We have been discussing controversies over social media postings by students and faculty. The latest controversy at Duke University shows again the dangers to free speech in barring groups over such postings. A chapter of Students Supporting Israel (SSI) was approved for Duke but that approval was then rescinded by Duke Student President Chistina Wang over an Instagram response by SSI to a critic. The SSI posting was a measured and civil response to the highly critical tweet from the student. The concern is that the incident was used as a pretext for claiming a viewpoint neutral basis for barring a pro-Israel group.
On Nov. 10, the Duke Student Government Senate approved the SSI. Yet, when the legislation was submitted to Wang, she vetoed it. Ordinarily, we do not address student disagreements on campuses. However, Duke allows the students to control what groups are recognized. That is a major responsibility and plays a critical role in the viewpoint diversity on campus.
The approval of SSI was opposed by activists like a student named Yana, who declared on Twitter that the chapter meant that “My school promotes settler colonialism.”
The Duke Chronicle reported that Wang justified her actions on the basis of a single social media posting responding to “Yana and others” calling the SSI a group “promoting settler colonialism.”
Wang declared that the SSI “singled out an individual student on their organization’s social media account in a way that was unacceptable for any student group and appeared antithetical to the group’s stated mission to be welcoming and inclusive to all Duke students, and educational in mission and purpose.”
However, the posting was neither uncivil nor inappropriate in tenor or content. The group simply said “To Yana and others like her, please allow us to educate you on what ‘settler colonialism’ actually is and why Israel does not fall under this category whatsoever. These types of false narratives are what we strive to combat and condemn.”
Notably, the SSI initially apologized but later retracted that apology.
Later, following the veto, the group issued another Instagram post stating “To remove our group from campus conversation in order to protect a public anti-Semitic statement by a student is to side with that of the oppressor, limit free speech, and excuse antisemitism to persist at Duke University.”
Frankly, I prefer the first statement to the second statement (that unnecessarily calls the student an anti-Semite).
The whole point of allowing such groups is to foster passionate debate. Israeli and Palestinian issues raise important religious and human rights questions that students should discuss through such groups. While I would prefer that the groups refrain from name calling, these are viewpoints that reflect our mission in higher education as a forum for free thought and expression.
I fail to see the basis for barring the group due its Instagram invitation to Yani and others to discuss the issue. Yani and others wanted to engage the group in a public debate. The group responded publicly to the criticism. It is inevitable that these debates quickly adopt insulting characterizations of others as “colonialists” or “antisemites.” I prefer debates that do not seek to label opponents in this way but it is an unfortunate part of passionate advocacy. People often resort to insults or labeling to attack individuals rather than their viewpoints. Nevertheless, colleges have always been forums for intense and heartfelt debates. Few issues rouse as much passion as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Wang was wrong on her veto and universities need to have rules to protect against viewpoint discrimination in the use of such powers.
If the press can dox jurors, does that mean we can start intimidating the press?
You know, give them a taste of their own medicine?
People are innately tyrannical.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/school-board-racial-equity-committee-member-doxed-parents-cursed
I like turtles.
Land or sea?
Anonymous says that one can support Palestinians fight for freedom but not support Hamas. They conveniently overlook the support Iran’s provision of arms to the Palestinians. https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2021-may-18/. Just because they supported Mussolini it didn’t mean that they supported Hitler. Sometimes you just can’t believe the drivel.
Svelaz,
Boy, would it not be fascinating to read Turley’s contract with Fox! As a free speech champion, can you imagine his embarrassment were it revealed that he contracted away his right to criticize Fox?
I doubt that Fox could have such a clause in their contract as it would be unenforceable by a court. Turley simply understands which side of his bread is buttered.
Turley in the past has acknowledged his bias for his former student Avenatti:
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/12/03/the-case-for-michael-avenatti/
Turley WILL acknowledge his employment by Fox, but he will NOT acknowledge his obvious BIAS! Instead, he holds himself out as an IMPARTIAL legal commentator on this blog. Not only is there an appearance of a conflict of interest when he criticizes Fox’s cable competitors, but there is an ACTUAL conflict of interest by virtue of his substantial remuneration from Fox! Because he is on the take, he cannot be objective.
It’s true that Turley will not submit to an interview by the mainstream media for the same reason that Conservative talk show hosts and Fox prime time hosts avoid them like the plague. He cannot defend his failure to hold his network to the same journalistic standard as he demands of CNN and MSNBC. Eventually, his sell-out to Fox will catch up to him. He can’t hope to hide from accountability forever.
What gets me is that Turley won’t even criticize OAN or newsmax. Which he definitely has no contract with. He could easily pick any of their stories criticism.
His bias is more about not alienating his most loyal readership. Trumpists. Clearly trump proved that trumpists are easier to convince than smarter folks or fellow intellectuals. It’s a bigger audience.
When it comes to criticizing Jews there are three entities that we should consider. Pro Palestine rocket launchers on this blog, Duke University and David Duke. We should recognize that these three are ideological brothers in arms.
Svelaz says:
“What gets me is that Turley won’t even criticize OAN or newsmax. Which he definitely has no contract with. He could easily pick any of their stories criticism.”
Is there any question that Newsmax or OAN engage in *advocacy journalism* which Turley deplores? Why his silence to criticize them as he does CNN and MSNBC?
Newsmax and OAN are giving Fox the same treatment it doles out to the mainstream media. They claim Fox is biased against Trump. Why do they attack Fox? For the same reason Fox attacks the mainstream media- to increase its market share. It’s about increasing one’s audience by discrediting one’s competitors. That’s the bottom line.
Fox has instructed its employees to ignore Newsmax and OAN. I have NEVER seen anyone at Fox mention much less discredit their cable competitors on the Right. They don’t want to give these networks any coverage because Fox does not want its audience to know that it is being criticized for not being Trumpist enough! They don’t want to be put in the same defensive position that they have put their traditional opponents, the mainstream media. So Turley, et.al., pretend that Newsmax and OAN do not exist.
Turley’s ignoring Newsmax and OAN proves that it is not about principle; it’s all about ratings…. sell-out.
“Turley WILL acknowledge his employment by Fox, but he will NOT acknowledge his obvious BIAS! ”
Did Turley acknowledge his bias for NBC, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Politico or any of the other companies he has worked for and been paid by in the past? No. However, this jerk known as Jeff Silberman thinks Turley should make an exception for Fox. That is the way people soft in the head act. For a lawyer, Jeff ‘ain’t’ too swift.
“It’s true that Turley will not submit to an interview by the mainstream media for the same reason that Conservative talk show hosts and Fox prime time hosts avoid them like the plague. ”
Jeff is lying. Laura Ingraham invited Maddow to a one-on-one debate. Maddow declined. Tucker and Hannity have asked all leftist icons on their shows, but they all refused. Hannity debated the mayor of NY and other leftists one-on-one.
The MSM is afraid of those on the right and refuses to let them on their shows. They are also fearful of the left canceling them for even doing so. When one listens to those on the right, one knows the left doesn’t hold a candle.
Any time you wish to discuss some shows, we can tape them in advance (as can others) and then debate what was said and how it was said. You won’t take me up on that offer. Why? You are a coward, and as you have admitted many times, you don’t know much of anything.
Whew. You really do have it in for Professor Turley. 221 words to say the exact same thing you say each time you post. So sad to have such anger. And so sad that you cannot contribute objectively to the discussion, but instead always look for a way to attack Professor Turley. Life is so short.
Life is so short.
Suze, 2 possible explanations for these commenters:
1. Troll farms like Act Blue (funded in part by George Soros) hire left wing trolls to gather in hives online to harass, denigrate, mock and draw attention to their preferred topics. They are not here for dialogue.
2. Katagelasticism. People who enjoy the above are said to have the psychological illnesses known as Katagelasticism, Sadism, Psychopathy, Axis II Antisocial Personality disorder
See:
Do trolls just want to have fun? Assessing the role of humor-related traits in online trolling behavior
….online trolling’s robust associations with increased psychopathy, sadism, and Machiavellianism. Online trolling also correlated with an elevated use of aggressive and self-defeating humor styles, as well as with heightened expressions of the joy in laughing at others (i.e. katagelasticism) and the joy of being laughed at (i.e., gelotophilia)…..This research provides empirical evidence that contributes to elucidate the “dark” humorous nature of this pervasive antisocial online behavior.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563220303010
They are inconsequential when seen in either light
Cheers
Suze,
I am as dogged criticizing Turley’s hypocrisy as he IS criticizing those institutions and individuals censoring free speech.
When you are an advocate, you advocate. Just doing my job here. I have no doubt that Turley would understand. He has a job to do, and so do I. The only difference being that I do it for free.
Turley is a Liberal; he is NOT a lying Trumpist. I have more in common with him than you. How can I hate a man who shares my values? If I did not think there was any good in him, I would not waste my time criticizing his hypocrisy. I don’t waste my time seriously engaging with most lying Trumpists on this blog just as I would not waste my time talking with a Q-Anon cultist or an Antifa rioter for that matter.
Jonathan: In recent years there has been raging debates on university campuses re Israel’s brutal policies toward its Palestinian population. After 54 years of occupation Palestinians don’t have the free speech rights we enjoy. Their free speech rights are brutally suppressed by the IDF. Thousands of peaceful protesters (including journalists and academics and other professionals) have been arrested, jailed and imprisoned for speaking out against Israel’s apartheid policies. Here in the US the supporters of the Palestinian struggle for their fundamental human rights have been harassed, accused of being “anti-semitic”, threatened and have lost their jobs.
Back in May Emily Wilder, who is Jewish and a recent Stanford University grad, was fired by AP. This came shortly after Israel bombed and destroyed the offices of AP in Gaza. The campaign against Wilder, who was active as a student in “Students for Justice in Palestine”, was started by the Stanford College Republicans (SCR) with support from the right-wing media including The Federalist and your employer Fox. They all claimed Wilder was “anti-Israel”. SCR described Wilder as “unhinged”, a “Marxist agitator” and aligned with a “terrorist affiliated” organization. In tweets Wilder was threatened.
In response to Wilder’s firing 500 Stanford students, faculty and staff and alums signed a statement in support of Wilder that read, in part: “The aim of this campaign [by SCR] was not to engage in debate or to voice disagreement with something Ms. Wilder had written or said, but rather to defame her and derail her career…These types of actions by SCR, which are designed to intimidate and suppress campus activists with whom SCR disagrees, are fundamentally antithetical to a campus culture grounded in the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech”.
One would think the above statement would be music to your ears and you would have been outraged at SCR’s treatment of Wilder and her firing. Apparently not. Couldn’t find any mention by you of Wilder’s case. No, you would rather talk about “viewpoint discrimination” at Duke University. When it comes to campus conservatives carrying out a campaign to “cancel” a journalist you are strangely silent. This speaks volumes about your hypocrisy in treating campus “free speech” issues.
