In practice, the Israel haters go around shouting at Jewish students and making campus life very unpleasant in a way that would be tolerated for no other group. Even it the intent is to affect Israel policy, the idea that going around trying to make the Jews on campus uncomfortable is a legitimate lever is absolutely wrong. Go complain to Israel, and stop harassing your Jewish peers. The standards in UC's proposed speech code provide very stringent protections for every other group you can think of. I don't think I would send my kids to UC at this point, unless they did have some protection from anti-Semitic harassment under the guise of criticism of Israel. Eviction notices under Jewish doors? Other SJP borderline criminal harassment? NO thanks.

Targeting individual students is clearly harassment and not speech, and it shouldn't be difficult to identify it as such. There's no need to adopt a speech code that prohibits making certain arguments in public.

(By the say, what's "SJP"? I only know it as "suburban Jewish princess," which doesn't seem to fit in the context.)

I wasn't aware that these assholes were harassing Jewish students (purportedly) because of Israel's policies, but I believe your account of it. After all, it meshes with America's grand tradition of persecute-first-and-ask-questions-never.

It's certainly appropriate to condemn a nation's murderous policies, but attacking some unconnected individual is simply using a political agenda as an excuse for hatred.

If Jewish students are being harassed, then get the harassers for harassment and not antisemitism. If there's anywhere where offensive edge-of-the-envelope pushing speech should be allowed, it's at places of higher learning.

Where are the thresholds between unpleasant speech, antisemitism, racism and harassment? This can get pretty subjective.

"... and to prove how ridiculous it is, they'll destroy anyone who says so."

Or the Israeli govt. , but I've got nothing at all against the people of Israel.
But trying to label criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism", well, that just smacks of guilty conscience to me.

Judaism is a an ancient faith practiced by millions of people. It stands on millennia of tradition, scholarship, and community.

Israel is a nation state founded in 1947.

One can criticize the latter while honoring the former.

In the same way, I criticize US policy all the time. That doesn't make me anti-American.

Religion and countries are human constructions. Nothing should be off-limits for criticism.

nt

Jewish people should not be targeted for their beliefs, period. The Israeli state and their systematic murder and degradation of the Palestinian people is a totally different thing, state motivated hate. Being mean to a Jewish student could easily be seen as anti-semitic. Stating the truth about how hateful the Israeli state is under Bibi is NOT anti-semitic. It's a political observation open for debate.

one can easily research the matter of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic hate speech. One begins by looking at what Semite means and whether Palestinians are Semites. Lo and behold, Palestinians LIKE ALL ARABS are Semitic. Despite Jews appropriating the term anti-Semitic to indicate only them I would suggest that Jews in Israel and in the US are VERY ANTI-SEMITIC. To hate Palestinians is to be anti-Semitic as sure as hating Jews is anti-Semitism. I know this is not very much in vogue, but the use of language carries with it the use of definitions, denotations AND connotations. Speech code backers are attempting to shut down free speech and should be denied a voice as a result. If Israel would treat Palestinians with respect and work at actual peace, then Jews would be able to be proud of themselves instead of cowering anytime anyone dares say anything negative and factual about them or the State of Israel. If a minority anywhere else in the world were treated with such disdain and violence as the Palestinians are daily by Israelis the world would be in uproar, but since Israel is "our friend", then it is OK? Flame away.

Netanyahu and many of Israel's backers appear to do nothing else, though.

I must correct a completely ignorant remark. Jews did not "appropriate" the term anti-Semitism. It was a term coined by a Jew-hater in Germany in the 19th century. It was and still is only referring to "discrimination and hate against Jewish people." So no, your conclusion "that Jews in Israel and in the US are VERY ANTI-SEMITIC." because "To hate Palestinians is to be anti-Semitic" is ignorant and a mistake made by those who haven't bothered to learn what anti-Semitism is or how the word came to be.

If Israel would treat Palestinians with respect and work at actual peace, then Jews would be able to be proud of themselves instead of cowering anytime anyone dares say anything negative and factual about them or the State of Israel.

