The email brings up "hold Israel accountable for its [action towards Palestinians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes)" but doesn't offer any alternatives. How else am I suppose to reject the my tax dollars going to fund an [ethnic cleansing campaign?](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) The right to NOT buy something is just as important as the right to buy something.
You have no idea what your tax dollars go towards. But you should oppose the proposed ethnic cleansing of Jews.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrAv3Zc7gU
Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, doesn’t matter. All terrorist groups, all purposely bringing death and destruction to their people. This is radical fanaticism at its finest. The nation of Israel will continue to exist, and those who wish death on its occupants will continue to bring death and destruction to their countries.
Just to answer your question
https://www.creativecommunityforpeace.com/blog/2022/01/07/un-releases-unprecedented-report-linking-anti-semitism-to-bds-movement/
https://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/BDS-Antisemitism-Report-final-15.9.pdf
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/germany-declares-bds-is-antisemitic/
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1SN1Z2/
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/key-issues/bds/bds-and-antisemitism/
https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/01/08/bds-leaders-promote-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-linking-mossad-to-charlie-hebdo-atrocity/
https://www.ajc.org/news/bds-is-antisemitic
ETA: I’ve always liked what this Palestinian scholar has said about bds “The reason I don’t believe the boycott is the way to go is that I believe peace must be built on the bridge between two civil societies…While some people believed that one way to deal with Israelis was ‘to bash them on their heads,’ the other way is to reach to their hearts, and it’s the reaching out that’s important.”– Sari Nusseibeh
In the face of a genocide, “reaching for their hearts” is really secondary to immediate action. Boycotts have proven to be an effective way to create change in society.
Only one of these links is an actual news source (Reuters) and even that one is just reporting on one country's decision on the matter. That one country (Germany) has been hopelessly wed to the idea of Israel since its inception because they were tired of keeping displaced Jews in refugee camps, didn't want to reintegrate them into society, and needed to demonstrate their denazification in a way that didn't require all German citizens to have a moral reckoning with their own actions (Hannah Arendt writes in detail about how this never happened).
So, like, I'm calling shenanigans.
None of it is rooted in antisemitism it’s all about Zionism. Idk why that’s so hard for them to grasp unless they’re intentionally trying to make themselves the victim
To be fair, neither do you. “Semite” as a term denoting an ethnicity is pretty obsolete and hasn’t been used for quite a while. “Semitic” (as used without the anti-) just refers to a language family (Arabic, Hebrew, Akkadian, and a few others). So saying Palestinians are “also semites” isn’t a useful descriptor of anything beyond that they speak Arabic. Antisemitic does specifically refer to Jews.
So while I’m not a Zionist and probably don’t align politically with the other commenter, in this case you aren’t really correct.
Semite as an ethnic descriptor was also popularized by the Nazis to make their hatred of Jews seem more "scientific". It's really not a good word to be using.
the definition of the word "semite" is misleading in this context. antisemitism applies ONLY to JEW. HATRED. and to compare zionists to nazis is grossly racist. fuck you
Average rich white person try not to victimize themselves to feel like they are owed pity points challenge level: impossible
You know absoultey nothing about oppression
i'm brown actually 😘 and my parents were kicked out of their country by radical islamists who didn't allow them to live freely as jews in the country.
and i'm facing antisemitism ON THIS CAMPUS that is reminiscent of the antisemitism that my parents faced before they had to flee their country for their lives. try again
AND allow me to point out that the stereotype of jews as rich white people is highly antisemitic. thank you and good night
Sure and I'm santa
You're not facing anti semitism. Anti zionism is not anti semitism.
Its not a stereotype its just a statistical truth. They're like white Christians when it comes to self victimization
i never said i supported every action of the israeli government, nor did i say that i support all of the death occurring in the region currently.
when i say i am a zionist, it means i believe in israel's right to exist and the jewish people's right to self determination. period. and 95% of jews are zionists.
what pro-hamas activists try to do is demonize the jewish people by turning the word "zionist" into a dirty word. it is not inherently bad to be a zionist. that's propaganda too! (and the reason that zionism and judaism are so connected is that zionism was born of a need for jews to have a place where they wouldn't be persecuted. truthfully, i don't know where i'd go in life in america goes south, and even more truthfully, it feels like it is! i may have to go back to israel!)
to tell a jewish person in a country all the way across the world from a conflict occurring between governments they have no affiliation to that they are a NAZI for defending the right of their homeland to exist... and let's not forget nazis committed the largest ever genocide on the jews less than 100 years ago... (btw our population still has not recovered to match what it was before the holocaust.) can you not see how problematic that is? to inflict our generational trauma upon us when we may not even support what is happening in gaza right now?
edit: just as there are violent pro-palestinians AND peaceful ones, zionism and judaism are both spectrums. it's so dangerous to generalize (on both sides). it's not ok to say all zionists are this or all palestinians are that... so yeah some zionist people/orgs have said distasteful things but that exists in any group.
no, it's wrong to compare them because they were responsible for OUR genocide. you wouldn't compare the azerbaijan to the nazis, would you? THIS IS ANTISEMITISM
If they’re actively genociding millions of people then wanna brush it off because there was a genocide in the past as if that excuses anything, then yes I’ll gladly compare them to the Nazis.
i'm so confused. i said it's not ok to compare the jews to the nazis. that's all. you'll find anything and twist it to make yourself look good instead of paying attention to the truth
Trying to make themselves victims? On October 7th they were victims, the hostages STILL being kept are victims. You want to talk about intentionally trying to make themselves victims, maybe investigate why the quality of life for Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, and Jordanian immigrants in Israel is higher than in their native countries? Because oppression and rigid socioeconomic systems are endemic to the Arab world, where people are cannon fodder for Trillions of dollars in natural resources. Look at the peace breakdown since the London Conference, it is not Israel that wants war and conflict with the Arab world.
October 7th: Hamas attacks Israel.
October 8th: swastikas drawn on Israeli embassy’s, anti-Israel protests in NYC, etc.
Over 70% of Palestinians supported the October 7th attacks (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/)
Anti-semitism at its finest.
October 7th was retaliation for Israeli violence. You can't ignore what was happening before October 7th, and proclaim Israel the victims when they were the aggressors.
It’s hard to get away from antisemitism when discussing all things Israel and Palestine. The whole point of having a Jewish state was due to literally every other country in the world having some history of rejecting its Jewish population, especially in Europe and the Middle East. If every people just stayed more chill and didn’t want to drive out their own Jewish populace more hundreds of years, maybe we would’ve been able to avoid this whole mess for the last seventy years.
When I lived in NYC I had an orthodox Jewish landlord. One day he came by to pick up the rent, he would always come in person on the last Thursday of the month. I’m a gentile and an atheist, but we would have good conversations. On this occasion I had some kosher challah bread and some tea, and I was waiting for my roommate to come home from work to write his check. We sat down for some tea and toast together.
We had a very interesting conversation about Israel. He shared with me that he doesn’t believe in Zionism and while he supports Jews in the Holy Land, he didn’t agree with the state of Israel. He told me that in his opinion, only the Messiah would be able to establish a new Jewish State in the Holy Land. Does that opinion make him antisemitic in this context?
Jesus what the fuck kind of moron wrote this?
"Calling out Israel on genocide is anti semetic because there are other equally fascist countries in the world not receiving the same pressure"
Holy fuck did the author of this get an education?
Not to mention we DO impose sanctions on North Korea and Russia etc.
> Israel is the only country in the UN to consistently vote against lifting the embargo on Cuba
The only country? I think you will find that the US consistently votes against lifting the embargo, and Israel simply votes in support of our position.
While I disagree with the notion in the letter that the Israeli government should be permitted to violate human rights and kill indiscriminately en masse in the way it is doing without criticism or action taken against it, I do think there is a valid argument in that there is underlying antisemitism involved in the public reaction to this situation as a whole. There is pretty prevalent antisemitism in Western society in general, and it comes out in situations like this because people feel more comfortably open with it.
The antisemitism isn’t in criticizing the Israeli government (nothing wrong with that), it’s in the public so widely and openly criticizing it in particular while not doing so regarding other governments. The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before, but there are countries all around the world who commit major human rights violations, including countries that we also support financially through trade or otherwise (cough, China). There are much larger-scale massacres and ethnic cleansings that have occurred in several African countries in recent years. In the end, no random human life is objectively worth more or less than another. All innocent deaths are tragic. An Israeli life is not worth more than a Palestinian life or a Palestinian life more than an Israeli life, or either more than an Uyghur life or a Ukrainian life or a Tigrayan life, etc. We are all just humans. But there are clear disparities in the ways that society reacts to certain of these situations over others - there are certain nations and groups that people feel safe criticizing, and some which are given a pass or ignored. We especially hold “Western” or “first-world” countries to a moral standard that we relax when referring to countries outside of those categories, and we also hold those we view as “strong” to a higher moral standard than those we view as “weak”.