And THAT is precisely why Jeff Silberman is perfectly justified in criticizing Turley.
Svelaz says:
“And THAT is precisely why Jeff Silberman is perfectly justified in criticizing Turley.”
It’s amusing that the Trumpists suppose that Turley is so thin-skinned that he can’t handle the criticism. Turley regularly and vehemently criticizes certain individuals, e.g., Adam Schiff (his Bete Noir), Jennifer Rubin, etc.
Trumpists should defend Turley’s employment at Fox and explain why he never criticizes Fox’s prime time hosts for the conduct he deplores at Fox’s cable competitors where he no longer works.
They won’t because they can’t. Instead they call me a troll for disturbing their Trumpist Safe Zone.
Jeff,
Turley is certainly under a contractual obligation NOT to criticize Fox News. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is actually the case.
He doesn’t give interviews because he knows he wouldn’t be able to defend his consistent hypocrisy effectively.
Turley seems to have fallen victim to being more concerned about the number of followers and “likes” than the “principles” he allegedly claims to be a firm believer in.
It reminds me of those folks who claim “sincere”religious beliefs as an exemption to vaccination. The dubious nature of that sincerity is the obvious problem.
“Israel bombed and destroyed the offices of [Hamas] in Gaza . . .”
There. Made it truthful for you.
You’re an apologist for Hamas, a terrorist group — which means you’re an apologist for the barbaric theocrats in Iran.
@Dennis
Your ignorance on the Palestinian question and the history of the Middle East is staggering.
While you’re entitled to your opinion, as ignorant as it is… I suggest that you learn the facts before you post.
In recent years there has been raging debates on university campuses re Israel’s brutal policies toward its Palestinian population.”
**********************
And all because Hamas is just lobbing scads of ̶r̶o̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶ flowers over the fence at Israeli school kids in their school yards.
With no apologies to Turley: Wang’s action is anti-semitism in action. Her baseless criticism of the SSI post is just a ruse to hide her support for those who oppose SSI chapter on campus. Anti-Semites all! Shame on Duke students who voted for Want.
Well, that’s the problem right there, allowing students to determine which clubs are recognized. There should be non biased rules that expressly forbid content discrimination.
SSI needs to learn that free speech and the support of Jews and Israel during the Leftist rise of anti-semitism is a battle. It’s not for the faint of heart. They need to gird their loins, find their backbone, and valiantly adhere to their principles. There was nothing wrong with their statement, so there was nothing to apologize for. Retracting the statement did not shield them from the totalitarian Left. It expressed weakness that emboldened the censors.
Don’t apologize when you’ve been right, and reasonable.
Democrats need to come to terms that they have a blatant anti-semitism problem in the Left. It’s egregious, well documented, and extreme.
Anti-Semitism is not acceptable in mainstream conservative society. The KKK and Neo Nazis are considered a lunatic fringe group whose abuse of human rights is antithetical to conservatism. Yet on the Left, anti-semitism has been normalized. BDS. Pro-Palestine. It comes in so many forms. Rank anti-semitic Democrats have been elected to Congress, and regularly make disparaging statements about Jews and Israel. Democrats have a problem but they can’t fix it if they won’t admit it exists.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-rise-of-antisemitism-in-the-left-and-in-america-637017
You can’t debate the Israeli Palestinian conflict if only one side of the issue is allowed to exist on campus.
“ You can’t debate the Israeli Palestinian conflict if only one side of the issue is allowed to exist on campus.”
You can’t debate the Israeli Palestinian conflict if BOTH aren’t civil. Neither was as Turley pointed out.
Actually, Turley said the first SSI statement was “neither uncivil nor inappropriate in tenor or content.” He preferred the first statement to the second, which pointed out the comment was anti-semitic. It was. He never said SSI was uncivil, but he did object to the label.
However, the entire crux of the Israel/Palestine debate is whether Israel is a colonizer oppressor, or whether attacks on Israel are anti-semitic. If you can’t use those terms, you cannot debate the core of the issue.
Both pro- and anti-Israel groups should be allowed to exist on college campuses.
Academia has pushed anti-semitic rhetoric against Israel for many years now. Students should be empowered to stand up to this propaganda and reasonably organize and debate the issues.
Karen, how is “settler colonialism” anti-Semitic?
Accusing someone of making an anti-Semitic statement is akin to calling someone an anti-Semite. It’s an insult used to shut down legitimate criticism. Turley as you pointed out noted it was not appropriate either.
To declare the SSI post as “uncivil” demonstrates that Svelaz didn’t read it – or simply wishes to assert an inaccurate characterization.
thetennants1970,
“ To declare the SSI post as “uncivil” demonstrates that Svelaz didn’t read it – or simply wishes to assert an inaccurate characterization.”
Both made statements that involved an insult in their views. Even Turley noted as much. Such instances can be deemed uncivil. As I have noted here before. Declaring a criticism as anti-Semitic which is often an overly broad description of anything even mildly critical of Israel or Jewish is used to insinuate that person is an anti-Semite. It’s an insult in itself. SSI apologized T first which means they recognized that they went too far in their response. A mistake that cost them a chance to establish their chapter. However what is not being said is if they could appeal to veto by having a more frank discussion with the critic and come to an amicable conclusion.
You can’t debate a question if you lie and then run away from your lies. Karen has already discussed the details.
“ You can’t debate a question if you lie and then run away from your lies. Karen has already discussed the details.”
LOL! S. Meyer, problem is she didn’t Answer the question yet. Didn’t you just insult an anonymous poster for posting anonymously ? and here you are doing the same thing.
So how did she define how “settler colonialism” is anti-Semitic”? Perhaps you can enlighten me on what I missed.
Svalez, actually I did explain how anti-Israel rhetoric is antisemitic, stemming from Nazis’ attempt to do away with the British Mandate, and stir up international opinion against a Western democracy, in the goal of exterminating Jews.
But here is the paper, again.
http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol22/ISJv22p157-182Cohen6127.pdf
“According to Ion Mihai Pacepa (as cited in J. Bergman, 2016), the “Palestinian Liberation Army” was contrived by the KGB, much like the KGB devised the Bolivian National Liberation Army. It cre- ated this Arab army in the early 1960s following the failure of the troops of various Arab states to de- stroy Israel. Pacepa (2006) stated that the KGB drafted the Palestinian National Charter and hand- picked the 422 members of the PLO council that approved it. Andropov told Pacepa, “We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel” (Pacepa, 2006). Likewise, both the Palestine National Covenant and Palestinian Constitution were drafted in Moscow (Pacepa, as cited in J. Bergman, 2016).
In understanding the real purpose of the PLO, it is useful to know that the 1964 charter, article 24, specifically demanded control of Israeli lands and expressly excluded lands already under Arab control, Judea and Samaria (written as the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) and Gaza.
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashe- mite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political, and financial fields. (Translation by Harkabi, 1979).
Meir-Levi (2007b) and Shaw (2019) note the prowess of the KGB in establishing an anti-democratic and anti-Zionist sentiment via the Arabs. The KGB’s campaign was a historic success.”
The entire argument that Israel resists creating an independent Palestinian State is incorrect. First, Muslims already got the lion’s share of land in the region formerly known as Palestine, in the creation of Jordan. The Jews got a minuscule piece of land in Israel. However, Muslims will not tolerate a Jewish state in the Middle East. They immediately engaged in warfare and terrorism. Israel has offered land for peace no less than 5 separate times, but been declined. This is because Muslims don’t want peace. They don’t want some more land, they want ALL the land. This is because anti-semitism is an intrinsic part of the Koran and Hadith. This notably infuriated Bill Clinton, because at one point all demands were met, yet the deal was still declined.
Palestine was never a state or a country. The Romans called Judea “Palestine” in punishment for the Jews after an uprising where they tried to throw off colonial rule. It was never a separate country. It was a region. It was named after an extinct seafaring people called the Philistines. For a long time, under the Ottoman Empire, “Palestinian” referred to Jews who remained in the area, until the Yassar Arafat appropriated the old word. The Ottoman Empire census listed what is now Israel as very sparsely inhabited, and undeveloped. Arabs migrated there to take advantage of the work under the British Mandate, but they had absolutely no intention of ever allowing Jews to have their own country.
Muslim Arabs fought hard to prevent Jews from fleeing the Holocaust to the future home of Israel, set aside for them from the British Mandate. This is because they wanted all the Jews dead, and for the entire Middle East to be Muslim. After all, Islam spread by the sword. The Middle East used to be Judeo/Christian. Islam was not going to cede back any land to the Jews they’d worked so hard to exterminate.
As for calling Jews “colonial settlers”…right, like Jews have no thousands of hears of history in Jerusalem. The Jews of Israel have their own language, their own customs, their own religion, and about 10,000 years of historical presence in their homeland. They were persecuted by genocidal Muslims, leading to a diaspora. They suffered the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, which also affected the Middle East, as Hitler partnered with Arabs to erase the British Mandate for a Jewish homeland, with the ultimate goal the extermination of the Jews. The Jews have a right to their homeland. It is their Mecca. Israel was the solution to the global Jewish Diaspora. Jews have been wronged over a longer period of history than any other religious group of modern times.
Do you honestly believe the Muslims would ever relinquish Mecca or Medina? Yet the Left wants the Jews to abandon Israel, yet denies this is antisemitism.
https://youtu.be/O7ByJb7QQ9U
Karen,
“ Svalez, actually I did explain how anti-Israel rhetoric is antisemitic, stemming from Nazis’ .. “
That’s not the question I posed to you.
How is the phrase “settler colonialism” anti Semitic?
Criticism of Israel is not anti Israel.
Do you believe ANY criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic?
Svalez:
Please read the paper that I linked to. It describes, in detail, the propaganda campaign designed to destroy Israel and exterminate Jews. You keep saying you don’t understand, but it does not appear you read the paper, which explains the origin of anti-Israel rhetoric.
On a related note, here is another article on the anti-semitism of the BDS movement. This isn’t any conspiracy theory, but rather conclusions based on documents from Hamas, Palestinian organizations, BDS organizers, etc.
https://jcpa.org/unmasking-bds/
“BDS is more accurately described as a political-warfare campaign conducted by rejectionist Palestinian groups in cooperation with radical left-wing groups in the West. BDS leaders and organizations are also linked to the Palestinian Authority leadership, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, other radical groups, terror-supporting organizations, and in some cases even terror groups themselves such as Hamas. BDS boycott campaigns have effectively misled trade unions, academic institutions, and even leading international artists and cultural icons, with seemingly earnest calls for “justice” entailing the establishment of a Palestinian state living beside a Jewish state. These BDS supporters have been led to believe that the combined pressure of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions will force Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, otherwise known as the 1967 Green Line, enabling a resolution of the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict.6 However, as some commentators – including the New York Times’ Roger Cohen and Professor Norman Finkelstein – have pointed out, the BDS movement seeks to eliminate Israel even before addressing the Palestinian issue. As explained below, the publicized “demands” of the BDS movement state clearly that the endgame of this punitive global campaign is to cause Israel’s implosion as the nation-state of the Jewish people and enable the creation of another Arab-majority state in its place. The major challenge in understanding the BDS phenomenon is to expose its radical nature and camouflaged extremist goals.”
