[wat0n]

I wasn't ignoring it, I accepted that Jews have been victimized in the past, this is true of many races and cultures, look at American Indians or Australian Aborigines for example, plenty of ethnic cleansing there. Furthermore while were on the topic, Jews were not the only victims of mass extermination campaigns during WW2 and there was more than a single Holocaust.

Indeed, then you understand why Jews are less safe in Yemen than in Israel and how there's a history of that having nothing to do with Israel?

Well I think they'd argue with you here. First they do not acknowledge the state authority to which they are subjected. Many such Jews lived peacefully in Palestine living with Arabs and had done so for centuries. They did not want a state to be imposed upon them, a government orchestrated by the West to be imposed upon them. They were not afforded a vote, a democratic process, instead the state was created against the will of the majority, by the UN under the direct manipulation of the former colonial powers.

Sure, just like ISIS doesn't recognize the authority of the governments of Syria or Iraq (to name a couple).

And the people of Mea Shearim can vote in Israel. They're Israeli citizens AFAIK, and those who aren't can easily get citizenship.

So the Jews who rioted during the Warsaw uprising were breaking the law?

Sure, against the Nazi occupiers. Nothing wrong with that.

But the US is not an occupier in its own territory and even pro-Palestine protesters can vote. Or are you saying we should all be able to riot and force our will on everyone else to get what we want even if we just don't win elections?

Why?

Ask Henry David Thoreau, and particularly why he accepted jail.

The "government" did not own anything if that government is itself illegitimate. As I explained the majority had no say in the matter, no vote about who or what form of government, many wanted no government, did not want change imposed upon them by a coalition of former terrorist organizations who advocated Jew supremacy. So no, the "government" did not own anything not in any legal sense and more than Germany "owned" Paris during their occupation of it.

So the Mandatory government, and then the Ottoman one before it, did not own public land?

The Israelis do not own Gaza, they do not own the West Bank, they illegally occupy it according to international law (being an advocate of law and order I am fascinated to see how you defend this).

Please quote me saying Israel owns Gaza or the West Bank. Israel does not occupy Gaza but it doesn't own it either, and Israel certainly occupies the West Bank.

The events in Hebron were precipitated by fear, fear that began when the British made the Balfour Declaration perceived as a grave threat to many in Palestine (and look, their fears were well founded).

Interesting way to whitewash ethnic cleansing.

One standard for Jews, another for Arabs it seems.

All of these hostilities do not arise form Muslims hating Jews, they are the result of the divide and conquer policy of the colonial powers.

Then why did Muslims also attack the Jews of Hebron long before Zionism's rise as a 19th century nationalist political movement?

The West facilitated mass immigration of Jews into Palestine, this was planned years before between the British and the Zionists. That led to a rapid change in demographics, none of which was natural but as a result of external politics.

Just like South Africa, Israel was created as a majority ruled by a minority, prior to Israel's creation the population were not invited to vote for a government, it was imposed, undemocratically imposed. The region was partitioned and if you happened to be non-Jewish living in a Jewish partition, tough, you'd better get used to being inferior.

This also does not explain why is it that Jews were a discriminated minority even in Ottoman rule.

Herzl says nothing about Jew supremacist ideology. The persecution of Jews in history is not contested, certainly not by me. I agree with Herzl, many did but nothing Herzl said corresponds to Israeli ideology today.

Herzl is the father of Zionism. Jews supporting Israel's existence undoubtedly agree with Herzl there, because he was proven right.

You mean "claiming so" I think. There is a powerful Zionist lobby, to overlook that is to err.

So it's all fake, even when students themselves report instances of antisemitism and harassment. I wonder what will come next.