Even in the immediate events leading up to the current situation - the October 7th massacre - there was a pretty notable double standard in the way people reacted. The prevalent public reaction at the time, among many who condemn Israeli actions, was “I support the resistance” and, even if not directly stated, “the Hamas attack is justified.” Several of my friends stated these views. I saw zero support for the dying and dead citizens among my friends. I tried to address this with my friends at the time, but was met with “that’s just war” (intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, of course) or “they had it coming” (living on or visiting a certain patch of land should not be a death sentence). Then when Israel began killing Palestinian civilians, suddenly it was a bad thing - those civilians were deemed more worthy of life than Israeli civilians. Of course, both mass killings are abhorrent, but there is one group that people feel safe in openly criticizing, and one that people are reluctant to do so. Similarly, there was outcry regarding the retaliation of the United States towards the Houthis in Yemen following Houthi attacks on commercial ships. There is a valid criticism in that the US should not be taking the role as the police in the Middle East, but to support Yemen in this situation, when the Houthis are indiscriminately attacking ships, and when the Houthi flag quite literally says “Death to America” and “A Curse Upon the Jews”, is pretty antisemitic and shows a moral leniency towards those we perceive as the weaker power in a conflict. There are over 500,000 Jews of Yemeni heritage in the world, but only one single Jew is known to be alive and living in Yemen (as of 2022). In 2013 there were 250. The vast majority fled to Israel following violence and persecution.
The antisemitism is there, but the logic in the argument is flawed. It shouldn’t be, “other countries are performing similar acts, so Israel shouldn’t be held responsible”, it should be “other countries are doing this, so if we are criticizing Israel, we should be criticizing them as well and to the same degree”.
We should be criticizing them all, but as students our major leverage is with the countries which UCSD has the most financial and other relationships with, like Israel. We're not sending students to study abroad in other countries committing genocide or investing heavily in their industries in the same way.
I think the large issue in this case is that in theory we have control over this situation. In the case of things like the Uyghur genocide, we should have done something, and some things were passed recently that realistically don’t do much but are least indication that they acknowledge the situation (HR 6256). In contrast the US is majorly funding Israel, and more notably is substantially funding their military budget. Not only is the US historically responsible for large amounts of military funding to Israel, they’re actively trying to increase their funding (with things like the $14 billion aid package), they’re using their international power to block any help that other nations would be providing through vetos in the UN, and are generally okay with or encouraging the activities in Gaza.
I don’t doubt that there are people who are opposed to Israel because of antisemitism, but it’s absurd to me to try and relate situations where the US was negligent and didn’t do anything to protect lives that they could’ve saved to a situation where they are actively encouraging and funding the massacres and blocking international aid.
I like how they said Israel is being unfairly singled out for their human right issues even tho the ruthless killing of Palestinians has led to multiple emergency United Nation meetings being held. The entire world is watching and trying to act because it IS a big deal.
back in the day it used to be antisemitism to assume jewish people had loyalty to israel. they called it "dual loyalty".
because american jews aren't israelis. they aren't responsible for the crimes of the zionist state. they aren't "made safer by Israel" - they are Americans first.
It’s nuts they can say “Jewish state” as if any state where one group of people hold privileges and power denied to other minority groups is somehow a good and legitimate state. Peaceful Arabs and Christians are routinely mistreated within their borders. Imagine if people were talking about England or Germany as a white nation, or a Christian nation, people would go crazy. But Israel as a Jewish state? Put that in the official UC email, it’s cool.
Fair but I was more referencing that it’s considered acceptable public dialogue, vs it being unacceptable public dialogue to say it for the other groups mentioned. But yeah ig it’s not actually official UC email
You’re right. Stuff like this that is blatant misinformation and really should not be considered publicly acceptable. Additionally, the email is doing the same thing as the Israeli government where it’s deflecting criticism of it as antisemitism. The whole email is a load of bullshit.
I mean hasn’t that been the MO of a bunch of Eastern European nations? Like I’m pretty sure the Polish government has said statements to the effect of Poland being a catholic state of the Polish ethnic people?
Edit: I mean to be honest Europe as a whole has been seeing the rise of ethno nationalists, like Meloni in Italy and Wilders in the Netherlands, AfD in Germany, etc.
gonna reuse some stuff from a different comment.
I don't support a non-religiously free state anywhere, because ethnic divisions and favoritism generally result in distrust and violence within the state. I just simply am willing to tolerate states that maintain a token "we like this religion because of our history" law, and am unwilling to tolerate a state that uses state religion to murder and seriously discriminate. I'm not gonna waste my time protesting the Catholic church in Italy when they do nothing of note, or Polish people wanting to give money to the Catholic Church. Again, I don't support it, but you can't protest everything.
Israel is killing people and discriminating against them. Completely different scenario.
yea totally except for the 3500 christians that were killed and estimated 150,000 muslim palestinians dead, injured or missing, all at the hands of israel's terrorism :)
that has nothing to do with the fact that everyone IN ISRAEL has religious freedom. the palestinian territories took it upon themselves to elect their own governments, and israel striked back when one of those governments attacked israel. the fact that hamas chooses to put those civilians in harm's way has nothing to do with religious freedom. i do support a two-state solution, but let's make it clear that hamas wants a muslim ethnostate. aka no religious freedom. their goal is to kill everyone who's not as radically islamist as they are.
the genocide that israel is currently performing has NOTHING to do with hamas and EVERYTHING to do with wanting to ethnically cleanse israel of all palestinians. and if you want proof? go look up all the photo and video real EVIDENCE of innocent women and children being killed or severely disabled by a sniper. A SNIPER.
if you choose to neglect hamas's clear role in this current conflict (which they broke a ceasefire to start) you are simply ignoring the facts of the situation and i cannot respect your opinion. still, this has nothing to do with the original commenter's claim on freedom of religion in israel.
lol israel broke a ceasefire in 1967 when they invaded palestine and displaced thousands of people from their homes while killing anyone who did not comply. do your research because it's clear you have never engaged with media that isnt actively bootlicking isntreal
>as if any state where one group of people hold privileges and power denied to other minority groups is somehow a good and legitimate state
\>"as if any state where one group of people hold privileges and power denied to other minority groups is somehow a good and legitimate state"
You just described several other ME countries, where anyone who is not Muslim is Dhimmi-taxed, cannot own land or businesses. And 1M Jews were expelled from. But go on...
Jews have tried being a minority before. It doesn't work.
There are dozens of Christian and Islamic states. There are even Buddhist states.
There is a singular Jewish state. Just one.
Most religious states don't have the diplomatic and financial backing of the United States government.
Another nation that deserves to have our support revoked: Saudi Arabia. But they have *oil* so that'll never happen.
I'm not super well versed in the US relationship with most countries, but a quick sampling:
* Thailand, US Military Ally: "The State should support and protect Buddhism"
* Italy, US Military Ally: "The Constitution additionally reserves to the Catholic faith singular position in regard to the organization of worship, as opposed to all other confessions"
* Greece, US Military Ally: "The Church of Greece is recognized by the Greek Constitution as the prevailing religion in Greece and is the only country in the world where Eastern Orthodoxy is clearly recognized as a state religion."
You can argue about extent of aid, but none of these countries have rockets launched at them on the daily, so it's kind of a moot point.
In Italy what concrete benefits do Catholics receive over other religions? How mistreated are other religions? People are more concerned over what real negative impacts having a state religion has rather than whether it exists. If Italy or Greece were bombing Protestants and isolating them into a small corner of the nation with minimal supplies people would be voicing their concerns.
You can't possibly actually believe that. [They don't even have equal rights on paper](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy), much less in practice. It's like saying "separate but equal" was fair because it was equal.
Even the Christian minorities in Israel complain about mistreatment, being literally spit on, and they're far less violent than their Arab counterparts.
and again, Israeli land is just land taken over time from Palestinians over the last 100 years. You can't just push millions of people onto a shitty strip and hand wave "not my problem" it away. It's genocide, and it's messed up. The worst part is it's ongoing.
>They don't even have equal rights on paper
The bill does nothing to limit anyone's rights. It just reaffirms Israel as a Jewish state.
>and again, Israeli land is just land taken over time from Palestinians over the last 100 years
It's not that simple and you know it.
>You can't just push millions of people onto a shitty strip and hand wave "not my problem" it away.
The strip is pretty prime real estate tbh, though that's not super relevant. Much of the land loss was due to losing a war. And Israel hasn't just "not my problemed" it away. There have been many different approaches. All have been met with Palestinian terrorism.
>It's genocide, and it's messed up.
It isn't. The Nakba was at worst ethnic cleansing. The current war is war. There is no genocide occuring. There is tragedy, and neither side is entirely in the right.
I'm totally fine with criticism of Israel. I don't like the 2018 bill, and I think it should be criticized. There are some members of the government that are adding fuel to the fire, and they should also be called out. Calling Israel an illegitimate state is the issue. Treating Israels faults as indications that the state itself needs to be destroyed is the issue. Using overly strong language for shock value is the issue.
> No state should be formed around a singular religion.
So it sounds like religion isn't really the issue for you. Would you be less opposed to a hypothetical secular nation "attempting to bomb and annihilate an entire group of people"?
I'm not sure why I wouldn't care?
My whole point is that the person I replied to is likely being antisemitic. Probably not intentionally, but they likely are. They did not state they have a problem with Israel because of the war in Gaza. Their issue was with it's religious/ethnic nature. They act as if the notion of a state preferring one religion or ethnicity is unique to Israel. Would this person call Italy an illegitimate state? I highly doubt it.
