I agree that either a Palestinian state or an Israeli state that was unilaterally sovereign “from the river to the sea” would by definition exclude the existence of the other state. But that wouldn’t automatically imply genocide for the majority population of the excluded state. (And tbh, if I had to bet on which population was realistically at higher risk of actually getting genocided, it wouldn’t be the Israelis.)
In my experience, the Americans who chant the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (which only exists in that form in English anyway; the phrase doesn’t even rhyme or scan in Arabic) are generally advocating a one-state situation in which all inhabitants have freedom and equal rights in a single democratic state. Yes, that would imply the nonexistence of Israel in its present form as the nation-state of the Jewish people, who are currently the only ones legally entitled to national rights in the state and its territory, according to the Basic Law. But it does not automatically imply or endorse the position that Jews in such a state should have no rights, much less be genocided.
Mind you, I get why the prospect of a single not-specifically-Jewish state in Israel/Palestine in practical terms strikes Jewish Israelis as much less secure, and potentially even extremely dangerous, for Jews compared to the current status quo. It is not unreasonable for Israeli Jews to worry that calls for “Free Palestine” are motivated by disregard for, and/or hostility to, the rights of Israeli Jews.
That’s why I personally don’t use the phrase when advocating for Palestinian rights. I just don’t like to see the discourse abused by McCarthyite propaganda traps like Stefanik’s (or the OP’s), in which everyone is required to take it for granted that any utterance of the phrase is automatically equivalent to an explicit call for Jewish genocide, and if you don’t agree then oh noes you are obviously antisemitic
And given the fact that I have never, at any point since 1948, seen the Palestinian leadership convey that a secular, pluralistic Palestinian state is on the table, I’m going to treat such calls very skeptically.
SNL’s parody was very on point, I think. “Am I actually winning this?”. Stefanik is a blowhard and an idiot. She has a rotten agenda and asked these questions as a “gotcha”, not out of ideological commitment to any worthwhile value.
And yet, these college presidents couldn’t bring themselves to say that yes, calling for genovide was against their schools’ policies.
And that’s because of certain troubling attitudes towards antisemitism on the Left, as very eloquently described by @Johnny_Bravo. Note, I didn’t say antisemitic tendencies; I’m not saying these people are antisemitic themselves necessarily; but I think they have a hard time seeing or responding to antisemitism. Because indeed, it doesn’t fit a simplified oppressor/oppressed framework, and it’s unclear if Jews are Whites, and so on.
Problem is that that is not the question, as asked, who’s answer is in question.
If Stefanik had asked ‘Is calling for genocide against your school’s policies?’ instead of "I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment? we wouldn’t be here.
That’s still a very simple answer then. “I don’t know if it constitutes bullying or harassment offhand, that might depend on the specifics of the case; but it definitely violates our code of conduct” could have shut that shit down immediately, if that was the issue. Which is why I don’t think that is the problem here.
(Though I now get the mental image of “uh-oh… wait, the code of conduct doesn’t say explicitly that in words anywhere, does it…” )
And even if then came the suspected “gotcha” about “well, can we expect expulsions and firings if someone gives you a list”, then that’s where you go lawyerly and say, “be sure, we’ll go through a due process and look at each case, after all we are better than that, we do respect everyone’s rights”.
:Let’s use an analogy from American politics, discussing racial equality
You could say:
Calling blacks “Negro” is not racist; it has been commonplace for decades
The phrase “colored people” is not racist; it has been commonplace for decades.
Using strict definitions,.
Negro is a perfectly good scientifically accurate word.
Colored is a perfectly good English word, often used in the phrase “people of color”
But for god’s sake, no public leader would ever be so tone deaf and stupid as to use unacceptable language.
Similarly when discussing slogans calling for genocide.
Sometimes a simple yes-or-no question can be answered with a simple one word answer. You don’t need “context”.
Stefanik did also ask that specific question. Magill still managed to avoid providing a simple affirmative response to what should have been the easiest question of her career.
This rings true. These are intelligent, accomplished women who somehow couldn’t field a softball, all providing similar goofy equivocations. Are they antisemitic? I’d be surprised. And yet…
Look, if some right wing firebrand asks you some form of “Does calling for the genocide of Jews constitute [SOMETHING BAD]?” you find a way to answer “yes.” SOMETHING BAD could be violating the code of conduct or making students feel bullied / harassed or whatever. You make sure your answer is NOT some variety of “It depends.”
And yet they couldn’t, each providing remarkably similar answers. I’m speculating, of course, but I’d be very confident they’d have answered differently if asked, “Does calling for the extermination of blacks amount to bullying, harassment and a violation of your code of conduct?” I suspect they’d answer properly and without ambiguity.
So, why was the question actually posed such a puzzler? I think @Babale is on to something.
Re. this thread, I always had the impression that the orthodox left was supposed to be like that scene in Battleship Potemkin, where there is a big rally in Odessa with people shouting slogans like “All for one! One for all! Down with tyranny!” and the guy who adds “Kill the Jews!” is immediately attacked by an angry mob.
No need to speculate. Stefanik twice asked Claudine Gay some version of, “A Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African Americans is not protected speech at Harvard, is that correct?” Your confidence is misplaced.
Stefanik did indeed ask that question. Unfortunately she didn’t permit Gay to actually answer. So we’re both left to speculate.
That said, I will acknowledge that Gay answered the subsequent questions a bit better than Magill. But neither could seem to muster a response that a call for genocide of the Jews was a de facto violation of their code of conduct, all other details aside. There’s a reason they both conducted clean up and issued apologies.
Come on. It is quite clear that Gay starting to give the same kind of noncommittal answer to the question about African-Americans as she did to the question about Jews before Stefanik cuts her off. It also also clear that she will not give the yes or no response that Stefanik is demanding.
It did, at least a bit. She may well have answered it similarly. Perhaps her mishandling of the questioning was not so much a blind spot for antisemitism but momentary stupidity. I don’t believe any of them have antisemitism in their hearts.
)