Criticism of Israel now a crime in California.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Actually, I was reporting more so than presenting an agenda.

As far as the picture, I thought it was pretty cool. I mean, this is ATS... But its undeniable that AIPAC has a tremendous influence on US politicians.

But I do stand by the premise that it seems likes its becoming illegal to criticize the government of a foreign state and that lobbyists (on their behalf) have a lot to do with it.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Well in my defense, that was a direct quote from the article's title.

While I will admit that I may have not understood the difference between a law and a resolution (still not sure what the difference is), I wasnt trying to be dishonest.

I quoted articles, provided the sources and then offered my opinion.

reply to post by Swills

I think its being considered a hoax because its a resolution not a law?

Wouldnt current events or political forums still be appropriate since this was in-fact passed by elected officials?

I could also change the title.

reply to post by gladtobehere


For practical/usable purpose, this provides the legal loophole accusers of antisemitism needed.

See last pg1 post with Ambassador/UC Irvine episode.

This rationale is solely based on strict 'on the books' view, disregarding how politics and governments really deal with laws.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I don't see anything in that bill that says you must not criticize Israel, it's just a denouncement of antisemitism.

Thats because its likely that you equate criticism of a government with the hatred of Jews. This taken from the Huffington Post article:

Among the examples given of "anti-Semitic activities" included in the resolution are:

• Accusations that the Israeli government is guilty of "crimes against humanity" This would mean that a speaker from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights groups which have documented such violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli Defense Forces could not be provided space or honoraria to talk about their research.

• Accusations that Israel has engaged in "ethnic cleansing" This would mean that Israeli scholars who have studied and published documents from Israeli archives pertaining to the 1947-49 conflict in Israel/Palestine which demonstrate that there was a calculated policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian population in some regions, would similarly be barred.

• "Student and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel" This would prohibit efforts to boycott goods made in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, support international sanctions on Israel over its ongoing violations of a series of UN Security Council resolution, or have the university divest from its endowment stock in companies supporting the Israeli occupation.

The resolution also declares a number of other political activities that, while clearly objectionable -- such as disrupting a speech by a supporter of the Israeli government -- as "anti-Semitic," based on the assumption that hostility toward such a speaker is not based on opposition to policies of Israel's right-wing government, but because the country is Jewish. Indeed, throughout the resolution, opposition to Israeli government policies is equated with bigotry towards Jews.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Of course the anti-Semites are going to paint themselves as victims of the Jewish lobby no matter what Israel does or say. They have a real persecution complex, because of their bigotry towards Jews. You can always spot these bigots a mile away.

Getting a bit off topic but not sure how someone would be a "victim" of the Jewish lobby. All lobbyists, including those in AIPAC, have a tremendous influence on politicians as talked about in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. My issue is the fact that AIPAC is a lobby on behalf of a foreign state and not registered as such although it was ordered to do so when it was the American Zionist Council.

I truly believe that this hyper sensitivity to perceived antisemitism should be classified as some type of condition.

This idea that the only reason why someone might criticize the actions of Israel is because they hate Jews is extreme. I have trouble believing that you and others like you cant or refuse to make this simple distinction.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


The image is actually right, while it's not a crime this bill does in fact prove the image right. I think the OP should try again, this time not to be confused that speaking against Israel is a crime. The Huffington Post makes great points that are completely valid, points the OPs pic demonstrates.

Back to the topic at hand, more articles about this bill..

California Assemblywoman Targets Anti-Israel Campus Activism, Or: Five Criticisms of Israel that Are Inherently Not Anti-Semitic

University of California officials promptly denounced HR 35 as "problematic" because of First Amendment concerns. Meanwhile, those of us familiar with this tired old game from UC Irvine (like myself: Go Anteaters!) rolled our eyes.

Halderman cites a recent study commissioned by the University of California which examined a percentage of Jewish students ' college experiences, some of whom felt that demonstrations critical of Israeli policies on campus crossed the line into hate speech. The recommendations, which ask the UC to "adopt a hate-speech free campus policy" and "define anti-Semitism" were highly criticized by a wide-ranging group of Jewish students and faculty who asked the president's office to table the report.


But maybe it would do some good for the UC administrators to define anti-Semitism, because while anti-Semitism still exists, (and not only on college campuses--we're looking at you, Institute for Historical Review), the label is far too liberally applied and some clarity is in order. Here is a list of five things that are mislabeled as anti-Semitic by the likes of Halderman:

See link for good time

Other related articles,
www.aljazeera.com...
www.wnd.com...

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Actually, I was reporting more so than presenting an agenda.