I disagree, since "Israel" today represents racist, apartheid Zionism, it is no more wrong to call for the destruction of that ideology than it was wrong to call for the destruction of the Third Reich. Calling for the destruction of the Third Reich, wiping it from the face of earth, is not understood by any sensible person to mean the destruction of Germany or its population, the meaning is pretty obvious. Of course the Zionist lobby loves to portray any criticism of the racist ideology as "calling for the destruction of Israel" that is a lie, no student protester has said any such thing, what they do say and what I say, is that the ideology, the nature of the state today, must be destroyed in EXACTLY the same way that Nazi ideology and the cult of the Third Reich needed to be destroyed.

That is not what Israel represents, though. What Israel represents is an expression of the self-determination of the Jewish people.

And yes, they are calling for the destruction of Israel as a state and not simply a change in policy. They are open in their opposition to the two-state solution, so this is not even arguable.

Starting on October the 7th the Zionist lobby began harassing anti-Zionists, before any actual campus protest had begun. Anyone not doing their bidding became a target, they were calling for the dismissal of University heads just because they would not do the Zionist bidding, unless the said "We condemn the unprovoked attacks by Hamas" and so on. This began immediately, harassment and persecution. One must do as the Zionists say or they will be labelled antisemitic and once that label is thrown at you all serious discussion is over, and that's the intention.

Actually there were already protests and antisemitic incidents even before Israel entered Gaza.

This type of gaslighting is unsurprising.

As is seeking the dismissal of people who object to Israel's racist ideology, this too is wrong yet began on October 7th. Anyone who argued that babies were not beheaded, was persecuted, anyone who said that the IDF killed Jews along with Hamas when they attempted a rescue was persecuted.

It is also free speech to demand the firing of racists, and to expose them more generally.

It seems free speech is, again, not good when the "bad" Jews do it, even when they are the majority.

And racism is illegal, if you try to prevent blacks from coming into a store or deny blacks the same service you provide whites, that's against the law - it's odd why you don't know this.

Yes, and if you try to block Jewish students from accessing campus it is also illegal. However, this is not speech but actually impeding freedom of movement and discrimination when providing services.

Do you understand the difference between both?

Once again, you have not responded to my questions about this:

Do you or do you not approve of this policy? if you refuse to answer, refuse to condemn it then I will assume you approve of this.

No, I don't approve demolitions.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Herzl is the father of Zionism. Jews supporting Israel's existence undoubtedly agree with Herzl there, because he was proven right.

He doesn't need to be "proven" right, there's no doubt that antisemitism has taken place throughout history, plenty of evidence. Unless he predicted that "Germany will develop a Aryan supremacist ideology, invade Europe and send millions of Jews to gas chambers" then I don't think the phrase "he was proven right" has any merits here.

Further the kind of zionism he advocated is very different from what we see today, that's why you'll hear Noam Chomsky say that he was a zionist in the late 1940s but he's not one now, not because he changed but because Zionism, the term, changed its meaning.

So it's all fake, even when students themselves report instances of antisemitism and harassment. I wonder what will come next.

How many students have been charged with harassment or racist mistreatment? do you have a number, people actually charged, where the evidence assures a conviction? Until I see that this is all anecdotal, he said she said.

That is not what Israel represents, though. What Israel represents is an expression of the self-determination of the Jewish people.

The Third Reich and those on trial at Nuremberg argued the same way, what they did was not what they represented. They argued that Jews (organized Jewry and Jewish financial interests) were a threat to the German people, particularly after Germany's defeat and financial collapse after WW1. They argued their case too, they tried to justify their treatment of Jews as arising from the existential threat Jews collectively represented.

That was all lies, just as the Israeli claims are all lies, it is racism, fascism, rabid nationalism.

And yes, they are calling for the destruction of Israel as a state and not simply a change in policy. They are open in their opposition to the two-state solution, so this is not even arguable.

Please show me some photographs taken of these students where they have signs "calling for the destruction of Israel"? It's possible some students expressed that. Tell me EXACTLY what was said or printed, what you regard as meaning "we call for the destruction of all Jews in Israel"?

Actually there were already protests and antisemitic incidents even before Israel entered Gaza.

