This conference raises a number of question. My answers are in italics YMMV.[ol][li]Is the conference anti-Semitic? [/li]Yes. Equating the existence of Jewish Homeland with racism constitutes anti-Semitism.[li]Does the conference endorse terrorism? [/li]Yes. It encourages violence against Israeli civilians. A speaker is someone linked to terrorist groups. [li]Does the University President’s statement do enough to distance the school from the conference? [/li]No. Chances are the school is paying for the conference. The U. of Michigan is also lending the conference its prestige. Note that Ms. Coleman didn’t even have the guts to say that she or the the university opposes the views of the organizers. [li]Should the school prohibit this conference? [/li]Yes. This could be compared to a KKK conference that met to endorse violence against African Americans. Despite free speech concerns, the university must not promote religious or racial hatred.[/ol]
Its not a terrorist brainstorming session. Rather it seems that the conference is a perfectly legitimat intellectual discussion of important issues. Whats your beef? Aside from silly labels.
This is from the guy who thinks Jewish lives are more valuable than any others and who habitually characterises entire societies as ‘anti’-this or ‘pro’-that. Damn, in the case of Europe (the “EU”), an entire continent is “pro-Palestinian” according to you.
Explain how in the past you haven’t proven merit in the argument?
So, because you disagree with the stands taken by one poster on an Internet message board, this gives merit to the argument that the national aspirations of an entire people is a racist enterprise?
“Tens of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets of Tel Aviv to demand the immediate withdrawal of the Israel army and settlers from Palestinian territories.”
So London, you have nothing to say except to attack the post on the basis of your thoughts about the poster’s character?
Log Phallus, (?Woodie?)
“A perfectly legitimat(sic) intellectual discussion of important issues”?
“Silly labels”?
The racism charge against Zionism is hardly intellectual nor silly. It is a ploy. And one that is hateful at best, and likely antisemitic in most cases. Hateful words are not silly labels.
What race is allegedly claiming superiority over which other race?
Judiasm is not a race. My adopted daughter (from China) will be as welcome to make aliyah as any other Jew. Jewish converts that are South American Indian are welcome as are Ethioian Jews, Arab Jews, and so on. We share no race. At most you can say we are members of a tribe.
Arabs are not a race. They are a mixed bag of different peoples and cultures, generally sharing some common cultural characteristics and heritage, but hardly meeting the definition of that sociologic grouping crudely referred to as “race”.
(Now can make an argument about whether or not non-Jewish Arab citizens in Israel are treated with full equality … I would in this case argue that Israel occasionally treats its Arab citizenry almost as poorly as Arab countries treat their Arab citizenry. And that such poor treatment is unconscienable. And the Israeli government has done almost as little to serve the needs of the Arabs of the West Bank as Jordan did when it controlled the region before her. But while such may be regrettable actions in need of correction, such policies are not intrinsic to Zionism.)
Perhaps intellectual honesty would be served by a compare and contrast between the nature of Zionism and the nature of Islamic theocracies. And between their track records at providing education and freedoms for Arabs under their respective jurisdictions.
Is it motivated by antisemitism? Well, what should one believe when attacks against Jews anywhere are explicitly condoned?
BTW, Peace Now would hardly agree that Zionism is racism, or that terrorism against Israel should be condoned. Maybe some of the members of Not In My Name would … I dunno.
Holy Moley – what is Tuesday night, ** december** Fan Club Night ? Don’t tell me, ya’ll call yourselves the Clueless Clan ?
Dseid – You’ll notice in my first post, I posed a question for your Tuesday Club President. I did that because there is a long history of december being inclined to paint entire societies (and even continents) with the same broad, misguided - as well as misrepresented – brush. His depth may have developed in the interim but, if so, it has escaped my attention.
Thus in responding to these questions/debate in his terms, one is implicitly accepting his – seemingly continuing - right to spout double-standard racism. I think he likes to call this “generalisation”: eg.
It’s okay for december to do his usual “generalisation” thing – and it’s also okay for december to, for example, characterise this conference as "Equating the existence of Jewish Homeland with racism constitutes anti-Semitism (sic). Not in my view it ain’t.