Doubtful.

There's not "crime" aspect in the coverage. That was your choice of words in the thread title -- hoax fits.

reply to post by Swills

I have trouble believing that you and others like you cant or refuse to make this simple distinction.

We can make the distinction. There is a difference between true Antisemitism and just criticizing Israel. It just so happens that the bigots always use the "just criticizing Israel" as a very lame excuse to try to hide their bigotry and try to fool people into thinking they aren't bigots.

I have no problem with people who do truly only want to criticize Israel. I have problems with bigots trying to hide behind it.

There are many ways you can tell the difference between a bigot and one who isn't. Such as the use of double standards where Israel can do no right no matter what the circumstances are and everything is exaggerated. Such as when Israel disagrees with something they love to use hyperbolic language such as "OMFG! ISRAEL IS OUTRAGED THAT PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THEIR POSITION! HOW HORRIBLE!" and other things like that.

When you've studied this subject, the Middle East conflict, for years, you can truly tell the difference between the bigots and the ones who aren't. Sometimes it's almost textbook examples because they often use the same strategies over and over again, and say the same things over and over again.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Swills

 

I have trouble believing that you and others like you cant or refuse to make this simple distinction.

We can make the distinction. There is a difference between true Antisemitism and just criticizing Israel. It just so happens that the bigots always use the "just criticizing Israel" as a very lame excuse to try to hide their bigotry and try to fool people into thinking they aren't bigots.

I have no problem with people who do truly only want to criticize Israel. I have problems with bigots trying to hide behind it.

There are many ways you can tell the difference between a bigot and one who isn't. Such as the use of double standards where Israel can do no right no matter what the circumstances are and everything is exaggerated. Such as when Israel disagrees with something they love to use hyperbolic language such as "OMFG! ISRAEL IS OUTRAGED THAT PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THEIR POSITION! HOW HORRIBLE!" and other things like that.

When you've studied this subject, the Middle East conflict, for years, you can truly tell the difference between the bigots and the ones who aren't. Sometimes it's almost textbook examples because they often use the same strategies over and over again, and say the same things over and over again.

Umm I see you are replying to my last post but that quote is not mine. Wtf are you doing?

reply to post by Swills


It wasn't put in a quote so I thought it was yours and misread it as a response to me.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I see your point, though its being presented as though its a law, which I now see that its not.

A more fitting title would have been something like: "California passes resolution equating criticism of Israel to antisemitism".

reply to post by gladtobehere


It's not even that... you're still not actually reading the resolution. It's specific to what happens on public school property, especially universities.

A longer thought on thread :

It is clear it's an academic matter.

Academic freedom was diminished by this bill.

2-year supporting precedent of UC Irvine/Michael Oren started this slippery downturn of suppression/stifling.

This is a clear loophole now established that WILL be used as an excuse when future events happen again.

Hoax is a harsh interpretation. Other threads go by, run similar courses and in the end no major problems happen.

Appears that Gladtobehere's thread got singled out?

Some topics have strong evidence to indeed show as having a different qualitative treatment .

The classic Academic freedom example is the Jewish Norman Finkelstein.

Labeled self-hating Jew, blatant suppression and stifled by DePaul University's shameful saga...

And a comment note on lobbying.

Why is it that one side can claim CAIR as the and/or among the top Islamic lobby(ies) while the also fact-backed rebuttal - AIPAC's vast lobby influence - downplayed and receive frequent discrediting attempts?


Gladtobehere, all in all... a silent, significant percentage agree and see directly your point and angle you come in your analysis.

Don't be discouraged though. Learn to see Hoax as a valuable information area, obviously there are some 1% of true threads.

This is a conspiracy site, and this bill is very disturbing, even if its not a bill, its some kind of entrenched, legalistic policy????

Then to have the person's assumptions, which are actually valid concerns, even if it is some weird policy bill rather than their unlawful legislation that they expect people to be foolish enough to obey (note only legislation which is based on constitution, our sovereign/infinite rights and basic common law is legal. So don't ever obey the rest.

But what is happening to the website. A small group of thread police jump on someone who may have misread this, but its still a really alarming thing to make this policy even for universities and other institutions and should be OPPOSED VEHEMENTLY by the people. Yet this small group yells, HOAX! And off to the hoax bin it goes.

It's not a hoax, its misenterpreting, but only SLIGHTLY.

Starred and flagged if I could for this bill/policy, whatever you call this, needs to be well known, not laying in a hoax bin slanting people's awareness and scaring them off discernment.

PERIOD!

um...so is this a hoax or not??????

skepticoverlord....im getting skeptic.....lololol