Your comment is an excellent example of why this speech code is being considered. You conflate Jews and Israel, and even go as far to claim Jews "cower" when negative things are said about us. Do you think it is appropriate to call a Jew a "kike"? How about claiming "Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus."? These are things said to us and they are negative. They are examples of anti-Semitism. Do you think Jews should be refused service because of the actions of Israel? Some certainly seem to think so. That, too, would be anti-Semitism.

If a minority anywhere else in the world were treated with such disdain and violence as the Palestinians are daily by Israelis the world would be in uproar, but since Israel is "our friend", then it is OK?

Seriously? There are minorities all over the world being mistreated without a peep from the US, the West, or anyone else for that matter.

what if somebody thinks I'm antisemitic? I really expect to see somebody try to shame me for this remark.

At the same time, saying that any supposedly unfair criticism of Israel is per se anti-Semitism is batshit crazy, just like saying supposedly unfair criticism of Sarah Palin was per se sexism.

This is it: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm

I think most of it is good. There are few parts of it, in bold below, that I think should be omitted from a UC policy.

Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions

I take this statement to mean that any statement that Israel caused inter-religious or political tension would be considered anti-Semitic unless criticism of some other party was also included in the statement. If that's not the intention of the statement, that I think it should be reworded.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

I do not see how this could be workably applied. "Expected or demanded" by whom?

Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations

I find that to be too broad brush. If the other characteristics aren't met, then I don't think such organizations should be found to be anti-Semitic as a matter of policy.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist

I think that this should be elaborated on significantly, at a minimum. Does this refer to the expulsion of Jewish people from the territory of the State of Israel? Does it mean advocating that the State of Israel should not be a Jewish state (rather something else, like a multi-national state, etc.)? In the context of a university, I think that getting precision on this point will be critical.

factual discussion of Israel's policies towards Palestinian Arabs - or even towards Israeli Arabs - in the US is too often immediately labeled as "anti-Semitism" and any discourse that might shed light on some of the problems in order to lead to solutions is stifled.

This is despite what one poster notes above that both Jews and Arabs are Semitic peoples. They are "brothers" in fact if one takes into account the Biblical story of Abraham, who fathered both Ishmael and Isaac from different mothers.

One example that shows how off-limits such discussion is deals with the controversy - in the US - over the young adult novel, "A Little Piece of Ground" by the prize-winning New Zealand-born British author Elizabeth Laird. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Little_Piece_of_Ground

Another is the controversy around "My Name is Rachel Corrie," a play based on the writings of the young American run over by an Israeli bulldozer. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/theater/reviews/16rach.html?_r=0

It is telling that neither of these literary offerings was received anywhere else in the world in such a way.

I certainly do not hold all Israelis responsible for the policies of the RW government of Bibi N and no one else should either. God forbid if the world held all Americans responsible for the policies of Bush-Cheney, for instance. Nor do I believe that any discussion should be used as a free-for-all for denigrating or demeaning ANYONE - Jew, Muslim, or Christian for that matter. Many Palestinian Arabs are, in fact, Christian.

But this discussion MUST realistically take place sometime soon, somewhere in the US.

Universities should be bastions of open debate and unfettered free speech. But things like yelling at Jewish students and painting swastikas should not be tolerated.

BUT, this is what happens when you have these Stallinist speech codes in the name of "diversity" or "inclusion". Speech codes, by stifling free exchange of ideas, end up damaging so-called diversity and inclusion.

There certainly are times when criticism of Israel is doused in anti-Semitism. However, most criticism isn't anti-Semitic and doesn't come close. There are those who falsely claim something is anti-Semitic as often as there are those who claim there is no anti-Semitism when it comes to discussions of Israel. It is easy to see why this is coming to light given some the comments in this very thread. A speech code smacks of censorship and while universities are in their right to establish what is and isn't acceptable for discussion for their campuses, they should err on the side of free speech and address bigotry when it arises. They will never stamp out anti-Semitism or any other form of bigotry, but it doesn't mean they need to stretch definitions to the breaking point.