Trending Topics:

Campus wars

on 49 Comments

Activists for Palestinian rights have long known that our universities are overwhelmingly-hostile environments where freedom of speech about, and critical inquiry into, Israel’s oppressive policies are heavily censored.  The mainstreaming of BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) and the growing support this grassroots movement is gaining have had the effect of increasing, rather than alleviating, university administrators’ clamping down on support for Palestinian rights. 

Over the past few weeks, two separate and noteworthy incidents have illustrated this heavy-handed approach.  And while these incidents are particularly outrageous, they are not exceptional, but rather indicative of the overall climate of political repression that continues to blanket the nation.

On Thursday, Feb. 23, in an egregious twist to a still-unfolding story, Fordham University student Sapphira Lurie received a “disciplinary reprimand” by Dean of Students Keith Eldredge, in what the advocacy organization Palestine Legal has described as a “pre-determined outcome.” 

Lurie, a senior at Fordham, had been found in violation of her school’s “demonstration policy” when she participated in a Jan. 23 rally protesting the dean’s decision to deny her request to start a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine on her campus. That decision, as well as the charge, was condemned by civil rights groups as a violation of the school’s free speech and association policies. 

Lurie had then been called in for a meeting with Dean Eldredge which had all the makings of a kangaroo court:  he was the one charging her, yet she was to meet with him behind closed doors, with a “white noise” machine turned on so as to make their conversation inaudible to anyone outside the room, and she was not allowed to bring in her lawyer, Radhika Sainath of Palestine Legal, or a sympathetic professor. Earlier requests to have a third party mediator had been denied. Eldredge had explained that this was university policy, but when challenged on it by Sainath, he conceded there was no such policy, yet maintained that he would only meet with Lurie alone, behind closed doors.  When Lurie refused that request, she received the reprimand. 

“Although I only got a warning, this whole process was meant to intimidate students,” Lurie said, “It’s already scared a couple of students from getting involved in advocating for Palestinian freedom—they were worried that Fordham was going to go after them too.”

Meanwhile, another still unfolding instance of censorship involves Sa’ed Atshan, an Assistant Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Swarthmore, who had been invited to speak at the Friends Central School, outside of Philadelphia. Atshan was later “disinvited” after parents of students at the school complained.  Along with the rescinding of the invitation, the head of school, Craig Sellers, suspended the two young teachers who had invited Atshan. Intense activism within the Quaker community, along with letters and emails to the school president, resulted in an official apology to Atshan, as well as a reinstatement of the invitation, but the two school teachers remain indefinitely suspended as I write this.

A public announcement made by Sellers has since been taken down, but the discussion that the announcement fostered is still available on the school’s Facebook page and shows the ignorance and intolerance of members of a community, the Quakers, with an otherwise wonderful history of progressive activism.  Some are defending the decision to disinvite Atshan by comparing him to white supremacists:

So let me ask everyone a question… let’s say I wanted to start a group to learn about the civil rights movement in the ’60s. The supervisors of the group want to bring in a highly accomplished professor from an highly regarded institution to present….. all is going well until some parents discover that this speaker is/was involved with a white supremacist group… is anyone offended? Should the speaker come even though many students/parents would be aghast at the nerve of a QUAKER school bringing in a participant in white supremacy?”

Another writes a common false accusation against BDS, stating:

“The problem as I see it isn’t that a pro-Palestinian speaker was invited to the school. The issue is that he is a representative of BDS, an organization which is devoted to the annihilation of Israel. (This perspective is patently clear in the BDS mission statement.) Perhaps if the two teachers had found a speaker more interested in dialogue and peace than in the dissolution of the Jewish state, this brouhaha would not have surfaced.”

The vilification of BDS has, of course, traveled all the way up to the top political echelons, as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s pledge to fight it when she was campaigning for the presidency and President Trump’s recent mention of it during his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  But for now, it is felt most acutely at the local university and government levels.

In Washington state, for example, Senator Michael Baumgartner, a Tea Party Republican, had announced in late December 2016 that, as soon as the 2017 legislative session opens, he would be proposing a bill banning BDS advocacy on state universities. By late February, Baumgartner had not presented his bill yet, in what some believe is a desire to avoid defeat that would impact his chances of joining Trump’s government.

Another politician, Senator Mark Chelgren of Iowa, has what may well be the most inane proposal: a bill that would require universities to base faculty hires on applicants’ political affiliation.   