Sure, just as there were anti-gay incidents or anti-trans incidents or anti-black incidents.

It is also free speech to demand the firing of racists, and to expose them more generally.

So persecution is OK after all because it's just free speech? is that what you mean? The university heads were not racist, they simply did not agree with the demands made of them. For example when asked "do you condemn calls for the genocide of Jews" how are they to answer when that is a matter of interpretation?

If some student called for the destruction of racist, racial supremacist ideology (like South Africa had) in Israel, then if you choose to interpret that as "calling for the genocide of Jews" then should I be persecuted because I do not share your interpretation?

The whole "debate" is a sham Kafkaesque game that Zionist have been playing for decades.

Yes, and if you try to block Jewish students from accessing campus it is also illegal. However, this is not speech but actually impeding freedom of movement and discrimination when providing services.

Again how many students have been charged here?

No, I don't approve demolitions.

So now you're an antisemite! Denying the state of Israel its God given right and duty to take all necessary steps to prevent terrorism and discourage fanatical antisemitic criminals. How dare you criticize Israel in its effort to protect its people from violence and terror!

The fact is there are HUNDREDS of such policies and practices that any sane person will disapprove of, not just home demolition, and this is why students protest because they must, this must stop, the Israeli barbarity and rabid neo-Nazi ideology financed by the US tax payer must be stopped before its too late.

[skinster]

The Brits indeed had their own goals in supporting Zionism, but the core argument for the Jews to establish a state to exercise their self-determination ("Jews will never be allowed to integrate into European and other societies as equal subjects") was still proven correct with the Holocaust.

That just makes you about as antisemitic as the Nazis. That's something Zionists have in common with the Nazis; the idea that Jews don't belong to Europe. I and millions of Jews who live in Europe and elsewhere outside of Israel disagree with you. You too are in the so-called diaspora and for someone who has the Zionist schlong in your mouth the entire time, you're really doing Zionism very poorly.

One other notable thing about Zionists is their own antisemitism vis-a-vis what they consider good Jews (Zionists) and bad Jews (non or anti-Zionists). For a group that cry so much antisemitism, you should take a look at your own. And that can start with the crimes of genocide against the Semitic Palestinians who've suffered Zionist savagery for close to a century..

Many Jews opposed Zionism because they disagreed with Herzl's thesis that Jews would not be allowed to integrate as equal subjects in Europe and elsewhere... Until the Holocaust showed he had a point.

Zionists used the Holocaust as an excuse to do exactly what Nazis were doing to Jews and other minorities. That's all that happened. Zionists themselves killed Jews who refused to be settlers in Palestine and do what was done to them onto others.

Even nowadays his point is still valid, although I would be fine with Israelis and Palestinians voting to become a single binational/civic state. The only problem is that strong majorities of both reject this idea, even among one staters its either a single Jewish state (among Israeli Jews) or a single Arab state (among Palestinians). This is proven by most if not all polls actually asking them.

Zionists have a choice today, one democratic state with equal rights for all or, heading back to where they came from, something that's looking increasingly likely more sooner rather than later. But Zionists don't seek peace in this way because it would contradict everything about the settler-colonialist and supremacist ideology that is Zionism.

Palestinians have not called for a single Arab state, liar. The resistance factions and Palestinians in general call for a single democratic state, which means equal rights for all. I know this last part might seem alien to Zionists but that is a thing popular all over the world, except like in places like Israel, South Africa before it and Nazi Germany before that..

If you really want that then support two states, support a gradual improvement of relations between them and then support a merging of both into a single binational/civic one after the two corresponding referenda asking both Israelis and Palestinians to vote on the matter.

I never supported the two state charade. I've only ever support one state which is effectively what it is today, with apartheid and military occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the what also includes the Gaza death camp which is also under occupation, blockade, and escalated genocide. But one democratic state is what I've always supported and it will be that sooner or later, but looks more likely to be sooner now. And Jews who lie there can remain as non-supremacists like they currently are, where they live equally with the natives, or they can go back to where they or their parents came from.

