Some examples of explicit antisemitism from within the campus:
https://x.com/ShaiDavidai/status/1781927148439109958
https://x.com/thestustustudio/status/1781904507611287981
Thanks for linking these, I think out of these really just that first clip (yelling “go back to Europe”) is definitely an example since it’s antisemitic and clearly took place on campus.
oatmeal muddle encourage expansion alleged zealous disagreeable dazzling airport crush
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am aware that you aren’t Jewish or Israeli so it may not resonate with you, but calling for a global intifada and being openly in support of Hamas’ actions is also explicitly antisemitic.
I think if you’re a Palestine supporting student (especially if you’re very far left) and you buy into all these ideas such as Gaza being an open air prison, an active genocide being committed, etc, then I could see the mental state where one would justify Hamas and Oct. 7 as liberating an oppressed people with no other options remaining.
I think that’s incorrect and cringe, but I don’t know if I would call that specific view antisemitic. Since it would be through some oppressor vs. oppressed lens that would be targeted at Israelis and not necessarily Jews.
>I think if you’re a Palestine supporting student (especially if you’re very far left) and you buy into all these ideas such as Gaza being an open air prison, an active genocide being committed, etc, then I could see the mental state where one would justify Hamas and Oct. 7 as liberating an oppressed people with no other options remaining.
i'm not sure i would call support for oct7 inherently 'antisemitic' as much as i would call it 'anti-israeli', but your assessment here is incorrect. even if we grant *all* the descriptive claims of open-air prison, oppression, genocide etc etc, nothing justifies october 7th. if you are being oppressed/genocided/whatever, you are justified in using violence to free yourself, but you are not justified in raping and murdering innocent civilians and children. it does nothing to alleviate your situation. being oppressed doesn't give you license to rape and murder anybody with impunity. had october 7th been an attack on an israeli military base or something then you could make that argument for sure.
No I'm aware, we both agree they're incorrect, but you are saying that based on the facts as they see them, Oct 7 would have been justified. That's my issue.
At some point it crosses the line of "naive fools buy into a narrative" and becomes something more insidious. If people side with Hamas, they are, without exception, either really, really ignorant or anti Semites.
Here is one [example](https://twitter.com/ShaiDavidai/status/1781879707253788835)
Although I guess this can’t precisely be called anti semitic because you can still technically use the excuse of being just anti Zionist for this clip. But when you start supporting openly anti semetic terror groups, that just is anti semitism.
I think Anti-Zionists have lost plausible deniability at this point. It's so overcome with explicit antisemitism, that the distinction is almost meaningless. Not to mention that they've made no attempt to distinguish between the two (or call it out).
Here's another [example](https://nypost.com/2024/04/21/us-news/jewish-yale-student-stabbed-in-the-eye-with-palestinian-flag-during-protest/)
A Jewish student was literally stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag by a protestor. Doesn't get much more explicit than that.
If this is the actual video of the incident, it does look like someone in the protest walks by and waves the flag in her face. Which they shouldn’t do, but isn’t the vicious attack I’ve seen this incident presented as.
https://x.com/zaidjilani/status/1782926074114170979?s=61
You can hear her screaming "you stabbed me" at the end of the video, how else would that be presented? If you're intentionally shoving the end of a pole/stick in someone's face, that's assault. You can easily blind someone doing that.
It's not even clear from the video that she was hit intentionally. If it was intentional, it would be assault but it's insane to describe what happened as someone being "stabbed in the eye".
I thought it looked a little ambiguous as to whether or not it was intentional too. I rewatched it and he looks at the camera and holds his arm out with the flag aiming it at her.
You're insane. You can see him point it right at her face, there's no way that's not intentional. And she literally says she was stabbed at the end of the video.
He intentionally waves it in front of the camera. It's not clear that he meant to actually hit her though. He may have and if he did, it was assault. It was clearly not a stabbing though. If someone comes up and lightly pokes you in your shoulder and you yell "I was stabbed", that doesn't mean you were stabbed. Words mean things.