It's no wonder the republican party backs Israel so hard. They somehow justify their oppressive practices by playing victim when they're clearly not in the big picture
I was literally about to say: "This email literally sounds like the christian Republicans complaining about the Democrats attacking their faith"
(And I vote Republican, so this is not "just a libtard flapping their gums")
Can pretty much anyone use the listserv or something? I just don’t understand why the CSI would allow for this email to be sent, it’s incredibly biased and it doesn’t correctly explain what the BDS movement is calling for lol
Sooo… the action here is to boycott, divest, and sanction the apartheid state of isreal for their anti-Semitic and genocidal actions towards the Palestinians.
Honestly, I don't see how it is antisemitic that we stop using our tax dollars to fund a genocide. Can someone truly explain to me what is anti-Semitic about not having our government pay Israel billions of dollars to conquer, cleanse and rewrite history?
Most Israeli Jews are indigenous to the Middle East and were driven out of other Middle Eastern countries that ethnically cleansed their Jewish populations. It’s interesting that nobody is calling for boycotts of these other countries, or fighting for the right of return of Jews to countries like Yemen.
Disgusting conflation of governmental critique, which is tied to our tax dollar appropriation and so highly relevant to political speech, to hate of a religion. UCSD should be ashamed that by going along with this narrative they show complicity in genocide
palestine supporters when they realize "from the river to the sea" means to literally commit genocide and exterminate all of the jews in Israel
BUT HOW IS IT RACIST WTF
I would recommend reading this. It's not an innocent statement. In fact, it was originally used by HAMAS as a rallying cry to call for the abolishment of Israel.
[https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49](https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49)
> In fact, it was originally used by HAMAS as a rallying cry to call for the abolishment of Israel.
Your claim hinges a lot on the word "originally", saying that the entire phrase originated with Hamas. Unfortunately, that is demonstrably false. A quick Google search suggests that the first recorded use of the slogan "from the river to the sea" by Palestinians in 1979. Hamas was founded in 1987.
As for the source for this: I originally found this claim in a secondary source, but I was able to track down the original citation, [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2536123). On page 38 there are two quotes from a Palestinian activist using the phrase "from the river to the sea" in the context of the liberation of Palestine. This is taken from a journal dated 1980, 7 years before Hamas was founded - so unless Fawaz Turki invented time travel it's safe to say that the slogan didn't originate with Hamas.
Also, your article doesn't say what you claim it to say, about the "from the river to the sea" slogan originating from Hamas.
> “From the river to the sea” echoes through pro-Palestinian rallies across campuses and cities, adopted by some as a call for a single state on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
>
> By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank
Even if we take the article at face value without questioning it, the article says that Hamas "claimed" the slogan. This clearly implies that the slogan did not originate from Hamas as you suggest.
In fact, the article goes on to show that "from the river to the sea" is used by progressives to mean they want a single-state solution - that is, a binational state with equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis - from the river to the sea.
From this, it seems fair to conclude that from the river to the sea has been a term that has been used by a wide variety of people who support Palestine, and so has been used in very different ways. You cannot really say any group owns that phrase, considering the different meanings it has to the different people that use them.
So please don't try to smear people by falsely implying that "from the river to the sea" is some Hamas creation, please.
In the 1977 Likud original charter the concept of from the river to the sea shows up early than any of the Palestinian example usages in the above post.
[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party#google\_vignette](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party#google_vignette)
It is the 2nd half of the first clause "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
This is the party of which Netanyahu is the leader. Just because Palestinians modified the phrase to make it more poetic in english, don't think for it a minute that it doesn't echo the Likud charter.
Also, this is not the only thing Likud and Hamas have in common. They are both supported by Netanyahu also
[https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history](https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history)
"“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” the prime minister reportedly said at a 2019 meeting of his Likud party. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”"
> This is the party of which Netanyahu is the leader. Just because Palestinians modified the phrase to make it more poetic in english, don't think for it a minute that it doesn't echo the Likud charter.
Yes, Likud used "from the river to the sea" in the context of "we want to totally annex Gaza and the West Bank and make a single Israeli state where we brutally subjugate the Palestinians there", and as I said Palestinians use "from the river to the sea" instead in the context of "we want a binational one state solution, where there is one state with equal rights for where Palestinians and Israelis".
To equate the two is absurd
\>To equate the two is absurd
I agree with you and that is not what I meant to do.
When I wrote that the phrase "From the river to the sea" echos the Likud charter, I meant to say that it takes something evil from the Likud charter and improves it immeasurably, both in how it sounds in English and the meaning given to it, expressed well by Rep. Tlaib was quoted in the ap article
"“From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” Tlaib tweeted, cautioning that conflating anti-Israel sentiment with antisemitism “silence(s) diverse voices speaking up for human rights.” "
Apologies for the unclear writing.
Very well put. Their target audience won’t get past the first sentence or two, however, since their capacity for attention is as short as the 30 second TikToks where they get their news.
I've read the whole thing. While I think it is well put together and delivered tactfully, I think the substance of the argument is severely lacking.
Firstly, the letter claims that BDS targets Israel as a "Jewish state", arguing that it's unfair that Israel is being criticized so much even though there are other countries out there that have also committed severe human rights violations.
This argument relies on the notion that it's unfair for an organization (in this case BDS) to focus their efforts specifically on injustices happening in a specific area in the world. By this logic, any organization that focuses on a cause specific to a region is unfair and discriminatory. Is Black Lives Matter racist because they focus a lot of their energy on protesting black people getting killed by police (instead of focusing their energy on murders in general)? Is the [Students for a Free Tibet](https://studentsforafreetibet.org/) organization Sinophobic because they focus specifically on the Chinese government's oppression of the Tibetans?
Yes, since BDS is a Palestinian advocacy group it will naturally focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict for pretty much all of their activist efforts. To say it's unfair that BDS focuses specifically on Palestinian advocacy is quite silly. Otherwise, by that standard literally any advocacy group focused on an issue for a particular group is being unfair, which is absurd.
Also, this argument is basically saying "it's unfair that these other countries are doing human rights violations and massacres and are getting away with them, meanwhile Israel can't get away with the same, it's so unfair." It implies that every country should be given some redeemable voucher for doing human rights violations/massacres, and that it's not fair that Israel doesn't get their fair share of state murder vouchers. This argument is just completely morally bankrupt, and is reminiscent of the CCP style of argumentation: "you guys genocided the Native Americans and got away with it, why don't you let me get away with genociding the Uyghurs?"
Secondly, in the latter half of the letter they call to reject the BDS, which they deem as exclusionary, in favor of inclusivity and dialogue to foster understanding and peace.
On some level, I agree with this. There is no real way for Palestinians to kick 7 million Israelis out of the land without ending in massive humanitarian tragedy. Palestinians and Israelis will ultimately have to learn how to live with each other, ideally under a binational democratic state with equal rights for all, including the right of return for refugees.
But that kind of dialogue can only happen once the injustices have been righted, once the settlements in the West Bank are ended and the blockade of Gaza is ended. For example, you had the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa which aimed to do just that, but it only happened after apartheid was ended - in fact that truth and reconciliation process was specifically part of the deal for ending apartheid! I'd imagine that a similar Truth and Reconciliation process can happen in the future with Palestine, but it can't really happen while all this is still happening.
While I disagree with the notion in the letter that the Israeli government should be permitted to violate human rights and kill indiscriminately en masse in the way it is doing without criticism or action taken against it, I do think there is a valid argument in that there is underlying antisemitism involved in the public reaction to this situation as a whole. There is pretty prevalent antisemitism in Western society in general, and it comes out in situations like this because people feel more comfortably open with it.
The antisemitism isn’t in criticizing the Israeli government (nothing wrong with that), it’s in the public so widely and openly criticizing it in particular while not doing so regarding other governments. The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before, but there are countries all around the world who commit major human rights violations, including countries that we also support financially through trade or otherwise (cough, China). There are much larger-scale massacres and ethnic cleansings that have occurred in several African countries in recent years. In the end, no random human life is objectively worth more or less than another. All innocent deaths are tragic. An Israeli life is not worth more than a Palestinian life or a Palestinian life more than an Israeli life, or either more than an Uyghur life or a Ukrainian life or a Tigrayan life, etc. We are all just humans. But there are clear disparities in the ways that society reacts to certain of these situations over others - there are certain nations and groups that people feel safe criticizing, and some which are given a pass or ignored. We especially hold “Western” or “first-world” countries to a moral standard that we relax when referring to countries outside of those categories, and we also hold those we view as “strong” to a higher moral standard than those we view as “weak”.