In Oregon, Portland State University President Wim Wiewel signed on to a Jewish Federation statement condemning the city’s Human Rights Commission for endorsing Occupation-Free Portland’s divestment letter, thus weighing in on a city matter unrelated to the university. Wiewel also sided with the Federation on a divestment resolution from Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights (SUPER) and even encouraged Jewish students to speak out against it when many Jewish students at PSU supported the resolution. With Wiewel about to end his presidency, the SUPER group at Portland State plans to ask the Board of Trustees to investigate Wiewel’s partisan behavior and lack of academic integrity, and demand that the next president accept no sponsored and one-sided trips to Israel, as Wiewel did, and commit to open and critical inquiry into Israel’s human rights abuses.

The list is long. As one recent article in Jezebel put it, over the past few years, “Free speech on college campuses has become a game of political football.”  But even as the situation looks bleak, we must not overlook the power of public outcry and persistence.  This was obvious earlier this academic year, when a course on Palestine that the University of California, Berkeley had abruptly canceled was restored, as a result of national mobilization.  Atshan’s invitation to speak has been reinstated, and there is hope the two Friends Central teachers who invited him will also soon return to their classrooms.  Palestine Legal attorney Radhika Sainath said she intends to appeal Dean Eldredge’s decision to reprimand Lurie. “This sends a chilling message at a time when the president is cracking down on dissent,” Sainath explained. 

Indeed, as activists today are tying in various intersecting struggles, we must not forget the larger context of the wars being waged by campus administrators against their very own students and faculty. The struggle against censorship on campuses must be incorporated with the larger national struggle.  Because, ultimately, we are fighting the same oppressive forces that seek to quash resistance to unbridled power by distorting the facts, censoring free speech, and thwarting critical inquiry.

Nada Elia

Nada Elia is a Palestinian scholar-activist, writer, and grassroots organizer, currently completing a book on Palestinian Diaspora activism.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

49 Responses

  1. AddictionMyth on February 25, 2017, 10:51 am

    Great summary – but I don’t think the situation looks ‘bleak’ at all. In fact, I am very hopeful. Why? Because the solution is so simple – righteous Jews must start their own chapters of SJP and invite any speakers who were canceled – and laugh at the administration when they complain. Post the vids!

    • annie on February 25, 2017, 7:39 pm

      righteous Jews must start their own chapters of SJP…

      what do you mean by “their own”, there are already many jews in SJP. do you mean a separate jewish justice for palestine? better to unite with all other SJP students, there’s strength in numbers.

      and what message does that send when speakers invited by others are canceled and when jewish students invite the school allows the event? what privileged bs is that?

      • echinococcus on February 25, 2017, 8:27 pm

        Wasn’t that same BS the pretext invoked to justify the existence of a JVP?

      • AddictionMyth on February 26, 2017, 10:01 am

        Yes of course better to unite. I can see it now:

        “Fordham University students Sapphira Lurie and Rachel Goldberg received a “disciplinary reprimand” by Dean of Students Keith Eldredge”

        What message does it send?? Who cares as long as the speakers can speak!

  2. HarryLaw on February 25, 2017, 12:22 pm

    What is needed is for more students to fight back, administrators trying to intimidate students does work in many instances, but the many who see the implications for free speech are usually galvanized into action, which can only rebound on the Administrators. Many University Administrators not only breach the US constitution and natural justice, but also in many cases breach their own Universities rules. Thank goodness for groups like Palestine legal, who should be called on by any University group wishing to either host a Palestinian speaker or start a group.

  3. Jon66 on February 25, 2017, 2:14 pm

    Three weeks ago in another post, Ms. Elia was in favor of censorship. “That victory, the forced cancellation of a hate speech event, is needed confirmation that we cannot expect “the system” to protect us, but that we can protect ourselves. – See more at:“.
    In situations in which she believes the speech is “hate” speech than she is in favor of suppression. But when the speech is in line with what she favors than she is against suppression. Her arbitrary definition of “hate” speech is inconsistent with free speech. Perhaps she should be evaluating her own principles.

    • nada on February 25, 2017, 3:27 pm

      Hate speech incites to violence. SJPs call for justice. Any questions?

      • Jon66 on February 25, 2017, 6:07 pm

        Speech which incites to imminent violence is restricted. Has Milo given speeches that incite to imminent violence? I don’t know enough about him other than the fact that many of his views are disgusting. There is no restriction on “hate” speech or even speech that calls for violence. The Comminist party is allowed to call for violent revolution against the Governemnt and system as long the incitement is not to direct imminent violence.