[wat0n]

He doesn't need to be "proven" right, there's no doubt that antisemitism has taken place throughout history, plenty of evidence. Unless he predicted that "Germany will develop a Aryan supremacist ideology, invade Europe and send millions of Jews to gas chambers" then I don't think the phrase "he was proven right" has any merits here.

Did you read the fragment?

Herzl believed the Jews wouldn't be allowed to integrate, even if they did their utmost to do that. How exactly didn't the Holocaust prove he had a point?

Further the kind of zionism he advocated is very different from what we see today, that's why you'll hear Noam Chomsky say that he was a zionist in the late 1940s but he's not one now, not because he changed but because Zionism, the term, changed its meaning.

So it's not "Zionism" you are against but some specific branches of it? I agree with you. I don't like Kahanism myself. But that doesn't mean Israel should be destroyed, only that its policies should change.

How many students have been charged with harassment or racist mistreatment? do you have a number, people actually charged, where the evidence assures a conviction? Until I see that this is all anecdotal, he said she said.

Again how many students have been charged here?

None, because 1) they are masked for the most part so identification is not straightforward, 2) schools have not taken the issue seriously or at least they hadn't until protests devolved into damaging property (Columbia) or outright clashes (UCLA). Schools are the ones tasked to discipline perpetrators and guarantee security - it's why they have their own police.

Ha, the Third Reich and those on trial at Nuremberg argued the same way, what they did was not what they represented.

Not really. The Third Reich was quite clear that it represented Germany, and those on trial at Nuremberg would try to defect personal responsibility and/or justify their actions. And well, Germany in the end was split yet reunified.

Please show me some photographs taken of these students where they have signs calling for the destruction of Israel? It's possible some students expressed that.

They have:



And there have also been protesters, not necessarily students, that have called for more concrete stuff. E.g.:



None of this is illegal, but it does speak of the nature of the protests. These are pro-war protests.

Sure, just as there were anti-gay incidents or anti-trans incidents or anti-black incidents.

So you agree with me on this point?

So persecution is OK after all because it's just free speech? is that what you mean? The university heads were not racist, they simply did not agree with the demands made of them. For example when asked "do you condemn calls for the genocide of Jews" how are they to answer when that is a matter of interpretation?

Would they accept the same calls of genocide of Black people?

The issue is that those same schools have disciplined speech in the past, when against other groups and/or by right-wingers.

If some student called for the destruction of racist, racial supremacist ideology (like South Africa had) in Israel, then if you choose to interpret that as "calling for the genocide of Jews" then should I be persecuted because I do not share your interpretation?

The whole "debate" is a sham Kafkaesque game that Zionist have been playing for decades.

Calling to destroy Israel goes beyond the mere destruction of an ideology.

So now you're an antisemite! Denying the state of Israel its right and duty to take all necessary steps to prevent terrorism and discourage fanatical antisemitic criminals.

You do realize that there is a debate within Israel itself not just about the ethics of home demolitions but their effectiveness?

But anyway, criticizing how Israel fights terrorism is one thing. Supporting such terrorism is another.

The fact is there are HUNDREDS of such policies and practices that any sane person will disapprove of, not just home demolition, and this is why students protest because they must, this must stop, the Israeli barbarity and rabid neo-Nazi ideology financed by the US tax payer must be stopped before its too late.

This all sounds nice until you realize the protesters 1) harass and limit the freedom of movement of other students, particularly Jewish and Israeli ones, 2) the protesters demand much more than just a change in policy.

That just makes you about as antisemitic as the Nazis. That's something Zionists have in common with the Nazis; the idea that Jews don't belong to Europe. I and millions of Jews who live in Europe and elsewhere outside of Israel disagree with you. You too are in the so-called diaspora and for someone who has the Zionist schlong in your mouth the entire time, you're really doing Zionism very poorly.

