California State Assembly Seeks to Stifle Criticism of Israel

Categorized | Loon Politics

Tags | BDS, California Assembly, Criticism, free speech, Freedom of Expression, Islamophobia, Israel, OIC, Organization of the Islamic Conference, What if they were Muslim

California State Assembly Seeks to Stifle Criticism of Israel

Posted on 05 September 2012 by Emperor

When the OIC promotes plans to ban blasphemy through UN initiatives, claiming to fight Islamophobia they are rightly called out for undermining freedom of speech and expression and also for devaluing the fight against Islamophobia.

When the California assembly seeks to stifle criticism of Israel by claiming that speakers who talk about Israeli “crimes against humanity,” “ethnic cleansing” and support “boycott, divestment and sanctions” are anti-Semites who should not be “tolerated in the classroom or on campus” what is that called? It should rightfully be condemned as an attack on free speech, expression and an undermining of the fight against anti-Semitism.

What if they were Muslim? (h/t: JD)

California State Assembly Seeks to Stifle Debate on Israel

by Stephen Zunes (Huffington Post)

The California State Assembly has just passed a bipartisan resolution (HR 35) by voice vote which constitutes a serious attack on academic freedom and the rights of students and faculty to raise awareness about human rights abuses by U.S.-backed governments. While purporting to put the legislature on record in opposition of anti-Semitism on state university campuses, it defines anti-Semitism so widely as to include legitimate political activities in opposition to Israeli government policies.

The resolution was opposed by a wide variety of groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Asian Law Caucus, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, yet the Republican-sponsored measure received wide bipartisan support in the Democratic-controlled legislature.

The non-binding resolution — which was sponsored by 66 of the 88 members of the lower house — demands that what it calls “anti-Semitic activity” should “not be tolerated in the classroom or on campus, and that no public resources be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or intolerant agitation.”

The resolution lists a number of examples of genuine anti-Semitic activities, such as painting swastikas outside Hillel offices. However, much of the text is focused upon criticism of the state of Israel. Among the examples given of “anti-Semitic activities” included in the resolution are:

• Accusations that the Israeli government is guilty of “crimes against humanity”
This would mean that a speaker from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights groups which have documented such violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli Defense Forces could not be provided space or honoraria to talk about their research.

• Accusations that Israel has engaged in “ethnic cleansing”
This would mean that Israeli scholars who have studied and published documents from Israeli archives pertaining to the 1947-49 conflict in Israel/Palestine which demonstrate that there was a calculated policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian population in some regions, would similarly be barred.

• “Student and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel”
This would prohibit efforts to boycott goods made in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, support international sanctions on Israel over its ongoing violations of a series of UN Security Council resolution, or have the university divest from its endowment stock in companies supporting the Israeli occupation.

The resolution also declares a number of other political activities that, while clearly objectionable — such as disrupting a speech by a supporter of the Israeli government — as “anti-Semitic,” based on the assumption that hostility toward such a speaker is not based on opposition to policies of Israel’s right-wing government, but because the country is Jewish.

Indeed, throughout the resolution, opposition to Israeli government policies is equated with bigotry towards Jews. There’s no question that some pro-Palestinian activists do sometimes cross the line into what could reasonably be called anti-Semitism, which should indeed be categorically condemned, as should all manifestation of prejudice. Unfortunately, this resolution makes no distinction between this tiny bigoted minority and the majority of activists who oppose the Israeli occupation and other policies of that country’s right-wing government on legitimate human rights grounds.

Not only does this constitute an attack on academic freedom, it compromises legitimate efforts against the scourge of anti-Semitism which — while not as widespread a phenomenon on California campuses as the resolution implies — is still very real.

College campuses, particularly those in California’s large public university systems, have long been a center of agitation for human rights and in opposition to U.S. policies which support violations of human rights, whether it be the war in Vietnam, investment in apartheid South Africa, intervention in Central America or support for Israel’s wars and occupation.

