[Rich]

I just want to add to the above that there was absolutely nothing evil about people who identified as Jews using their power and influence to support their chosen identity group. Or if it was evil it was no more evil than anyone else, than the German nationalists, the British nationalists, the French nationalists, the Serb nationalists, the Muslim Jihadists and the Bolsheviks, all of which were prepared to see millions die, to further their chosen cause. There were myriad groups that sought to manipulate the events of World War 1 such as the Indian nationalists or the proto Pakistanis, who really didn't care much about the grand narratives that motivated the major oowers.

However while not evil, it certainly was not consistent with any sort of credible absolutist objective morality.

[QatzelOk]

...The Brits gave Jews Palestine to maintain division amongst Arabs in the region and serve as their military base there during a time of decolonialism following world war two, something the U.S. took over a couple of decades after. This is why the West is so firmly in defence of the genocidal state even during the last seven months; defence of its colony...

...The British promised Palestine to the Jews in return for bringing America into the war in WW1. ...

If you look at the two things that "caused Israel to come into existence" above, you can see how Jeffrey Epstein and non-stop wars would result from its creation.

A war-state created to keep the British Empire on top of the world's other "races."
What could possibly go wrong over the course of the next 70 years of history?

[KurtFF8]

View the video in the post I quoted in the reply you're responding to.

Show me where the Left was defending any hate speech.

[Pants-of-dog]

View the video in the post I quoted in the reply you're responding to.

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

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?

[wat0n]

That is not hate speech, not even under IHRA.

Unless, of course, you don't think the same thing when other states allegedly do the same. Then it becomes hate speech.

[Pants-of-dog]

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why is there just 1 Jew in Yemen and why has he been jailed by the Houthis since 2016?

Well we could explore that question. There is a war raging in Yemen so that's hardly comforting for anyone, Jew or otherwise. There was a reaction though to the Zionist ethnic cleansing in 1948, the reaction was predictable and did lead to anti-Jewish sentiments around the Arab world, hardly surprising but not to be condoned. Prior to the mass ethnic cleansing "Nakba" Jews in Palestine had lived mostly peacefully with their non-Jewish neighbors and had done for centuries even under Ottoman rule.

Historically Jews lived and thrived in Yemen for centuries, like under the Ottomans they were granted freedom of religion and even received state protection in return for paying a tax.

Also unlike non-Jews, Jews anywhere in the world have a guaranteed right to citizenship in Israel where Jew-supremacy runs rampant, that is clearly going to attract a lot of Jews.

If they harass bystanders like those in Mea Shearim do, no one would bat an eye if they were arrested.

What evidence do you have that the Jews in that video were harassing bystanders?

It's funny though, those who don't care about the Jews who were mass murdered on October 7 now are suddenly concerned about them being arrested? Nonsense.

To whom are you referring when you say "those who don't"? where you implying that I take that view?

Yet the Holocaust changed everything and indeed proved the Zionists were essentially right.

The mass extermination of Jews by the Third Reich justifies the mass ethnic cleansing of non-Jews in Palestine? is this the argument you are making?

Each and every incident of antisemitism in the diaspora only reinforces this idea.

Yet most of the Jewish diaspora were opposed to a Zionist state, it was only after the Holocaust and intense propaganda that opinions slowly changed. Most Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948 were opposed to a Jewish state. Jewish terrorist groups (with political support from Britain) years before WW2 persecuted anti-Zionist Jews, are you really not even aware of this?

I quote from here

An early, apparently unpublished, report on the Irgun comes from a Times correspondent in Geneva who in the summer of 1939 was approached by a man identifying himself as a member of the “Jewish Military Organization” which was said to be an "extensive secret organisation throughout Palestine formed on Nazi lines. Its purpose is to be in readiness to take action against the Arabs ... the organisation has plenty of money at its disposal [and] has the support of the population, without which it could not continue ... his organisation works only among the youth of Jewry, and abandoned the “oppressed” Jews as hopeless ... the ultimate aim was to seize control in Palestine at some future date [and] to colonise Palestine and Transjordan.

The majority certainly does, even before October 7 2023.

It would have actually been wrong to harass German students in the 1930s over opposition to Nazi Germany. Particularly those Germans who were fleeing the Nazis.

You didn't answer the question nor did you comment upon the video of the TV debate about punitive home demolition of non-Jews, why did you skip past that?

[wat0n]

Well we could explore that question. There is a war raging in Yemen so that's hardly comforting for anyone, Jew or otherwise. There was a reaction though to the Zionist ethnic cleansing in 1948, the reaction was predictable and did lead to anti-Jewish sentiments around the Arab world, hardly surprising but not to be condoned. Prior to the mass ethnic cleansing "Nakba" Jews in Palestine had lived mostly peacefully with their non-Jewish neighbors and had done for centuries even under Ottoman rule.