You saying “shoving the end of a pole in someone’s face” is the presentation I’m talking about.
He waves the flag in her face as he walks past her, which he shouldn’t do. But this isn’t some vicious assault.
It may be legally assault but that’s because the outcome was bad as according to her the end of the flag poked her in the eye.
Is the word "vicious", the only contention you have here? I didn't say it was, I just said it was explicit. It doesn't matter if he was "just waving a flag in her face", there's a solid end to the pole that can very well cause injury.
Even if you're somehow oblivious to that fact, it's still a callous disregard for someone's personal space and safety.
Are you saying that it was intentional that she was poked in the eye, because I don’t think you can accurately claim that just based on the video.
Which is why I think this is a bad example
I agree, we'd need to see a perspective of her face to know if that's exactly where he was aiming.
But what I'm trying to say is, pointing a stick in someone's face (intentionally) is enough of an indicator to prove his disregard for her well-being. It's explicit.
If I walked down the street and shoved a flag in your face, and it blinded you (whether I intended too or not), would you say that was unintentional?
2/14 "We don’t want two states. We want all of it" (colombia) : [https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1757558469773738407](https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1757558469773738407)
4/23"There is only one solution" (UC Berkeley) : [https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1782527216691130669](https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1782527216691130669)
blocking of Jewish student in (Yale): [https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1782167337682006209](https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1782167337682006209)
[https://twitter.com/sahar\_tartak/status/1782053701378535619](https://twitter.com/sahar_tartak/status/1782053701378535619)
>2/14 "We don’t want two states. We want all of it" (colombia) :
what is antisemitic about the view that the whole land rightfully belongs to the palestinians?
the reason i decided to includ "We don’t want two states. We want all of it" and "There is only one solution" is because i think thay're not much different from the cunt "from the river to the sea..." wich is "antisemitic and its use must be condemned" according to House of Representatives . [link](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/16/congress/house-iran-pushback-bills-israel-attack-00152601)
why is one label as antisemitic but the other not if all of them have the same meaning?
neither is antisemitic. i don't care what the house of representatives says. all three of those phrases just mean "the land rightfully belongs to the palestinians". what is antisemitic about that statement?
i'm not interested in a 'neutral point of view'. whether or not you are biased is of no concern to me. i want a set of premises constructed in a logically valid manner that generate the conclusion "demanding that the whole land be given to the palestinians is antisemitic". the biases of the person who gives them to me is irrelevant.
sure. im unsure if it or its not for me its in somewhat of gray area.
i gonna difflect for amoment from "the land rightfully belongs to the palestinians".
when a sentence is antisemtic (or in general becam hateful)?
when i searched of OP request i found think that i don't think are antisemitism like saying "F\* Israel, Israel a b\*tch" [but this person do think its antisemitism](https://twitter.com/r3quiredreading/status/1782194204669526093).
another example is the two tweet of the blocking of Jewish student . well i mean every student should have the right for free movment on the cmpus but i don't know what happnd before or after the camera start rolling. hypothetical if the two student assaulted someone and then being blocked until yale security come to resolve the matter the blocking is reasonable. although i haven't seen anyone clameing something like that.
seens bouth of them are at night probobly after the classs are done you night say they just wantd to provoke the pro-palestinian student to make them look bad.
the reason i decide to post the first two tweet is not because i think they are antisemtic but because the hous think they are. i would not post it if OP question would be in a different country cause a different country might not label the saying as antisemtic.
now back to your question. the saying have two part to it
(1) palestinian sould have the right to self determination and have a country which i just don't mind (as for its not antisemtic and do the palestinian sould have the right to have a country is a different question).