This bipartisan effort appears to be an attempt to stifle this tradition. Indeed, if the California state legislature succeeds in shutting down debate regarding U.S. policy toward Israel and its neighbors, it will only be a matter of time before debate on other aspects of U.S. foreign policy will be suppressed as well.

Haddock

@Sarah Brown: “@JSB – agreed – know nothing about the Talmud but it’s a bit like invoking (sp?)Taqiyaa.”

I know you addressed this to Just Stopping By, but I wanted to provide my own comment as well. The Talmud is more like the body of Islamic jurisprudence, known as “fiqh.” There is no one book called “fiqh”, and the same goes for the Talmud. According to the link below, the Talmud consists of nearly sixty books featuring the debates and arguments of many important Rabbis, who tried to understand how the teachings of the Torah could apply to every day life in every age and location.

http://judaism.about.com/od/shavuot/a/shavuot_study_3.htm

One of the discussions in the Talmud IS about dissimulation from a Jewish perspective, and the same claims about Muslims practicing “taqiyya” have been historically, and currently, applied to Jews.
KY

Israel Shahak is a jewish anti semite, and muslimamerica.net is an anti semitic website. No case against the Talmud there.

It actually proves what the supporters of the bill that the Californa State Assembly argue, that anti semites pretend to be anti zionists give legitimacy to their own anti semitism, thus unfairly targeting Israel. It’s telling that Israel Shahak could publish in Israel, when Israel according to ‘anti zionists’ is supposed to be hiding this kind of information from goyim. Contradictions but what does that matter.
Sarah Brown

@JSB – agreed – know nothing about the Talmud but it’s a bit like invoking (sp?)Taqiyaa.
Just Stopping By

@Stephen G. Parker: As has been pointed out on Loonwatch before, Shahak had a history of misrepresenting Jewish principles. (Here, Believing Atheist, who had supported Shahak, agrees with my showing that Shahak was misrepresenting things when he claimed that Jews prayed to Satan: http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/02/glenn-greenwald-the-growing-iranian-military-behemoth/#comment-142911).

@Ilisha: As I said above, you are making this thread boring for me by repeatedly saying things that I agree with. I endorse your comment above (though I did read the FIRE document and parts of the Talmud).

@Stephen G. Parker: As for your complaints against Dershowitz being one-sided in his view of freedom of speech, that is pretty much the definition of prejudice. You are pre-judging him on the free-speech issue based on your differences on the Palestine/Israel issue.

Dershowitz is actually a huge defender of free speech across the board. See here, for example: http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/speechcodes.html. (“Paulin’s advocacy of murder of innocent civilians, even if it falls short of incitement, is a paradigm of hate speech. It would certainly make me uncomfortable to sit in a classroom or lecture hall, listening to him spew his murderous hatred toward my former students and co-religionists. Yet I would not want to empower Harvard to censor his speech or include it within a speech code or harassment policy.”)

And your statements trying to tie Dershowitz’s statements to purported Talmudic laws at the very least border on anti-Semitism if not cross the line, just as much as claiming that any violent act by a Muslim can be tied to “jihad” or some verse in the Qur’an that, out of context, appears to endorse violence because, hey, they sound similar. People who disagree with another and then scour the other person’s religion to find something that, generally out of context, sounds sinisterly similar are engaging in a form of prejudice. It’s as simple as that.
Ilisha

@Stephen G. Parker

My concern about a potential backlash was one of many, and that might be the case for Mr. Dershowitz as well.

Let me confess I didn’t carefully read the entire FIRE document, but rather skimmed it, and based on that reading, it appeared to raise the free speech banner as a central theme.

How can we know Dershowitz was concerned exclusively about a potential backlash? Are you suggesting his position stems from his reading of the Talmud? I’m confused on this point, and how you think Shahak’s book is related to this incident.