Please read both the paper I linked to earlier, and this article, and then we can discuss what you think. Unless you read them, you will not understand my position. You know I’m prone to get verbose, so don’t tempt me to try to paraphrase two different articles, especially since you probably wouldn’t read that, either.
Karen,
“ Please read the paper that I linked to. It describes, in detail, the propaganda campaign designed to destroy Israel and exterminate Jews. You keep saying you don’t understand, but it does not appear you read the paper, which explains the origin of anti-Israel rhetoric.”
I read the paper. That still doesn’t answer my question. How is the phrase “settler colonialism” anti-Semitic?
I don’t keep saying I don’t understand. All am doing is asking you a question to which you seem to answer with long explanation about an unrelated issue about propaganda.
How about a much simpler question,
Is ANY criticism of Israel anti-Semitic? Or Should any criticism of Israel and it’s policies automatically anti-Semitic?
Can anti-Israel rhetoric be rooted in legitimate criticism?
The problem with your position Karen is that you’re not addressing the question directly. You’re making an argument that involves a much bigger picture. We don’t need to go that wide when all I’m asking is what’s anti-Semitic about “settler colonialism”.
Karen says:
“They suffered the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, which also affected the Middle East, as Hitler partnered with Arabs to erase the British Mandate for a Jewish homeland, with the ultimate goal the extermination of the Jews.”
Jews suffered the Holocaust at the hands of a *Christian* Germany. Or do you suppose, Karen, that Hitler introduced anti-Semitism into Germany in his rise to power? In fact, there was hatred of Jews festering in Germany for over a millennium:
“Was there a direct line from the anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament to the gas chambers at Auschwitz, as some have alleged? Probably not. The line was indirect, beginning around 150 with gentile misreadings of the bitter intra-Jewish polemic contained in those writings. The theological anti-Judaism of the Church fathers, repeated endlessly in medieval and Renaissance-Reformation preaching, was the far greater culprit. It was the continuing rationale for the indefensible Christian conduct of the Middle Ages onward that was xenophobic and angry at Jewish resistance to absorption into the cultural mainstream. But because the Church’s preaching and its catechizing had long shaped the popular mind, a new phenomenon was able to come to birth: modern anti-Semitism.”
https://www.ushmm.org/research/about-the-mandel-center/initiatives/ethics-religion-holocaust/articles-and-resources/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries
All those who rounded up the Jews and ordered them to the death camps and perpetrated the mass killings as well as all who knew and looked the other way were “good” Christians.
“All those who rounded up the Jews and ordered them to the death camps and perpetrated the mass killings as well as all who knew and looked the other way were “good” Christians.“
Those people, no matter their religion, had the same mindset as you, and that makes you dangerous when you try and censor others. That is the first step. You have already completed several other steps.
Jeff, by definition, they were “bad” Christians.
Like a pastor who murders his wife or a priest who molests boys are bad Christians. But their faith did not direct them to commit those sins. They commit those in spite of God’s Word.
A bad person can go to Church, and say all the right words, yet not have taken morality into their conscience. Christians who participated in the Holocaust either lacked a moral compass, having never understood God’s teachings, or they were too weak to respond to their conscience.
Germans who risked their lives to save Jews were good Christians…and good people. Pope Pius XII helped organize an underground railroad to help Jews escape. One method was to provide Catholic Baptismal papers identifying Jews as Catholic so they could leave. There was a series of safe houses in European monasteries, nunneries, and even the Vatican itself. Unfortunately, propaganda against Pius XII successfully labeled him Hitler’s Pope, contrary to the facts of the matter. Another media hit piece. Like so many others who outwardly seemed mute while secretly helping Jews escape, the Pope kept his activities clandestine. Had he vehemently publicly opposed Germany, Catholic properties would have been closed, and no more safe houses.
Who is more representative of the Christian faith, which teaches to love our fellow man? Those who perpetrated the Holocaust, or those who risked everything to save whom they could?
Karen,
I put quotation marks around “good” because I know they were bad, but they were Christians nonetheless.
Just like Trumpists who hate Liz Cheney for turning her back on Trump, so too Christians hated Jews for refusing Jesus. It’s tribal. You are either with us or against us.
As for Pope Pius XI, you are whitewashing his actions. He could have done much more to speak out about the crimes being committed by his flock. Moreover, there are still papers from that era which have yet to be revealed.
Who inculcated Christians to despise Jews?
The Church.
Christians had been persecuting Jews and murdering them long before Hitler.
Jeff, you just undermined your own point, since you admitted they were actually bad Christians. Great. We agree. They were not following God’s teachings.
if a Muslim robs a car, did he do so because he was a Muslim? Or was a coincidentally a Muslim who happened to rob a car? You are trying to equate anti-semitism with Christianity itself, when it had nothing to do with the Bible. It’s also not the Bible’s fault that there was a prejudice against black cats, the number 13, or walking under a ladder. The only time religion is relevant is if someone is expressly committing a wrong because his religion tells him so. Like the human sacrifices of the Aztecs was part of their religion. And wrong by Judeo/Christian morality.
As for Pope Pius XII (I think I recall it was XII, not XI), the man helped organize an Underground Railroad to help Jews escape, but you denounce him as not having done enough? Which is better? To publicly have a fiery sermon against Hitler, which would have led to the closure of all the monasteries, nunneries, and churches in Nazi-controlled Europe, or to use diplomatic language while operating a clandestine operation using those said properties? The papers from that era actually were revealed years ago. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/09/hitlers-pope-pius-xii-holocaust) Who armchair quarterbacks someone who helped save thousands of people? Those who chose to help protect the helpless, did so in their own way.
it doesn’t really matter what people think of you; what matters is what you do. Pius XII could have settled for acclaim for public statements, but he would then have been unable to save anyone. Lives mattered more than accolades. Besides, neither you nor I were in the position to fight Nazis. How someone would go about it would be an individual decision. There were so many people who pretended to be good Nazis, who secretly hid or spirited out Jews from the Holocaust. Who cares what they had to do in order to be in a position to help?
Muslims have been persecuting and actually murdering Jews as directed explicitly in their Holy writings long before Hitler. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals are expressly to resume that genocide.
Christians did have a history of being prejudiced against Jews. Like much of humankind’s sins over the millennia, that was wrong, and it absolutely was not directed by the Bible. Muslim persecution of Jews in the Middle East led to a global diaspora, and Europe was no soft place to land. In Spain, there was a royal decree which pronounced that all non Christians and heretics must choose baptism or exile. This led to the exile of thousands of Jews as part of the Spanish Inquisition.
But you cannot possibly compare a Christian in the 1960s being mildly prejudiced against Jews with Hitler gassing them to death and making lampshades out of their skin. Nor can you compare it with the Muslim teaching to kill every Jew. This cultural relevancy is absurd.
All this crap about 1967…..omits history….dating back to about 1200 BC….which covers a lot of time and occupiers of the area known for over three thousand years as Palestine (that land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
In recent history…say back to 1947…..which is before 1967….and a great many wars and conflicts it was the British that held the reins.
Work you way back through all manner of regimes….some Arab some not…..some Muslim….some not….and you have to accept that today’s claims ignore the past.
In the end….it is whose Army stands upon the ground with extended Rifles with fixed Bayonets that “own” the ground.
Everything else is just talk.
https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/palestine
Svelaz, that anonymous comment wasn’t mine (S. Meyer) but I will respond as if it was. The poster I responded to was Anonymous the Stupid or his twin brother.
““settler colonialism”
Firstly you didn’t read Karen’s paper. You don’t even understand the words. Answer the questions asked of ATS. Who are the Palestinians? How long have they been around? Who has the right to Judea and Samaria according to international law?
I’ll give you a hint. Jordan never had any claim on Judea or Samaria. In fact, they threw the Palestinians out of Jordan. There is no occupation by Israel, Jew comes from Judea and history is on the Israeli side. What you saw was a restoration of original sovereignty by Israel. Look up “uti posseditis juris”.
The reason you continue to be so Stupid is that you never read the material presented by the other side. Instead you run away. Karen provided you with some really good information. You pretended that you read it, but you didn’t just like no one ran away from a debate with you. You ran away, but emotionally you are that of a child who cries instead of learns.
Karen,
“ There was nothing wrong with their statement, so there was nothing to apologize for. ”
Yes there was. There was nothing anti-Semitic about the phrase “settler colonialism”
The accusation of anti-semitism because it’s definition is so overly broad that it can be used to construe anything even mildly critical of Israel or Jewish behavior is often used as an excuse to claim victimhood simply for being Jewish. It’s a long tired excuse to avoid or deflect legitimate criticism. The mention of making anti-Semitic statements labels that person as an anti-Semite. It’s a means to shut down and delegitimize the person making the statement or the criticism behind it.
That’s why using it as SSI did got wang to decide to veto the chapter. SSI recognized it and apologized which was to their credit the right thing to do. Yana SHOULD have reciprocated or at least offered to rephrase her criticism.
The bigger problem is the notion that any criticism of Jews or Israel no matter how mild should be labeled anti-Semitic. It’s an automatic reaction avoids the reality that even Jews are guilty of committing injustices they were subject to in the past. To be seen as hypocrites is more concerning than recognizing their own flaws as a society.
Anonymous:
Yes, the rhetoric against Israel, the Jewish homeland’s, right to exist is anti-semitic.
Here is the root source. Note how Adolf Hitler sought to reverse the British Mandate, create an Arab State in its place, and entirely eliminate (i.e. kill all) the Jews. Modern anti-Israel rhetoric is in service to the ultimate Nazi plan to eliminate the world’s Jews. Know the root that bore the fruit.
http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol22/ISJv22p157-182Cohen6127.pdf
“The paper reveals the role of the KGB in the PLO’s campaign to replace Israel with an Arab Muslim state and the PLO and Hamas’s successor disinformation mechanisms.
Operation SIG is an early and extremely successful example of the Soviet/Rus- sian campaign to disrupt democracy.
The recurrence of antisemitism, particularly on campus, can be attributed to Op- eration SIG.”
“According to Ion Mihai Pacepa (as cited in J. Bergman, 2016), the “Palestinian Liberation Army” was contrived by the KGB, much like the KGB devised the Bolivian National Liberation Army. It cre- ated this Arab army in the early 1960s following the failure of the troops of various Arab states to de- stroy Israel. Pacepa (2006) stated that the KGB drafted the Palestinian National Charter and hand- picked the 422 members of the PLO council that approved it. Andropov told Pacepa, “We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel” (Pacepa, 2006). Likewise, both the Palestine National Covenant and Palestinian Constitution were drafted in Moscow (Pacepa, as cited in J. Bergman, 2016).