That should be the case, yet the evidence shows otherwise. Not only the Holocaust happened but even today antisemitism is a constant problem in Europe. Jews living in Europe should belong there, should be treated like they belong there, but in practice they often aren't.

And the left plays a big role in this nowadays.

One other notable thing about Zionists is their own antisemitism vis-a-vis what they consider good Jews (Zionists) and bad Jews (non or anti-Zionists). For a group that cry so much antisemitism, you should take a look at your own. And that can start with the crimes of genocide against the Semitic Palestinians who've suffered Zionist savagery for close to a century..

This sounds like projection, given the attacks against Jewish communal bodies because of their support for Israel's existence.

Zionists used the Holocaust as an excuse to do exactly what Nazis were doing to Jews and other minorities. That's all that happened. Zionists themselves killed Jews who refused to be settlers in Palestine and do what was done to them onto others.

Nonsense. Had the Arabs (which includes more than just Palestinians) accepted the bipartition, there would be peace in the region (Israel and Palestine, to be clear, other parts of the Middle East are another matter) today.

Zionists have a choice today, one democratic state with equal rights for all or, heading back to where they came from, something that's looking increasingly likely more sooner rather than later. But Zionists don't seek peace in this way because it would contradict everything about the settler-colonialist and supremacist ideology that is Zionism.

This dream of ethnic cleansing is just that, a dream.

Palestinians have not called for a single Arab state, liar. The resistance factions and Palestinians in general call for a single democratic state, which means equal rights for all. I know this last part might seem alien to Zionists but that is a thing popular all over the world, except like in places like Israel, South Africa before it and Nazi Germany before that..

You're so full of shit that even their Constitution says otherwise:

Article 1
Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.

I never supported the two state charade. I've only ever support one state which is effectively what it is today, with apartheid and military occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the what also includes the Gaza death camp which is also under occupation, blockade, and escalated genocide. But one democratic state is what I've always supported and it will be that sooner or later, but looks more likely to be sooner now. And Jews who lie there can remain as non-supremacists like they currently are, where they live equally with the natives, or they can go back to where they or their parents came from.

Do you agree with Article 1 of Palestine's Constitution?

[skinster]

On the spreading of anti genocide protests on campuses and elsewhere:

Jews living in Europe should belong there, should be treated like they belong there, but in practice they often aren't.

Yes, these are the type of problems suffered in the West.

And the left plays a big role in this nowadays.

The left are not racists and accusing the left of that just shows what bullshitters Zionists are. Meanwhile, Zionists, are actually racist because they support a racist ideology that denies rights to people based on their race. It's always projection with zionists...

Nonsense. Had the Arabs (which includes more than just Palestinians) accepted the bipartition, there would be peace in the region (Israel and Palestine, to be clear, other parts of the Middle East are another matter) today.

Yeah, it's the "Arabs" fault Israel genocided and ethnically-cleansed them and forced them to live under occupation for decades with no end in sight. The logic of rapists...which explains that obsession with rape that you've been projecting the entire time.

This dream of ethnic cleansing is just that, a dream.

It is a reality for Palestinians for close to a century. As for dismantling Zionism, in what world is Zionism an ethnicity? Is eradicating Nazism ethnic cleansing too?

You're so full of shit that even their Constitution says otherwise:

Which party wrote that two decades plus constitution? The Western website you're sharing doesn't make that clear. And a Palestinian source is preferable.

Still, it doesn't change what I said and of course it is an Arab state because guess which region of the world it is in, you dope.

The demand of Palestinians is for a single democratic state with equal rights for all, which includes Zionists who will no longer be Zionists since that supremacist ideology would have to make way for the single democratic state.

[Unthinking Majority]

Stop with the passive aggressive weasel snipes where you blame others for holding positions that they have not claimed to hold.

That's rich given you're the biggest weasel on this forum.

Do you believe that Oct 7 was a legitimate form of resistance? Or are you not going to answer again because "the feels"? Is that a position you don't hold? Please weasel out of answering that question once again.