He and I happen to agree, and I’ve never read the Talmud.
http://www.mystic444.wordpress.com Stephen G. Parker

I have found both Sarah Brown and ‘Just Stopping By’ to be very reasonable in their comments – and in fact they have both stated that they are opposed to California’s non-binding resolution. That obviously doesn’t mean that they find acceptable the kind of language the resolution seeks to prohibit; it just means that no matter how repulsive they may perhaps find such language, they agree that it should not be prohibited. And that is perfectly legitimate and reasonable (to personally oppose that which nevertheless you would not prohibit).

‘Unfortunately’, ‘Just Stopping By’, Alan Dershowitz’s statement does not cause my head to explode or reduce my ‘prejudice’. I take your statement as being intended as lighthearted humor; so I just grin.

Perhaps I’m just overly cynical, but I can’t help recalling what Israel Shahak had to say in chapter 5 of his book “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” ( http://www.muslimamerica.net/mabs/shahak.pdf ). Concerning Talmudic laws against murder, and concerning the saving of life, he points out that for a Jew to murder a fellow Jew is absolutely forbidden, and the Jewish murderer is subject to punishment by human courts. For a Jew to murder a Gentile (by direct action) is also forbidden, but is not subject to punishment in a human court (it is only subject to Divine punishment). For a Jew to indirectly cause the death of a Gentile (by, for instance, removing a ladder or other means of escape from a Gentile who has fallen into a pit) is not forbidden; in fact it is encouraged.

It IS forbidden to help a Gentile whose life is in danger. However, if the Jew realizes that his refusal to help the Gentile may become publicly known to a Gentile population, and might result in hostility and antagonism toward Jews; then he must go ahead and assist the Gentile IN ORDER TO AVOID THAT HOSTILITY. His intention should not be actually to help the Gentile, but to avoid Gentile antagonism.

Again, call me overly cynical, but I see too much resemblance between Mr. Dershowitz’s quoted statement and such Talmudic laws (or purported Talmudic laws, if you will). According to the quote, Alan Dershowitz did not oppose the prohibition of ‘hate speech’ because such prohibition is wrong in principle, but only because it might result in the Zionist’s own brand of hate speech being prohibited. It might have an undesirable effect on Jews (hostility and antagonism directed against their own ‘hate speech’).

I wonder if Mr. Dershowitz would have found it so objectionable if the University of California’s intended policy had been directed particularly against ‘anti-Semitic’ speech, rather than ‘hate speech’ in general. I wonder if he’s ‘up in arms’ against this resolution of California’s Congress, since it attacks anti-Zionist/anti-Israel language (labeled ‘anti-Semitic’) rather than attacking all kinds of hate speech.

No, the only ‘head exploding’ thing I find is that so many people apparently don’t see through Mr. Dershowitz’s subterfuge in stating that the U.C. policy is wrong because it would affect the ‘pro-Israel’ advocates also. If he didn’t think it would affect Zionists, he probably would not find it objectionable at all. If he did find it objectionable, it would only be because – as I said in one of my comments – to prohibit ‘anti-Semitic’ speech would logically lead to prohibition of other kinds of ‘hate speech’, and that would probably affect the ‘pro-Israel’ folks as well as the ‘anti-Israel’ crowd. Though I strongly doubt the ‘Israel lobby’ (AIPAC, ADL, JDL, etc.) would ever permit to be passed any such legislation (or resolution) which affected Zionists.

I found the FIRE letter to be quite good, apparently defending free speech for all based on solid principle – rather than Mr. Dershowitz’s defense because it would otherwise affect Jewish/Zionist ‘hate speech’ as well as Anti-Zionist ‘hate speech’. I don’t know whether or not the signers of the letter are Jewish or support Mr. Dershowitz’s rabid Zionism – I’m going to assume not for the present. I do note that Alan Dershowitz’s name is not among the signers of the apparently principled FIRE letter, although he’s on the Board of Directors of FIRE.
Sarah Brown

Sir David – just to give a couple of quick indicators of the (admittedly complex and contested) ways in which antizionism or opposition to Israel can shade into antisemitism I’ll note:

a) The unnecessary use of terms like ‘Zionazi’ and other jibes which try to associate Israel’s policies with Nazism.

b) This little example of an actual instance of this kind of conflation. It’s somewhat involved – but interesting.

http://greensengage.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/very-cunning-nazis-infiltrate-the-green-party/

One distinction which might be worth making is that between discourse which we feel is antisemitic (or Islamophobic) and which we find unwelcome, and discourse which should be banned. Perhaps almost nothing should be banned outright, but if this discourse is being used say by colleagues to make someone feel they are being bullied – then it should be dealt with even if the hurtful terms most certainly shouldn’t be *banned* more generally.
Just Stopping By

@HGG: In proper academic fashion, you can borrow my words as long as I am credited, as you did above.