Historically Jews lived and thrived in Yemen for centuries, like under the Ottomans they were granted freedom of religion and even received state protection in return for paying a tax.

No, historically Jews lived under second class status and furthermore the Ottomans were unable to even have a presence in Yemen for more than 200 years (starting in 1635) and even after returning in the mid 19th century they couldn't exercise authority over all of it.

This is also not thriving at all:

The Mawza Exile (Hebrew: גלות מוזע, pronounced [ğalūt mawzaʻ];‎ 1679–1680) is considered the single most traumatic event experienced collectively by the Jews of Yemen,[1][2] in which Jews living in nearly all cities and towns throughout Yemen were banished by decree of the king, Imām al-Mahdi Ahmad, and sent to a dry and barren region of the country named Mawzaʻ to withstand their fate or to die. Only a few communities, viz., those Jewish inhabitants who lived in the far eastern quarters of Yemen (Nihm, al-Jawf, and Khawlan of the east[3]) were spared this fate by virtue of their Arab patrons who refused to obey the king's orders.[4] Many would die along the route and while confined to the hot and arid conditions of this forbidding terrain. After one year in exile, the exiles were called back to perform their usual tasks and labors for the indigenous Arab populations, who had been deprived of goods and services on account of their exile.[5]

What evidence do you have that the Jews in that video were harassing bystanders?

They, specifically? None, but that is well known behavior. So well known that residents themselves warn you about what can happen to women walking around there dressed immodestly.

To whom are you referring when you say "those who don't"?

Leftists whining about the arrest of these people.

The mass extermination of Jews by the Third Reich justifies the mass ethnic cleansing of non-Jews in Palestine? is this the argument you are making?

No, it justifies seeking a state however.

Yet most of the Jewish diaspora were opposed to a Zionist state, it was only after the Holocaust and intense propaganda that opinions slowly changed.

Because the Holocaust proved Herzl was right.

You didn't answer the question.

I think I did. Most Jewish students experienced or witnessed antisemitism on campus even before this war.

[wat0n]

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.

It is certainly antisemitism if you refuse to adopt the same standard for other countries.

But if you do, suddenly the Apartheid claims lose their traction.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, how is it hate speech, as has been claimed?

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, historically Jews lived under second class status and furthermore the Ottomans were unable to even have a presence in Yemen for more than 200 years (starting in 1635) and even after returning in the mid 19th century they couldn't exercise authority over all of it.

I do not dispute that Jews (and others) lived as "second class" citizens at times. My point is that Jews were not persecuted or ethnically cleansed historically. Again I think that anti-Zionist Jews in Israel today are persecuted and this is a form of antisemitism which you seem to be denying.

They, specifically? None, but that is well known behavior. So well known that residents themselves warn you about what can happen to women walking around there dressed immodestly.

Right, so there's no evidence whatsoever that the beating of Jews in that video is a lawful and ethical action by the police. If you look at the news about anti-Zionist protests in the USA, do you see the protesters beating Jews like the police did in that video?

Leftists whining about the arrest of these people.

So you do not think any cause justifies civil disobedience? If that's the case then you must argue that the civil rights movement, women voting, child labor were all justified and that objecting to this is merely "lefties whining"?

No, it justifies seeking a state however.

By stealing already occupied land? by ethnically cleansing that land of non-Jews? Why not force Germany to give up territory, after all it was that nation and its people who facilitated the Holocaust not villagers living in Palestine.

Because the Holocaust proved Herzl was right.

Quote what you're referring to please, what exactly did Herzl say that you consider has been proven true?

Read this:

Until World War II, anti-Zionism was widespread among Jews for varying reasons. Orthodox Jews opposed Zionism on religious grounds, as preempting the Messiah,[b] while many secular Jewish anti-Zionists identified more with ideals of the Enlightenment and saw Zionism as a reactionary ideology.

There it is, proof that most Jews did not want a state of Israel, it arose from a minority and eventually radical movement that engaged in terrorism, persecution of anti-Zionists and was leveraged by the former colonial powers to thwart Arab self determination.

I think I did. Most Jewish students experienced or witnessed antisemitism on campus even before this war.

Even if true (which I've seen no evidence for) this does not mean that protesting against a racist Jew-supremacist state which has been engaged in ethnic cleansing since before WW2, is wrong does it?

The state of Israel is racist, it is founded on Jew-supremacy and the treatment of non-Jews as inferior. It imprisons children without due process, it tries children in secret military courts. It persecutes anti-Zionist Jews, it steals land and burns olive trees of families who have lived there for generation, centuries but are not themselves Jews.