If he wants to debate this issue, it is not unreasonable as a precursor (IMHO) to ask him – as I have above – to clarify whether he still thinks its acceptable to paint and misrepresent entire societies/continents with the same brush (ecause he’s saying it’s not okay (I agree) to do the same thing to Israeli society).
BTW, I can only hope that was clear, it’s 6.00am here.
Well, it ain’t only if you the person opposes a homeland for any other people - and I’m sure most of the attendees of this conference would want homelands for the Palestinians, the Kashmiris, the Chechens, etc. It’s too bad that thread asking if criticism of Israel should be equated with anti-Semitism fell off the most-recently-posted-to threads list, that was interesting stuff and very pertinent to this discussion.
Argh…preview preview preview. And posting here ain’t gonna give me something intelligent to say in Russian Lit tomorrow, so it’s back to War and Peace…
<< “Here’s some excellent work from Meryl Yourish, revealing the overwhelming bias against Israel in the resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly: Israel vs. the World. …” >>
Okaaayyyy…I guess that explains it–it doesn’t excuse it, but it explains it.
Okay, well, onwards…
Nothing like inserting a few actual facts into the discussion.
She sounds like an eminently sane and reasonable person, God bless her. “Distance the U from the debate”? Sure she did–“The agenda of the conference represents the views of the organizers and not the University of Michigan.” That’s all that’s required.
I suppose you would have preferred that she “distance the U” and demonstrate “guts” by stating publicly and in words of one or perhaps two syllables that these people who are coming to her campus to have a meeting are Evil, Eeeeevil People, and that she hopes that nobody could ever possibly think that the University of Michigan would ever agree with anything these Evil, Eeeevil People have to say?
But she did say that. That’s what “The-agenda-of-the-conference-represents-the-views-of-the-organizers-and-not-the-University-of-Michigan” means. At least, to thinking, rational, human beings with good reading comprehension skills and minds unclouded by baseless prejudice.
I have to say that I think comparing the International Palestine Solidarity Movement to the KKK is just adoooorrrrrable…
<< pinches December’s tiny little baby cheek >>
Oooh, izzum’s Mommy’s widdle biddy paintbwush painter man…Awwww, he’s so cute when he gets that 12-inch brush going…
I see that I have given the impression that I think that Mary Sue’s disclaimer statement implies that the UM believes the conference participants to be Evil, Eeeevil People, and that was not my intention. Sorry.
Ahhh,** Momma Goose **! Ya deserve a present fer all ya work thar. Gotta gis which han’s it in, though. Is it in thar** lef han’, **or tha**righ’ han **?
I agree with december and DSeid 100% and can’t improve on their arguments. College campuses should be available for the free exhange of ideas, however if you tried to organize a meeting to debate the merits of affirmative action, the Political Correctness Police would ride you out of town on a rail. But it is just fine for a group that has as its agenda the destruction of Israel to use campus facilites. U of M should be ashamed of itself, as should any university that chooses divestiture.
I’ll mention that to my cousins in Germany. Ooops, they never had the chance to be born because all my uncles and aunts there had been murdered. Oh well. I’m sure glad there is no such thing as antisemitism.
People have been killed, and are being killed, not only because of their politics, not because of a religious belief (in fact many are not, were not, religious at all, are/were secular or practicing other faiths … no matter) not because of some racial group membership, but because someone identified them as being Jews. And some people have decided they don’t like “Jews”. (Well, that’s not the term they’d usually use to name us …)
Is THIS group made up of all antisemites? I dunno. The fact that the standards are so specificall addressed to the regions Jewish state and not to any Islamic states leads me to ask whether or not some of them are so motivated. But I cannot prove such motivations, and would generally keep such thoughts to myself. I object however to the elevation by Woodie to such a specious ploy to the level of serious intellectual debate. And to the failure to condemn terror as a tactic. Duck Duck,
At least you bother to actually make some relevant points rather than merely attempt to attack the poster.
I refer you to this quote from the cite in the op
Nice that they say that they personally prefer nonviolence, but they stand shoulder to shoulder with whatever tactic is employed. Bombing temples, murdering schoolkids … not their place to condemn whatever tactics are employed.