In understanding the real purpose of the PLO, it is useful to know that the 1964 charter, article 24, specifically demanded control of Israeli lands and expressly excluded lands already under Arab control, Judea and Samaria (written as the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) and Gaza.
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashe- mite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political, and financial fields. (Translation by Harkabi, 1979).
Meir-Levi (2007b) and Shaw (2019) note the prowess of the KGB in establishing an anti-democratic and anti-Zionist sentiment via the Arabs. The KGB’s campaign was a historic success.”
Karen,
“ Yes, the rhetoric against Israel, the Jewish homeland’s, right to exist is anti-semitic.”
But Yana wasn’t questioning Israel’s right to exist. You’re delving into an issue she never brought up. She criticized SSI by mentioning the issue of the illegal settlements in the West Bank when she stated it as settler colonialism. Even Israeli courts recognize that Israeli settlers in the disputed territories have set up illegal settlements. She was making a legitimate criticism about THAT. SSI responded by calling her statement anti-Semitic which was used to label her as anti-Israeli or anti-Jew.
Going into some long winded conspiracy theory does nothing to address the basic point that SSI did accuse Yana of anti-Semitic views just because she mentions a valid criticism of the issue illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Anonymous:
You clearly did not read the paper I posted, otherwise your question would be answered.
It’s not a “long winded conspiracy theory”. It’s factual, and well documented.
It is entirely within SSI’s rights to express their opinion that certain defamatory statements were antisemitic. I agree with that sentiment. I should be allowed to say that, as this is still America. We’re not yet North Korea.
Karen, your cited paper had nothing to do with the question I posed to you. She didn’t question Israel’s right to exist or stated anti Israeli rhetoric. She made a statement criticizing the illegal settlements in the West Bank when she phrased it as settler colonialism.
It’s a legitimate criticism due to the fact that settlements have been indeed illegally built on disputed territory. There’s nothing anti-Semitic about such criticism.
And you’re right it’s with SSI’s right to express their opinion, but it is entirely Yana’s right to express her criticism. The issue is SSI using the label “anti-semitism” to get criticism to shut down her own opinion. Calling her criticism anti-Semitic implies she’s an anti-Semite.
SSI or any other organization that is pro Israel or is Israeli use the term anti-Semitic to quell any criticism no matter how legitimate it is.
Do you believe that ANY criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic? Should any criticism of Israel or its policies be censored by labeling them as anti/Semitic?
Anonymous:
Did you actually read the paper or the articles? This rhetoric is part of a decades long campaign to weaken Israel, destroy it, kill the Jews, and replace it with another Muslim country. Plus it is not based on any facts, since Israel has offered land for peace on 5 separate occasions, and been rebuffed. Israel even voluntarily evacuated settlements, which Arabs then moved into and destroyed. Still no peace. This is because Muslims want the Jews dead and Israel destroyed.
No, I do not think it impermissible to criticize Israel. However, remarks like “colonizers”, “apartheid state”, etc condemn the state of Israel and its right to existence. While I find such speech abhorrent, I support the First Amendment right to speak their minds, even when the result is offensive. Pro- and anti-Israel student groups should be allowed to form, and debate. I’ve known quite a few Muslims, most of whom had relatives who were rabidly anti-semitic. Their kids were either born in the US, or immigrated here as children, and their views on Jews were quite different than that of their older relatives. It’s exposure to facts and opposing ideas that may lead people to change their minds. Plus, being out of that pervasive anti-semitic environment of their original countries helps children grow up with more tolerance. For instance, elementary schools in Iran begin each day chanting, “Death to America! Death to Israel!” Even Iranian stamps had images of bloody Stars of David. It’s brainwashing to hate from an early age. That’s hard for adults raised in that environment to overcome, but the kids have a chance to be tolerant and accepting when they grow up here, as long as they have the chance to come into contact with Jewish people.
https://jcpa.org/unmasking-bds/
“BDS is more accurately described as a political-warfare campaign conducted by rejectionist Palestinian groups in cooperation with radical left-wing groups in the West. BDS leaders and organizations are also linked to the Palestinian Authority leadership, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, other radical groups, terror-supporting organizations, and in some cases even terror groups themselves such as Hamas. BDS boycott campaigns have effectively misled trade unions, academic institutions, and even leading international artists and cultural icons, with seemingly earnest calls for “justice” entailing the establishment of a Palestinian state living beside a Jewish state. These BDS supporters have been led to believe that the combined pressure of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions will force Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, otherwise known as the 1967 Green Line, enabling a resolution of the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict.6 However, as some commentators – including the New York Times’ Roger Cohen and Professor Norman Finkelstein – have pointed out, the BDS movement seeks to eliminate Israel even before addressing the Palestinian issue. As explained below, the publicized “demands” of the BDS movement state clearly that the endgame of this punitive global campaign is to cause Israel’s implosion as the nation-state of the Jewish people and enable the creation of another Arab-majority state in its place. The major challenge in understanding the BDS phenomenon is to expose its radical nature and camouflaged extremist goals.”
Please read both the paper I linked to earlier, and this article, and then we can discuss what you think. Unless you read them, you will not understand my position. You know I’m prone to get verbose, so don’t tempt me to try to paraphrase two different articles, especially since you probably wouldn’t read that, either.
It’s a legitimate criticism due to the fact that settlements have been indeed illegally built on disputed territory
If the territory is disputed what jurisdiction rules on legality?
Israel doesnt say its illegal.
Palistine is nothing but a notion. Not a functioning government representing a people within a defined border
Iowan2,
“ If the territory is disputed what jurisdiction rules on legality?
Israel doesnt say its illegal.”
It’s under the jurisdiction of Israeli courts.
Yes Israel does say it’s illegal when settlers build outside current walled off settlements.
“ Israel: Supreme Court Voids Law Legalizing Settlements Built on Unauthorized and Privately Owned Land in West Bank”
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-07-14/israel-supreme-court-voids-law-legalizing-settlements-built-on-unauthorized-and-privately-owned-land-in-west-bank/
Memo to Ed Buck: Stop supplying the Svelte’z one with crystal meth. His many VSP connections supporting his even more sock puppets are creating climate change in West Hollywood from all of the fossil fuels he is consuming, and the boys in WeHo are getting more beach-y than usual
Because trolls are gonna troll.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5386131/Diary-male-prostitute-claims-Dem-donor-pushed-drugs.html
He gave me my first injection of crystal meth’: Diary of the male prostitute who fatally overdosed at the home of a prominent Democrat donor claims the friend of Hillary Clinton got him hooked on drugs
Gemmel Moore, 26, was found dead in West Hollywood, CA on July 27
Moore died of an overdose at the home of Ed Buck, a Democratic donor
Extreme prejudice of Jews is anti-Semitism. Cutting off SSI without discussion was extreme prejudice and stupid.
Your arguments represent disingenuous discussion by a person who is deceitful and lies by omission.
S. Meyer,
“ Extreme prejudice of Jews is anti-Semitism. Cutting off SSI without discussion was extreme prejudice and stupid.”
What makes you think they were completely cut off from discussion? You’re assuming they were just because it is not mentioned.
There was nothing “extreme” about vetoing their chapter. Did SSI appeal? Is there a process they haven’t gotten to yet? We don’t know. But you seem to already assume the worst because you’re assuming without some evidence.
Nothing about my arguments are disingenuous. You sure seem stuck on this notion that I’m someone else. What lies by omission are you referring to?
Vetoing a student group’s right to exist is quite literally cutting them off from the discussion. How can they have a discussion if they are not permitted to organize?
Always, with the excuses for censorship and denial of the antisemitism in the Left. That’s the crowd that allows the rise of totalitarian regimes. They refuse to acknowledge abuses and the erosion of rights happen until it’s too late.
Karen,
“ Vetoing a student group’s right to exist is quite literally cutting them off from the discussion. How can they have a discussion if they are not permitted to organize?”
They didn’t veto their right to exist. You seem to be conflating two very different issues. The veto was about denying a group to have a charter at the school. SSI is just like any other fraternity. Denying them a charter at the school is not denying them out of existence.
As a group they still exist they can still seek a discussion, appeal the decision or whatever process the student body has.
Obviously they ARE a group. That doesn’t mean they can’t discuss the problem further.
“ Always, with the excuses for censorship and denial of the antisemitism in the Left. That’s the crowd that allows the rise of totalitarian regimes. They refuse to acknowledge abuses and the erosion of rights happen until it’s too late.”
This was not about censorship or denial of anti-Semitism. It’s more about using the term “anti-semitism” to anything remotely critical of anything Israeli. As you say, it’s a refusal to acknowledge abuses and erosion of rights. Israelis are just as guilty of doing that to Palestinians, that’s why any legitimate criticism of such abuses is dismissed by labeling it as anti-Semitic.
Anonymous:
While you make a good point that pro-Israel students can talk among themselves, they were denied the same right to a charter as other student groups based on content bias. This sends a strong anti-Israel message from Duke.
This is not going to play well.
No, Israel is not “just as guilty” as the Palestinians. Palestinian terrorist deliberately target civilians, driving cars into bus stops, stabbing kids. Palestinians name streets after terrorists who kill Jewish people, including children. Did you know that terrorist attacks on Jewish kids was so common that they don’t use school buses because it concentrates children too greatly as a target. Instead, school children spread out among public buses, aboard which is always a Jewish military person, armed with a fully automatic weapon. Families were known to separate their children on different public buses, so that if one was hit, it would spread out the risk and avoid entire families being wiped out.
By contrast, when Israel bombs a target, they often drop leaflets ahead of time warning people lot evacuate.
There is no “both sides” relativism. It’s like comparing the US with ISIS, ISIS-K, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban.
You are absolutely free to make your argument in defense of criticism of Israel. This is because you are not being shut up, deplatformed or censored.
I have provided you with well documented information tracing the roots of anti-Israel rhetoric. Notably, the articles delineate how well-meaning people seeking justice have been fooled, and why. I am just as free to opine about why certain criticisms of Israel attack their right to exist or are anti-semitic.
Karen,
“ While you make a good point that pro-Israel students can talk among themselves, they were denied the same right to a charter as other student groups based on content bias. This sends a strong anti-Israel message from Duke.”
Do they have a right to a charter? Does anyone have a right to have a charter at a university?
They were denied because they accused someone as anti-Semitic because they made a legitimate criticism. Labeling someone as anti-Semitic because of a statement that pointed out a legitimate criticism isn’t being anti-Semitic.
What is being lost in this discussion is the basic problem of calling ANY criticism of Israel or its policies as anti-Semitic.
