[wat0n]

Will you quote NYU's policies or will I need to do it for you @Pants-of-dog?

I will note that it just implements the dog whistle example mentioned in the Jerusalem Declaration you endorsed yourself.

[Pants-of-dog]

If some specific argument requires quoting the regulations, feel free to do so.

Note that NYU adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism prior to this.

[wat0n]

I wonder why wouldn't quoting NYU's regulation be necessary to make your own argument. Why don't you quote them yourself @Pants-of-dog?

Also, why would NYU need to add something about Zionism if IHRA already defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism?

[Unthinking Majority]

That is what this thread is about.

The rest of your post seems to be telling me about your feelings about them and me.

May I suggest that you stick to the topic and eschew commenting on people as individuals?

Or, if you want, do you think it is correct of me to dismiss your arguments simply because I think that you support ongoing genocides? I think that would be illogical. Do you think that would be illogical of me?

The problem is you typically don't address arguments at all. You're not here to discuss anything, and the times you do it's just childish games.

Have a nice day.

[Rich]

If I were Palestinian

If you were a Palestinian, you would not be you.

As non-Palestinian, I would advice them to aim for this.

I've noted often both in personal and political life that advice to others, is not always made with the sole motivation of advancing the interests of the recipient.

[QatzelOk]

The problem is you typically don't address arguments at all. ...

It's actually much worse than this.

The robotic exchange between Pants and wat... makes the genocide of Palestinians look like "just another issue to chew up and spit out" by Westerners looking for something to distract themselves from all the other atrocities their "elected" leaders are leading them into.

That their argument is incredibly pedantic and mechanical... is an insult to the human race.

Perhaps you two could spar about the advantages-disadvantages of human extinction as well? And make your conversation very robotic and structure-oriented, without revealing any humanity or values other than "winning an argument?"

[Pants-of-dog]

The problem is you typically don't address arguments at all. You're not here to discuss anything, and the times you do it's just childish games.

Have a nice day.

Most of what you wrote was not argument.

It was, instead, a moral judgement about not following the law.

Do you have an argument?

[ingliz]

IHRA already defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism

A joke, No?

I couldn't give a shit what chocolate teapot Jews worship. It's no skin off my nose. If bobbing up and down with a box tied to your head is your thing, go for it.

But to classify me as an anti-semite because I condemn a bunch of ethno-nationalist arseholes who happen to be Jewish is ridiculous.

Using that definition Jews who condemn Israel are anti-semites.

[wat0n]

A joke, No?

I couldn't give a shit what chocolate teapot Jews worship. It's no skin off my nose. If bobbing up and down with a box tied to your head is your thing, go for it.

But to classify me as an anti-semite because I condemn a bunch of ethno-nationalist arseholes who happen to be Jewish is ridiculous.

Using that definition Jews who condemn Israel are anti-semites.

Not really. Which is why NYU had to clarify that using "Zionist" as a code for "Jew" or "Israeli" is not acceptable despite adopting the IHRA.

And this use of code words to give your racism a pass is also mentioned by the Jerusalem Declaration as antisemitic.

I've noted often both in personal and political life that advice to others, is not always made with the sole motivation of advancing the interests of the recipient.

Building a secular democracy is in their interests. But, I don't think most actually want to live in that type of regime, which is also their right.

Hence why when I say it's a suggestion, I mean it quite literally - it's up to them to take it or leave it. Personally, as long as the peace is kept, I don't care all that much about what type of political regime they choose. It's their problem, not mine.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

Is using "Zionist" as code for Zionist acceptable?

[wat0n]

Sure, @ingliz

Too bad it's used as code for "Jew" or "Israeli" all too often.

And yes, it is certainly possible to tell that's the case.

[Deutschmania]

Why can Liberals never stop lying. Most Japanese base their identity on race not ethnicity. Biologically based race.

Anyway when people say descended from Jews, what do they mean? Do they mean at any time? I saw a shocking claim recently that archeologically we only find widespread evidence of people following the Jewish law from the middle of the second century BC. Do they mean from rabbinic Jews, from 2nd Temple Jews, do they include Samaritans? At the time of Jesus's supposed birth who was a true Jew and who was a fake traitor Jew was heavily contested.

Well , as was contested in this other thread here , race doesn't really exist as such . There is no such thing as a biological race . And Jews are not genetically different from other people in the greater region , such as for instance Kurds .

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=184432


https://www.jcfk.org/insight/132-the-genetic-bonds-between-kurds-and-jews

[Pants-of-dog]

The thing about the NYU regulations is that they do not acknowledge that Zionist can mean “Zionist”, i.e. someone who identifies as part of the ethnonationalist movement that maintains settler colonialism in Palestine.

Instead, it only discusses how it is used as a supposed code for “Jew”.

[wat0n]

It actually says Zionist shouldn't be used as a code word for "Jew". You can't harass a Jewish student after putting a mezuzah on her dorm's door and claim you're doing that to protest Zionism and not because she's Jewish as the students in Columbia did.

[Pants-of-dog]

And yet, that is exactly what the regulations do: equate Zionism with Jews, by arguing that opposing Zionism is antisemitism.

So, which is it?

Is opposing Zionism antisemitism?

Or are Jews and Zionists two different (but overlapping) groups?

[wat0n]

That's not what the regulations do.

That's why I requested you to quote them, @Pants-of-dog.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is opposing Zionism antisemitism?

Yes or no?

[wat0n]

Will you quote the regulations or should I do it for you @Pants-of-dog?

[Pants-of-dog]

If we assume that opposing Zionism is antisemitism. then it seems that we must assume that Jews and Zionists are synonymous.

Yet we know this is not the case.

We have anti-Zionist Jews.

We have Zionists who are not Jews.

[wat0n]

Since @Pants-of-dog can't actually cite NYU's policies, I will

Using code words, like “Zionist,” does not eliminate the possibility that your speech violates the NDAH Policy. For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Speech and conduct that would violate the NDAH if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the NDAH if directed toward Zionists. For example, excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a “no Zionist” litmus test for participation in any NYU activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., “Zionists control the media”), demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism, minimizing or denying the Holocaust, or invoking Holocaust imagery or symbols to harass or discriminate.

Expressing views regarding a particular country's policies or practices does not violate University policy, but if conduct that otherwise appears to be based on views about a country’s policies or practices is targeted at or infused with discriminatory comments, such as in the examples above, then it would implicate the NDAH. For example, as the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has explained, “if a professor teaching a class on international politics references or criticizes the government of Israel’s treatment of non-Jewish people, the nation of Saudi Arabia’s response to religious extremism, or the government of India’s promotion of Hinduism, so long as such comments do not target Israeli, Jewish, Saudi, Arab, or Indian students based on race, color, or national origin, that would not likely implicate Title VI.”

This is very much in line with the Jerusalem Declaration @Pants-of-dog claims to agree so much with

4. Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international fi- nance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines.

NYU is simply saying you can't use "Zionist" as a code for something else.