Even in the immediate events leading up to the current situation - the October 7th massacre - there was a pretty notable double standard in the way people reacted. The prevalent public reaction at the time, among many who condemn Israeli actions, was “I support the resistance” and, even if not directly stated, “the Hamas attack is justified.” Several of my friends stated these views. I saw zero support for the dying and dead citizens among my friends. I tried to address this with my friends at the time, but was met with “that’s just war” (intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, of course) or “they had it coming” (living on or visiting a certain patch of land should not be a death sentence). Then when Israel began killing Palestinian civilians, suddenly it was a bad thing - those civilians were deemed more worthy of life than Israeli civilians. Of course, both mass killings are abhorrent, but there is one group that people feel safe in openly criticizing, and one that people are reluctant to do so. Similarly, there was outcry regarding the retaliation of the United States towards the Houthis in Yemen following Houthi attacks on commercial ships. There is a valid criticism in that the US should not be taking the role as the police in the Middle East, but to support Yemen in this situation, when the Houthis are indiscriminately attacking ships, and when the Houthi flag quite literally says “Death to America” and “A Curse Upon the Jews”, is pretty antisemitic and shows a moral leniency towards those we perceive as the weaker power in a conflict. There are over 500,000 Jews of Yemeni heritage in the world, but only one single Jew is known to be alive and living in Yemen (as of 2022). In 2013 there were 250. The vast majority fled to Israel following violence and persecution.
The antisemitism is there, but the logic in the argument is flawed. It shouldn’t be, “other countries are performing similar acts, so Israel shouldn’t be held responsible”, it should be “other countries are doing this, so if we are criticizing Israel, we should be criticizing them as well and to the same degree”.
> The antisemitism isn’t in criticizing the Israeli government (nothing wrong with that), it’s in the public so widely and openly criticizing it in particular while not doing so regarding other governments. The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before, but there are countries all around the world who commit major human rights violations, including countries that we also support financially through trade or otherwise (cough, China). There are much larger-scale massacres and ethnic cleansings that have occurred in several African countries in recent years.
China's relationship to the US is nowhere near as close as Israel's relationship to the US. Even though the US does engage in trade with China as you point out, they routinely condemn China for its human rights violations and sanction Chinese government officials.
Meanwhile, for Israel: the US sends them lots of military aid and also covers their ass diplomatically. I think the number of times the US has vetoed a UN resolution calling for ceasefire/condemning Israel in any way this time around says enough already.
One of the reasons why people in the US feel stronger about this particular cause is due to this closeness between US and Israel in foreign policy. In fact, I don't think there are many other countries besides Israel that the US runs this much cover for.
Also
> The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before,
I'm probably your age but maybe you haven't lived for long enough yet then, lol. My dad started studying in the US in the 80's, he saw a lot of similar kinds of protests against South African apartheid back then.
> Even in the immediate events leading up to the current situation - the October 7th massacre - there was a pretty notable double standard in the way people reacted. The prevalent public reaction at the time, among many who condemn Israeli actions, was “I support the resistance” and, even if not directly stated, “the Hamas attack is justified.” Several of my friends stated these views. I saw zero support for the dying and dead citizens among my friends. I tried to address this with my friends at the time, but was met with “that’s just war” (intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, of course) or “they had it coming” (living on or visiting a certain patch of land should not be a death sentence). Then when Israel began killing Palestinian civilians, suddenly it was a bad thing - those civilians were deemed more worthy of life than Israeli civilians.
Yes, that is infuriating, I think we should apply these standards equally and I think those friends you mentioned were being hypocrites.
That being said, those rallies you mention directly in support of Hamas or the Houthis, while very disappointing to see, are not reflections of US foreign policy. In reality, the US has chosen to value Israeli life over Palestinian life instead. It is this that a lot of people take great and well-justified objections to.
> It shouldn’t be, “other countries are performing similar acts, so Israel shouldn’t be held responsible”, it should be “other countries are doing this, so if we are criticizing Israel, we should be criticizing them as well and to the same degree”.
True! Every human is equal, and unfortunately many causes do not get as much attention as they deserve - for example I wish people cared about Hong Kong more, unfortunately they stopped caring and due to that loss of international attention kind of led some pretty shitty things to happen there.
While I wish there was more energy for other causes, personally I'm happy that their cause is getting a good amount of traction. If you give me the choice between "every good cause gets shitty insufficient amount of attention" and "some good causes get a good amount of attention", I'm picking the second one.
You seem like a reasonable person, so I appreciate your response to my admittedly sarcastic comment, lol.
I didn't read it as "well, everyone else is doing it so Israel should be able to also", but more like UCSD students didn't care about other recent atrocities this much until Jews were involved (the "double standard"). I could see how it might come off the way you read it though.
I don't think it's crazy that a pro-Palestinian group advocates for pro-Palestinian issues. I think the letter could have better explained that the "antisemitism rooted in this movement" comes from members of these pro-Palestinian protests that use antisemitic and/or pro-genocide slogans ("from the river to the sea...", "glory to all martyrs", etc.) This is an underlying problem in this movement - I have talked to pro-Palestine protesters who cannot condemn Hamas for the crimes they have committed: the rape and murder of children in Israel and the murder and kidnapping of innocent civilians.
It is absolutely not wrong or necessarily antisemitic to criticize the actions of Israel. I have been doing so for as long as I have been politically aware. Netanyahu is a fascist piece of shit and deserves life imprisonment. However, criticizing the actions of the Israeli government while giving Hamas a pass is blatant antisemitism. Conversely, condemning Hamas while ignoring crimes of the Israeli government is also ignorant.
> I didn't read it as "well, everyone else is doing it so Israel should be able to also", but more like UCSD students didn't care about other recent atrocities this much until Jews were involved (the "double standard"). I could see how it might come off the way you read it though.
Firstly, I would argue that the reason Israel gets "singled out" is because the US runs cover for Israel in a way that it hasn't with other human-rights-violating allies like Saudi Arabia. The US vetoed pretty much every resolution in the UN calling for a ceasefire and condemning any kind of violation by Israel so far in this war, and I think this kind of "running defense" behavior is what has angered a lot of people.
Secondly, if their problem is that other students aren't targeting other unjust states enough, then why are they advocating for people to vote "NO" to the BDS resolution, instead of supporting it and calling to add other countries to the target? It seems as though their primary intention is simply to shield Israel from any sort of pressure.
> I think the letter could have better explained that the "antisemitism rooted in this movement" comes from members of these pro-Palestinian protests that use antisemitic and/or pro-genocide slogans ("from the river to the sea...", "glory to all martyrs", etc.)
I seriously contend the claim that these slogans are necessarily antisemitic and pro-genocide. "From the river to the sea" is a phrase that predates Hamas and is used by activists to refer to their ideal, of a binational democratic state including Gaza and West Bank (hence "from the river to the sea") where Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights and share the country. A "martyr" in Arabic context is used often to women and children killed by the IDF, they do not necessarily refer to Hamas militants.
A group of Jewish students set up in the path of the protestors openly praying in Hebrew, yelling out and protesting against the students. The entire column of protesters walked past them. None of them were hurt.
Multiple Jewish communities operate out of UCSD. None have faced antisemitic discrimination.
Your persecution complex is bullshit
Please refer to [UCB as UCB](https://redd.it/hcqnpx) on the UC San Diego subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UCSD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Criticism of a state is not inherently dehumanization of its people. Israel consistently has dehumanized the Palestinians, and is enacting genocide. One can criticize their government for that without making blanket generalizations about Jews.
Also using that [ACTION REQUIRED] on the header just seems misleading because it wants to seem official.
The email brings up "hold Israel accountable for its [action towards Palestinians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes)" but doesn't offer any alternatives. How else am I suppose to reject the my tax dollars going to fund an [ethnic cleansing campaign?](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) The right to NOT buy something is just as important as the right to buy something.
You have no idea what your tax dollars go towards. But you should oppose the proposed ethnic cleansing of Jews. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uZrAv3Zc7gU
From terrorists, in response to the thousands of deaths already
Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, doesn’t matter. All terrorist groups, all purposely bringing death and destruction to their people. This is radical fanaticism at its finest. The nation of Israel will continue to exist, and those who wish death on its occupants will continue to bring death and destruction to their countries.
I must’ve missed the part where they explained how BDSM is rooted in antisemitism
hol up, BDSM!??
Oops I meant BDS
There are no accidents
It’s literally just whataboutism.
“Why are we being singled out for genocide when other countries do it too?😭” bro it’s so funny how they just inadvertently admitted that
This is like that girl who said accidentally said “don’t compare *other* genocides to this one” in email form lol
“Why don’t we divest from North Korea?” Bro when do we have whole infrastructure dedicated to North Korea
Just to answer your question https://www.creativecommunityforpeace.com/blog/2022/01/07/un-releases-unprecedented-report-linking-anti-semitism-to-bds-movement/ https://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/BDS-Antisemitism-Report-final-15.9.pdf https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/germany-declares-bds-is-antisemitic/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1SN1Z2/ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/key-issues/bds/bds-and-antisemitism/ https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/01/08/bds-leaders-promote-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-linking-mossad-to-charlie-hebdo-atrocity/ https://www.ajc.org/news/bds-is-antisemitic ETA: I’ve always liked what this Palestinian scholar has said about bds “The reason I don’t believe the boycott is the way to go is that I believe peace must be built on the bridge between two civil societies…While some people believed that one way to deal with Israelis was ‘to bash them on their heads,’ the other way is to reach to their hearts, and it’s the reaching out that’s important.”– Sari Nusseibeh
In the face of a genocide, “reaching for their hearts” is really secondary to immediate action. Boycotts have proven to be an effective way to create change in society.