      • Mooser on February 25, 2017, 7:54 pm

        And what does any of that have to do with SJP, “Jon 66”?

        You just undermined your own argument. The Communists can call for an overthrow, and Milo can be disgusting, but SJP is “hate speech”?

        Is SJP calling for “the incitement… to direct imminent violence”?

      • Atlantaiconoclast on February 27, 2017, 10:30 am

        Oh please, SJWs push for attacking people they deem Nazis all the time! I have never heard Richard Spencer or David Duke call for violence. “Hate” speech can be argued against. Direct threats are a different matter. Stop conflating the two.

      • just on February 27, 2017, 10:57 am

        What’s “SJW”???

        Once you clear that up, can you provide evidence for your following assertion?

        “Oh please, SJWs push for attacking people they deem Nazis all the time!”

        As for your lame defense of Spencer and Duke and their ilk…

        Have you ever heard of incitement? How about instigation? How about banning and punishing human beings committed to justice? How about suppressing pacific ideas while protecting other folks/nations committing constant and relentless violations of international laws and crimes against humanity?

    • talknic on February 25, 2017, 6:50 pm

      “Her arbitrary definition …”

      How so? Furthermore is comparable to your support of 70 years of oppression, theft, lies and encouragement of hatred against non-Jews purposefully perpetuated by the Zionist Movement’s Jewish State?

      • Jon66 on February 25, 2017, 7:14 pm

        ” your support of 70 years”
        I’m not that old.

        Are you saying that support of Zionism is hate speech that should be censored?

      • Mooser on February 25, 2017, 7:59 pm

        “Are you saying that support of Zionism is hate speech that should be censored?”

        Is anybody censoring you, snowflake? You are trying to avoid the consequences of Zionist speech. You can’t do that.

        When people hear Zionists speak, they realize Zionism is full of hatred, and requires hatred to carry out. There’s no way you can disguise that. Even if Zionist speech was completely pacific, Zionist actions inform people’s understanding of Zionist speech.
        What do you propose to do about that, “Jon 66”? Or people not accepting the Zionist ‘alternate facts’? Got a plan for that?

      • talknic on February 26, 2017, 6:13 am

        @ Jon66 February 25, 2017, 7:14 pm

        “I’m not that old.”

        Israel’s crimes are, you support them.

        “Are you saying that support of Zionism is hate speech that should be censored?”

        What I said is still there.

        Are you stupid? You’re sure acting as though you have extremely poor comprehension skills

      • Jon66 on February 26, 2017, 8:46 am

        “Hate” speechnis in the eye of the beholder.
        Ms. Elia supports the violent suppression of ideas she consider “hate” speech, but complains about the suppression of groups that others consider ‘hate’ groups.
        Personally, I am in favor of allowing all to speak and share ideas. I believe that more speech is the best answer to speech we disagree with. Direct incitement to immediate violence is not the same as disagreeable ideas no matter how much ‘hate’ they may have. I find it hypocritical to endorse violent suppression of some speech and then complain about suppression of your speech.

      • Mooser on February 26, 2017, 12:33 pm

        “Are you stupid? You’re sure acting as though you have extremely poor comprehension skills”

        We are supposed to reduce our own comprehension to the basal “Jon 66” level.

        I’m not sure why we are supposed to do reduce our comprehension to suit the Zionists. It’s either because Zionism is so big and powerful we have no choice, or because Jews are so persecuted and put-upon, everybody has to feel sorry for us.

        It might even be both! Hard to tell.

      • Mooser on February 28, 2017, 3:15 pm

        “Hate” speechnis in the eye of the beholder.”

        You bet, cupcake: Zionist actions inform people’s understanding of Zionist speech.

    • Atlantaiconoclast on February 27, 2017, 10:28 am

      Exactly! Palestinian rights supporters must stop trying to chill the free speech of others if they want free speech themselves.

  4. Maghlawatan on February 25, 2017, 5:09 pm

    A lot of the scary antidemocratic stuff that is par for the course in Israel is now beginning to happen in the US. In the former Jews are the drivers while in the latter they will probably be targets

  5. Ossinev on February 26, 2017, 7:49 am

    Protocols of the Elders of Fordham perchance ?

    • Mooser on February 26, 2017, 12:35 pm

      “Protocols of the Elders of Fordham perchance ?”

      Wow, this may be the first time anybody has disparaged Jesuits that way!

