ETA:
Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, thanks in part to the gross incompetence of Israel’s increasingly right-wing government failing to do what right-wing governments so often claim only they can do: keep people safe (funny how that works, isn’t it?).
As a reaction to that, and in an effort to give cover to its own incompetence, that same government is now killing a bunch of civilians in Gaza, recklessly or otherwise, but ostensibly as “mere” collateral damage.
Some people on college campuses (and elsewhere) aren’t too happy about that.
The right-wing proto-fascists in our own government who normally love to have the votes of genuine anti-semites are now using the protests against the war to cast themselves as the “totally not anti-Semitic party” because you can’t be anti-Semitic if you’re really islamophobic, right?
Israeli Jews are not an oppressed minority, and they don’t get blanket coverage from criticism just because some Jews somewhere are (or have been in the past).
Whether they are White or not varies greatly, but oppressors? Quite a lot of them, yeah.
Let’s be clear about what we’re seeing. Students are allowed to sing about the genocide of Jews without recourse. No such thing would be tolerated if students were singing about the extermination of any other people perceived as oppressed. I don’t believe antisemitism arose from nowhere on college campuses, it is a pervasive belief worldwide, but so is white supremacy which would not be tolerated at the schools in question.
We see this kind of thinking everywhere there’s a minority or marginalized group. Think of all the examples of how any criticism of anyone of a different ethnicity/race is immediately slapped down as racist, or at the very least accused by someone as racist, when it very well may be a legitimate criticism or observation.
And in this case, I think there’s a lot of conflation of Jews and the Israeli government going on, whether it’s American Jews, Israeli Jews, or any other Jews. This leads to anything angry said about the Israeli government’s policies or actions being criticism of Jews in general. Which isn’t necessarily true.
I think the university presidents feel like they’re being caught between a rock and a hard place, and being forced to choose a side somewhere in there. I imagine a lot of their waffling and whatever is probably them trying not to choose a side and trying to let both sides be heard.
Which is fair; with the conflation of anti-Israel and anti-semitism, I can totally see why they wouldn’t want to commit- those questions, no matter how carefully worded and reasonable-seeming are asking them to do just that.
Maybe provide a cite for your outrageous claim. I do know that people can get a pat on the back from the former president for chanting “Jews will not replace us”, but I’ve seen no evidence that students are calling for the genocide of Jews.
The decades-old phrase has a complicated back story that has led to radically different interpretations by Israelis and Palestinians, and by Americans who support them.
“The reason why this term is so hotly disputed is because it means different things to different people,” said Dov Waxman, a professor of Israel studies at the University of California in Los Angeles, adding that “the conflicting interpretations have kind of grown over time.”
The phrase “from the river to the sea” — or in Arabic, “min al-nahr ila al-bahr” — dates to the dawn of the Palestinian nationalist movement in the early 1960s, about a quarter century before Hamas came into existence. It gained popularity within the Palestine Liberation Organization, or P.L.O., as a call for returning to the borders under British control of Palestine, where Jews and Arabs had both lived before the creation of Israel as a Jewish state in 1948.
I want to be really clear here – I think Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. I think it’s important for Jews to have their own state, since they’ve faced actual genocidal attempts by many countries over many centuries.
But, even calling for the end of a Jewish state is not calling for genocide.
The idea that those college students protesting and repeating chants they’ve heard are actually anti-Semitic is laughable. The actual anti-Semites are the ones blaming Jews for forest fires, claiming Jews have some hold on the government and on banking, and chanting that Jews will not replace us. Stefanik has aligned herself with those people, and that hearing with the college heads was performative bullshit.
Damn right we aren’t. We’ve been working on it for over a century, and we’ve very proud of our achievement. We’re the model for the world, the unicorn, the only oppressed group to truly overcome its oppression. We got out, and we’re never going back.