Yes Israel is just as guilty of committing injustices against Palestinians and they legitimately deserve criticism. That’s not saying Palestinians aren’t guilty of committing terrorism against Israel, but let’s not forget that it is Israel that has been occupying territory and controlling a society that is not Israeli. They are indeed an occupying force. They dictate everything that affects Palestinians.
So we have established that you view ANY criticism against Israel as anti-Semitic.
Anonymous, are you still defending discriminating against a pro-Israel student group?
That is disappointing.
They responded to the accusation that they supported colonial settlers with the honest conclusion that this was anti-semitic.
Censor people for calling out bigotry? Are you kidding?
Academia is rapidly getting an anti-semitic reputation. I wonder how long it will take Jewish Democrats to acknowledge this trend. Probably quite a while, since the mainstream media covers for the Democrat Party. They can’t object to what they don’t learn about.
No, Israel is not “just as guilty” as terrorists. Arabs have full voting rights. They have representation in the Knesset. If you consider a country who seeks to avoid civilian deaths, with a terrorism movement that seeks to maximize them, then I question your judgement. It sounds like brainwashing rather than reason.
Let me again remind you that Israel has offered land for peace on 5 separate occasions. They have given in to all demands, yet been rebuffed. What do you want them to do? Commit suicide to appease the terrorists? They offered them everything they wanted. More than once. Yet the propaganda machine ignores this and blames ze Jews. Why are people so misinformed that they fall for this evil occupier propaganda, and they don’t even know that Israel has tried over and over again to give the terrorists what they want? Hamas wants Israel destroyed, and all the Jews dead. It’s in their charter. Hence why they refuse all the peace deals. But they sure do have a good PR team, in that they successfully blame their victims for why there is no peace.
No, I do not denounce all criticism against Israel. Of course not. Israel dabbled in socialist policies that proved injurious. I have explicitly stated that I only object to criticism directed at Israel’s right to exist, criticism based on total falsehoods, or which stems from the KGB and Nazi propaganda program to destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews. If I can trace misleading information back to the aforementioned active measures, then I oppose it.
I seek to avoid a recurrence of the Holocaust. I’m Christian. I’m not even Jewish. Yet I am dismayed at the normalization of anti-semitism I see on the Left. Very disturbing.
“There was nothing “extreme” about vetoing their chapter.”
It certainly was extreme. That completely shuts off one viewpoint that so happens to be a pro Jewish / Israel viewpoint. You need to start thinking with a clear head. Karen explains a bit below, but no-one can adequately deal with an individual so biased that they do not understand bias, prejudice or cancel culture. That type of person thinks race is everything while character and merit don’t count at all. That is the underlying problem that both Svelaz and ATS have.
In the meantime you can continue to pretend to be whoever you wish, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are Anonymous the Stupid.
“Democrats need to come to terms that they have a blatant anti-semitism problem in the Left. It’s egregious, well documented, and extreme.”
Democrats don’t want to come to terms. Some of their most violent supporters are anti-Semitic, Some Democrats have mixed feelings, but almost all stand with the most violent ones.
S. Meyer,
“ “Democrats need to come to terms that they have a blatant anti-semitism problem in the Left. It’s egregious, well documented, and extreme.”
So you don’t believe Israel has committed any injustices or atrocities against Palestinians at all? None? That they are completely innocent if anything? Is any, ANY criticism of Israel to be deemed anti-Semitic?
You seem to be sure Israel is a nation that is as innocent and pure as driven snow.
Svelaz:
Actually, I understand the reality that the Jewish homeland is under constant threat from anti-semitic Muslims who desire the extermination of the Jews, elimination of Israel, to be replaced with yet another Arab nation. Anti-semitism is intrinsic in the Koran and Hadith. The day Israel formed, it came under attack from its neighbors.
Israel is under threat of terrorism on a daily basis, in a way that people who live safe in America cannot conceive of. Schools have to have walls high enough that you can’t throw a bomb over. Children require armed guards, because they are targeted. Muslims who kill Jewish civilians, including children, get a martyr’s celebration, and streets named after them. Their families get martyr payments.
Of course any country can make errors while fighting terrorism. A notable example would be when the US triggered a drone strike on a car believe to contain terrorists and explosives, which turned out to be an innocent family. That was terrible and requires a thorough investigation on how intelligence could get this so wrong. I hope to God we didn’t get any intel from the Taliban. Even so, such an error cannot be compared with terrorists going door to door in Afghanistan, deliberately killing people who support the US, and kidnapping girls as young as 12 to be taken in sex slavery in forced marriages to Taliban fighters.
This relativism is inaccurate.
I don’t take issue with all criticism of Israel, just the ones that are unfounded, dishonest, or based on false information. Then there’s the more blatant comments like the Squad claiming that anyone who supports Israel was bought off by Jews.
If Israel becomes weakened, the Holocaust will resume. That’s horrifying. All I can do is argue against this to people who, for the most part, plug their ears.
Karen claims:
“Anti-semitism is intrinsic in the Koran and Hadith.”
As it was in the Christian Bible for stating that the Jews killed Jesus, to wit:
“Can the mischief of eighteen and one half centuries be reversed? Catholics point to statements like section 4 of the Vatican II statement on non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate, October, 1965) which exculpated the Jews of all time of the charge of deicide (“killing God”), and warned Catholics against thinking that anything in their scriptures taught that Jews were a people accursed or rejected. Numerous statements have come from Protestant bodies in the U.S. and Europe deploring Christian anti-Semitism.“
https://www.ushmm.org/research/about-the-mandel-center/initiatives/ethics-religion-holocaust/articles-and-resources/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries
I am not absolving Islam for its anti-semitism by observing a longer history of Christian Jew-hatred. Just saying….
“And lost the moral right “
Sam, I never had the legal right much less the moral right. Israel’s existence is predicated on international law which is neglected by anti-Semites who believe special rules apply to Israel but do not apply to anyone else.
The reason behind international law is stability, and a way of deciding how nations should interact in the international realm.
Based on 3,000 years of history and a civilization including a kingdom that no Palestinian ever had Israel is in the right despite what ATS thinks. He is shallow and quite ignorant because he doesn’t look at both sides. International law regarding the middle east starts around 1924 and I listed before the pertinent events. Jordan was an occupier. Israel’s sovereign territory included the West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem. There are no ifs ands for buts unless one wishes to disregard international law leading to violations of territorial boundaries and a free-for-all.
If I have time I will try and write what the law is and what it means including how it came to be in another post should I have time. It will be worthwhile reading unless one already knows the history.
Jeff:
You made two opposing statements.
“As it was in the Christian Bible for stating that the Jews killed Jesus, to wit”
AND you quoted:
“Vatican II statement on non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate, October, 1965) which exculpated the Jews of all time of the charge of deicide (“killing God”), and warned Catholics against thinking that anything in their scriptures taught that Jews were a people accursed or rejected.”
This is because the Bible does not call Judaism a cursed religion. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were all born Jewish. Remember the critical Passover Last Supper? As in Jewish Passover?
The covenant of Hamas:
https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
Goals of the HAMAS:
——————
‘The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian
movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is
Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of
Palestine.’ (Article 6)
On the Destruction of Israel:
—————————–
‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’ (Preamble)…
Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:
——————————————-
‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and
international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of
the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than
a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of
Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by
Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a
waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)…
Anti-Semitic Incitement:
————————
‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and
kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the
rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind
me, come and kill him.’ (Article 7)
On the one hand, there is the Bible. The Old Testament is Jewish. It in no way condemns Jews.
On the other hand, there is the anti-semitism that is quite literally inherent in the Muslim Koran and Hadith. There is no cultural relativity. No both sides to it. The historical anti-semitism in the ancient Christian world arose from people with their superstitions and bigotry, not the Bible. Ancient people were angered that a group of Jewish people did not save Jesus when they had the chance. But hating the Jewish faith or people is not the purpose of that scene. Jesus was here to die for our sins. That was the purpose of his time here, to preach, and to die for the undeserving. Many Jewish men, women, and children loved him. Some never had the chance to hear Him. One single group did not have the courage to stand up for Him when Pontius Pilot gave them the opportunity. But why in the world would that preordained act reflect upon an entire people? Answer: it wouldn’t. There also used to be a severe superstition against black cats and walking under ladders, but that wasn’t in the Bible, either. Don’t blame the Bible for the sins and prejudices of people, especially when you’re talking about centuries when most were illiterate, couldn’t speak Latin, and so couldn’t really understand the Bible on their own or Mass.
I was born Catholic. I went to CCD and was Confirmed. I have attended Mass in many different countries. I have NEVER heard any Church teachings against the Jewish people.
Hadith narrated by Abi Hurira:
“The last hour won’t come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them so Jews would hide behind rocks and trees. Then the rocks and tree would call: oh Muslim, oh servant of God! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only “Gharkad” tree, it is of Jews’ trees.”
Explanation of words
“Last Hour: the hereafter will not come
“Gharkad”: a big tree with thorns and the Jews grew it a lot in Palestine those days
Teachings of the Hadith
1/ It’s fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world.
2/ The Hadith predicts for the Muslims God’s victory over the Jews.
3/ The victory for the Muslims because they are right, and who ever is right is always victorious, even though most people are against him.
4/ God grants victory to the Muslims if they have a true will, if they unite, hold on to God’s sharia, if they go by God’s ruling, if they are patient.
5/ The material strength won’t be enough to warrant victory, it is necessary to invoke God seek his support.
6/ Who ever is with God, God is with him; no matter what hardships and ordeals one would undergo what counts is the final result.
7/ Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers they will never approve of the Muslims, beware of them.
Karen,
Please, don’t recount to me the fairy tales in the Gospels. Scholarship shows that they cannot be relied upon as historically accurate. The Church has blood on its hands which is why it felt compelled to issue Vatican II statement on non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate, October, 1965) which exculpated the Jews of all time of the charge of deicide (“killing God”).
I stated before that I am NOT defending Islam. I am simply contesting your preposterous claim that Christianity is blameless of inciting Christians to hate Jews.
In the whole course of human history, vastly more Jews died at the hands of bad Christians than good Muslims.
That’s an undeniable fact. Either the New Testament was a bad influence or its good teachings were ineffectual.
“In the whole course of human history, vastly more Jews died at the hands of bad Christians than good Muslims.” Based on what? You know your opinions do not count as supporting evidence. This appear to be a preconceived notion that you assume is true. You say this without giving any evidence, and expect me to take it at face value. Historians who have written about the persecution of the Jews in Europe do not, actually, believe it ever rose to the level of atrocity of the Nazis. Neither you, nor anyone else have any idea how many Jews Muslims murdered over the past 1,000 years, because there is no tally. Hitler was actually quite hostile to the Christian faith, but he could not force Germany to renounce it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/
“Hitler followed his father’s religious path straight into infamy. He hated Judaism, gleefully murdering 6 million Jews. But he loathed Christianity, too…
“In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”
By 1942, Hitler vowed, according to Bullock, to “root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches,” describing them as “the evil that is gnawing our vitals.”