  6. baaadmoon on February 26, 2017, 12:13 pm

    “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

  7. Citizen on February 27, 2017, 4:05 am

    Was there a similar “civil war” on US campuses back when students were protesting apartheid South African regime? What’s the difference?

  8. Citizen on February 27, 2017, 4:31 am

    The US Black Liberation movement pushed the boycott of apartheid South Africa–the Palestinian Americans don[t have such clout; OTOH, for a long time, the US government through Reagan Era pushed back, using the fear that Communism was behind said Liberation movement. Nowadays, there is no fear of Communism, so it seems the BDS cause would be aided immensely by support from the Black Caucus, and by Bernie people. I don’t see much help for the Palestinian human rights cause coming from the Black Caucus, but there’s a link to Black Lives Matter movement that has been growing. While there’s no off-set by fear of Communism, there is an off -set by those who claim Black Lives Matter is a racist movement….. I think the main reason anti-BDS forces have not gained more traction, but instead an anti-BDS trend of local legislation has risen is that the mainstream media is complicit in withholding factual information about Israel’s conduct, I-P conflict context, and details on US “special relationship” with Israel from the American public–in comparison, the mainstream press pushed protest against apartheid South Africa.

  9. Atlantaiconoclast on February 27, 2017, 10:25 am

    A good way to promote free speech about Israel would be to support anyone else on campus who desires free speech, even if you disagree with them. If you make room for open debate and discussion, your side will win, that is unless you don’t have faith in your position.

    Too often, progressives shriek in horror at the way students for Palestine are treated but celebrate the shutting down of speakers like Milo. If you want free speech, you MUST honor the rights of others.

    • Mooser on February 27, 2017, 11:59 am

      You are completely (and purposefully) mixing up free speech with the consequences of speech.

      • Atlantaiconoclast on February 27, 2017, 6:26 pm

        No, that would be you. You do not have the right to control thought by shutting down speech you deem wrong. I can’t believe we have to review this basic law of civilization. The non aggression principle would save us a lot of trouble if we could all embrace it.

        And what consequences do you speak of? There is no epidemic of alt righters killing or hurting people who disagree with them. ANTIFA is the group filled with hate and ready to hurt those with whom they disagree. They get away with it by constantly associating their opponents with Nazism, but never have to answer for their ties to a far bloodier ideology, Marxism.

      • Mooser on February 28, 2017, 3:10 pm

        .” You do not have the right to control thought by shutting down speech you deem wrong.”

        Whatsamatter, buddy, don’t believe in the free market? Every decision taken with respect to Milo was a commercial decision. He got spanked by the free hand of the market. Sorry, would you prefer the government ordered us to listen to him?

        “I can’t believe we have to review this basic law of civilization.”

        The ones about underage boys and older men?

  10. just on February 27, 2017, 10:44 am

    Thank you for all that you are doing for justice, Nada.

    This is hopeful:

    “Ken Loach backs controversial Israel conference

    A conference on Israeli “exceptionalism” will go ahead in Ireland this spring, organizers insisted …

    Supporters of the event – organized by University College Cork academics – include Ken Loach, director of the award-winning movie I, Daniel Blake, and Desmond Tutu, the South African archbishop.

    The conference program was released this week. Richard Falk, a former UN special rapporteur on the occupied West Bank and Gaza, will give the keynote address.

    Titled “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism,” the conference was initially scheduled to take place at the UK’s University of Southampton in 2015.

    But it was banned in the UK two years running, after the university came under intense pressure from government ministers and Israel lobby groups.

    James Bowen, a professor in University College Cork and an organizer of the conference, told The Electronic Intifada that a venue had been secured.

    He said that reports in The Irish Times last month that the conference had been canceled or postponed were false. An article about the conference was later altered, and the word “cancels” was removed from the headline.

    Other speakers scheduled to participate in panels include Israeli historian Ilan Pappe; Palestinian author Ghada Karmi; Hatem Bazian from the University of California, Berkeley; noted Palestinian cartographer Salman Abu-Sitta and Israeli human rights lawyer Leah Tsemel.

    Many of the speakers, including Karmi and Pappe, are noted supporters of a unitary democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis.

    Academic freedom

    But the conference will also feature pro-Israel speakers Geoffrey Alderman and Alan Johnson. Alderman is a hard-right Zionist historian, while Johnson is senior research fellow for an Israel lobby group, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre.

