Trending Topics:

Accusations of anti-Semitism roil Stanford campus as student coalition denies discrimination charges

on 75 Comments

Stanford student Molly Horwitz says she was the target of anti-Semitism during an interview with a coalition of students of color who endorse student candidates. Horwitz, who recently won a senate seat, says she was asked how her Jewishness would impact a vote on divestment–a charge that has been met with denials.

She quickly became a cause celebre. The New York Times covered her allegations. The Anti-Defamation League called foul. The Stanford administration promised to get to the bottom of the story. But the students who Horwitz says asked her that question have released a strongly worded statement denying the charges.

The result is two diametrically opposed, and unresolvable, narratives that have become the latest fodder for a nationwide debate on anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel at American colleges.

Horwitz, who opposes divestment and is a strong supporter of Israel, wants a public apology from the student who allegedly asked her the question. The student who Horwitz says asked the question, Tianay Pulphus, is a member of the Stanford University Students of Color Coalition (SOCC), the group Horwitz sought the endorsement of. SOCC consists of six groups that advocate for Black, Latino, Muslim, Asian and Native American students. Pulphus said she was not available for an interview.

“There’s no way to prove whether what I’m saying is true or what they’re saying is true,” Horwitz said in a phone interview. “What I want to come from this is increased education for what is anti-Semitic and what is not anti-Semitic, because I think there’s not really a good understanding of that on campus.”

But SOCC strongly denies Horwitz’s version of events, though they say they did ask candidates general questions about how they would vote on divestment. They also dispute other claims, aired in the conservative publication Stanford Review, that student candidates were asked to sign a contract forbidding her and other candidates from partnering with Jewish groups on campus. They have turned over their meeting notes to Stanford administrators to bolster their assertions, they say.

“We did not ask that question,” Maria Victoria Diaz-Gonzalez, a member of SOCC, said in a phone interview. Instead, she said, they asked Horwitz two divestment related question. The first was how she would handle divestment if it came up in the student senate. Diaz-Gonzalez says a follow up question was how, if she was endorsed by two groups with different views on divestment, she would handle that situation–a question Horwitz handled “well,” she said.

Diaz-Gonzalez says they also asked Horwitz and other candidates about other issues on campus, like mental health.

Facebook post removed by Horwitz

Facebook post removed by Horwitz

Horwitz’s views on Israel have been made public in the past. During the senate campaign, Horwitz removed pro-Israel Facebook posts because “the campus climate has been pretty hostile, and it would not be politically expedient to take a public stance, her friend told the New York Times (Mondoweiss obtained copies of two of the posts she removed, right.)

Other students have also responded to the dispute. In an Op-Ed for the Stanford Daily, Jewish student Emma Hartung said Horwitz had aired “unsubstantiated allegations” with a “a lack of concrete evidence.” Hartung added: “The subtext is clear: We cannot discuss divestment from the Occupation of Palestine on campus without eventual accusations of anti-Semitism, whether that discussion is in an endorsement interview, in a dormitory or in the Undergraduate Senate.”

The dispute has its roots in the Stanford senate’s decision to endorse divestment from corporations that do business with the Israeli military this year. SOCC member groups endorsed the divestment call, and so SOCC was interested in how future candidates would respond to a similar resolution. Horwitz gave her story to the Stanford Review, a right-leaning publication with a history of going after SOCC.

The pro-divestment decision was the latest example of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement’s growth on college campus, which has lead to increasing accusations of anti-Semitism directed at students working for Palestinian rights. Student activists say it’s a tactic designed to silence their work for boycotts, divestments and sanctions targeting Israel over human rights violations.

Facebook post removed by Horwitz

Facebook post removed by Horwitz

Omar Shakir, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is supporting the coalition, told me that the accusation of anti-Semitism “reflects an agenda driven by pro-Israel groups to make this kind of false linkage [between anti-Semitism and divestment.] It’s part of a pattern.”

The issue of anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses garnered widespread attention earlier this year when members of the UCLA student judicial board asked Rachel Beyda, a candidate, how her Jewish identity would impact her views. That exchange, caught on video, garnered national attention and sparked widespread outrage. The UCLA students who asked her the question apologized.

The Stanford incident is different because there is no video of the alleged exchange. SOCC denies it happened at all. It got widespread pickup because the New York Times ran an article on the dispute.

“It’s very shoddy journalism. At the end of the day you have a single student’s unfounded accusations that have been given so much attention,” said Shakir. Shakir says SOCC members are worried about repercussions from the administration over the charges.

