To the editor: David N. Myers and Nomi M. Stolzenberg are attempting to find out what makes make a campus protest antisemitic. (“Can official campus protest be distinguished from antisemitism? This information goals to assist,” Opinion, Sept. 16)
Their definition jogs my memory of the Harvard president who, when requested if calling for the genocide of Jews violated the college’s pupil code of conduct, instructed a congressional committee that it “is determined by the context.” She was later compelled to resign.
Stolzenberg and Myers say that shouting “from the river to the ocean” might not be antisemitic if what the protesters imply is creating one state of Palestinians and Jews.
There are dozens of Muslim international locations. There’s one Jewish nation. Eliminating the one Jewish nation and changing it with a Muslim-Jewish nation shouldn’t be prejudicial towards Jews, we’re to imagine.
They declare that shouting “intifada” might not be antisemitic. The one means that time period is ever used is to assist a violent rebellion ensuing within the killing of a lot of folks they oppose.
Jerry Freedman, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: I applaud Myers’ and Stolzenberg’s nuanced distinction between acceptable debate and unacceptable bigotry. However their evaluation fails to sentence the weaponization of antisemitism as a protection towards, or distraction from, any official criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
Protesting Israel’s bloody and relentless siege of Gaza might be simply distinguished from expressions of antisemitism. The truth is that these presently defending the apartheid insurance policies of a demonstrably bigoted Israeli regime understand there isn’t a justification for these flawed, discriminatory insurance policies, so that they resort to accusations of antisemitism.
The authors consult with a information helps determine antisemitism. If we’re to use the standards to the campus protests, there are only a few examples of any violation of those tips. However, as we’ve seen, the pro-Israel faction has categorically condemned using sure protest slogans that, because the authors acknowledge, usually are not essentially antisemitic.
Reasonably, the rhetoric used to explain the apartheid circumstances flowing from the occupation, together with phrases equivalent to “intifada” and “genocide,” constitutes an inexpensive criticism of Israel’s violation of Palestinian self-determination.
Andrew Spathis, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The writers have the bona fides to know historic context, but they select to disregard it with out rationalization.
“From the river to the ocean,” within the minds of protesters, could also be innocuous on its face, however how can anybody neglect the unique, chilling that means? The unique intent was the decimation of the state of Israel, particularly as a haven for Jews ejected by their very own international locations, and by extension the elimination of Jews on the earth.
The quote is definitively antisemitic and can’t be separated from its origins.
Suzan Lowitz, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Myers’ and Stolzenberg’s argument contradicts most of the protections of each U.S. civil rights legal guidelines and worldwide human rights legal guidelines.
Many of those legal guidelines usually are not dependent — because the authors incorrectly suggest — on usually not possible assessments of intent in figuring out prohibited discriminatory behaviors. Their definitions would probably and harmfully enable for a lot of types of unlawful intimidation and discrimination towards people and teams.
Discriminatory outcomes matter profoundly in civil rights and human rights legal guidelines. The argument Myers and Stolzenberg make undermines the rights and welfare not solely of Jews and Israelis, however of Muslims, Arabs, ladies, African People, LGBTQ+ folks and different minority teams.
Myers and Stolzenberg are proper that intent issues morally and legally. However it’s not all that issues. Discriminatory outcomes are additionally elementary considerations of each the regulation and of college campus codes.
Noam Schimmel, Berkeley
The author is a lecturer in international research at UC Berkeley.