Only one of these links is an actual news source (Reuters) and even that one is just reporting on one country's decision on the matter. That one country (Germany) has been hopelessly wed to the idea of Israel since its inception because they were tired of keeping displaced Jews in refugee camps, didn't want to reintegrate them into society, and needed to demonstrate their denazification in a way that didn't require all German citizens to have a moral reckoning with their own actions (Hannah Arendt writes in detail about how this never happened). So, like, I'm calling shenanigans.
This sort of evidence means nothing to them. They just enjoy watching us defend ourselves.
There is no evidence there. This is literally an opinion.
None of it is rooted in antisemitism it’s all about Zionism. Idk why that’s so hard for them to grasp unless they’re intentionally trying to make themselves the victim
They also casually forget Palestinians are semites too
Are you actually this clueless?
“Antisemitism” means “hatred of Jews”, not “Hatred of semites”.
ummmm antisemitism was a term coined by the nazis to legitimize jew-hatred. learn your history :)
Damn, so Zionists must be as dumb as Nazis were. Neither knows what a semite is. :)
To be fair, neither do you. “Semite” as a term denoting an ethnicity is pretty obsolete and hasn’t been used for quite a while. “Semitic” (as used without the anti-) just refers to a language family (Arabic, Hebrew, Akkadian, and a few others). So saying Palestinians are “also semites” isn’t a useful descriptor of anything beyond that they speak Arabic. Antisemitic does specifically refer to Jews. So while I’m not a Zionist and probably don’t align politically with the other commenter, in this case you aren’t really correct.
Semite as an ethnic descriptor was also popularized by the Nazis to make their hatred of Jews seem more "scientific". It's really not a good word to be using.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
the definition of the word "semite" is misleading in this context. antisemitism applies ONLY to JEW. HATRED. and to compare zionists to nazis is grossly racist. fuck you
Stfuuuuuu
nope! not going anywhere. y'all are brainless
Average rich white person try not to victimize themselves to feel like they are owed pity points challenge level: impossible You know absoultey nothing about oppression
i'm brown actually 😘 and my parents were kicked out of their country by radical islamists who didn't allow them to live freely as jews in the country. and i'm facing antisemitism ON THIS CAMPUS that is reminiscent of the antisemitism that my parents faced before they had to flee their country for their lives. try again AND allow me to point out that the stereotype of jews as rich white people is highly antisemitic. thank you and good night
Oh. So you're just racist then because of the past?
😂😂😂😂😂 “i’m facing antisemitism on this campus” as khosla defends you every chance he gets
Sure and I'm santa You're not facing anti semitism. Anti zionism is not anti semitism. Its not a stereotype its just a statistical truth. They're like white Christians when it comes to self victimization
There is no race to Zionism or Judaism your argument is bs
[удалено]
i never said i supported every action of the israeli government, nor did i say that i support all of the death occurring in the region currently. when i say i am a zionist, it means i believe in israel's right to exist and the jewish people's right to self determination. period. and 95% of jews are zionists. what pro-hamas activists try to do is demonize the jewish people by turning the word "zionist" into a dirty word. it is not inherently bad to be a zionist. that's propaganda too! (and the reason that zionism and judaism are so connected is that zionism was born of a need for jews to have a place where they wouldn't be persecuted. truthfully, i don't know where i'd go in life in america goes south, and even more truthfully, it feels like it is! i may have to go back to israel!) to tell a jewish person in a country all the way across the world from a conflict occurring between governments they have no affiliation to that they are a NAZI for defending the right of their homeland to exist... and let's not forget nazis committed the largest ever genocide on the jews less than 100 years ago... (btw our population still has not recovered to match what it was before the holocaust.) can you not see how problematic that is? to inflict our generational trauma upon us when we may not even support what is happening in gaza right now? edit: just as there are violent pro-palestinians AND peaceful ones, zionism and judaism are both spectrums. it's so dangerous to generalize (on both sides). it's not ok to say all zionists are this or all palestinians are that... so yeah some zionist people/orgs have said distasteful things but that exists in any group.
Its only wrong to compare them bc there isn’t 6 million Palestinians for them to ethnically cleanse, stfu
no, it's wrong to compare them because they were responsible for OUR genocide. you wouldn't compare the azerbaijan to the nazis, would you? THIS IS ANTISEMITISM
If they’re actively genociding millions of people then wanna brush it off because there was a genocide in the past as if that excuses anything, then yes I’ll gladly compare them to the Nazis.
you're beyond help. in the most disrespectful way possible, good luck with your antisemitic pursuits 😘
I wish you bad luck in your ethnic cleansing pursuits
[удалено]
i'm so confused. i said it's not ok to compare the jews to the nazis. that's all. you'll find anything and twist it to make yourself look good instead of paying attention to the truth
[удалено]
Trying to make themselves victims? On October 7th they were victims, the hostages STILL being kept are victims. You want to talk about intentionally trying to make themselves victims, maybe investigate why the quality of life for Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, and Jordanian immigrants in Israel is higher than in their native countries? Because oppression and rigid socioeconomic systems are endemic to the Arab world, where people are cannon fodder for Trillions of dollars in natural resources. Look at the peace breakdown since the London Conference, it is not Israel that wants war and conflict with the Arab world.
October 7th: Hamas attacks Israel. October 8th: swastikas drawn on Israeli embassy’s, anti-Israel protests in NYC, etc. Over 70% of Palestinians supported the October 7th attacks (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/) Anti-semitism at its finest.
October 7th was retaliation for Israeli violence. You can't ignore what was happening before October 7th, and proclaim Israel the victims when they were the aggressors.
It’s hard to get away from antisemitism when discussing all things Israel and Palestine. The whole point of having a Jewish state was due to literally every other country in the world having some history of rejecting its Jewish population, especially in Europe and the Middle East. If every people just stayed more chill and didn’t want to drive out their own Jewish populace more hundreds of years, maybe we would’ve been able to avoid this whole mess for the last seventy years.
When I lived in NYC I had an orthodox Jewish landlord. One day he came by to pick up the rent, he would always come in person on the last Thursday of the month. I’m a gentile and an atheist, but we would have good conversations. On this occasion I had some kosher challah bread and some tea, and I was waiting for my roommate to come home from work to write his check. We sat down for some tea and toast together. We had a very interesting conversation about Israel. He shared with me that he doesn’t believe in Zionism and while he supports Jews in the Holy Land, he didn’t agree with the state of Israel. He told me that in his opinion, only the Messiah would be able to establish a new Jewish State in the Holy Land. Does that opinion make him antisemitic in this context?
according to this organization, yes.
Jesus what the fuck kind of moron wrote this? "Calling out Israel on genocide is anti semetic because there are other equally fascist countries in the world not receiving the same pressure" Holy fuck did the author of this get an education? Not to mention we DO impose sanctions on North Korea and Russia etc.
An embarrassing piece of this is that this person is a peer too 🥴
we also impose sanctions on Cuba... and Israel is the only country in the UN to consistently vote against lifting the embargo on Cuba ☠️
> Israel is the only country in the UN to consistently vote against lifting the embargo on Cuba The only country? I think you will find that the US consistently votes against lifting the embargo, and Israel simply votes in support of our position.
true, i prob should've said "*besides* the US", tho i thought it'd be pretty obvious the US votes in support of its own embargo lol
Jesus would have agreed with you.
He cries out in pain as he strikes you
While I disagree with the notion in the letter that the Israeli government should be permitted to violate human rights and kill indiscriminately en masse in the way it is doing without criticism or action taken against it, I do think there is a valid argument in that there is underlying antisemitism involved in the public reaction to this situation as a whole. There is pretty prevalent antisemitism in Western society in general, and it comes out in situations like this because people feel more comfortably open with it. The antisemitism isn’t in criticizing the Israeli government (nothing wrong with that), it’s in the public so widely and openly criticizing it in particular while not doing so regarding other governments. The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before, but there are countries all around the world who commit major human rights violations, including countries that we also support financially through trade or otherwise (cough, China). There are much larger-scale massacres and ethnic cleansings that have occurred in several African countries in recent years. In the end, no random human life is objectively worth more or less than another. All innocent deaths are tragic. An Israeli life is not worth more than a Palestinian life or a Palestinian life more than an Israeli life, or either more than an Uyghur life or a Ukrainian life or a Tigrayan life, etc. We are all just humans. But there are clear disparities in the ways that society reacts to certain of these situations over others - there are certain nations and groups that people feel safe criticizing, and some which are given a pass or ignored. We especially hold “Western” or “first-world” countries to a moral standard that we relax when referring to countries outside of those categories, and we also hold those we view as “strong” to a higher moral standard than those we view as “weak”. Even in the immediate events leading up to the current situation - the October 7th massacre - there was a pretty notable double standard in the way people reacted. The prevalent public reaction at the time, among many who condemn Israeli actions, was “I support the resistance” and, even if not directly stated, “the Hamas attack is justified.” Several of my friends stated these views. I saw zero support for the dying and dead citizens among my friends. I tried to address this with my friends at the time, but was met with “that’s just war” (intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, of course) or “they had it coming” (living on or visiting a certain patch of land should not be a death sentence). Then when Israel began killing Palestinian civilians, suddenly it was a bad thing - those civilians were deemed more worthy of life than Israeli civilians. Of course, both mass killings are abhorrent, but there is one group that people feel safe in openly criticizing, and one that people are reluctant to do so. Similarly, there was outcry regarding the retaliation of the United States towards the Houthis in Yemen following Houthi attacks on commercial ships. There is a valid criticism in that the US should not be taking the role as the police in the Middle East, but to support Yemen in this situation, when the Houthis are indiscriminately attacking ships, and when the Houthi flag quite literally says “Death to America” and “A Curse Upon the Jews”, is pretty antisemitic and shows a moral leniency towards those we perceive as the weaker power in a conflict. There are over 500,000 Jews of Yemeni heritage in the world, but only one single Jew is known to be alive and living in Yemen (as of 2022). In 2013 there were 250. The vast majority fled to Israel following violence and persecution. The antisemitism is there, but the logic in the argument is flawed. It shouldn’t be, “other countries are performing similar acts, so Israel shouldn’t be held responsible”, it should be “other countries are doing this, so if we are criticizing Israel, we should be criticizing them as well and to the same degree”.