It persecutes Christians, demolishes Churches and vandalizes graveyards. It refers to thugs and racist gangs as "settlers", it does not define "Jew" objectively, it does not acknowledge that many Palestinians are genetically more Jewish than say Jews from Ukraine.

I mean, how on earth can all of these things be true yet you refuse to condemn any of it? how can you argue that people trying to alter US policy of support for such a despicable regime are not right to do so?

You've been indoctrinated, you need to stop approving of this sickness, and try to get a mental real grip on the Holocaust as if it endows all Jews with a universal right to kill, steal and dehumanize non-Jews, listen to a Jew who is not a racist for once:

[Tainari88]

I do not dispute that Jews (and others) lived as "second class" citizens at times. My point is that Jews were not persecuted or ethnically cleansed historically. Again I think that anti-Zionist Jews in Israel today are persecuted and this is a form of antisemitism which you seem to be denying.



Right, so there's no evidence whatsoever that the beating of Jews in that video is a lawful and ethical action by the police. If you look at the news about anti-Zionist protests in the USA, do you see the protesters beating Jews like the police did in that video?



So you do not think any cause justifies civil disobedience? If that's the case then you must argue that the civil rights movement, women voting, child labor were all justified and that objecting to this is merely "lefties whining"?



By stealing already occupied land? by ethnically cleansing that land of non-Jews? Why not force Germany to give up territory, after all it was that nation and its people who facilitated the Holocaust not villagers living in Palestine.



Quote what you're referring to please, what exactly did Herzl say that you consider has been proven true?

Read this:



There it is, proof that most Jews did not want a state of Israel, it arose from a minority and eventually radical movement that engaged in terrorism, persecution of anti-Zionists and was leveraged by the former colonial powers to thwart Arab self determination.



Even if true (which I've seen no evidence for) this does not mean that protesting against a racist Jew-supremacist state which has been engaged in ethnic cleansing since before WW2, is wrong does it?

The state of Israel is racist, it is founded on Jew-supremacy and the treatment of non-Jews as inferior. It imprisons children without due process, it tries children in secret military courts. It persecutes anti-Zionist Jews, it steals land and burns olive trees of families who have lived there for generation, centuries but are not themselves Jews.

It persecutes Christians, demolishes Churches and vandalizes graveyards. It refers to thugs and racist gangs as "settlers", it does not define "Jew" objectively, it does not acknowledge that many Palestinians are genetically more Jewish than say Jews from Ukraine.

I mean, how on earth can all of these things be true yet you refuse to condemn any of it? how can you argue that people trying to alter US policy of support for such a regime are not right to do so?

You need to stop approving of this sickness, and try to get a mental real grip on the Holocaust as if it endows all Jews with a universal right to kill, steal and dehumanize non-Jews, listen to a Jew who is not a racist for once:

I like this Sherlock Holmes character. Whoever he or she is they kick ass in debates. Welcome to PoFo.

I am going to a beach in the Yucatecan coast. So I won't be back till the afternoon.

I hope you stay here debating for a long while.

Sherlock is great!!

[wat0n]

I do not dispute that Jews (and others) lived as "second class" citizens at times. My point is that Jews were not persecuted or ethnically cleansed historically. Again I think that anti-Zionist Jews in Israel today are persecuted and this is a form of antisemitism which you seem to be denying.

I also provided you with an example of evident ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Yemen you are ignoring. I wonder why.

These Jews are disliked but not persecuted. And they are disliked because of their fundamentalism and general disregard for the law.

Right, so there's no evidence whatsoever that the beating of Jews in that video is a lawful and ethical action by the police. If you look at the news about anti-Zionist protests in the USA, do you see the protesters beating Jews like the police did in that video?

You mean in riot gear?

Or you mean chasing them around and generally harassing them?

So you do not think any cause justifies civil disobedience? If that's the case then you must argue that the civil rights movement, women voting, child labor were all justified and that objecting to this is merely "lefties whining"?

Rioting isn't civil disobedience. Neither is harassment.

And, actually, civil disobedience includes accepting the consequences.

By stealing already occupied land? by ethnically cleansing that land of non-Jews? Why not force Germany to give up territory, after all it was that nation and its people who facilitated the Holocaust not villagers living in Palestine.

You do realize that either Jews had bought most of the land they lived in or it was owned by the government by 1947, do you?

Why ethnically cleanse the Jews from places like Hebron as early as 1929? This happened long before the founding of Israel and also before the rise of Zionist terrorism by the likes of Irgun and Lehi.

Quote what you're referring to please, what exactly did Herzl say that you consider has been proven true?

EFFECTS OF ANTI-SEMITISM

The oppression we endure does not improve us, for we are not a whit better than ordinary people. It is true that we do not love our enemies; but he alone who can conquer himself dare reproach us with that fault. Oppression naturally creates hostility against oppressors, and our hostility aggravates the pressure. It is impossible to escape from this eternal circle.