Of course, that’s at the local level. At the global level, Jews are a minority, sometimes an oppressed one, and probably always will be. So Israeli Jews such as myself have to hold two mentalities simultaneously - both minority, and not minority - which, I admit, can lead to a someone scitzophrenic national mentality. In my experience, though, those of us with a brain and without a political agenda are actually quite good in telling anti-Israeli from anti-Semitic. We know that a lot of anti-Israeli rhetoric isn’t anti-Semitism, despite what some people say; we also know that a lot of it is.
To be frank, though, why should I care? If someone is criticizing my government’s policy, I’ll listen, but if someone wants to kill me what difference is it to me whether It’s because I’m Jewish or because I’m Israeli? I’ll be dead either way.
A couple of things are important to understand here. First, the questioner is Elise Stefanik, who is well-understood to be an insincere, attention-hogging showboat. Her tradecraft is in contriving made-for-TV moments like this one. This in itself is not a complete analysis but it frames what comes next.
The “what comes next” is the typical Republican distortionary tactic of “what you’re basically saying is (a bad thing that nobody said).” Nobody called for genocide of Jews in the event in question. This is a characterization being ram-rodded by Stefanik herself, mischaracterizing speech as pro-genocide, and demanding that Gay denounce it. Of course, it’s very helpful that the word “intifada” was used, because angry Arabic words stab straight in the heart of most Americans. Failing to sucker Gay in this line of inquiry, Stefanik then phrases it as a hypothetical “but what if they DID call for genocide”, and Gay correctly stated that hypotheticals would have to be evaluated in context.
Making a good argument wasn’t Stefanik’s goal. Her goal was to paint a picture of an Aloof Academic saying “genocide is contextual”. I’m suprrised to see how many people here fell for this idiot line of questioning by a known idiot. But apparently adding a charge of antisemitism is enough to throw people into confusion in the face of sophomoric debate tatics that ordinarily wouldn’t survive the first page of a GD thread.
Cute, but ineffective. Anyone can look up what Intifada means in this context. Calls to “globalize the Intifada” are calls to bring violence against me and people like me here in the US. That’s a fact.
Same thing with “from the river to the sea”. You can twist it all you’d like, but if a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” came about, there is no question about what would happen to the Jewish people currently living there, whether that state was led by Hamas or by the Palestinian Authority.
Stefanik was able to do that because she knew, or suspected, that the Aloof Academic would balk at saying calls for genocide against Jews would be bullying. Not illegal, just actionable as bullying.
Even around here, where we are very slow to change, we’ve managed to pin down “calling for genocide” as a no-no without the need to ‘evaluate in context.’
He should have looked at her like idiot she is and responded, with contempt, that of course calls for genocide against any group are intolerable, and that if it were actually happening the school would address it according to its policies.
Here’s a perfect example of “you’re basically saying”. And notice the fluid elision here that we’re intended to associate this with genocide, we’re not supposed to pause and think whether there’s any legitimate resistance to Israel’s brutal apartheid state. We’re to passively tolerate whatever Israel deems to be best for Israel; any resistance is a priori anti-Semitic genocide.
It is in this case. It doesn’t matter if the mindless students singing this song don’t understand every aspect of it, no such thing would be allowed if were about some other group of people identified as oppressed. It’s wrong, it shouldn’t be tolerated, and it doesn’t matter which group of people we are talking about. This song is a political action that should not be tolerated by colleges any more than carrying a Confederate flag and singing Dixie should be condoned.
Intifada in this context is armed resistance against Israel. Sure, that could in theory mean striking military or government targets in order to win independence; it could also mean blowing up nightclubs with dozens of teens inside, which in practice is what actually happened.
Now, the call isn’t to resume the Intifada but target legitimate bodies of Israeli oppression. The call is to globalize the Intifada. What legitimate fucking targets of resistance to Israeli occupation can be found globally, pray tell?
Yes, there are legitimate forms of resistance that Palestinians could take (and that Palestinians who are not members of militant terrorist groups do take on a daily basis). Globalizing the fucking Intifada is not an example of a “legitimate form of resistance”, though.
And I didn’t say that “globalize the Intifada” is a call for genocide - it’s clearly not, though it clearly is a call for violence. But “from the river to the sea” absolutely is.