Diaz-Gonzalez told me that she sees the controversy as part of “an attempt to perhaps silence Palestinian solidarity efforts on campus.” She added: “Anti-Semitism is an extremely serious concern, and at SOCC we do it take it very seriously. These allegations are false. But that doesn’t effect our commitment to fighting anti-Semitism. But I do see this as part of this larger movement to equate divestment movements with an attempt to harm the Jewish community.”

In the face of the categorical denials from SOCC and their supporters, Horwitz is sticking to her story. 

“I think that there’s no motivation for them to tell the truth, like at all. So if you admit you messed up, there’s nothing good that can come from that for them,” said Horwitz. “I know what happened to me.”

Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist who focuses on Israel/Palestine and civil liberties. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

75 Responses

  1. ckg on April 23, 2015, 2:00 pm

    Today the NYT prints a letter (page A26 of the New York edition) written by representatives of the SOCC—

    Disputing Anti-Semitism Claims at Stanford
    APRIL 23, 2015
    To the Editor:
    Re “Student Coalition at Stanford Confronts Allegations of Anti-Semitism” (news article, April 15):
    The claims of anti-Semitism leveled against the Stanford Students of Color Coalition are untrue. And we do not preclude endorsees from affiliating with Jewish or Israeli groups.
    With divestment from corporations profiting from the violation of Palestinian human rights being a major issue faced by this year’s student senate, we incorporated standard questioning asking candidates to comment on how senators ought to “handle” or “navigate” issues on campus, including divestment.
    We singled out no candidate regarding religious identity, nor asked candidates to divulge how they would vote. Instead, we sought thoughtful candidates who articulated a decision-making strategy informed by communication with all communities affected. Our contract for endorsement can be accessed online and clearly contradicts accusations that we prohibit affiliations with any community.
    We reject the notion that religious or cultural identification might prevent someone from being an effective senator. This would be in direct conflict with our coalition’s values.
    CHRIS RUSS
    ASHLEY HARRIS
    Stanford, Calif.

    Mr. Russ is vice president of the Stanford Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Ms. Harris is co-chairwoman of the Stanford American Indian Organization.

    • oldgeezer on April 24, 2015, 12:30 am

      He said it well. zionism is a political movement. BDS is similarly a political movement. SOCC has every right to question a persons politics before giving an endorsement and all questions are fair. Would they be such a focus if they questioned a KKK member about their allegiance to that group? I think not. zionists should not be allowed to hide behind either their religion or ethnicity.

  2. Atlantaiconoclast on April 23, 2015, 2:09 pm

    I wonder how many people would find it objectionable for a student who is a fundamentalist Christian, to be asked how his or her Christian identity would affect their position on gay marriage rights?

    • hophmi on April 23, 2015, 6:40 pm

      “I wonder how many people would find it objectionable for a student who is a fundamentalist Christian, to be asked how his or her Christian identity would affect their position on gay marriage rights?”

      I would.

      “Even if they didn’t ask it, they probably should’ve done it.”

      Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here.

      “What a starling coincidence. One week after the explosion of press generated from the UCLA judicial review — accusations of anti semitism “surge of hostile sentiment against Jews’ nationwide” that made it’s way into the pages of the NYT, Morning Joe, Huff Post — huge shitstorm on UC campuses across the state, allegedly, according to Molly Horwitz, (who’s mother happens to be an ardent supporter of Stand With Us), a panel from SOCC just happens to ask Horowitz the exact same question ???”

      Why are you surprised? Are you asserting that it would be surprising if students asked this question? Isn’t that really what you want? To force Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized unless they support BDS?

      • annie on April 23, 2015, 7:29 pm

        Isn’t that really what you want? To force Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized unless they support BDS?

        no one is forcing Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized. i do think in social situations on campuses or anywhere it is natural for people to stay clear of, or isolate, people who support racist politics. i don’t think this necessarily means a demand for everyone to support bds, it means not supporting a zionist agenda. but i don’t think people should be forced into financially supporting war criminals and crimes against humanity and that’s what using student funds to invest in corporations that invest in apartheid amounts to, a forced investment of student funds.

        I wonder how many people would find it objectionable for a student who is a fundamentalist Christian, to be asked how his or her Christian identity would affect their position on gay marriage rights

        if a student runs on a platform of being a proud fundamentalist Christian, then it’s not only acceptable to ask what those values mean to them it’s prudent to do so. they should not mention it in their profile unless they plan on communicating what that means and how it pertains to their candidacy. and that doesn’t just go for religion it pertains to anything someone highlights about their identity in their platform.

        btw, i’m not sure if everyone opened the links. but this is instructive, it sounds like molly didn’t do all her homework : http://soccstanford.weebly.com/

        SOCC, like several groups on campus, annually endorses election candidates. Any candidate may apply for an endorsement. We base our endorsements on the following criteria: (1) knowledge of senate functions, (2) nuanced understanding of campus issues currently impacting the communities that make up our coalition, and (3) a commitment to advocating on behalf of our communities. During our endorsement process, we offered an oral interview to all 31 applicants.