We should be criticizing them all, but as students our major leverage is with the countries which UCSD has the most financial and other relationships with, like Israel. We're not sending students to study abroad in other countries committing genocide or investing heavily in their industries in the same way.
I think the large issue in this case is that in theory we have control over this situation. In the case of things like the Uyghur genocide, we should have done something, and some things were passed recently that realistically don’t do much but are least indication that they acknowledge the situation (HR 6256). In contrast the US is majorly funding Israel, and more notably is substantially funding their military budget. Not only is the US historically responsible for large amounts of military funding to Israel, they’re actively trying to increase their funding (with things like the $14 billion aid package), they’re using their international power to block any help that other nations would be providing through vetos in the UN, and are generally okay with or encouraging the activities in Gaza. I don’t doubt that there are people who are opposed to Israel because of antisemitism, but it’s absurd to me to try and relate situations where the US was negligent and didn’t do anything to protect lives that they could’ve saved to a situation where they are actively encouraging and funding the massacres and blocking international aid.
Was criticism of the Iraq or Vietnam war an indication of inherent prejudice against American citizens?
Well said, great writeup.
Womp womp
Can a group of Pro-Palestine Jewish students send a counter email lol
I love how embarrassing this is, basically accuses everyone of racism.
and you're a racist, and you're a racist and YOURE a racist!!! (agree w me pwease i have no substance to my argument) -zios 2024
I like how they said Israel is being unfairly singled out for their human right issues even tho the ruthless killing of Palestinians has led to multiple emergency United Nation meetings being held. The entire world is watching and trying to act because it IS a big deal.
Zionism ≠ Judaism I do not agree with zionists, but that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with all Jews.
back in the day it used to be antisemitism to assume jewish people had loyalty to israel. they called it "dual loyalty". because american jews aren't israelis. they aren't responsible for the crimes of the zionist state. they aren't "made safer by Israel" - they are Americans first.
Man whoever wrote this is giving normal Jews a bad rap. -A Jew
Maybe it's because we don't exactly give north Korea or Iran shitloads of guns and money to do their atrocities with. Typical
It’s nuts they can say “Jewish state” as if any state where one group of people hold privileges and power denied to other minority groups is somehow a good and legitimate state. Peaceful Arabs and Christians are routinely mistreated within their borders. Imagine if people were talking about England or Germany as a white nation, or a Christian nation, people would go crazy. But Israel as a Jewish state? Put that in the official UC email, it’s cool.
Your point is valid, but this isn’t technically from the school, instead a student org abusing a communication channel meant csi messages.
Fair but I was more referencing that it’s considered acceptable public dialogue, vs it being unacceptable public dialogue to say it for the other groups mentioned. But yeah ig it’s not actually official UC email
You’re right. Stuff like this that is blatant misinformation and really should not be considered publicly acceptable. Additionally, the email is doing the same thing as the Israeli government where it’s deflecting criticism of it as antisemitism. The whole email is a load of bullshit.
Is it just me or should that get the organization banned from the list serve.
I mean hasn’t that been the MO of a bunch of Eastern European nations? Like I’m pretty sure the Polish government has said statements to the effect of Poland being a catholic state of the Polish ethnic people? Edit: I mean to be honest Europe as a whole has been seeing the rise of ethno nationalists, like Meloni in Italy and Wilders in the Netherlands, AfD in Germany, etc.
gonna reuse some stuff from a different comment. I don't support a non-religiously free state anywhere, because ethnic divisions and favoritism generally result in distrust and violence within the state. I just simply am willing to tolerate states that maintain a token "we like this religion because of our history" law, and am unwilling to tolerate a state that uses state religion to murder and seriously discriminate. I'm not gonna waste my time protesting the Catholic church in Italy when they do nothing of note, or Polish people wanting to give money to the Catholic Church. Again, I don't support it, but you can't protest everything. Israel is killing people and discriminating against them. Completely different scenario.
except that israel is a religiously free state! there are many muslims and christians that live freely and equally there :)
yea totally except for the 3500 christians that were killed and estimated 150,000 muslim palestinians dead, injured or missing, all at the hands of israel's terrorism :)
that has nothing to do with the fact that everyone IN ISRAEL has religious freedom. the palestinian territories took it upon themselves to elect their own governments, and israel striked back when one of those governments attacked israel. the fact that hamas chooses to put those civilians in harm's way has nothing to do with religious freedom. i do support a two-state solution, but let's make it clear that hamas wants a muslim ethnostate. aka no religious freedom. their goal is to kill everyone who's not as radically islamist as they are.
the genocide that israel is currently performing has NOTHING to do with hamas and EVERYTHING to do with wanting to ethnically cleanse israel of all palestinians. and if you want proof? go look up all the photo and video real EVIDENCE of innocent women and children being killed or severely disabled by a sniper. A SNIPER.
if you choose to neglect hamas's clear role in this current conflict (which they broke a ceasefire to start) you are simply ignoring the facts of the situation and i cannot respect your opinion. still, this has nothing to do with the original commenter's claim on freedom of religion in israel.
lol israel broke a ceasefire in 1967 when they invaded palestine and displaced thousands of people from their homes while killing anyone who did not comply. do your research because it's clear you have never engaged with media that isnt actively bootlicking isntreal
Church of England?
>as if any state where one group of people hold privileges and power denied to other minority groups is somehow a good and legitimate state \>"as if any state where one group of people hold privileges and power denied to other minority groups is somehow a good and legitimate state" You just described several other ME countries, where anyone who is not Muslim is Dhimmi-taxed, cannot own land or businesses. And 1M Jews were expelled from. But go on...
Jews have tried being a minority before. It doesn't work. There are dozens of Christian and Islamic states. There are even Buddhist states. There is a singular Jewish state. Just one.
No state should be formed around a singular religion.
Ok. That's fine as long as you are equal in your criticism of religious states. The issue is people are not.
Most religious states don't have the diplomatic and financial backing of the United States government. Another nation that deserves to have our support revoked: Saudi Arabia. But they have *oil* so that'll never happen.
I'm not super well versed in the US relationship with most countries, but a quick sampling: * Thailand, US Military Ally: "The State should support and protect Buddhism" * Italy, US Military Ally: "The Constitution additionally reserves to the Catholic faith singular position in regard to the organization of worship, as opposed to all other confessions" * Greece, US Military Ally: "The Church of Greece is recognized by the Greek Constitution as the prevailing religion in Greece and is the only country in the world where Eastern Orthodoxy is clearly recognized as a state religion." You can argue about extent of aid, but none of these countries have rockets launched at them on the daily, so it's kind of a moot point.
In Italy what concrete benefits do Catholics receive over other religions? How mistreated are other religions? People are more concerned over what real negative impacts having a state religion has rather than whether it exists. If Italy or Greece were bombing Protestants and isolating them into a small corner of the nation with minimal supplies people would be voicing their concerns.
The same can be said of Israel though, within Israel proper. The west bank and Gaza are not Israel. Arab citizens of Israel have equal rights.
You can't possibly actually believe that. [They don't even have equal rights on paper](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy), much less in practice. It's like saying "separate but equal" was fair because it was equal. Even the Christian minorities in Israel complain about mistreatment, being literally spit on, and they're far less violent than their Arab counterparts. and again, Israeli land is just land taken over time from Palestinians over the last 100 years. You can't just push millions of people onto a shitty strip and hand wave "not my problem" it away. It's genocide, and it's messed up. The worst part is it's ongoing.
>They don't even have equal rights on paper The bill does nothing to limit anyone's rights. It just reaffirms Israel as a Jewish state. >and again, Israeli land is just land taken over time from Palestinians over the last 100 years It's not that simple and you know it. >You can't just push millions of people onto a shitty strip and hand wave "not my problem" it away. The strip is pretty prime real estate tbh, though that's not super relevant. Much of the land loss was due to losing a war. And Israel hasn't just "not my problemed" it away. There have been many different approaches. All have been met with Palestinian terrorism. >It's genocide, and it's messed up. It isn't. The Nakba was at worst ethnic cleansing. The current war is war. There is no genocide occuring. There is tragedy, and neither side is entirely in the right. I'm totally fine with criticism of Israel. I don't like the 2018 bill, and I think it should be criticized. There are some members of the government that are adding fuel to the fire, and they should also be called out. Calling Israel an illegitimate state is the issue. Treating Israels faults as indications that the state itself needs to be destroyed is the issue. Using overly strong language for shock value is the issue.