“I can’t at present give them the answer they’ve been asking for,” Hitler said. “The time will come when I’ll settle my account with them. They’ll hear from me all right.”
But first, he had to finish off the Jews.”
Yet you keep trying to pretend that Hitler was motivated by Christianity, or that anti-semitism is part of the Christian faith itself.
Christian Europe did indeed have a reputation for anti-semitism. Jews were forced to live in Jewish ghettos. There were times when they were exiled, and there were clashes where they were killed. Crusaders looting and pillaging Jewish settlements on the way to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims comes to mind. But there were not mass extinctions, not anywhere close to the level of the Nazis or the Muslim expansion. There was prejudice. Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice underscored some of the longstanding prejudices against Jews as moneylenders. Cash poor, entitled people were especially envious of successful enclaves, especially when they were not Christian, with a propensity to form banking and money lending ventures.
Even the infamous Spanish Inquisition gave the choice of baptism or exile. Not death. When Muslims conquered Judeo/Christian Middle East, they put every village, town, and city to the sword. It was convert or die. And then they made sex slaves of all the women, thus converting their future children to Islam. You have absolutely no idea how many Jews they killed.
Jeff, it speaks volumes that you are arguing with my posts in regard to the unjustness of discriminating against a pro-Israel student group, while at the same time blaming Christianity for anti-semitism.
Each individual can only do what they can to right wrongs and speak out against injustice. What I can do at this current time is protest the discrimination of this student organization. Yet here you are, gleefully arguing about it instead of supporting their right to organize. Do you just argue to argue, or do you oppose pro-Israel student groups? I’m wondering why I’m even discussion literally ancient history with you while an instance of discrimination is right here in front of you? You criticized a Pope who ran an underground railroad evacuating Jews from the Holocaust for not doing enough, yet you have spent a considerable amount of time arguing with me in my support of these students. Perhaps it is you who is not doing enough to combat anti-semitism.
Karen says:
“Historians who have written about the persecution of the Jews in Europe do not, actually, believe it ever rose to the level of atrocity of the Nazis.”
I never said that! You are becoming like S.Meyer! I include the Nazis in the tally of Christians killing Jews because they WERE Christian- good, bad or indifferent. And let’s not forget the Tsarist pogroms against Jews as well.
You say:
“Yet you keep trying to pretend that Hitler was motivated by Christianity, or that anti-semitism is part of the Christian faith itself.”
I never said that Hitler was motivated by Christianity! Stop putting words in my mouth! I said that Hitler took advantage of pre-exiting anti-semitism to dehumanize Jews to the point of killing them.
If Jew-hatred is not part and parcel of Christianity, where do you think the influential Martin Luther derived his hate if not from scripture? From Wikipedia:
“In 1543 Luther published “On the Jews and Their Lies” in which he says that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[14] They are full of the “devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine.”[15] The synagogue was a “defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut …”[16] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[17] afforded no legal protection,[18] and these “poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[19] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing “[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.”
Those who refused to accept Jesus as savior naturally were despised by Christians.
“I never said that! You are becoming like S.Meyer”
There is nothing wrong with pushing back. There is nothing wrong with raising your hands when being attacked or the tone of your voice when being attacked verbally.
What have you stated except generalities? Do you bother proving what you say? No. You think repetition will win you the recognition you deserve. You now have that reputation. One can liken you to Joseph Goebbels, who gets some attribution from the statement: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Karen says:
“Jeff, it speaks volumes that you are arguing with my posts in regard to the unjustness of discriminating against a pro-Israel student group, while at the same time blaming Christianity for anti-semitism.”
I’m not speaking about the Pro-Israel student group because an Anonymous contributor (with the green icon) said all that needed to be said about that issue.
I cannot let stand unchallenged your exaggerated statements which is in your nature to make. Like Trump, you paint with a very broad brush.
You say:
“You criticized a Pope who ran an underground railroad evacuating Jews from the Holocaust for not doing enough,”
Let’s not forget the Ratlines that enabled German War criminals to flee to South America enabled by high-ranking Catholic clergy. Did the Pope know? Time will tell:
https://www.dw.com/en/the-ratlines-what-did-the-vatican-know-about-nazi-escape-routes/a-52555068
You say:
“Perhaps it is you who is not doing enough to combat anti-semitism.”
I combat anti-semitic *statements”posted by Trumpists on this blog.
BTW, are you EVER going to answer my question whether you believe that the election was stolen from Trump?
“Like Trump, you paint with a very broad brush.”
Ah, the irony.
I am sure that Israel made mistakes, but that is what happens when one deals with idiots and hateful people like you. 4,000 rockets were sent against Israeli citizens. Those rockets killed more citizens of Gaza than Israel did. Hamas doesn’t even care about its own people.
I have no problem with honest criticisms of Israel. Your type of significant mindless prejudice against Israel is due to your Stupidity. I don’t know that I would blame it on anti-Semitism, just like I wouldn’t call a rock thrown at an Israeli an anti-Semitic rock.
Remember, the desire of the Nazi’s and the terrorist figures in the mideast is to exterminate the Jews. You can agree with them, but then don’t claim to be insulted when one calls you an anti-Semite.
“[T]hat approval was then rescinded by Duke Student President Chistina Wang . . .”
Duke’s race/gender/class faculty and deans, to Wang:
“Sit, little fascist. Speak, little fascist. Silence dissent, little fascist. (Then lie about the reasons.) There’s a good little fascist. Here’s your treat: You are now one of us.”
The cancel culture club gets irate when they’re challenged, but have no problem with inappropriate doxxing when the shoe’s on the other foot. Funny that nowhere have they answered a respectful logically constructive response to an ahistorically based opinion. But Progressives have predetermined BIPOC membership and condemned facts to Hell. They’d have banned the same club for mentioning the 4 major pre-WWII pogroms, the 1941 Farhud that, had it not been a failure along with Rommel’s defeat, would have brought SS Col Walter Rauf’s Jew killing Nazi apparatus to the Middle East, nor the ‘Palestinian’ great grand papas who were part of 7 armies attempting Jewish annihilation a first ever nation, how not only were 1 million Jews fleeing /booted from N Africa & Mid East countries never given refugee status, but a lesser number of Arabs/descendants have refugee rights beyond any African/Asian/ Hispanic peoples ever. Don’t want to forget, after another failed attempt at severals nations vs Israel 1967 war that UN 242 peace was shunned in favor of the belligerent Khartoum summit resolutions, nor peace & statehood rejected under presidential initiatives going back to Bill Clinton. Playing victim and pointing fingers gets to be an easy way of life when enabled by Progressive fantasists.
“promoting settler colonialism.”
That phrase clearly tells us that Wang is ignorant of both history and current events. She has a closed mind. Legally, the area under concern, is Israeli territory and that is the problem the pro-Palestinian groups face. They cannot face the truth.
No, legally the area under dispute. The West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as Israeli territory by the 1967 UN accords. The Palestinians were there before the Jews. That’s the problem.
First, tell us who the Palestinians are.
Second, show us the laws that you think are applicable. Don’t show us a rant from a Palestinian or left-wing website that merely restates what you wrongfully say. Show us fact.
Third, the Jews were there long before any mention of Palestinians existed.
Jews are indigenous to Israel that encompasses Judea/Samaria and Jerusalem. Jew comes from the word Judea.
I note that you are using an anonymous icon to stake your claims. Your claims are as unreal as your name.
You use anonymous icons yourself, does that mean your own claims are as unreal as your own logic suggests?
“ First, tell us who the Palestinians are.
Second, show us the laws that you think are applicable. Don’t show us a rant from a Palestinian or left-wing website that merely restates what you wrongfully say. Show us fact.”
That’s a funny way of dictating how someone should respond to you by limiting as narrowly as possible the answer you would accept.
Under international law Israel illegally annexed the West Bank during the six day war. Under the United Nations security council resolution 242 which is binding.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jps.2007.37.1.7
“ United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242
“You use anonymous icons yourself, does that mean your own claims are as unreal as your own logic suggests? ”
Anonymous, my claim to you is under an individual-specific icon and a name that has been here for a long time. You have used many monikers, pretend friends and the generic anonymous. My claims having to do with this subject are clear and under S. Meyer. You are trying to change the subject because lying and deceit aren’t working. You are what is known as a non-credible poster. Live with it.
S. Meyer, I’ve noticed in the past few days that you do indeed post as an anonymous commenter. The style and insults match perfectly.
Not changing the subject at all. You brought it up. “ I note that you are using an anonymous icon to stake your claims. Your claims are as unreal as your name.”
You accuse me of being multiple people but I’ve only been here a few days. Then you address me as ATS which I have no idea who that is.
Then personal attacks? You seem to have me confused with someone else entirely.
All I pointed out to you was your own hypocrisy in making a statement about those who post anonymously and having no credibility because it’s an anonymous post when I have noticed you engage in exactly the same thing. That’s the exact definition of a hypocrite. Just by that alone your responses are to be taken with a lot of skepticism as to its sincerity.
“S. Meyer, I’ve noticed in the past few days that you do indeed post as an anonymous commenter. The style and insults match perfectly.”
Yes, sometimes I do and have provided why. ATS, you provide a lot of garbage and inane responses which I am a part of. I don’t want to burden the rest of the blog with so much of that garbage so I post anonymously hoping that everyone will disregard all anonymous posts.
You hate the fact that you have EARNED THE TITLE ANOYMOUS THE STUPID or ATS for short.
If perchance you are one of the few errors and are not Anonymous the Stupid then don’t act stupidly and take on a specific icon and address. Any confusion (unlikely since this is ATS’s position every time he makes a fool of himself.)
You can call my anonymous postings hypocritical all you want. But I agree that anonymous postings are a cowardly way of posting. I have a reason to use the anonymous label at times. What is yours?
S. Meyer,
“ Yes, sometimes I do and have provided why. ATS, you provide a lot of garbage and inane responses which I am a part of. I don’t want to burden the rest of the blog with so much of that garbage so I post anonymously hoping that everyone will disregard all anonymous posts.”
So according to your own logic your own anonymous posts are not credible, but you seem still to be convinced I’m someone else and still proceed to insult me.
“ You can call my anonymous postings hypocritical all you want. But I agree that anonymous postings are a cowardly way of posting. I have a reason to use the anonymous label at times. What is yours?”
You seem to be more cowardly than genuine according to your own logic which seems quite contradictory.
Your insistence on others to reveal themselves while also engaging in the practice of hiding your “icon” is indeed hypocritical.
I have my reasons for remaining anonymous and it’s certainly my right as is yours. At least I’m more honest about my reasoning than you are of yours.