        Molly Horwitz did not receive a SOCC endorsement due to her lack of knowledge about the role of the ASSU Senate and lack of familiarity with SOCC communities. In particular, when asked to name the six organizations comprising SOCC, Ms. Horwitz was unable to correctly identify a single group. Her lack of familiarity with our organizations, from whom she sought endorsement, demonstrated a failure on her part to conduct basic research about who we are. Furthermore, when asked what Senate Committee she envisioned herself being a part of, Ms. Horwitz replied, the “Mental Health” Committee — a committee that does not exist. It was these responses that led SOCC not to endorse her candidacy.

        In contrast, Ms. Horwitz provided well-thought out responses to questions about divestment. We asked 26 of the 31 candidates interviewed, including Ms. Horwitz, a standardized question regarding the Senate’s handling of divestment and sometimes follow-up questions. Other candidates were asked about other major campus issues like sexual assault or mental health resources at Stanford. The question served as a means for us to assess the candidates’ ability to evaluate a problem and design an action plan to resolve it. The question was not a litmus test for candidate views on divestment; indeed, SOCC endorsed candidates who did not sign the divestment petition.

        i recommend you read “Divestment doesn’t foster discrimination — Hillel and the ADL do” http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/04/16/divestment-doesnt-foster-discrimination-hillel-and-the-adl-do/

      • annie on April 23, 2015, 7:33 pm

        and doesn’t it seem a little odd someone would be running for student senate and not be familiar with the senate committees?????

      • oldgeezer on April 23, 2015, 8:17 pm

        I hear you hophmi.

        Organizations such as aipac must really upset you. Asking potential candidates for their position on Israel. How dare they!

        Your sudden conversion is amazing!!

        And that’s ignoring the fact that she appears to lying given that SOCC has supported candidates also supported by Jewish student organizations.

      • ckg on April 23, 2015, 9:02 pm

        From one of the SOCC statements:

        Ms. Horwitz, like many other applicants, did discuss her identity and involvement with different communities on campus during her interview. She, in fact, emphasized that her Latina and Jewish identity are important parts of who she is.

        Since the purpose of SOCC is to ensure that the views of minority identities are fully represented on campus, and since Ms. Horwitz emphasized the importance of her identity in the interview, how can an interviewer be faulted for asking her about how her identity informs her views?

      • on April 24, 2015, 9:03 am

        “Isn’t that really what you want? To force Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized unless they support BDS ”

        Hell, I won’t these kids de-programmed.

        Or, failing that (which would likely be a fool’s errand), at least prevent the next generation of their kids from being turned into racist, ethnocentric, paranoid, psychopaths.

      • Keith on April 24, 2015, 4:36 pm

        HOPHMI- “Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here.”

        Mondoweiss should charge you $1 for every time you call someone an anti-Semite. Put up or shut up.

      • JWalters on April 24, 2015, 8:24 pm

        Annie, interesting info. Maybe someone did her homework for her? So she could just phone it in? The upside and the downside of a well-oiled machine.

      • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 10:52 am

        HOPHMI- “Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here.” –

        If anybody doubts Hophmi’s ability to analyse and diagnose Jewish character pathology, it’s Hophmi.
        After all, look at his brilliant dissection of Phil’s character and shortcomings in many comments. He’s way too modest about them, but I’m willing to link them all.
        I’m always willing to praise famous men.

      • eljay on April 25, 2015, 9:11 pm

        || hophmi: Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here. ||

        What about JeffB, hophmi? In this post (link), I provided for you yet again his assertion – that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews – for you to address.

        Please don’t be shy. Let’s hear what you have to say. Thanks.

      • eGuard on April 26, 2015, 7:25 am

        Keith: Mondoweiss should charge you [hohpmi] $1 for every time you call someone an anti-Semite.

        No. Mondoweiss should throw out each and every unfounded accusation of anti-Semitism right away.

    • Penfold on April 23, 2015, 8:27 pm

      If gay marriage rights were a legitimate issue at the school then I think it would be a valid question.

      People have a right to know who they are voting for and what they stand for otherwise it is impossible to make an informed choice.

    • JWalters on April 24, 2015, 8:18 pm

      If I were questioning a candidate for a local schoolboard who was an acknowledged fundamentalist Christian, I’d feel it entirely appropriate to ask if her votes on some issues might be strongly influenced by her religious beliefs.

      The reason is that this would be an area where her judgement would be swayed by factors beyond the immediate circumstances of the decision. These would include the community norms in worldview and morality (how we treat each other). If somebody might essentially abandon “normal” standards of facts and reason, then it is reasonable to inquire into this. Because making decisions is the essence of the job they are applying for.