    Statements of support have been posted on the organizers’ website from Noam Chomsky, Desmond Tutu, philosopher Judith Butler, former British government minister Clare Short, journalist John Pilger, campaigning lawyer Michael Mansfield and filmmaker Ken Loach.

    “This conference is all the more urgent given that Israel has continually broken international law with impunity,” Loach wrote. “The attacks on universities who wished to hold this conference make it all the more imperative that it should take place. It is the job of universities to defend academic freedom.”

    The Board of Deputies of British Jews led the 2015 charge to have the conference banned in Southampton, claiming it was “an international gathering of anti-Zionists who were using the cover of a distinguished university to promote their view.”

    The director of research at the university’s school of law wrote at the time that the cancellation occurred because of “the bullying and threats of the Israeli lobby” and that the university’s capitulation was “outrageous.”

    Pro-Israel lobbyists claimed responsibility for having the original conference canceled, with one telling The Jewish Chronicle that the “health and safety” justification was a pretext.

    The University of Southampton has refused to release correspondence with pro-Israel groups and others regarding the conference requested under the Freedom of Information Act by The Electronic Intifada.

    The university claimed that releasing documents, even redacted, to a publication based in the United States would breach data protection provisions in UK law.”

    Hurrah for UCC!

    This conference is also promising:

    March 24, 2017 at the National Press Club, Washington, DC”

    from the link at the top of MW’s homepage:

    • gamal on February 27, 2017, 11:34 am

      thats the

      Doan-Phoblacht Chorcai (peoples republic of cork)

      bless them

      • amigo on February 27, 2017, 12:51 pm

        gamal —-Bunch of Langers , boy.

        I must try to get a ticket to this.The report I read stated that a venue had been decided but it was not named.Do you have any connections there.I know from your posting,s you spend time in the Rebel County.Any ideas where it might be held.It was originally planned for UCC.

      • just on February 27, 2017, 1:58 pm

        Cheers, gamal.

        LTE in today’s Guardian:

        “Free speech on Israel under attack in universities

        The spike in far-right antisemitic incidents on UK campuses that you report (UK universities urged to act over spate of antisemitic stickers and graffiti, 18 February) seems to reflect the increase in xenophobia since the Brexit vote.

        Yet the government has “adopted” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which can be and is being read as extending to criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights, an entirely separate issue, as prima facie evidence of antisemitism. This definition seeks to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

        Now Jo Johnson, the government minister whose brief includes universities, has written to Universities UK asking for this definition to be disseminated throughout the system. His letter specifically mentions Israeli Apartheid Week (a worldwide activity at this time of year since 2005) as a cause for concern.

        The response has been swift. Late last week, in haste and clearly without legal advice, the University of Central Lancashire banned a meeting that was to be addressed by journalist Ben White as well as by academics. The university statement asserted that the meeting on “Debunking misconceptions on Palestine” contravened the definition of antisemitism recently adopted by the government, and would therefore not be lawful.

        Meanwhile, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a body set up during the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2014, cites this definition in asking its supporters to “record, film, photograph and get witness evidence” about Israeli Apartheid Week events; and “we will help you to take it up with the university, students’ union or even the police”.

        These are outrageous interferences with free expression, and are direct attacks on academic freedom. As academics with positions at UK universities, we wish to express our dismay at this attempt to silence campus discussion about Israel, including its violation of the rights of Palestinians for more than 50 years. It is with disbelief that we witness explicit political interference in university affairs in the interests of Israel under the thin disguise of concern about antisemitism.”

        Signatories @

      • Maghlawatan on February 27, 2017, 3:57 pm

        Daon is related to people

        Doan is related to ee cummings poem Ydoan

        Netanyahu is a real langer

      • Maghlawatan on February 27, 2017, 4:44 pm


        I believe Gamal plays hurling for the Barrs

      • gamal on February 27, 2017, 5:28 pm

        “Bunch of Langers , boy.” I am telling the Boiys, they can’t abide a Dub (honestly i am no good at this will embarass myself, am so ignorant about things Irish)

        I live here in a remote little spot and lang with the best, is langer very Cork in the city you do hear it quite a bit. I have had a bit to do with UCC am still vaguely connected, but I am now off grid, long story.

        there are some very good academics there i think, but my closest friends have now moved on, Yafa is gone to greener pastures.

        I have a lot of problems with the way they teach about Islam and have taken over the odd lecture in days gone by, but they have the same problems as all universities do now, commercialization of the institution and infringements of academic freedom so someone is really putting themselves on the line for this which is admirable.