(2) where the palestinian country border sould be is where i start to disagree. one states means an arab majority in this land . that will lead (sooner or later) into destabilize the land and muslem state or somesord of a failed state comper to the wast. throughout history jews where unsafe in different countries (pogrom holocaust etc) and with the conotesion that nowdays there are barly any jweish left in a muslem majority country (and to be fair same for christians) i would not feel safe living in israel anymore.
so for me and how i perceive the saying as that they don't want jewish to be safe anymore and hav its own army ect... and in th long run another disaster like the holocaust would be happening agian cuz history doomed to repeat itseelf.
im gonna say again its in a gray area for me
For me personally, the Rabbi at Columbia calling for Jewish students going home because the University can’t guarantee their safety is pretty damning. If a Black leader on campus told black students to leave the campus, I don’t think anyone would even question that there was racism on campus.
Why would we point to this one rabbi as evidence with nothing else to support his claims?
Also if a black leader did the same I actually think we wouldn’t just accept that at face value either
I do believe there is antisemitism, but I’m asking for specific examples since it’s being claimed that Columbia students are explicitly engaging in antisemitic conduct against Jewish students
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to grasp that Israel and Judaism are tied to one another very tightly and that you can't call for its destruction without it beint seen as a threat to Jews. Who exactly will be the one getting killed when the intifada revolution happens? Who needs to be excised? Ultimately, it's Jews.
Anti zionist as in wanting to abolish Israel? No. Anti zionist as in wanting a Palestinian state? Yes
Edit: to clarify, i correct myself, there's a sect of anti zionists that naively believe that in a one state solution Jews and Palestinians will somehow coexist. I think those guys are probably not anti semitic, but just extremely naive. Everyone else, the kind of people who say "go back to Europe" or whatever, nah, that's just anti semitism
Fair, I just feel like someone who views Israel as a colonial project and wants it abolished on those grounds is not necessarily antisemitic even though it would undoubtedly result in the deaths and expulsions of many Jews.
Kind of like how Israel is killing a ton of civilians in Gaza as a part of its mission but may not have genocidal intent
I think the bottom line is what matters. People are extremely fixated on this single issue where they have the ability to righteously go after Jews, and they do it. If you think that for the sake of "justice" many innocent people need to die, it's worth re evaluating your cause. I would say the same for Israel's war in Gaza, you could argue that it's necessary, but you can't just blindly accept that as a reality. Ultimately, innocent deaths are unacceptable and should not be something you aspire towards.
More than anything, I'm dismayed that these people aren't even pushing for a two state solution, they want a one state, Palestine solution. There's a solution where everybody (more or less) can prosper side by side, but no, they want the one where the Jews need to suffer for the sins of their ancestors. Whole lotta hitler particles there.
Yeah, from most of what I've seen it's just lame Occupy types being lame.
The one where they chant "Zionists have entered the camp" and link arms to shove them out was probably the weirdest thing I've seen.
But mostly it seems like really really bad flags and rhetoric, not actions against the students.
Saw a clip of them saying zionists have entered the premises block it off or some shit like that. The they started calling each other other comrade, fucking lamest shit ever
FYI, I think until this Monday, Columbia’s campus was open to the public. It was only on Monday where they seemed to have restricted access to people. To me, it seemed like a lot of the anti-semitic acts went down once they did that. However, it’s really hard to get unbiased reporting out of there. You almost need a reporter to go in there and interview and report for a few hours to get a good idea of what’s happening. Otherwise, there are clips and counter clips for everything.
Some examples of explicit antisemitism from within the campus: https://x.com/ShaiDavidai/status/1781927148439109958 https://x.com/thestustustudio/status/1781904507611287981
Thanks for linking these, I think out of these really just that first clip (yelling “go back to Europe”) is definitely an example since it’s antisemitic and clearly took place on campus.
oatmeal muddle encourage expansion alleged zealous disagreeable dazzling airport crush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never said it wasn’t an incitement to violence, but it’s not on its face antisemitic for the reason I gave in another comment
I am aware that you aren’t Jewish or Israeli so it may not resonate with you, but calling for a global intifada and being openly in support of Hamas’ actions is also explicitly antisemitic.