      For people to not see this is willfully blind. I say “willfully” because they’re just not trying very hard. They may even be working hard to not see it. That’s what social pressure will do. I would HIGHLY recommend Molly read the following Mondoweiss article by a person who had been emotionally manipulated into Zionism, and see if the bells of recognition don’t go off!
      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/02/palestine-zionist-education/

      And here’s Israeli founder Uri Avnery debunking some foundation Zionist myths.
      https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/03/israeli-founder-contests-founding-myths/

  3. Krauss on April 23, 2015, 2:15 pm

    What is the issue even if they had asked the question?

    Horwitz obviously cares a great deal about Zionism and brags about having IDF T-shirts.

    How could this not affect her support for a violently apartheid state?
    Even if they didn’t ask it, they probably should’ve done it. Her statements of fanatical support for the IDF, as the enforcer of apartheid, merits such a question.

    To do otherwise would be to turn a blind eye to oppression and those in America, like Horwitz, who live and die to uphold it.

    • pabelmont on April 23, 2015, 3:08 pm

      Agreed. However, to avoid the antisemitism rap, they should have [1] tape recorded it all (like videos of police at work) and [2] asked her how, in light of her known pro-Zionism, she would vote on divestment.

      Hint: you can be a Zionist without being a Jew and vice-versa. But I assume her Zionism was by then already known.

      • Mooser on April 23, 2015, 7:14 pm

        A record, via ‘tape’ or stenographer would be very helpful. A record of the session would settle a lot.

    • JWalters on April 24, 2015, 8:37 pm

      Logical questions. Annie’s evidence above makes it clear Molly is a puppet, an emotionally controlled Manchurian candidate. Unfortunately, the robot hit a situation for which it hadn’t been adequately programmed.

    • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 10:56 am

      Mr. Krauss, I’ve been reading your comments here for some time, and I know you for a reasonable, level-headed person, not one to fly off the handle.
      So I know that Hophmi’s description of you: “Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here” won’t go to your head, or make you full of yourself. You will take it in stride, with your usual modesty.

      • marc b. on April 25, 2015, 11:57 am

        And doesn’t that just sum up zionists’ retarded world view, you’re either an ‘honest’ racist or a ‘dishonest’ racist, hophmi apparently falling into the latter camp since he certainly wouldn’t identify with Krause. Oh the warm baby blanket of racism, how comforting.

      • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 8:29 pm

        “Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here”

        He’s (Hophmi) is not even saying this directly to Mr. Krauss, just tossing it off as a by-blow? That’s the kind of courage which makes the true outreach man.

        In any case Mr. Krauss, I apologize for Hophmi.

  4. peter123 on April 23, 2015, 2:15 pm

    Change the game plan. Record everything secretly. It would be legal after the fact considering false defamation claims follow, so it was done to protect oneself against a potential crime being committed, then file a large lawsuit.

    • Mooser on April 23, 2015, 7:16 pm

      Why not have the questions presented on paper, and written answers submitted?

      • Mooser on April 24, 2015, 1:03 pm

        Sorry, bad nesting.

  5. annie on April 23, 2015, 2:23 pm

    What a starling coincidence. One week after the explosion of press generated from the UCLA judicial review — accusations of anti semitism “surge of hostile sentiment against Jews’ nationwide” that made it’s way into the pages of the NYT, Morning Joe, Huff Post — huge shitstorm on UC campuses across the state, allegedly, according to Molly Horwitz, (who’s mother happens to be an ardent supporter of Stand With Us), a panel from SOCC just happens to ask Horowitz the exact same question ???

    maybe the members of SOCC all live under rocks and don’t read the nyt or follow the latest accusations about anti semitism on californian campuses?

    Horwitz: I think that there’s no motivation for them to tell the truth, like at all.

    i think this was a set up. i think there was no reason for SOCC to do a repeat of UCLA during the very same week it was exploding in the press.

    On the evening of March 13th Molly Horowitz wrote this email (pdf) to Stanford University Election commissioner Sijjan Sri-Kummar ….. it reminded her of the “Rachel Beyda (Google for more information) fiasco”:

    Hello,

    I had my SOCC interview today and one of the questions was literally this, “Given your Jewish identity, How would you vote on divestment?” I don’t know if other applicants were asked a question about divestment or whether it was just me. I also don’t know if it was recorded or not. They didn’t inform me that it was, but people were taking notes during it. It reminded me of the Rachel Beyda (Google for more information) fiasco at UCLA. I also asked my friend on the judicial affairs committee whether that was proper conduct. Please let me know if you need more information.