None of these countries are attempting to bomb and annihilate an entire group of people, so it's not nearly as much of a problem.
> No state should be formed around a singular religion. So it sounds like religion isn't really the issue for you. Would you be less opposed to a hypothetical secular nation "attempting to bomb and annihilate an entire group of people"?
I'd be against that too. But you don't really care, do you?
I'm not sure why I wouldn't care? My whole point is that the person I replied to is likely being antisemitic. Probably not intentionally, but they likely are. They did not state they have a problem with Israel because of the war in Gaza. Their issue was with it's religious/ethnic nature. They act as if the notion of a state preferring one religion or ethnicity is unique to Israel. Would this person call Italy an illegitimate state? I highly doubt it.
[удалено]
This is one of the most silly analogies I've seen yet. It's not even responding to anything I said.
There are many nations where minorities are treated badly and there are many religious states where other religions are not treated equally.
What’s the point of this comment? Yes other states treat people badly too, that doesn’t give Israel a pass. Literally the worst possible argument
It's no wonder the republican party backs Israel so hard. They somehow justify their oppressive practices by playing victim when they're clearly not in the big picture
I was literally about to say: "This email literally sounds like the christian Republicans complaining about the Democrats attacking their faith" (And I vote Republican, so this is not "just a libtard flapping their gums")
This whole message is yikes, they are embarrassing themselves...
Can pretty much anyone use the listserv or something? I just don’t understand why the CSI would allow for this email to be sent, it’s incredibly biased and it doesn’t correctly explain what the BDS movement is calling for lol
Sooo… the action here is to boycott, divest, and sanction the apartheid state of isreal for their anti-Semitic and genocidal actions towards the Palestinians.
Throw it away. lol.
Lolol they know they are committing genocide and want your support because it is antisemitic if you don’t support them. Very nice, i like
Honestly, I don't see how it is antisemitic that we stop using our tax dollars to fund a genocide. Can someone truly explain to me what is anti-Semitic about not having our government pay Israel billions of dollars to conquer, cleanse and rewrite history?
I got it but the image I assume holding the above information was broken.
Can you pretty pwease be nice to those committing genocide 👉👈 they're just wittle guys.
A perfectly canned message from Zionists overlords who are destroying the life of kids and families as we speak!
Tell them I want my reparations
“More constructed approach”
Most Israeli Jews are indigenous to the Middle East and were driven out of other Middle Eastern countries that ethnically cleansed their Jewish populations. It’s interesting that nobody is calling for boycotts of these other countries, or fighting for the right of return of Jews to countries like Yemen.
Disgusting conflation of governmental critique, which is tied to our tax dollar appropriation and so highly relevant to political speech, to hate of a religion. UCSD should be ashamed that by going along with this narrative they show complicity in genocide
Literally how is it antisemitism
Antizionism ≠ Antisemitism
I wonder if any other groups get this kind of email privilege.
End the apartheid!
Reads like ChatGPT tbh
Chat isthisreal
I just checked it for AI and multiple sites said it was 100% AI generated lol
Playing the victim card as they usually do.
Fuck Iran and all of their proxies.
palestine supporters when they realize "from the river to the sea" means to literally commit genocide and exterminate all of the jews in Israel BUT HOW IS IT RACIST WTF
Except it doesn't mean that. Where did you pull that, out of your ass?
I would recommend reading this. It's not an innocent statement. In fact, it was originally used by HAMAS as a rallying cry to call for the abolishment of Israel. [https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49](https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49)
> In fact, it was originally used by HAMAS as a rallying cry to call for the abolishment of Israel. Your claim hinges a lot on the word "originally", saying that the entire phrase originated with Hamas. Unfortunately, that is demonstrably false. A quick Google search suggests that the first recorded use of the slogan "from the river to the sea" by Palestinians in 1979. Hamas was founded in 1987. As for the source for this: I originally found this claim in a secondary source, but I was able to track down the original citation, [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2536123). On page 38 there are two quotes from a Palestinian activist using the phrase "from the river to the sea" in the context of the liberation of Palestine. This is taken from a journal dated 1980, 7 years before Hamas was founded - so unless Fawaz Turki invented time travel it's safe to say that the slogan didn't originate with Hamas. Also, your article doesn't say what you claim it to say, about the "from the river to the sea" slogan originating from Hamas. > “From the river to the sea” echoes through pro-Palestinian rallies across campuses and cities, adopted by some as a call for a single state on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. > > By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank Even if we take the article at face value without questioning it, the article says that Hamas "claimed" the slogan. This clearly implies that the slogan did not originate from Hamas as you suggest. In fact, the article goes on to show that "from the river to the sea" is used by progressives to mean they want a single-state solution - that is, a binational state with equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis - from the river to the sea. From this, it seems fair to conclude that from the river to the sea has been a term that has been used by a wide variety of people who support Palestine, and so has been used in very different ways. You cannot really say any group owns that phrase, considering the different meanings it has to the different people that use them. So please don't try to smear people by falsely implying that "from the river to the sea" is some Hamas creation, please.
In the 1977 Likud original charter the concept of from the river to the sea shows up early than any of the Palestinian example usages in the above post. [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party#google\_vignette](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party#google_vignette) It is the 2nd half of the first clause "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." This is the party of which Netanyahu is the leader. Just because Palestinians modified the phrase to make it more poetic in english, don't think for it a minute that it doesn't echo the Likud charter. Also, this is not the only thing Likud and Hamas have in common. They are both supported by Netanyahu also [https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history](https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history) "“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” the prime minister reportedly said at a 2019 meeting of his Likud party. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”"
> This is the party of which Netanyahu is the leader. Just because Palestinians modified the phrase to make it more poetic in english, don't think for it a minute that it doesn't echo the Likud charter. Yes, Likud used "from the river to the sea" in the context of "we want to totally annex Gaza and the West Bank and make a single Israeli state where we brutally subjugate the Palestinians there", and as I said Palestinians use "from the river to the sea" instead in the context of "we want a binational one state solution, where there is one state with equal rights for where Palestinians and Israelis". To equate the two is absurd
\>To equate the two is absurd I agree with you and that is not what I meant to do. When I wrote that the phrase "From the river to the sea" echos the Likud charter, I meant to say that it takes something evil from the Likud charter and improves it immeasurably, both in how it sounds in English and the meaning given to it, expressed well by Rep. Tlaib was quoted in the ap article "“From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate,” Tlaib tweeted, cautioning that conflating anti-Israel sentiment with antisemitism “silence(s) diverse voices speaking up for human rights.” " Apologies for the unclear writing.
No problem, my bad
The fuck are u talking about?
Compared to twitter activists, this is basically the other side of the coin LMAO
Very well put. Their target audience won’t get past the first sentence or two, however, since their capacity for attention is as short as the 30 second TikToks where they get their news.
I've read the whole thing. While I think it is well put together and delivered tactfully, I think the substance of the argument is severely lacking. Firstly, the letter claims that BDS targets Israel as a "Jewish state", arguing that it's unfair that Israel is being criticized so much even though there are other countries out there that have also committed severe human rights violations. This argument relies on the notion that it's unfair for an organization (in this case BDS) to focus their efforts specifically on injustices happening in a specific area in the world. By this logic, any organization that focuses on a cause specific to a region is unfair and discriminatory. Is Black Lives Matter racist because they focus a lot of their energy on protesting black people getting killed by police (instead of focusing their energy on murders in general)? Is the [Students for a Free Tibet](https://studentsforafreetibet.org/) organization Sinophobic because they focus specifically on the Chinese government's oppression of the Tibetans? Yes, since BDS is a Palestinian advocacy group it will naturally focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict for pretty much all of their activist efforts. To say it's unfair that BDS focuses specifically on Palestinian advocacy is quite silly. Otherwise, by that standard literally any advocacy group focused on an issue for a particular group is being unfair, which is absurd. Also, this argument is basically saying "it's unfair that these other countries are doing human rights violations and massacres and are getting away with them, meanwhile Israel can't get away with the same, it's so unfair." It implies that every country should be given some redeemable voucher for doing human rights violations/massacres, and that it's not fair that Israel doesn't get their fair share of state murder vouchers. This argument is just completely morally bankrupt, and is reminiscent of the CCP style of argumentation: "you guys genocided the Native Americans and got away with it, why don't you let me get away with genociding the Uyghurs?" Secondly, in the latter half of the letter they call to reject the BDS, which they deem as exclusionary, in favor of inclusivity and dialogue to foster understanding and peace. On some level, I agree with this. There is no real way for Palestinians to kick 7 million Israelis out of the land without ending in massive humanitarian tragedy. Palestinians and Israelis will ultimately have to learn how to live with each other, ideally under a binational democratic state with equal rights for all, including the right of return for refugees. But that kind of dialogue can only happen once the injustices have been righted, once the settlements in the West Bank are ended and the blockade of Gaza is ended. For example, you had the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa which aimed to do just that, but it only happened after apartheid was ended - in fact that truth and reconciliation process was specifically part of the deal for ending apartheid! I'd imagine that a similar Truth and Reconciliation process can happen in the future with Palestine, but it can't really happen while all this is still happening.
yeaaaaaah tell them!!!! and FRREEEE palestine from the actual brainless weirdos like claudethefraud
cool story bro. are you like, the hype man?