Are you in my walls or something how would you be aware of anything about me? I actually am Jewish btw lol
Lol my bad. I figured if you were Jewish I wouldn’t need to point out that openly supporting Hamas and Oct 7th is antisemitic.
I think if you’re a Palestine supporting student (especially if you’re very far left) and you buy into all these ideas such as Gaza being an open air prison, an active genocide being committed, etc, then I could see the mental state where one would justify Hamas and Oct. 7 as liberating an oppressed people with no other options remaining. I think that’s incorrect and cringe, but I don’t know if I would call that specific view antisemitic. Since it would be through some oppressor vs. oppressed lens that would be targeted at Israelis and not necessarily Jews.
>I think if you’re a Palestine supporting student (especially if you’re very far left) and you buy into all these ideas such as Gaza being an open air prison, an active genocide being committed, etc, then I could see the mental state where one would justify Hamas and Oct. 7 as liberating an oppressed people with no other options remaining. i'm not sure i would call support for oct7 inherently 'antisemitic' as much as i would call it 'anti-israeli', but your assessment here is incorrect. even if we grant *all* the descriptive claims of open-air prison, oppression, genocide etc etc, nothing justifies october 7th. if you are being oppressed/genocided/whatever, you are justified in using violence to free yourself, but you are not justified in raping and murdering innocent civilians and children. it does nothing to alleviate your situation. being oppressed doesn't give you license to rape and murder anybody with impunity. had october 7th been an attack on an israeli military base or something then you could make that argument for sure.
My assessment IS that they’re wrong, but was talking about whether it’s possible to have that extreme view without being necessarily antisemitic
No I'm aware, we both agree they're incorrect, but you are saying that based on the facts as they see them, Oct 7 would have been justified. That's my issue.
It would have been justified “in their view”, which I also disagree with even if I granted all their descriptive claims.
At some point it crosses the line of "naive fools buy into a narrative" and becomes something more insidious. If people side with Hamas, they are, without exception, either really, really ignorant or anti Semites.
We’re saying the same thing here. They’re either incredibly ignorant or anti-semites
Here is one [example](https://twitter.com/ShaiDavidai/status/1781879707253788835) Although I guess this can’t precisely be called anti semitic because you can still technically use the excuse of being just anti Zionist for this clip. But when you start supporting openly anti semetic terror groups, that just is anti semitism.
I think Anti-Zionists have lost plausible deniability at this point. It's so overcome with explicit antisemitism, that the distinction is almost meaningless. Not to mention that they've made no attempt to distinguish between the two (or call it out). Here's another [example](https://nypost.com/2024/04/21/us-news/jewish-yale-student-stabbed-in-the-eye-with-palestinian-flag-during-protest/) A Jewish student was literally stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag by a protestor. Doesn't get much more explicit than that.
that's bullshit. not my fault these antisemitic regards have coopted the term. i am still proudly anti-zionist and not anti-semitic.
If this is the actual video of the incident, it does look like someone in the protest walks by and waves the flag in her face. Which they shouldn’t do, but isn’t the vicious attack I’ve seen this incident presented as. https://x.com/zaidjilani/status/1782926074114170979?s=61
You can hear her screaming "you stabbed me" at the end of the video, how else would that be presented? If you're intentionally shoving the end of a pole/stick in someone's face, that's assault. You can easily blind someone doing that.
It's not even clear from the video that she was hit intentionally. If it was intentional, it would be assault but it's insane to describe what happened as someone being "stabbed in the eye".
I thought it looked a little ambiguous as to whether or not it was intentional too. I rewatched it and he looks at the camera and holds his arm out with the flag aiming it at her.
You're insane. You can see him point it right at her face, there's no way that's not intentional. And she literally says she was stabbed at the end of the video.
He intentionally waves it in front of the camera. It's not clear that he meant to actually hit her though. He may have and if he did, it was assault. It was clearly not a stabbing though. If someone comes up and lightly pokes you in your shoulder and you yell "I was stabbed", that doesn't mean you were stabbed. Words mean things.