    Best,
    Molly

    It reminded her of Rachel Beyda? maybe ms horwitz and her mother w/stand with us wanted molly’s face in the new york times. maybe she wanted national attention during her candidacy for Undergraduate Senate, and when she didn’t get the much coveted SOCC endorsement she decided to make up a story.

    It’s almost mana from heaven the way this incident just plopped itself right into the middle of big campaign alleging anti semitism is running rampant on california campuses.

    Here’s a photo of Molly Horwitz in the New York Times, looking downright traumatized. She said she was “horrified” by the experience.

    please. this is a bunch of BS.

    • Sycamores on April 23, 2015, 3:39 pm

      Hi Anne,

      it look like Molly Horwitz didn’t know that much about SOCC so why was she looking for an endorsement in the first place.

      Molly Horwitz did not receive a SOCC endorsement due to her lack of knowledge about the role of the ASSU Senate and lack of familiarity with SOCC communities. In particular, when asked to name the six organizations comprising SOCC, Ms. Horwitz was unable to correctly identify a single group. Her lack of familiarity with our organizations, from whom she sought endorsement, demonstrated a failure on her part to conduct basic research about who we are. Furthermore, when asked what Senate Committee she envisioned herself being a part of, Ms. Horwitz replied, the “Mental Health” Committee — a committee that does not exist. It was these responses that led SOCC not to endorse her candidacy.

      you could be right about a set up.

    • Mooser on April 23, 2015, 7:22 pm

      Wow, who was it who said something like “no matter how cynical I get, I can never keep up”?

      So Horwitz has no qualms about branding the SOCC folks liars: “I think that there’s no motivation for them to tell the truth, like at all. “- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/accusations-coalition-discrimination/comment-page-1#comment-763059

      And then all this comes out, and where does that leave poor Molly, just starting out in life, as far as giving people an impression of her character, her ethics? Where does it leave her? Still among or leading the legatees, I would guess.

    • Mooser on April 23, 2015, 7:58 pm

      “please. this is a bunch of BS.”

      But, but, but Annie, that level of hypocrisy, it’s just unthinkable. Why it’s as absurd as a Jewish fraternity member drawing a swastika on the bulletin board and claiming ‘anti-Semites did it’!

      And just think of the absolute disregard of the students in SOCC, the casual assumption “they have no motivation to tell the truth”…. no, that level of heartless manipulation concerning anti-semitism….nah, it just can’t happen.

    • jenin on April 24, 2015, 8:34 am

      I agree Annie… Had the same thoughts when I read the NY Times article. While it’s impossible to know what happened, given her established lack of credibility for lying about the policies, the fact her story is a little too close to the UCLA one, and the fact she says one thing while a number of people say that’s not what happened– well, it’s pretty obvious to me she’s likely lying, trying to make bds supporters look anti Semitic. Too bad the times’ reporters are too simple minded (or eager for such a story) to look at her unsubstantiated allegation critically

    • ckg on April 24, 2015, 11:37 am

      Annie, the Molly Horwitz case came to light when the Stanford Daily published on 4/13 a very long letter written by Ms. Horwitz. The editor-in-chief of the Stanford Daily is a student named Joseph Beyda of Cupertino. UCLA student Rachel Beyda is also from Cupertino.

      • ckg on April 24, 2015, 2:10 pm

        Joseph is Rachel’s older brother.

      • Sycamores on April 24, 2015, 2:32 pm

        Hi ckg,

        it looks like you are on to something.

      • ckg on April 24, 2015, 4:13 pm

        Thanks Sycamores–I remember your sleuthing scooped the entire world on the killing of Nadim Nuwara.

      • ckg on April 24, 2015, 5:03 pm

        But my sleuthing seems to lead nowhere. There are only two other Stanford Daily tags of Molly Horwitz, and both are critical of her.

      • Sycamores on April 24, 2015, 5:08 pm

        There are only two other Stanford Daily tags of Molly Horwitz, and both are critical of her. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/accusations-coalition-discrimination#comment-763158

        they could be intentional to lead people of the track?

      • ckg on April 24, 2015, 6:44 pm

        I don’t know, Sycamores. Sometimes coincidences are just coincidences.

    • JWalters on April 24, 2015, 8:55 pm

      Annie, I suspect you’re onto something. The PR benefit from such a tactic is indeed easy to see. And for a group that can suppress debate in the mainstream media and the Congress of the United States, generating a “flurry” of “anti-Semitism” cases would probably be pretty easy.

  6. Steve Grover on April 23, 2015, 2:30 pm

    I stand with you Molly Horwitz! Becsuse everyone knows their ain’t no anti Semitism mixed in with the Israel hatred by the BDSers!