Instead, address the fact that US law declares this hare speech:

“Israel is a settler colonial state that has a racist system of Apartheid that targets Palestinians.”

How is this hate speech?

It's not and I never said it was, so stop asking me. It's a ridiculous statement though, but saying something dumb isn't illegal. Notice how you can't explain how Israel is an apartheid state.

[wat0n]

Yes, these are the type of problems suffered in the West.

If only

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Sarah_Halimi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Mireille_Knoll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ilan_Halimi

The left are not racists and accusing the left of that just shows what bullshitters Zionists are. Meanwhile, Zionists, are actually racist because they support a racist ideology that denies rights to people based on their race. It's always projection with zionists...

The constant justification for murdering Jews is part of that role.

Yeah, it's the "Arabs" fault Israel genocided and ethnically-cleansed them and forced them to live under occupation for decades with no end in sight. The logic of rapists...which explains that obsession with rape that you've been projecting the entire time.

None of that had happened when the first instances of actual violence in the conflict, particularly the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Hebron, happened.

It is a reality for Palestinians for close to a century. As for dismantling Zionism, in what world is Zionism an ethnicity? Is eradicating Nazism ethnic cleansing too?

If that was true, there would be no constant conflict just like it happened with Turkey in Cyprus.

And your dreams are exactly the examples of antisemitism that are extended in the left, and among neonazis.

Which party wrote that two decades plus constitution? The Western website you're sharing doesn't make that clear. And a Palestinian source is preferable.

Still, it doesn't change what I said and of course it is an Arab state because guess which region of the world it is in, you dope.

The demand of Palestinians is for a single democratic state with equal rights for all, which includes Zionists who will no longer be Zionists since that supremacist ideology would have to make way for the single democratic state.

The text comes from 2003, so it was passed by Arafat. Do you agree with it?

[Unthinking Majority]

My statement above is antisemitic according to the IHRA because of two facts:

1. It claims Israel is a racist endeavour.
2. I omitted mentioning that other countries are settler colonialist states.

So we already know it is antisemitism according to the proposed US law.

Now we must determine if it is hate speech.

@Unthinking Majority has implied that it is. I will allow him to explain how.

What are you talking about? Why do you keep asking me this? I never said anything was hate speech, and don't even agree with the new law or the IHRA definition, so bugger off.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's rich given you're the biggest weasel on this forum.

Do you believe that Oct 7 was a legitimate form of resistance? Or are you not going to answer again because "the feels"? Is that a position you don't hold? Please weasel out of answering that question once again.

I already answered this, but here it is again: I honestly do not care if it was legitimate or not. Does that make me.bad?

It's not and I never said it was, so stop asking me. It's a ridiculous statement though, but saying something dumb isn't illegal. Notice how you can't explain how Israel is an apartheid state.

This statement (that you have agreed is not hate speech) is illegal in two different ways, according to the new law being pushed through US congress.

[wat0n]

If that statement is illegal, why hasn't the Department of Education ever withheld funding from universities that allow it? The DoE has been using the IHRA definition of antisemitism since 2018.

[Unthinking Majority]

I already answered this, but here it is again: I honestly do not care if it was legitimate or not. Does that make me.bad?

Well since you're doing everything you can to avoid giving your opinion on whether the Oct 7 attacks were just or unjust, and condemning rape , hostage-taking, and baby/child/elderly slaughter is seemingly not only very difficult but impossible for you, and that you allegedly "honestly don't care", then yes that makes you bad.

If you cared about human rights at all you would very much care. Unfortunately some people don't care about human rights, only about whether their tribe or the tribes they support are gaining or losing power. These people are basically sociopaths.

You don't seem to agree with this new antisemitism law. If there was a similar law against islamophobia would you support it?