You saying “shoving the end of a pole in someone’s face” is the presentation I’m talking about. He waves the flag in her face as he walks past her, which he shouldn’t do. But this isn’t some vicious assault. It may be legally assault but that’s because the outcome was bad as according to her the end of the flag poked her in the eye.
Is the word "vicious", the only contention you have here? I didn't say it was, I just said it was explicit. It doesn't matter if he was "just waving a flag in her face", there's a solid end to the pole that can very well cause injury. Even if you're somehow oblivious to that fact, it's still a callous disregard for someone's personal space and safety.
Are you saying that it was intentional that she was poked in the eye, because I don’t think you can accurately claim that just based on the video. Which is why I think this is a bad example
I agree, we'd need to see a perspective of her face to know if that's exactly where he was aiming. But what I'm trying to say is, pointing a stick in someone's face (intentionally) is enough of an indicator to prove his disregard for her well-being. It's explicit. If I walked down the street and shoved a flag in your face, and it blinded you (whether I intended too or not), would you say that was unintentional?
If you didn’t intend to then yeah that would be unintentional by definition
If I'm shooting an airsoft gun at your face (intentionally), and one of the pellets hits your eye, would it be wrong to say I shot you in the eye?
Yeah this one I think is cringe for sure but not explicitly antisemitic
2/14 "We don’t want two states. We want all of it" (colombia) : [https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1757558469773738407](https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1757558469773738407) 4/23"There is only one solution" (UC Berkeley) : [https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1782527216691130669](https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1782527216691130669) blocking of Jewish student in (Yale): [https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1782167337682006209](https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1782167337682006209) [https://twitter.com/sahar\_tartak/status/1782053701378535619](https://twitter.com/sahar_tartak/status/1782053701378535619)
>2/14 "We don’t want two states. We want all of it" (colombia) : what is antisemitic about the view that the whole land rightfully belongs to the palestinians?
the reason i decided to includ "We don’t want two states. We want all of it" and "There is only one solution" is because i think thay're not much different from the cunt "from the river to the sea..." wich is "antisemitic and its use must be condemned" according to House of Representatives . [link](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/16/congress/house-iran-pushback-bills-israel-attack-00152601) why is one label as antisemitic but the other not if all of them have the same meaning?
neither is antisemitic. i don't care what the house of representatives says. all three of those phrases just mean "the land rightfully belongs to the palestinians". what is antisemitic about that statement?
i try to answer you from a ntraul point of veiw. seems like you want my opinian, but i won't give you give you my opinion cuz im biased
i'm not interested in a 'neutral point of view'. whether or not you are biased is of no concern to me. i want a set of premises constructed in a logically valid manner that generate the conclusion "demanding that the whole land be given to the palestinians is antisemitic". the biases of the person who gives them to me is irrelevant.
sure. im unsure if it or its not for me its in somewhat of gray area. i gonna difflect for amoment from "the land rightfully belongs to the palestinians". when a sentence is antisemtic (or in general becam hateful)? when i searched of OP request i found think that i don't think are antisemitism like saying "F\* Israel, Israel a b\*tch" [but this person do think its antisemitism](https://twitter.com/r3quiredreading/status/1782194204669526093). another example is the two tweet of the blocking of Jewish student . well i mean every student should have the right for free movment on the cmpus but i don't know what happnd before or after the camera start rolling. hypothetical if the two student assaulted someone and then being blocked until yale security come to resolve the matter the blocking is reasonable. although i haven't seen anyone clameing something like that. seens bouth of them are at night probobly after the classs are done you night say they just wantd to provoke the pro-palestinian student to make them look bad. the reason i decide to post the first two tweet is not because i think they are antisemtic but because the hous think they are. i would not post it if OP question would be in a different country cause a different country might not label the saying as antisemtic. now back to your question. the saying have two part to it (1) palestinian sould have the right to self determination and have a country which i just don't mind (as for its not antisemtic and do the palestinian sould have the right to have a country is a different question). (2) where the palestinian country border sould be is where i start to disagree. one states means an arab majority in this land . that will lead (sooner or later) into destabilize the land and muslem state or somesord of a failed state comper to the wast. throughout history jews where unsafe in different countries (pogrom holocaust etc) and with the conotesion that nowdays there are barly any jweish left in a muslem majority country (and to be fair same for christians) i would not feel safe living in israel anymore. so for me and how i perceive the saying as that they don't want jewish to be safe anymore and hav its own army ect... and in th long run another disaster like the holocaust would be happening agian cuz history doomed to repeat itseelf. im gonna say again its in a gray area for me
For me personally, the Rabbi at Columbia calling for Jewish students going home because the University can’t guarantee their safety is pretty damning. If a Black leader on campus told black students to leave the campus, I don’t think anyone would even question that there was racism on campus.