That crosses the line between Coleman’s “right to explore and debate the widest possible range of ideas, even if those ideas are offensive or repugnant to some members of the community” into preventing the ability “to build a community that is welcoming to all and that does not foster hatred.”
So sure, have an overtly antisemitic group meet, even. Or an anti-Arab, or White supremicist, or one that is all of the above. Spirit of free “intellectual” debate and all. But at least draw the line when the group condones terrorism in the service of such goals.
Do you truly believe there are no goals for the Zionist movement aside from the establishment of Israel? Here’s a clue, Israel exists and the movement hasn’t dissolved. The Zionist movement has had many internal splits as well. The definition of the Zionist movement given by the Jewish Virtual Library reads
Notice the plurality of the word aims. Notice as well the phrase “tangible as well as spiritual”. Do you still believe they are dedicated to nothing except the establishment of a Jewish homeland?
Let’s step into your little black and white world for a second and accept your definition of Zionism. What borders exist on that homeland? Ancient borders? Which ancient borders? The Kingdom of David and Solomon? The Hasmonean Kingdom? The Divided Kingdom? (10th-6th Century BCE)
If the Zionists claim any of these borders, they will have to expand modern Israel in some direction. Some of modern Israel would have to be given up to match these ancient borders. Do you think that would happen? What if the soverign nations of the rest of the world resist this claim as an illegitimate land grab, does this make us all Anti-Semitic?
Support for and criticism of Zionism, and the goals of Zionism, isn’t as black and white as you’re making it out to be.
**
This is a remarkable display of ignorance, even from you. Your cite said ‘organizers refer to “apartheid Israel”, and refuse to condemn Palestinian terrorism, stating, “As a solidarity movement, it is not our place to dictate the strategies or tactics adopted by the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation.”’
Now you’re falling into the fallacy of Bifurcation You should be familiar with the link from previous discussions we’ve had. This is the fallacy where you posit that simply because they refuse to condem the tactics used by the Palestinians, this means they endorse it. You can say you wish they would condem it, but you can’t put words in their mouths. Silence isn’t the same as an admission of guilt.
As for the “A speaker is someone linked to terrorist groups.” I think you need an education on what a “panel” is. This is not Dr. Sami Al-Arian’s show. He is part of a group that can be asked questions of all varieties. He can elect to answer what he wishes in any way he wishes. This isn’t a pep rally and no one is trying to elect him to a position of power. They are simply acknowledging that he has knowledge of the situation in the Middle East and would like his viewpoint as PART of their panel.
You apparently also need an education on what “reports” are. If there was hard evidence that Dr. Sami Al-Arian was supporting Al Queda, do you think he would be walking free? He has an alleged “connection” to terrorist groups. Let’s look at what the organizers of the conference say about their panelist. From http://www.divestmentconference.com/ under the “Speakers” section.
Whee!! It’s like a merry-go-round, who can spin the most? You’r horribly biased source meets my horribly biased source. I’d guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I’d like to see a cite on the source of funding for the conference, or a clarification that it’s a red herring(you know where to look this up by now) on your part. As to the second part, apparently I’ll have to remind you again that not explicitly denouncing something is not the same as advocating it.
**
Your comparison is bad, for several reasons. The purpose of the conference is not to endorse violence against Israel. The purpose of the conference is clearly stated on the organizers website under “Mission”.
I’ll admit the “direct action” piece is ambiguous, but it certainly doesn’t say “blowing up civilians” is an acceptable tactic.
As for the University “promoting” it, I’m having flashbacks to your nonsensical babblings about the Cuban government “promoting” child prostitution. A search of the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor website turns up ZERO hits about this conference on official pages. There are references to it on student’s personal homepages, but that’s hardly official support. Allowing it’s students to organize this conference, and letting them use University facilities is not a statement of position on the part of the University. This is a STUDENT conference. Your problem isn’t with the University, it’s with the students. The University is inclined to give them the freedom to express themselves, even on controversial issues. This is perfectly in line with the mission of the University found here(emphasis mine)
The world isn’t black and white. You should put down your paintbrush and walk away if those are the only colors on your pallette.