Reasonable assumption determines who the anonymous poster is. We already know that Anonymous the Stupid makes this claim to spread the blame away from himself. If you are Stupid enough to act like Anonymous the Stupid, then the name fits as well, especially when you make ATS’s arguments in the same tone as ATS.
I am encouraging everyone to stop listening to these Stupid responses and focus on a known name. My name is S. Meyer. Recently you have tried a specific icon but appear to be floundering with it and have moved again towards the anonymous guest icon open to all. You found you you can’t hold your ground when you carry a label. That is not surprising. You are a non-credible person.
Anonymous,
Welcome to the Turley circus. I see you’ve met our resident dumba$$ S. Meyer.
Fair warning. He’s well known to go off on irrational rants and move the goalposts as fast as he is losing an argument. The ATS is an acronym for Anonymous the stupid, which he often uses on another poster who is a constant thorn on his side and when triggered he often has conversations with himself posting as two anonymous posters. It’s quite the circus act.
Good luck.
Svelaz, I’ll settle for your recognition that Anonymous the Stupid is the poster I refer to when I use that name or the abbreviated ATS.
Thank you for letting ATS know that we are in agreement on that point.
LOL
“Under international law Israel illegally annexed the West Bank during the six day war. ”
Totally untrue. Who legally owned the land before the 6-day war? Jordan, before the 6-day war, took the land against international law. Jordan had no right to the land, based on international law.
What you quote represents a political document that is not a legal document. You do not know the difference between politics and the law.
I take note that you are too incompetent to distill out the appropriate facts from your links to bolster your case. In fact, the article provides one point that gives ample proof to my case and explanations while disproving yours.
I told you before to look up “uti posseditis juris.” Your article understands what it means, but you certainly don’t.
Wikipedia and Security Council resolutions are not synonymous with the law, nor do they provide the legal definition of the land under dispute.
S. Meyer,
“ Totally untrue. Who legally owned the land before the 6-day war? Jordan, before the 6-day war, took the land against international law. Jordan had no right to the land, based on international law.”
Jordan controlled the West Bank. Pre 1967. They didn’t take the land against international law. They were given control of it by the British when the British partitioned what was called mandatory Palestine.
“ After the failure of the Arab population to accept the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the 1947–1949 Palestine war ended with the territory of Mandatory Palestine divided among the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which annexed territory on the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Kingdom of Egypt, which established the “All-Palestine Protectorate” in the Gaza Strip.”
“ What you quote represents a political document that is not a legal document. You do not know the difference between politics and the law.”
I quoted a document that cites the international law supporting the UN security resolution 242. You don’t know the difference between a source and supporting citations.
“ I take note that you are too incompetent to distill out the appropriate facts from your links to bolster your case. In fact, the article provides one point that gives ample proof to my case and explanations while disproving yours.”
Yet you didn’t provide the point you’re referring to which leads me to believe you’re not being honest.
“ Wikipedia and Security Council resolutions are not synonymous with the law, nor do they provide the legal definition of the land under dispute.”
Nobody said they were synonymous with the law. They are sources for citation. You don’t seem to know the difference between source, or citation. Please
“Jordan controlled the West Bank. Pre 1967. They didn’t take the land against international law. They were given control of it by the British when the British partitioned what was called mandatory Palestine.”
That was done with disregard of prior set international law. Despite being not he losing end of the later deals, Israel sought to make peace, but they were continuously attacked by their neighbors. They took back the land that was rightfully theirs. They left Jordan alone and today even help supply Jordan with fresh water.
Land for peace was refused by the Palestinians and even giving them Gaza didn’t satisfy them. The reason, like the Nazis, the Palestinian leadership wants to exterminate the Jews.
It is clear. You have Nazi sympathies and desires.
I provided you with actual source material including the treaties involved. You don’t know what you are talking about so you provide links without distilling out the important facts. You are truly Anonymous the Stupid.
“Jordan controlled the West Bank. Pre 1967.”
And lost the moral right (if it had any) to that territory when it joined Egypt and Syria in starting a war against Israel.
“ First, tell us who the Palestinians are.”
ATS, you couldn’t answer the most crucial question. Who are the Palestinians who supposedly have ownership of the land legally parts of Israel for thousands of years? Where did they come from? What is a Palestinian? Where does the name come from? According to the NYT articles, near to WW2, the word Palestinians referred to the Jews living in Israel.
S. Meyer,
“ What is a Palestinian? Where does the name come from?”
The answer to your important question is self evident. The territory in dispute was called Palestine before the 1948 war. Jews and Christians encompassed a smaller group of people that were residents of Palestine. The rest, were Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians. Canaanites. But the territory has always been referred to as Palestine because of the philistine population at the time according to Egyptian records.
In other words a Palestinian can be a Jew, a Syrian, an Egyptian, or anyone else. There is no nationality or nation state.
Sovereignty was recognized as what we today call Israel. I provided you with the twentieth century data but I will not provide you with the rest of the thousands of years of history.
Thank you for proving my case.
“But the territory has always been referred to as Palestine because of the philistine population at the time according to Egyptian records.”
But that doesn’t mean that the name Palestine was derived from the Philistines, though that is a possibility. We can attach a lot of different people to the land of Israel, but the Jews precede all those that you wish to replace them with.
“The West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as Israeli territory by the 1967 UN accords.”
ATS, unfortunately for your credibility, your argument is a negative one (your typical way of deceit).
There was absolutely no recognition that the land fought over belonged to the Palestinians. There was an illegal occupation of the areas under dispute, but it was not by Israel where the law is on the Israeli’s side.
Look up “uti posseditis juris.”
S. Meyer, the territory was known as Palestine long before Jews ever laid claim to it. Judaism and Christianity grew out of Palestine. Even during biblical times Israel didn’t really exist. It was either Canaan or Palestine. There were Israelites, but no Israel. There is a reason why they are called occupied territories. The land was originally supposed to be divided into two states.
Anonymous, learn your history and provide some documented facts or links. Palestine likely comes from the Roman word Palestinia.
“There is a reason why they are called occupied territories. The land was originally supposed to be divided into two states.”
Learn the law and the details of what you are trying to say.
Post WW2, the Jews in Israel were known as the Palestinians. (Look at the NYT and what they wrote at that time.)
Your entire mindset is fictional. However, I applaud your desire to debate the facts, unlike Duke’s Wang.
S. Meyer,
“ Anonymous, learn your history and provide some documented facts or links. Palestine likely comes from the Roman word Palestinia.”
Likely? Not certain are you? So much for demanding facts.
The Romans called it Palestinia. But that’s not where the word Palestine is derived from. It’s from the Philistines who ruled the coastal territory. The Greeks at the time called that territory “Philistia”
Israelites were in those territories but at the time the entire territory that is present day Israel was known as Palestine. The region consisted of scattered city states with their own little kingdoms. All within what was greater Palestine.
“ There is a reason why they are called occupied territories. The land was originally supposed to be divided into two states.”
Learn the law and the details of what you are trying to say.”
I did learn it. You’re just ignoring it. The British set up the Palestine territory to be divided into two states to accommodate the Jews desire to have their own state. Look up the Balfour agreement.
“ Your entire mindset is fictional. However, I applaud your desire to debate the facts, unlike Duke’s Wang.”
You haven’t proved my mindset is “fictional”. Wang had a right to veto the charter. It was her prerogative. That doesn’t mean she was right, but it meant it was her decision. SSI could still appeal the veto.
Here’s what Turley left out of his column,
“ Duke Student Government President Christina Wang has vetoed DSG’s recognition of Students Supporting Israel.
The decision was based on evidence that SSI “singled out an individual student on their organization’s social media account in a way that was unacceptable for any student group and appeared antithetical to the group’s stated mission to be welcoming and inclusive to all Duke students, and educational in mission and purpose,” Wang, a senior, wrote in a statement to senators obtained by The Chronicle.”
“ Senators chartered the group at their meeting last Wednesday after extending the questioning period twice. During the meeting, senators raised questions about how SSI would communicate civilly with opposing organizations and how they would play a role in educating the student population.
Wang noted that “any group exhibiting similar conduct would be handled in the same manner” and that DSG monitors complaints from students in every club they recognize. Any group exbiliting “potentially hostile or harmful” behavior is subject to having their status re-examined or suspended at any time, Wang wrote.
Senators will have the opportunity to debate Wang’s veto on Wednesday. If two-thirds of senators vote to override the veto, Duke SSI’s status as a recognized group can be re-passed.”
https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2021/11/duke-university-students-supporting-israel-ssi-veto-student-government-dsg
Turley didn’t mention that SSI singled out a student by name. Which as an organization was unprofessional and frankly rude.
“Likely? Not certain are you? So much for demanding facts.”
Anonymous the Stupid, not only are you Stupid, but you are an idiot. We do not have an exact answer, and I am glad you point that out in naming other potential sources for the origin of the name. That is why I said “likely comes from” because I cannot be sure, but that would be my best bet. If I am out west on a farm and hear hoofbeats, my best guess is those are horses, not zebras. You will try and deflect, saying they could be zebras, but that detracts from the discussion. That is how you hide your ignorance.
The oldest continuous claim to the territory is what we call Israel today. Do you wish to tell us who has a better claim? The Palestinians you mention are new and from all over the middle east. In fact, as you have already been told, circa WW2, the Palestinians were actually the Jewish farmers.
“Look up the Balfour agreement.”
The Balfour Declaration (1917) and legally binding international treaties include:
Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant
the Mandate for Palestine (1922),
San Remo Resolution (1920)
Feisal-Weitzman Treaty (1919)
1924 Anglo-American Convention; A treaty ratified 1925 by the American Senate and thus part of a treaty obligation that is binding.
All designated the area now Israel, including Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria and present-day Jordan as a “sacred trust,” as the Jewish homeland that existed for thousands of years.
http://www.alliedpowersholocaust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1924-Anglo-American-Convention.pdf
https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20balfour%20declaration.aspx
I can provide citations for all that I mentioned, but we are limited to the permissible number.
“You haven’t proved my mindset is “fictional”
Your facts are fictional. Saying you have a mindset is actually a compliment since I agree you have a mind at all.
What Wang did was inhibit the free exchange of ideas. That is what leftists do. That is what you do. Did she have a right? Perhaps, but such a right was neither moral, ethical or principled. That is your problem, no meals, ethics or principles, but you do have the ability to paste and copy.
Have you ever done a Title Search on the area called Palestine?
it has changed hands more than a Las Vegas Condo.
Who was there first….please show us your proof…cite some legitimate research….or even a quote from the KJV of the Bible if you wish.
I’m a “Settler” and I wish to settle on that territory occupied by those Dukes. Someone post their phone number and mail address. I will be there with my tent tomorrow.
My n as name is Spook.