    • Mooser on April 23, 2015, 7:44 pm

      “I stand with you Molly Horwitz! Becsuse everyone knows their ain’t no anti Semitism mixed in with the Israel hatred by the BDSers! – “

      Oh, get down of your offal-pile. Everybody knows you’ll stand for anything, Grober.

  7. annie on April 23, 2015, 3:00 pm

    They also dispute other claims, aired in the conservative publication Stanford Review, that student candidates were asked to sign a contract forbidding her and other candidates from partnering with Jewish groups on campus.

    this is a total lie. SOCC released the doc that all potential endorsees were asked to sign. the word “jewish” was not even in it.

    read it yourself: http://soccstanford.weebly.com/endorsee-contract.html

    I agree to the Privacy and Confidentiality of Information of Materials…

    more at the link.

  8. Blownaway on April 23, 2015, 3:06 pm

    Maybe they should take a page from today’s Akiva Elder in Haaretz. More freedom to criticize Israel in Israel than on US campus.
    I swear I won’t boycott
    By Akiva Eldar | Apr. 22, 2015 | 3:00 PM
    I promise I will not propose to anyone to boycott goods produced on occupied land, refuse to recognize Israeli institutions of higher education that operate over the Green Line, or to keep away from cultural institutions established on non-Israeli territory.From now on I will only say the following things: It is forbidden to harm Jews who work night and day to transform Israel into a binational state, or an apartheid regime. It is forbidden to encourage a boycott against the settlements and unauthorized outposts which were established through land theft, forgery of documents and paying bribes to collaborators, as well as through the gross trampling of the planning and building laws.We must file away the reports of the state comptroller that describe the injustices of Israeli rule in the West Bank and the report on the unauthorized outposts. It is completely and totally forbidden to say that the settlements are a violation of international law – someone could very well understand that as a call for law-abiding nations to boycott their products. And in addition, how is it possible to harm Jewish communities that bring us, year after year, the World Cup in international protest and condemnation?It is forbidden to harm the source of the sustenance for Israeli pioneers, who in their spare time harass Palestinian shepherds and vandalize the vineyards of their helpless neighbors. Far be it from a respectable citizen to deviate from those Jews who interpret the saying “You have chosen us from among all the nations” as a license to deprive another people of their freedom, honor and rights.We must not harm the young men and women who declare that the only command they honor is the divine one. We must shut up and open our wallets, in order to finance guarding them and to send the finest of our sons to the Israel Defense Forces, in order to be spat on by them.It is forbidden to boycott a project without which the Settlement Department of the World Zionist Organization – the national carrier for public funds to the settlement enterprise, and, it is also suspected, to the pockets of public officials – has no right to exist.It is forbidden to propose to academic institutions to avoid any connections with a college that an organization belonging to the mechanism of the occupation (The Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria) has granted the status of a university and the Israeli Education Ministry supplies its budgets.It is forbidden to criticize artists who appear in the hall surrounded by Arab villages whose residents need a special permit from the occupation authorities to participate in the wedding of a relative in an Arab village in Israel.From now on, whenever a European diplomat asks me if I support his government declaring a boycott against the settlements, I will say: “God forbid! How can anti-Semitic Europe even think about boycotting Jews, who the State of Israel has been sending for 48 years to settle the land of their ancestors.”And what will I answer to that very same goy if he wants to know why then the time has not come for Europe to impose a boycott against the State of Israel? I will tell him that in the only democracy in the Middle East, it is forbidden to answer such questions.

    • pabelmont on April 23, 2015, 3:15 pm

      I couldn’t say that while standing on one foot, but otherwise it fills the bill for an Israeli. since I am not an Israeli I could imagine an Israeli saying: I do not advise anyone anywhere what to buy or with whom to contract or how to vote or act as a member of any legislature or government. speaking merely for myself, and advising no-one, my intention is not to buy * * * from OPTs.

  9. HarryLaw on April 23, 2015, 3:34 pm

    “There’s no way to prove whether what I’m saying is true or what they’re saying is true,” Yes there is, nine other students present at the interview, together with documentation. Now you apologize to them, you bigoted sore loser.

    • Mooser on April 23, 2015, 7:36 pm

      “Yes there is, nine other students present at the interview, together with documentation”

      Who are you going to believe, Molly, or 18 lying yes? Apparently, the propensity for prevarication and mendacity among the SOCC people is, well, self-evident, at least to Ms. Horwitz:

      “I think that there’s no motivation for them to tell the truth, like at all. “

      I mean, some people may have their wits about them, but you can’t make them think.