I’ll also borrow yours by saying that this is an excellent summary: “Personally I believe Freedom of Speech is an extremely cherished value that should be protected, and even if this resolution doesn’t criminalize certain speech, it diminishes the perception of the freedom.”

I also agree with the rest of your comment and appreciate how much it itself gives an account of.
Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32)

Why is it that loons seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between
a) being critical of a political entity such as for intance the state of Isreal or indeed the state of Iran or any other state
b) lumping together all believers of a particular religion or belief system and assuming them to be identikit sterio types intent on taking over the world .( inset religion you are hating this week )

Is it that difficult?

Sir David
HGG

“one of the very few places left that encouraged beating your opponents ideas intellectually through debate instead of using the power of numbers ie a crowd of people drowning out a single voice, laws, or social coercion ie societal pressure on an unpopular opinion.”

First of all, I hope JSB doesn’t mind me borrowing his/her words for this, but that’s how I feel: “what the legislature is advocating is against the First Amendment and I oppose this resolution.”

Despite that not being the solution, I believe there is an issue with pro-Israeli and Israeli students in Universities where they can be, to use your words, “using the power of numbers ie a crowd of people drowning out a single voice, laws, or social coercion ie societal pressure on an unpopular opinion.”

It would be great if every debate on the subject were like those had by Illisha and JSB, but the reality is far more sad. We see Zionism equated with Nazism or a as a satanic ideology, refusal to accept the state of Israel and a complete blame on them for the ills of the middle east. This doesn’t automatically equate Anti-Semitism (it’s a fine line, though) but I can see how Jewish students could feel bothered by that.

Of course, whatever problems there may be, this relatively harmless non-binding resolution is not the solution. Personally I believe Freedom of Speech is an extremely cherished value that should be protected, and even if this resolution doesn’t criminalize certain speech, it diminishes the perception of the freedom.
Sarah Brown

I agree that the state intervention seems odd and over the top – you would think this would be an internal issue. If in doubt, I think it’s always better to err on the libertarian side when it comes to free speech. The point about invited speakers is an interesting one. It’s not precisely a free speech issue. I accept that people like Geller have a right to say what they want – on their blogs for example – and also to speak in public as long as no laws or broken. But universities are a bit different and I think it is a concern if speakers who stir up hatred speak – at least on a regular basis – for a politics society to invite her as a one off as part of a very varied programme would be one thing, but if you have a society inviting hateful speaker after hateful speaker then that could be a problem. In the UK there have been concerns about Islamist speakers but also about, for example, Benny Morris. This is quite interesting:

http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/university-islamic-society-accused-of-hypocrisy/
Just Stopping By

@AJ: “JSB, You and Sarah Brown were trying to shift the focus towards the students’ rowdiness rather than out rightly saying that what the legislature is doing is against the first amendment.”

Sorry that this wasn’t clear enough on my part: “@Sarah Brown says, ‘I’d like to hear more someone who knows about this and supports the measure.’ Well, I meet the first half of the request, but not the second.” And “I agree that the resolution is wrong to treat negative claims about Israel as necessarily anti-Semitic.” If that’s not clear enough, then here goes: I think that what the legislature is advocating is against the First Amendment and I oppose this resolution.

@AJ: “But in any case, I am surprised Dershowitz said that…” Yes, that tends to happen when you think that anyone who is a Zionist or a member of any other political group can’t have views on more than one issue and might actually be more persuaded by the issue on which you don’t steadfastly disagree with them.