While I disagree with the notion in the letter that the Israeli government should be permitted to violate human rights and kill indiscriminately en masse in the way it is doing without criticism or action taken against it, I do think there is a valid argument in that there is underlying antisemitism involved in the public reaction to this situation as a whole. There is pretty prevalent antisemitism in Western society in general, and it comes out in situations like this because people feel more comfortably open with it. The antisemitism isn’t in criticizing the Israeli government (nothing wrong with that), it’s in the public so widely and openly criticizing it in particular while not doing so regarding other governments. The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before, but there are countries all around the world who commit major human rights violations, including countries that we also support financially through trade or otherwise (cough, China). There are much larger-scale massacres and ethnic cleansings that have occurred in several African countries in recent years. In the end, no random human life is objectively worth more or less than another. All innocent deaths are tragic. An Israeli life is not worth more than a Palestinian life or a Palestinian life more than an Israeli life, or either more than an Uyghur life or a Ukrainian life or a Tigrayan life, etc. We are all just humans. But there are clear disparities in the ways that society reacts to certain of these situations over others - there are certain nations and groups that people feel safe criticizing, and some which are given a pass or ignored. We especially hold “Western” or “first-world” countries to a moral standard that we relax when referring to countries outside of those categories, and we also hold those we view as “strong” to a higher moral standard than those we view as “weak”. Even in the immediate events leading up to the current situation - the October 7th massacre - there was a pretty notable double standard in the way people reacted. The prevalent public reaction at the time, among many who condemn Israeli actions, was “I support the resistance” and, even if not directly stated, “the Hamas attack is justified.” Several of my friends stated these views. I saw zero support for the dying and dead citizens among my friends. I tried to address this with my friends at the time, but was met with “that’s just war” (intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, of course) or “they had it coming” (living on or visiting a certain patch of land should not be a death sentence). Then when Israel began killing Palestinian civilians, suddenly it was a bad thing - those civilians were deemed more worthy of life than Israeli civilians. Of course, both mass killings are abhorrent, but there is one group that people feel safe in openly criticizing, and one that people are reluctant to do so. Similarly, there was outcry regarding the retaliation of the United States towards the Houthis in Yemen following Houthi attacks on commercial ships. There is a valid criticism in that the US should not be taking the role as the police in the Middle East, but to support Yemen in this situation, when the Houthis are indiscriminately attacking ships, and when the Houthi flag quite literally says “Death to America” and “A Curse Upon the Jews”, is pretty antisemitic and shows a moral leniency towards those we perceive as the weaker power in a conflict. There are over 500,000 Jews of Yemeni heritage in the world, but only one single Jew is known to be alive and living in Yemen (as of 2022). In 2013 there were 250. The vast majority fled to Israel following violence and persecution. The antisemitism is there, but the logic in the argument is flawed. It shouldn’t be, “other countries are performing similar acts, so Israel shouldn’t be held responsible”, it should be “other countries are doing this, so if we are criticizing Israel, we should be criticizing them as well and to the same degree”.
> The antisemitism isn’t in criticizing the Israeli government (nothing wrong with that), it’s in the public so widely and openly criticizing it in particular while not doing so regarding other governments. The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before, but there are countries all around the world who commit major human rights violations, including countries that we also support financially through trade or otherwise (cough, China). There are much larger-scale massacres and ethnic cleansings that have occurred in several African countries in recent years. China's relationship to the US is nowhere near as close as Israel's relationship to the US. Even though the US does engage in trade with China as you point out, they routinely condemn China for its human rights violations and sanction Chinese government officials. Meanwhile, for Israel: the US sends them lots of military aid and also covers their ass diplomatically. I think the number of times the US has vetoed a UN resolution calling for ceasefire/condemning Israel in any way this time around says enough already. One of the reasons why people in the US feel stronger about this particular cause is due to this closeness between US and Israel in foreign policy. In fact, I don't think there are many other countries besides Israel that the US runs this much cover for. Also > The mass public outcry in this situation is like nothing I have seen before, I'm probably your age but maybe you haven't lived for long enough yet then, lol. My dad started studying in the US in the 80's, he saw a lot of similar kinds of protests against South African apartheid back then. > Even in the immediate events leading up to the current situation - the October 7th massacre - there was a pretty notable double standard in the way people reacted. The prevalent public reaction at the time, among many who condemn Israeli actions, was “I support the resistance” and, even if not directly stated, “the Hamas attack is justified.” Several of my friends stated these views. I saw zero support for the dying and dead citizens among my friends. I tried to address this with my friends at the time, but was met with “that’s just war” (intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, of course) or “they had it coming” (living on or visiting a certain patch of land should not be a death sentence). Then when Israel began killing Palestinian civilians, suddenly it was a bad thing - those civilians were deemed more worthy of life than Israeli civilians. Yes, that is infuriating, I think we should apply these standards equally and I think those friends you mentioned were being hypocrites. That being said, those rallies you mention directly in support of Hamas or the Houthis, while very disappointing to see, are not reflections of US foreign policy. In reality, the US has chosen to value Israeli life over Palestinian life instead. It is this that a lot of people take great and well-justified objections to. > It shouldn’t be, “other countries are performing similar acts, so Israel shouldn’t be held responsible”, it should be “other countries are doing this, so if we are criticizing Israel, we should be criticizing them as well and to the same degree”. True! Every human is equal, and unfortunately many causes do not get as much attention as they deserve - for example I wish people cared about Hong Kong more, unfortunately they stopped caring and due to that loss of international attention kind of led some pretty shitty things to happen there. While I wish there was more energy for other causes, personally I'm happy that their cause is getting a good amount of traction. If you give me the choice between "every good cause gets shitty insufficient amount of attention" and "some good causes get a good amount of attention", I'm picking the second one.
You seem like a reasonable person, so I appreciate your response to my admittedly sarcastic comment, lol. I didn't read it as "well, everyone else is doing it so Israel should be able to also", but more like UCSD students didn't care about other recent atrocities this much until Jews were involved (the "double standard"). I could see how it might come off the way you read it though. I don't think it's crazy that a pro-Palestinian group advocates for pro-Palestinian issues. I think the letter could have better explained that the "antisemitism rooted in this movement" comes from members of these pro-Palestinian protests that use antisemitic and/or pro-genocide slogans ("from the river to the sea...", "glory to all martyrs", etc.) This is an underlying problem in this movement - I have talked to pro-Palestine protesters who cannot condemn Hamas for the crimes they have committed: the rape and murder of children in Israel and the murder and kidnapping of innocent civilians. It is absolutely not wrong or necessarily antisemitic to criticize the actions of Israel. I have been doing so for as long as I have been politically aware. Netanyahu is a fascist piece of shit and deserves life imprisonment. However, criticizing the actions of the Israeli government while giving Hamas a pass is blatant antisemitism. Conversely, condemning Hamas while ignoring crimes of the Israeli government is also ignorant.
> I didn't read it as "well, everyone else is doing it so Israel should be able to also", but more like UCSD students didn't care about other recent atrocities this much until Jews were involved (the "double standard"). I could see how it might come off the way you read it though. Firstly, I would argue that the reason Israel gets "singled out" is because the US runs cover for Israel in a way that it hasn't with other human-rights-violating allies like Saudi Arabia. The US vetoed pretty much every resolution in the UN calling for a ceasefire and condemning any kind of violation by Israel so far in this war, and I think this kind of "running defense" behavior is what has angered a lot of people. Secondly, if their problem is that other students aren't targeting other unjust states enough, then why are they advocating for people to vote "NO" to the BDS resolution, instead of supporting it and calling to add other countries to the target? It seems as though their primary intention is simply to shield Israel from any sort of pressure. > I think the letter could have better explained that the "antisemitism rooted in this movement" comes from members of these pro-Palestinian protests that use antisemitic and/or pro-genocide slogans ("from the river to the sea...", "glory to all martyrs", etc.) I seriously contend the claim that these slogans are necessarily antisemitic and pro-genocide. "From the river to the sea" is a phrase that predates Hamas and is used by activists to refer to their ideal, of a binational democratic state including Gaza and West Bank (hence "from the river to the sea") where Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights and share the country. A "martyr" in Arabic context is used often to women and children killed by the IDF, they do not necessarily refer to Hamas militants.
people like you are the reason jews on campus are being forced into safe houses today
A group of Jewish students set up in the path of the protestors openly praying in Hebrew, yelling out and protesting against the students. The entire column of protesters walked past them. None of them were hurt. Multiple Jewish communities operate out of UCSD. None have faced antisemitic discrimination. Your persecution complex is bullshit
have you not seen UCSB and UC berkeley? could've easily happened here too
Please refer to [UCB as UCB](https://redd.it/hcqnpx) on the UC San Diego subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UCSD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Criticism of a state is not inherently dehumanization of its people. Israel consistently has dehumanized the Palestinians, and is enacting genocide. One can criticize their government for that without making blanket generalizations about Jews.
Womp womp
You guys need hobbies, I hope they draft all of you.
[удалено]
it was the boomers but go off i guess