To the editor: David N. Myers and Nomi M. Stolzenberg are attempting to find out what makes make a campus protest antisemitic. (“Can legitimate campus protest be distinguished from antisemitism? This guide aims to help,” Opinion, Sept. 16)
Their definition jogs my memory of the Harvard president who, when requested if calling for the genocide of Jews violated the college’s pupil code of conduct, instructed a congressional committee that it “is dependent upon the context.” She was later compelled to resign.
Stolzenberg and Myers say that shouting “from the river to the ocean” will not be antisemitic if what the protesters imply is creating one state of Palestinians and Jews.
There are dozens of Muslim international locations. There’s one Jewish nation. Eliminating the one Jewish nation and changing it with a Muslim-Jewish nation shouldn’t be prejudicial towards Jews, we’re to consider.
They declare that shouting “intifada” will not be antisemitic. The one approach that time period is ever used is to assist a violent rebellion ensuing within the killing of a lot of individuals they oppose.
Jerry Freedman, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: I applaud Myers’ and Stolzenberg’s nuanced distinction between acceptable debate and unacceptable bigotry. However their evaluation fails to sentence the weaponization of antisemitism as a protection towards, or distraction from, any official criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
Protesting Israel’s bloody and relentless siege of Gaza could be simply distinguished from expressions of antisemitism. The truth is that these at present defending the apartheid insurance policies of a demonstrably bigoted Israeli regime notice there is no such thing as a justification for these flawed, discriminatory insurance policies, in order that they resort to accusations of antisemitism.
The authors check with a information helps establish antisemitism. If we’re to use the factors to the campus protests, there are only a few examples of any violation of those tips. However, as we’ve seen, the pro-Israel faction has categorically condemned the usage of sure protest slogans that, because the authors acknowledge, aren’t essentially antisemitic.
Moderately, the rhetoric used to explain the apartheid situations flowing from the occupation, together with phrases akin to “intifada” and “genocide,” constitutes an affordable criticism of Israel’s violation of Palestinian self-determination.
Andrew Spathis, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The writers have the bona fides to grasp historic context, but they select to disregard it with out clarification.
“From the river to the ocean,” within the minds of protesters, could also be innocuous on its face, however how can anybody neglect the unique, chilling which means? The unique intent was the decimation of the state of Israel, particularly as a haven for Jews ejected by their very own international locations, and by extension the elimination of Jews on the earth.
The quote is definitively antisemitic and can’t be separated from its origins.
Suzan Lowitz, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Myers’ and Stolzenberg’s argument contradicts lots of the protections of each U.S. civil rights legal guidelines and worldwide human rights legal guidelines.
Many of those legal guidelines aren’t dependent — because the authors incorrectly indicate — on usually unimaginable assessments of intent in figuring out prohibited discriminatory behaviors. Their definitions would doubtlessly and harmfully enable for a lot of types of unlawful intimidation and discrimination towards people and teams.
Discriminatory outcomes matter profoundly in civil rights and human rights legal guidelines. The argument Myers and Stolzenberg make undermines the rights and welfare not solely of Jews and Israelis, however of Muslims, Arabs, girls, African People, LGBTQ+ individuals and different minority teams.
Myers and Stolzenberg are proper that intent issues morally and legally. However it’s not all that issues. Discriminatory outcomes are additionally basic issues of each the regulation and of college campus codes.
Noam Schimmel, Berkeley
The author is a lecturer in world research at UC Berkeley.