@Solid Snake: I agree with almost all of what you said.

“Universities and Colleges are (were?) one of the very few places left that encouraged beating your opponents ideas intellectually through debate instead of using the power of numbers ie a crowd of people drowning out a single voice, laws, or social coercion ie societal pressure on an unpopular opinion.” Absolutely correct.

“I believe that if more of these resolutions pass it will ruin the existing atmosphere of free expression where anyone, anywhere on campus can strike up a debate regarding anything.” Again, we’re in complete agreement.

“I believe in the Islamic principle of Moderation , also a universal principle but it is stressed often in Islam,and I believe that equal coverage of both sides is a must.” Again, agreed.

“As for my opinion on the issue,I agree with the one-state solution with full rights for everyone.” Okay, so we’re not on the same page here, but I accept that this is a matter of a disagreement based on different views of what would be most beneficial and likely to work and not based on any form of hatred or malice. I don’t think we have discussed the Palestine/Israel issue, but based on everything I remember you saying, I feel confident that any disagreements we have would be based on legitimate differences in views and beliefs and not on bad intentions. One day, perhaps we can discuss, as I would really enjoy hearing your views. And I can honestly say that I am more interested in seeing if what you say changes my views than if I can change yours. Why? Because I am very selfish and think that the potential to improve my thinking is much more important than changing the views of some random pre-med student.

@HGG: “You’re way too consistent. You give Internet commentators a bad name ” Libel!
HGG

“I oppose banning speech based on content.”

You’re way too consistent. You give Internet commentators a bad name
broke

@Haddock:
“What about Jews who are critical of Israel? Are they anti-Semites too? This is ridiculous”

There’s an entire category of Jews classified as anti-Semitic by pro-Israel Jews:
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/steven-plaut/the-pathology-of-jewish-anti-semitism/
Solid Snake

Frankly, I am quite stunned that they even considered passing this resolution. Universities and Colleges are (were?) one of the very few places left that encouraged beating your opponents ideas intellectually through debate instead of using the power of numbers ie a crowd of people drowning out a single voice, laws, or social coercion ie societal pressure on an unpopular opinion. I can understand this being pushed at a Republican social convention (even a Democratic one by the looks of it), or at private corporations in the workplace but not at the centers of learning where our future leaders are supposed to develop and grow. This is not only about double standards this is about the very definition and function of Universities and Colleges.

Where else are you supposed to express an unpopular idea without getting your head knocked off or shunned by society? In an ideal world, Universities provide everyone with a platform where everyone is on equal footing, sure an idea might have more supporters but the other side is always given a chance to be heard.

I believe that if more of these resolutions pass it will ruin the existing atmosphere of free expression where anyone, anywhere on campus can strike up a debate regarding anything. That’s just my take on any resolution banning any type of speech. I would disagree with the resolution even if it was trying to stifle Anti-Muslim speech. In fact it would be detrimental to our cause if we had such a resolution. Plus I want to trounce the bigots in a fair debate and expose their lies…but that’s beside the point.

On Antisemitism, I despise it as much as I despise Anti-Muslim speech. Anti-anyone speech is dangerous. and to clarify, by anti-_____ speech I don’t mean legitimate criticism like I am anti-Resolution(HR 35) because of the reasons above. No, I mean speech with the endgame of hurting, alienating, and killing a specific people. Because that is the end game of Antisemitism, Anti-Muslim (Islamophobia), and all anti-people speech.

As for Pro-Israeli citizens feeling ‘beleaguered’or ‘besieged’, that is exactly what it is. They ‘feel’ besieged or beleaguered because of the rapid shift in public information. I believe in the Islamic principle of Moderation , also a universal principle but it is stressed often in Islam,and I believe that equal coverage of both sides is a must. As Illisha said the Israeli narrative has enjoyed mainstream success for as long as I can remember especially in America. Even now Israel enjoys wide public support, political support, and support from the mainstream media.The dynamic shift in the availability of information regarding the conflict occurring at the grassroots level may have some Pro-Israeli citizens feeling ‘beleaguered’. Now if that ‘beleaguered’ feeling comes from any physical confrontations with the Anti-Israeli protesters then I believe some measures should be taken to protect the physical being of those that feel ‘beleaguered’ or feel threatened.