        I am in Ireland because here there will be no police state in the deep countryside people have real social solidarity its a human environment, idiosyncratic like people are, no technocrats, never see a Police (Guard).

        I am going to go if possible when I can get in touch with the local IPSC, you must know them, in Cork they parade outside Dunnes store last Saturday of every month, I will try to find out tomorrow. Not been following this but since the mountain has come halfway it would be rude of Muhammad not to reciprocate, i rarely leave my home range nowadays, the brightlights of Dunmanway dazzle me.

      • gamal on February 27, 2017, 5:35 pm

        “ee cummings poem Ydoan”

        Maghla! I took out the cummings hint, you have given my life meaning, i am always thinking three posts ahead.

      • amigo on February 28, 2017, 8:22 am

        ” I am telling the Boiys, they can’t abide a Dub ” .Gamal

        Don,t be calling me a Dub , Boy. I am from the sunny south east where the “cats” rule supreme and Hurling is a religion.

        “I am going to go if possible when I can get in touch with the local IPSC ” gamal

        I have met a few of them at demos in Dublin but do not know them personally.I am a contributor to the IPSC in Dublin –especially since the BOI closed their account so they are relying mostly on electronic donations on a monthly basis.Dam Zionists have their tentacles everywhere. It pisses me off that they can control a bank in Ireland and force them to close the accounts of people who they do not like. I tripled my donation to the IPSC in Dublin as a protest to the BOI action.Anyway , I may try to get a ticket through them.

        Enjoy your time in Cork.They are fine people .Hope to see you at the conference if tickets are available.

  11. Mayhem on February 28, 2017, 12:01 am

    ” clamping down on support for Palestinian rights” –
    Is preventing SJP factions from abusive anti-semitic attacks, is fighting the rampant hatred and bigotry directed at Jews, is drawing attention to the swastikas appearing on Jewish fraternity houses, is condemning mock “apartheid walls” which disseminate mendacious Hamas propaganda, is opposing nasty anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions resolutions, is drawing attention to angry and sometimes violent attempts to shut down pro-Israel speakers, are these defensive actions impeding Palestinian rights? Get real.
    America’s universities have become a new fount of Jew hatred which then leeches into our broader culture and parades itself on MW.
    This is what is actually going on – In the Safe Spaces on Campus, No Jews Allowed
    Nobody has any entitlement to practise abusive, racist behaviour. Any cause that resorts to all the vituperations to which I have alluded is bankrupt and unworthy of support.

    • Mooser on February 28, 2017, 11:33 am

      “is drawing attention to the swastikas appearing on Jewish fraternity houses”

      And where did those awful swastikas come from on the fraternity house?

      And there’s been hundreds of bomb threats reported.( But nobody has lit so much as a trash-fire against a Jewish Center wall. Without making a phone call.) And they can’t trace a one!

    • eljay on February 28, 2017, 1:00 pm

      || Mayhem: … Nobody has any entitlement to practise abusive, racist behaviour. … ||

      …says the ardent Zionist. That is seriously funny. :-)

      • Mooser on February 28, 2017, 2:39 pm

        “…says the ardent Zionist. That is seriously funny. :-)”

        “eljay” I have my doubts about that guy.
        I still leave room for the possibility that “Mayhem” is an embittered, cynical and vengeful ex-Zionist with a pitch-perfect sense of what presents Zionists ( and oh, bye-the-bye, “Mayhem”, Jews too) in as bad a light as possible.

        “America’s universities have become a new fount of Jew hatred which then leeches into our broader culture”

        I think he means “leaches”.

    • oldgeezer on February 28, 2017, 3:31 pm


      It is wrong to hate Jews just as it is wrong to hate any other group.

      It is not wrong to hate an immoral racist belligerent human rights abusing expansionist state and all who support it no matter what their religion is. It is not only not wrong it is the only moral choice that can be made.

  12. Mooser on February 28, 2017, 11:38 am

    “America’s universities have become a new fount of Jew hatred which then leeches into our broader culture”

    Oh wait, I know what’s got you so het up, “Mayhem”

  13. Ossinev on February 28, 2017, 12:16 pm

    “Nobody has any entitlement to practise abusive, racist behaviour. Any cause that resorts to all the vituperations to which I have alluded is bankrupt and unworthy of support”

    Excellent summation and condemnation of your beloved little cult colony in Palestine.

Leave a Reply