      • annie on April 23, 2015, 7:54 pm

        i think it’s molly who has problems with telling the truth http://soccstanford.weebly.com/endorsee-contract.html

        Additionally, the accusation that we asked endorsees to sign a contract prohibiting them from affiliating with Jewish or Israeli groups is categorically false. Shortly after hearing this rumor, we published the contract we ask endorsees to sign, and it makes clear that we do not prohibit affiliations with any community. In fact, two SOCC-endorsed candidates were also endorsed by the Jewish Students Association.

      • SQ Debris on April 24, 2015, 11:28 am

        Mooser is prodding a huge question with “Who are you going to believe?” Are we to believe 9 students of color, or the white person? As in the last butchery in Gaza, who are we going to believe? Palestinians or white people? The answer was so obvious to the msm that they didn’t even bother to ask Palestinians about what was going on. They ditched a non-white reporter, and had debates between zionism-dark and zionism lite.

      • eGuard on April 24, 2015, 4:49 pm

        Annie, was the contract-accusation made by Molly? I did not find that. The rumor was written by The Stanford Review, but not through her. It could be part of the setup.

      • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 10:59 am

        “Are we to believe 9 students of color, or the white person?”

        Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what particular hue any of the people involved are.

      • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 8:42 pm

        I hadn’t really thought about the ethnic make-up of the committee, one way or another, although I think you are right, that may have had something to do with Ms. Horwitz’ alacrity (hell outrightcelerity!) to condemn their honesty. I am fascinated by the “I think that there’s no motivation for them to tell the truth, like at all. “

        So she thinks dishonesty runs rampant through the SOCC? Yet, she was seeking their endorsement? Do I have that right?

  10. traintosiberia on April 23, 2015, 6:38 pm

    So. It is theoretically possible to get these students accused of antisemitism hauled up before Canadian ;;French or German courts

  11. ckg on April 23, 2015, 9:57 pm

    And today another Stanford student was sentenced to a year in prison for felony domestic violence. No matter, little media coverage. The international news story is that one Stanford student may or may not have asked a question that may or may not be interpreted as anti-Semitic. What is the evidence? Were there witnesses? Expect Nancy Grace soon.

  12. traintosiberia on April 23, 2015, 10:29 pm

    Preciselyfor the fear that the mere knowledge of Middle East based on facts and research will influence the decisions of the Arab expert in the State Department, Kristol wanted ( and succeeded as claimed by him) no ” Arabist” instead he put the Zionist .
    It gets much worse more one delves into. The duo Ross and Indyk demanded and got their whishes that no Arab or Muslim would be allowed to steer the American side in any Arab Israel negotiations.
    These were absolutely racial and prejudiced in nature .
    The current fracas don’t come close to these examples .
    The moaning and groaning of discrimination and the portrayal of this incident by the media as some kind of antisemitism will send chill down any kind background check by any tax paying body . It is reasonable to ask th view of the obstetrician on abortion and birth control and how they would stick to the ethics and morals that are expected by the Obstercian Soviety or body from any of its trainee or practioner . If the views are against the discipline and won’t be modified or altered while delivering the duties as laid down in the position paper ,then he or she should look for different job or training slot . The rest of the world isn’t here to be a mouthpiece of the views of this lady . Go and create one if you in dire emotional need to propagate your views . To prevent such an outcome ,the body needs to hear what is her position . Otherwise she could claim ” I was not told I couldn’t practice my political belief while at work “

  13. Jackdaw on April 24, 2015, 4:27 am

    Horwitz made her complaint hours after the incident. I believe her account, which has the ring of truth to it.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/04/stanford-student-candidate-says-questioned-about-being-jewish/

    • jenin on April 24, 2015, 8:37 am

      as a criminal defense attorney, your comment makes me laugh

    • marc b. on April 24, 2015, 9:51 am

      what a comedian. yeah, and as any Pavlov’s dog knows, ‘the ring of truth’ is more important than the meat of the matter. keep salivating, your treat is on the way.

    • eGuard on April 24, 2015, 10:44 am

      I don’t hear that ring. The opposite: one verifyable accusation (wrt the contracts) has been proven false. What I hear is that it is a setup. Horwitz better be careful with her accusations of anti-Semitism.

      • Jackdaw on April 26, 2015, 11:33 am

        Then the SOCC should have no problems producing the signed contracts.

      • eGuard on April 27, 2015, 9:14 am

        Jackdaw: Then the SOCC should have no problems producing the signed contracts.

        Publish privately signed contracts? Asks who? Horwitz and her publishers like you have shown enough dishonesty to deny any future “question” being answered.

    • Mooser on April 24, 2015, 10:50 am

      “Horwitz made her complaint hours after the incident. I believe her account, which has the ring of truth to it.”

      “Jackdaw”, I believe you. In fact, I’m sure she could have made her complaint hours before the incident.

    • JWalters on April 24, 2015, 9:04 pm

      My vote for funniest thread of the day! LOL!

      • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 11:16 am

        “My vote for funniest thread of the day! LOL!”

        Have you taken a trundle through the “Faithwashing” thread, with it’s hilarious sub-plot? Give the comments a scan, they’re full of the best medicine.

  14. hophmi on April 24, 2015, 10:09 am

    Of course, there is no reason to disbelieve Molly Horwitz, and if 18 Jewish students corroborated her account and 1 SOCC student corroborated the SOCC account, people here would still support the SOCC account.

    And no, it is not appropriate to ask special questions to students based on their religious identity. If this were a state school, it would definitely be against the law, and my sense is that it’s against the law for any school that receives federal funding.

    • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 11:04 am

      “If this were a state school”

      The question of whether UC is a private or state school remains to be settled? Okay, Hophmi.

    • pjdude on April 25, 2015, 11:44 am

      but as you so conviently ignore it is appropriate to ask questions based on peoples membership in groups that oppose what the group is seeking. if jewish orgs wouldn’t try and supress ideas they didn’t like these questions would be needed. the fact remains given jews student groups behavior the ability to unbiased on anything regarding israel is suspect

  15. joer on April 24, 2015, 2:05 pm

    If nothing else, UCLA and Stanford now know how Molly’s and Rachel’s attitude toward being Jewish will affect their behavior-they will become hypersensitive tattletales and invite organized, well financed bullies onto campus if the subject comes up. The question itself isn’t necessarily antisemitic in itself. They could have answered that question with standard liberal rhetoric: “It would make me more sensitive to the concerns of other minorities on campus” or with ethnocentric prose: “Justice and truth are the foundation of Jewish tradition….”

    And speaking of intimidation, in the context of the Gaza massacre, strolling around campus in an IDF t shirt would be as troubling to Palestinian students as a noose being hung outside a black fraternity.

  16. hophmi on April 24, 2015, 3:02 pm

    Put through, please.

  17. eGuard on April 24, 2015, 5:00 pm

    Says Molly Horwitz in The Stanford Daily: My involvement in Hillel, …, have nothing to do with divestment. Wrong. Hillel forbids discussing divestment.

  18. Rusty Pipes on April 24, 2015, 5:46 pm

    Degree from prominent University: check!
    Experience in Student Leadership/Government: check!
    Ability to scrub compromising personal communications: sorta check!
    Willingness to forward the Israel Lobby’s agenda (with creative flair): check!

    Start writing your checks. That woman has a future in politics (or at least the State Department)!

    • Mooser on April 25, 2015, 11:08 am

      . “That woman has a future in politics (or at least the State Department)!”

      Maybe not. Once, I would have heartily agreed with you. But this is the age of the Internet. Oh, she has a future, all right, and a lot of it may be devoted to living this down or hiding from it.

  19. mgduke on April 24, 2015, 8:44 pm

    Further evidence of TNYT bias is its refusal to print comments supporting the Student Coalition; for example, the comment below that I sent in on April 15th, which TNYT deemed unhelpful:

    To the Editor:

    Claims that a student coalition acted in an improperly discriminatory manner by questioning a candidate for its political support about the ramifications of the candidate’s chosen identity (or identities) are in themselves bigoted.

    Would there be any complaint about questioning Ms Horwitz as to her opinion of divestment from Israel if she were identified as a zealous Republican or evangelical Christian?  What about asking another candidate about his stance on same-sex marriage based on his identity as an evangelical or Republican?

    Can anyone any longer dispute that religion is a form of identity that has enormously powerful political repercussions, often in a troubling admixture of irrationality and entitlement, so that for any panel assessing supporting a candidate to ignore religious identity would be a failure of due diligence?

    Given further that Ms Horwitz had a history of proselytizing for Israel, and then had “scrubbed” her social media to conceal her politics, isn’t it clear that the student coalition had good reason to be especially stringent in questioning her, and also that her subsequent media-boiling, so far unsubstantiated, claims of having been subjected to antiSemitism that “shocked and horrified” her should be examined with a cold eye?

    MG DUKE

  20. traintosiberia on April 25, 2015, 1:33 am

    Perle and Feith coauthored a position paper for Likud advising Israeli government to scrap Oslo,re occupy territories and crush Arafat during Clinton years .
    Only if the media had shown some interest to focus on and derail their attempts to come near Pentagon ,WH,or forums on Israel- Palestine issues, things could have been different . It would have exposed other mole and sleeper cells planning and plotting same fates for millions .
    ( Re- http://www.antiwar.com Micheal Lind 4/10/03)
    It is extremely important to understand the motive of the people with this mindset – why they are seeking government or policy framing positions. We know why Chuck Schumer and Kirk decided .

Leave a Reply