As for my opinion on the issue,I agree with the one-state solution with full rights for everyone.
http://Aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

JSB,

You and Sarah Brown were trying to shift the focus towards the students’ rowdiness rather than out rightly saying that what the legislature is doing is against the first amendment. Btw I take back what I said on Dershowitz. The guy is a fraud and he had Finkelstein removed from DePaul since the guy exposed him.
Haddock

@Ilisha: “I also think this could backfire. There are enough conspiracy theories about how Israel/Jews/Zionists literally “control” America, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this story has gone viral in those circles.”

It already has. The people who came up with and support this idea are actually contributing to anti-Semitism. All of the neo-Nazis and white supremacists are out there, saying, “See?! We told you that the Jooos control America!” A very dumb move, even from simply a strategic perspective, not to mention morally repugnant.

What about Jews who are critical of Israel? Are they anti-Semites too? This is ridiculous.
Just Stopping By

@AJ: I am not sure why you find me unclear, so let me try again:

I oppose banning speech based on content. That is the position I took with the Geller ads (where you had the opposite view, at least to the extent that you supported defacing those ads), the position I have in the Pakistan blasphemy case (where you had the opposite view, arguing that it is okay for Pakistan to ban blasphemy), and the view I have with regard to the California legislature in this instance. If you believe that I have said otherwise, please let me know where and I will clarify or else correct myself.

I could agree to punish specifically provocative speech such as, “Hey, everyone, let’s beat up the minority person sitting at the bar” because it calls for immediate incitement to violence. I can also find exceptions for things like slander or publishing how to make a nuclear bomb. But on purely political or religious issues, I say that any limits on speech should be based on things like volume of sound or on who has reserved or paid for a specific location like a bus ad, but not on content.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

JSB,

Dershowitz is ONE reason, I am never insh’Allah spending a dime on Harvard for my kids. Finkelstein has rightfully embarrassed this guy. But in any case, I am surprised Dershowitz said that or perhaps his head has come to the right place.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

JSB,

Perhaps then you need to make yourself clearer. Controlling rowdiness should be what the UC (or the California legislature who BTW should have better things to do then to control what people say in a public university) should be up to not mandating what they say.
Just Stopping By

@AJ: Great link. FIRE is absolutely right.

Of course, this may cause Stephen G. Parker’s head to explode (or, more hopefully, his prejudice to shrink further): “As Alan Dershowitz-Harvard Law professor, member of FIRE’s Board of Editors, and an outspoken defender of Israel-commented to The Forward, the Report’s recommendation is ‘a very serious mistake … The first victims of the policy would be pro-Israel advocates. It will backfire.’”

It also sounds just like what Ilisha said. Well, technically, she said, “I also think this could backfire” while Dershowitz said, “It will backfire,” so I guess we can rest easy knowing that she is not his sock-puppet!
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is at the forefront fighting this. Here is the letter FIRE wrote to Mark G. Yudof, President of UC.

http://thefire.org/article/14744.html

Support FIRE!
Just Stopping By

@AJ: “JSB, So I can quietly utter ‘Israel is an Apartheid state’ without shouting loudly or I can hold a placard. That would be okay according to you, right?”

Right. Absolutely. Yes.

I might not like it, but I think it would be perfectly okay for you to do (assuming you are not trying to be cute by holding the placard in front of the speaker’s face, quietly uttering into a microphone, etc.)
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

JSB,

So I can quietly utter “Israel is an Apartheid state” without shouting loudly or I can hold a placard. That would be okay according to you, right?
Ilisha

@JSB

“Last, remember that it is not a law, but a non-binding resolution, of the same legal value as declaring National Ice Cream Day, which might be a better use of the Legislature’s time.”

LOL. I agree.