, it could be a reason for these land grabs, according to these apologists. Heh.
        Their excuses get lamer by the day.

  26. Citizen
    March 8, 2015, 11:20 am

    Fox News channel pushed the view the subject incident shows rising tide of anti-semitism on US campuses.

  27. seafoid
    March 8, 2015, 11:27 am

    Zionism is as bad as the klan when it comes to Gaza. Hillel , the adl, the wzo, aipac and all the other majors stand four square behind israeli sadism. And the whining about antisemitism is 24/7. Jewish agency woukd be amazing. Imagine Zionism taking responsibility for a change.

    • Mooser
      March 9, 2015, 11:04 am

      Only Jews can effect that change, shifting the blame from Judaism to Zionism. If it matter enough to us to do it.

      • seafoid
        March 9, 2015, 11:26 am

        “Jew” doesn’t mean “asshole” whereas “Zionist’ does.
        This just needs a sum for PR dissemination, Mooser. It shouldn’t be such a big deal.

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2015, 1:17 pm

        “This just needs a sum for PR dissemination, Mooser. It shouldn’t be such a big deal.”

        Well, Seafoid, I am compelled to asseverate I cannot agree with you on that. It’ll be a big deal, a bigger deal than The Trefa Banquet.

        It’ll be the biggest deal for a long time in Judaism.

  28. Kathleen
    March 8, 2015, 12:21 pm

    “No statistics, no research” Well this would not be the first time that the New York Bloody Times would have allowed exaggerated and dangerous claims to be printed at the top of a page. They have their yes “bloody” fingerprints all over the horrific invasion of Iraq. And the owners, editors etc do not care. Who can ever forget Judy “I was fucking right” Miller and how the NYBT’s allowed her horrific WMD claims to be printed without real “research.” from multiple sources.

    Sounds like this young lady was unduly questioned. However as Phil and James have pointed out there is no “evidence” of such a “surge” provided.

  29. Mooser
    March 8, 2015, 3:14 pm

    Hey, now that I think about it there is a special, unique Jewish, role in the conversation about Zionism!
    Only Jews themselves, really, can make it clear “Jewish” and “Zionist” are not synonymous. And nobody else will do that for us.

    • MRW
      March 9, 2015, 7:09 am

      Only Jews themselves, really, can make it clear “Jewish” and “Zionist” are not synonymous. And nobody else will do that for us.

      No, Mooser. Jews won’t let anybody other than Jews do that for you. Big diff.

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2015, 1:22 pm

        “No, Mooser. Jews won’t let anybody other than Jews do that for you. Big diff.”

        Certainly not on my account! Please, go ahead, be my guest, save us the trouble, do the job. Please, don’t wait around for us to do it, you go right on ahead and get started. I’m not even going to ask you how you would go about it, I turn the entire thing over to you. It’s not like I was looking forward to it.

  30. The Hasbara Buster
    March 8, 2015, 7:32 pm

    NOT ANTISEMITIC AT ALL!!!

    In the 2005 Senate hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the nominee whether he would put his Roman Catholic beliefs aside as Chief Justice, like John Kennedy had done as President.

    During the same hearings, Senator Arlen Specter asked Roberts if his faith would affect his opinions on the bench.

    Neither Senator was called a bigot for asking those questions, and not one commentator described the hearings as an instance of pure and raw anti-Catholicism.

    In the case of the UCLA Jewish student, and in a University where BDS is an issue, it was thoroughly appropriate to ask her if her affiliations with Jewish groups would influence her decisions on the judicial board. Too bad the scared students who asked the question rushed to apologize before informing themselves about the standard practices in hearings across the United States.

  31. foodoo
    March 9, 2015, 9:07 am

    In regards to divided loyalties,
    Didn’t Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky say that
    “Support for Israel is in my DNA” ?
    What does that mean? Does it mean that she admits she *could* not be even impartial? She is admitting that her motives are influenced by her race and ethnicity and not determined by the calculus at hand.

    Doesn’t anyone else think that was a peculiar thing to say?
    No one called her on it. But isn’t this what the UCLA folks
    are questioning?

    Didn’t the USA throw ethnic Japanese in internment camps because we
    thought their motives were “in their DNA”?

    Accusing people of divided loyalties is wrong, but having them is OK (??)

  32. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    March 9, 2015, 1:51 pm

    I don’t recall such vitriol from the public over a speech by a head of state.

    Since Benito Mussolini demanded before Congress that the United States attack Ethiopia.

  33. Colonel Blimp
    March 16, 2015, 2:04 pm

    The fascists had a slogan, “Many Enemies, Much Honor”. While it may sound a little corny, it is incisive in its insight into human nature. A revolution, a mass movement, needs enemies in order to give it strength and meaning. Zionism needs anti-Semites to survive as a mass movement and conjuring up enemies, which is what the NYT article does, is all part of that.

Leave a Reply