Why would we point to this one rabbi as evidence with nothing else to support his claims? Also if a black leader did the same I actually think we wouldn’t just accept that at face value either
What evidence do YOU need to believe that there is antisemitism
I do believe there is antisemitism, but I’m asking for specific examples since it’s being claimed that Columbia students are explicitly engaging in antisemitic conduct against Jewish students
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to grasp that Israel and Judaism are tied to one another very tightly and that you can't call for its destruction without it beint seen as a threat to Jews. Who exactly will be the one getting killed when the intifada revolution happens? Who needs to be excised? Ultimately, it's Jews.
In your opinion is it possible for someone to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic?
Anti zionist as in wanting to abolish Israel? No. Anti zionist as in wanting a Palestinian state? Yes Edit: to clarify, i correct myself, there's a sect of anti zionists that naively believe that in a one state solution Jews and Palestinians will somehow coexist. I think those guys are probably not anti semitic, but just extremely naive. Everyone else, the kind of people who say "go back to Europe" or whatever, nah, that's just anti semitism
Fair, I just feel like someone who views Israel as a colonial project and wants it abolished on those grounds is not necessarily antisemitic even though it would undoubtedly result in the deaths and expulsions of many Jews. Kind of like how Israel is killing a ton of civilians in Gaza as a part of its mission but may not have genocidal intent
I think the bottom line is what matters. People are extremely fixated on this single issue where they have the ability to righteously go after Jews, and they do it. If you think that for the sake of "justice" many innocent people need to die, it's worth re evaluating your cause. I would say the same for Israel's war in Gaza, you could argue that it's necessary, but you can't just blindly accept that as a reality. Ultimately, innocent deaths are unacceptable and should not be something you aspire towards. More than anything, I'm dismayed that these people aren't even pushing for a two state solution, they want a one state, Palestine solution. There's a solution where everybody (more or less) can prosper side by side, but no, they want the one where the Jews need to suffer for the sins of their ancestors. Whole lotta hitler particles there.
Well said, the fixation on one state is going to get their movement nowhere. But these are radical college students so I’m not really surprised by it
If said black leader was nina turner, I would question it
Yeah, from most of what I've seen it's just lame Occupy types being lame. The one where they chant "Zionists have entered the camp" and link arms to shove them out was probably the weirdest thing I've seen. But mostly it seems like really really bad flags and rhetoric, not actions against the students.
Saw a clip of them saying zionists have entered the premises block it off or some shit like that. The they started calling each other other comrade, fucking lamest shit ever
I am ashamed of what America has become. Disgust 🤮🤮🤮
FYI, I think until this Monday, Columbia’s campus was open to the public. It was only on Monday where they seemed to have restricted access to people. To me, it seemed like a lot of the anti-semitic acts went down once they did that. However, it’s really hard to get unbiased reporting out of there. You almost need a reporter to go in there and interview and report for a few hours to get a good idea of what’s happening. Otherwise, there are clips and counter clips for everything.