[Pants-of-dog]

Well since you're doing everything you can to avoid giving your opinion on whether the Oct 7 attacks were just or unjust, and condemning rape , hostage-taking, and baby/child/elderly slaughter is seemingly not only very difficult but impossible for you, and that you allegedly "honestly don't care", then yes that makes you bad.

If you cared about human rights at all you would very much care. Unfortunately some people don't care about human rights, only about whether their tribe or the tribes they support are gaining or losing power. These people are basically sociopaths.

Okay. Now that we have discussed your feels about my feels, do you have any argument about the topic?

You don't seem to agree with this new antisemitism law. If there was a similar law against islamophobia would you support it?

This is an unrealistic and implausible situation.

If we lived in a world where Muslims had the same power as Zionists to create university policies, this situation would not exist right now. So this is an irrelevant comparison.

[wat0n]

If we lived in a world where Muslims had the same power as Zionists to create university policies, this situation would not exist right now. So this is an irrelevant comparison.

Jumping into Protocols territory, heh?

I am still waiting for you to show that any schools have been sued or have had their funding denied because someone affiliated to it claimed Israel is an Apartheid state.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Calling to destroy Israel goes beyond the mere destruction of an ideology.

I'd like to focus specifically on this claim. I put it to you that what you say above is an interpretation of something.

Can you show me precisely what the student protesters have been saying?

Consider the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" which is a common placard at protests. To interpret that as advocating genocide against all Jews is merely an interpretation.

Or "There is only one solution" or "Support for Palestine is not antisemitism" or "US faculty against the genocide in Palestine" or "Free Palestine" or "End US aid to Israel" and so on.

Which of these do you choose to interpret as going beyond the destruction of an ideology?

[wat0n]

I'd like to focus specifically on this claim. I put it to you that what you say above is an interpretation of something.

Can you show me precisely what the student protesters have been saying?

Consider the phrase "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" which is a common placard at protests. To interpret that as advocating genocide against all Jews is merely an interpretation.

Or "There is only one solution" or "Support for Palestine is not antisemitism" or "US faculty against the genocide in Palestine" or "Free Palestine" or "End US aid to Israel" and so on.

Which of these do you choose to interpret as going beyond the destruction of an ideology?

How would you interpret "Palestine is Arab"?

[Sherlock Holmes]

How would you interpret "Palestine is Arab"?

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to see questions answered in the order that they are asked...

[wat0n]

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to see questions answered in the order that they are asked...

The response to my question will affect the responses to yours.

If you chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and also chant "Palestine is Arab" the actual meaning of the former is or should be quite clear.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The response to my question will affect the responses to yours.

If you chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and also chant "Palestine is Arab" the actual meaning of the former is or should be quite clear.

So, you can't show me a photograph of students carrying placards that say "Genocide to the Jews"? I'm asking what concrete evidence can you offer that supports the claim that people are advocating the destruction of the Jewish race?

I'm happy to discuss your question in due course, but I am of the opinion that this claim that critics of Israel are also advocating genocide of the Jewish race, is a lie, a fabrication, at best a paraphrasing, a wishful interpretation of something actually said.

So if you have no visual evidence from the multitude of photographs that have been taken during one of the most public and visible protests in recent memory, just admit that and we can move on to your other points.

[wat0n]

So, you can't show me a photograph of students carrying placards that say "Genocide to the Jews"? I'm asking what concrete evidence can you offer that supports the claim that people are advocating the destruction of the Jewish race?

I'm happy to discuss your question in due course, but I am of the opinion that this claim that critics of Israel are also advocating genocide of the Jewish race, is a lie, a fabrication, at best a paraphrasing, a wishful interpretation of something actually said.

So if you have no visual evidence from the multitude of photographs that have been taken during one of the most public and visible protests in recent memory, just admit that and we can move on to your other points.

Does chanting "Palestine is Arab" count as advocating for the destruction of Israel?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Does chanting "Palestine is Arab" count as advocating for the destruction of Israel?

You were asked for evidence, photographs if you have none say so and I'm happy to answer your questions and discuss this whole issue.