"No!" Some soft-hearted visionaries will say: "No, it is possible! Possible by means of the ultimate perfection of humanity."

Is it necessary to point to the sentimental folly of this view? He who would found his hope for improved conditions on the ultimate perfection of humanity would indeed be relying upon a Utopia!

I referred previously to our "assimilation". I do not for a moment wish to imply that I desire such an end. Our national character is too historically famous, and, in spite of every degradation, too fine to make its annihilation desirable. We might perhaps be able to merge ourselves entirely into surrounding races, if these were to leave us in peace for a period of two generations. But they will not [92]leave us in peace. For a little period they manage to tolerate us, and then their hostility breaks out again and again. The world is provoked somehow by our prosperity, because it has for many centuries been accustomed to consider us as the most contemptible among the poverty-stricken. In its ignorance and narrowness of heart, it fails to observe that prosperity weakens our Judaism and extinguishes our peculiarities. It is only pressure that forces us back to the parent stem; it is only hatred encompassing us that makes us strangers once more.

Thus, whether we like it or not, we are now, and shall henceforth remain, a historic group with unmistakable characteristics common to us all.

We are one people—our enemies have made us one without our consent, as repeatedly happens in history. Distress binds us together, and, thus united, we suddenly discover our strength. Yes, we are strong enough to form a State, and, indeed, a model State. We possess all human and material resources necessary for the purpose.

This is therefore the appropriate place to give an account of what has been somewhat roughly termed our "human material." But it would not be appreciated till the broad lines of the plan, on which everything depends, has first been marked out.

Are you saying Herzl wasn't right about this, just by looking at what happened in the Holocaust?

What would have surprised him, and most Europeans of his generation, is that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Germany. Most would have bet on Russia. But the event itself? Not at all.

Even if true (which I've seen little evidence for) this does not mean that protesting against a racist Jew-supremacist state which has been engaged in ethnic cleansing since before WW2, is wrong does it?

You've seen little evidence for it even when the students themselves are saying so?

I think it's wrong to protest to destroy Israel, which is what many protestors have said they want. But as long as they're not harassing anyone, disrupting the school operations and affecting the rights of others more generally I think it's their right. Free speech and all that.

Mere racism, including anti-semitism, is not illegal. Even calling for genocide isn't illegal and still falls into free speech. Harassment, impeding freedom of movement and damaging property on the other hand are.

[Pants-of-dog]

The phrase “from the river to the sea” has been labeled as advocating genocide and will almost certainly be illegal under the new law.

[wat0n]

The new law does not change anything in practice. The standard was already used by the federal government to enforce Title VI.

The law says explicitly it is about Title VI enforcement. As such, schools can always just choose to lose federal funding.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we see that calling for genocide is illegal under the new law.

Or more specifically, any phrase seen by Zionists as calling for genocide of Jews is illegal under the new law. One can still advocate for the removal of Palestinians from Gaza, for example.

[wat0n]

It isn't illegal to call for genocide either. You can go to any street and start doing it if you want.

Again, the law only deals with Title VI enforcement.

SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I also provided you with an example of evident ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Yemen you are ignoring. I wonder why.

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 see thistoo.

These Jews are disliked but not persecuted. And they are disliked because of their fundamentalism and general disregard for the law.

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.

Rioting isn't civil disobedience. Neither is harassment.

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

And, actually, civil disobedience includes accepting the consequences.

Why?

You do realize that either Jews had bought most of the land they lived in or it was owned by the government by 1947, do you?

Why ethnically cleanse the Jews from places like Hebron as early as 1929? This happened long before the founding of Israel and also before the rise of Zionist terrorism by the likes of Irgun and Lehi.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

Are you saying Herzl wasn't right about this, just by looking at what happened in the Holocaust?

What would have surprised him, and most Europeans of his generation, is that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Germany. Most would have bet on Russia. But the event itself? Not at all.

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.

You've seen little evidence for it even when the students themselves are saying so?

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

I think it's wrong to protest to destroy Israel, which is what many protestors have said they want.

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.

But as long as they're not harassing anyone, disrupting the school operations and affecting the rights of others more generally I think it's their right. Free speech and all that.

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.

Mere racism, including anti-semitism, is not illegal. Even calling for genocide isn't illegal and still falls into free speech. Harassment, impeding freedom of movement and damaging property on the other hand are.

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.

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It isn't illegal to call for genocide either. You can go to any street and start doing it if you want.

Again, the law only deals with Title VI enforcement.

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.

[Pants-of-dog]

To point out that this does not apply off campuses is irrelevant.

This thread is about university discussions on the ongoing genocide and the state actions to stifle such discussions.