“ Wang was wrong on her veto and universities need to have rules to protect against viewpoint discrimination in the use of such powers.”
Wang didn’t veto the group because of viewpoint discrimination. It was because they resorted to name calling. Ironically even in this blog and many others. Civil discussion is enforced or it is policy. Turley admits that the SSI group engaged in unecessary name calling. If SSI is going to answer any criticism of Israel as antisemitic then it bears responsibility for the consequences of going that route. Many supporters or Israel or Israelis themselves have been abusing the term “anti-Semitic” to shut down legitimate criticism. It’s more of a victimhood mentality than a real argument against valid criticism.
Wang didn’t veto the group because of viewpoint discrimination. It was because they resorted to name calling.
Estovir: Memo to Natacha, JeffSib, Dennis, Fishwig, Justice Homes, Chris Weber, Svelaz: do not post comments to Duke Student Prez or she/he/they will block you.
Svelaz: what are you babbling about Estovir! I never said expressing name calling is worthy of being blocked. I said resorting not expressing. You right wing types are filled with FoxNews contortions that defies reason. Trump lost the 2016 elections just like Robert Mueller stated, but Fox News brainwashed Americans, and now we have divisions in our country because of Fox News!!!
JeffSilb: you’re a Trumpist! Turley needs to address the grapes in Sonoma County dropping to the ground in vineyards because of Trump lying to Americans about his taxes. You Trumpists are a threat to my supply of wine in Marin County since I am single, have no family, make 6 figures and have a WiFi connection. Turley needs to address this now!
Natacha: Karen, there you go again. Trump is a fat, lying narcissist pig who is responsible for the Influenza Pandemic of 1918, for grabbing women by the puzzzzzies. The Steele Dossier was vetted by reliable sources like Mad Magazine, Utne Reader, and Red Star Rising over Beijing, stop lying! and another thing, Karen, (incoherent 50,000 word diatribe ensues)….
Fishwig: Turley, you are a hack for Fox News, all your adoring fans are being fed by you because Fox News pays you, as evidenced by the insulting comments by others to my insulting comments
Justice Homes: the 69th Amendment of the Constitution, added by the Founding Fathers in 1776 precisely for times like these, stated that all dissenters of the Federal Government should be stripped of liberties pursuant to Article 666, paragraph FU
Chris Weber: you are all a bunch of cowards, idiots, infidels and traitors. I should know since I spend my time in trees, alone, in BFE northern Virginia, with not a person within miles of me to tell me anything differently. I will not read any of your comments nor reply…….and another thing!……
Fin
🤡
Svelaz, will this be another discussion where you fill the blog with ignorance before running away?
The proper response is discourse, but that is something you fail to do in depth. You fire your superficial comments, frequently untrue, and then run away.
Severe prejudice is one of the definitions of anti-Semitism. When one uses force over another without even hearing what they have to say, that is extreme prejudice. Wang is guilty of severe prejudice.
(I am posting this at the same time I post another example of how you run away from every discussion. From there, one can trace your cowardly actions to other examples.)
I have to apologise for the following statement but enough is enough from Jeff!! There is a saying in the North of England which is very appropriate for you.
“Stick your head between your legs and f–t”
Mike Mike says:
“f-t”?
Can I buy a vowel?
I know its too easy….but lets not lose focus on the topic at hand, to feed a parasitic troll. Feeding it just makes it grow
Another example of leftist banning what they cannot rebut.
Leftist always loose in a free exchange of ideas.
ALWAYS
Jeff Sweetie,
“Are you mortified by your working association with such a vile name-caller?”
“Speak up, Turley! Don’t pretend you have not heard about this book. No one believes that. Your silence makes you a hypocrite.”
Nothing like a personal attack on the Man that provides you the opportunity to engage in pubic debate on issues at his Blog.
Now just who is the “vile name caller”?
Perhaps you should take a lesson from the Good Professor and take every opportunity to remain silent….I am sure many of us would applaud you doing that.
Ralph:
Leave Jeffry alone. He’s is his own world and rules it with an iron first of emotion, blubbering, lashing out at those smarter than he and moralizing, Its fun (and pathetic) to observe like a science experiment gone awry or maybe a zoo.
Mespo says:
“Leave Jeffrey alone.”
Yes, do that. Listen to Mespo. I am addressing my comments to Never Trumpers who may peruse this blog. I realize that the lying Trumpists here are unpersuadable.
There is ONLY one person who could persuade you Trumpists that your leader is a pathological liar- if Ivanka herself would say that her father is not well. You might believe her without calling her a Never Trumper and a traitor.
Ralph says:
“Perhaps you should take a lesson from the Good Professor and take every opportunity to remain silent….I am sure many of us would applaud you doing that.”
Turley is hypocritically evading confronting inconvenient and uncomfortable topics, e.g., the Mark Levin name-calling book, the bogus John Eastman 1/6 memorandum, and the banning of Trumpist lawyers Giuliani, Powell, Ellis, etc., from appearing on his Fox network.
Do you think Turley will address Paul Gosar’s humiliating censure? His Fox network defends him; where does Turley stand?
I will not refrain from pointing out Turley’s shameful silence on these matters. You are quite free to ignore my criticism of Turley, but you will not cancel me from this blog. Got it?
Here’s an idea, instead of pointing out what the Professor chooses not to address, for whatever reason, perhaps you should start your own blog, or see if the Professor will allow you to post on weekends here. Seems like you have multiple topics that you want to cover
Whig,
Turley often criticizes CNN and MSNBC for its silence on topics, e.g., Hunter Biden. Turley would be the first to acknowledge that he is not above criticism for his silence on newsworthy subjects.
Why don’t you Trumpists defend Turley against my criticisms instead of telling me to “shut up” or “go away”? Have you people learned nothing from Turley’s articles?
Turley would say to you Trumpists, “Debate Jeffrey; don’t silence him.”
Not a Trumper, so there is error #1. I voted for him, since as a Reagan Republican, there is no way I could vote for Evil Hillary or Organic Joe. Toyed with the Libertarian ticket but thought the consequences of a D victory outweighed my issues with Trump (as is being borne out now). Second error is that I told you to shut up. I offered some alternatives since you are clearly frustrated with the Professor’s choice of topics. Start a blog, Jeff, and I may visit and challenge your ideas, half-baked tho they may be. But first you have to offer ideas instead of criticizing what the good Professor does not say
Whig says:
“Start a blog, Jeff, and I may visit and challenge your ideas, half-baked tho they may be.”
I’m right here, Jacko. You want a piece of me? Come and take it.
Turley would say to you Trumpists, “Debate Jeffrey; don’t silence him.”
*************************
Or the more likely “Pity Jeffrey; don’t humor him.”
Mespo says Turley would say:
“Or the more likely “Pity Jeffrey; don’t humor him.”
Do you know how much I would pay to sit down with Turley for one hour to ask him that question as well as all my others?
20k. Seriously. 20k to Turley’s favorite charity for an hour of conversation. One catch, it has to be on the record.
Too bad you are not Turley’s attorney, Darren; otherwise, you would be ethically obligated to pass my offer on to him even if you thought he would certainly reject it.
You seem very hostile to someone who is not being hostile and who is in fact encouraging you to present you own ideas in the market place.
Curiouser and curiouser
Ralph Chappell,
Turley is fair game for criticism just as anyone posting here is. It’s the point about free speech that many on the right here never seem to grasp.
Exercising free speech doesn’t mean being free from the consequences of engaging in it. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from being ostracized, criticism, ridicule, or just being ignored. Turley’s hypocrisy is very apparent and being called out on it is well within the consequences of expressing his opinions or even his omissions that expose his hypocrisy.
Jeff is succeeding in making it well known that Turley is a hypocrite despite still being correct on some issues. It’s telling that many are wishing he would shut up, but that would be giving in on that “cancel culture” the right loves to complain about.
He disagrees with wang in her decision. I have a different take on why she was within her right to do so.
Thanks Svelaz. It’s true that I generally agree with Turley’s takes, but his hypocrisy is incontrovertible. Not one Trumpist can explain it or will defend it. They just want me to stop bringing it up and go elsewhere. Typical Conservative Cancel Culture as Liz Cheney knows all too well.
One of these days, Turley will be interviewed and confronted publicly to justify his abject Fox hypocrisy. We’ll have to await his reaction. He may simply retort, “I worked at Fox. I did not fail to disclose my allegiance. Who, after all, bites the hand that feeds them?”
It’s true that I generally agree with Turley’s takes, but his hypocrisy is incontrovertible. — JeffSilberman
So, when you agree with Turley’s take it’s cool, if not he’s a hypocrite. In your considered, unbiased and non-partisan opinion.
Spanky,
Unlike Turley, I do NOT claim to be unbiased or non-partisan.
Has Turley EVER conceded that he IS biased and partisan?
Do you think he can be impartial while receiving presumably hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fox?
Answer!
Another thought – where is the college branch of the ACLU? I was the head of my college chapter, and we would have been all over this back in the day, standing up for “unpopular” groups/positions. Alas, the ACLU is prolly now supporting this form of thought control.
Don’t ask for whom the bell tolls
Fight the good fight Professor. Haters gonna hate
Turley claims:
“I prefer debates that do not seek to label opponents in this way but it is an unfortunate part of passionate advocacy. People often resort to insults or labeling to attack individuals rather than their viewpoints.”
What about your Fox News colleague, Mark Levin, who smears Democrats as “American Marxists,” which is the title of his new book?
I’m sure you have heard about it. Why haven’t you mentioned it all? Are you mortified by your working association with such a vile name-caller?
Speak up, Turley! Don’t pretend you have not heard about this book. No one believes that. Your silence makes you a hypocrite.
JS:
“What about your Fox News colleague, Mark Levin, who smears Democrats as “American Marxists,” which is the title of his new book?“
*************************
Well I think truth is always an absolute defense. If you don’t think the objects of Levin’s Ire are Marxists you really need a dictionary … oh and a little intellectual integrity.
JS
You had in opportunity to respond to Turley with wit, class, courtesy, or intelligence.
You missed on every count.
You could have avoided looking crass.
You missed there as well.
Monument,
Do you really think you have the moral standing to lecture me about *class* when you support a liar like Trump?
I respect the opinions of Never Trumpers; I could not care less what lying Trumpists think of my conduct.
Jeff Baby,
Course you have overlooked all the media back tracking and removing articles where they got it WRONG about that Orange Man Bad you keep bleating about.
Now who is the Liar….you or the Media?
If you hang your hat upon the bogus media reporting then you are not the Liar….they are….but if you continue to ignore their lies….you are just lying to yourself….which would make you….a Liar wouldn’t it?
What’s with the “Jeff baby?” Are you coming on to me or what? Because I’m definitely not your type.
I’ll be glad to admit that the Mainstream media gets matters wrong. Are you prepared to admit that Trump is lying that the election was stolen?