UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid

from the inconveniently-free-speech dept

Those of you who geek out over trademark law like me may have seen the recent dust-up between UCLA and a group called National Students for Justice in Palestine this past week. I had intended on writing something up about the whole thing because of how blatantly stupid it was. The pro-Palestinian group has a chapter at UCLA and it is hosting a conference in the future, for which it put out some promotional materials that feature a bear flying a kite with the colors of the Palestinian flag and dared to mention that the conference was being held at UCLA. For this, UCLA lawyers sent a cease and desist to SJP, claiming that the way the promo material displayed the UCLA name and its use of bear imagery created confusion in the public suggesting that the school was affiliated with the conference.

UCLA argues that SJP’s “use of the ‘UCLA’ name” and use of “the UCLA mascot of the Bruin Bear in a logo/digital poster” effectively claims, suggests, or implies an “affiliation with” UCLA. The university says the group may state where the conference will be held (“at UCLA”) if the font size for the word “UCLA” is “no larger than the font used for the remainder of the communication.” Failing compliance, UCLA expressly threatens to cancel the event.

Not for the first time, a California university is wielding a pretty clearly unconstitutional law, one designed to give California universities sweeping powers to keep the public from mentioning school names, even if in an entirely accurate manner. No room is made for fair us, while schools have the authority under this state law to put in all kinds of silly restrictions, such as the font size restriction mentioned above.

What kept me from writing this up initially is that the school quickly signaled it would reversed course after SJP made minor changes to the promotional material. Oh, and after the ACLU got involved.

Tod M. Tamberg, a spokesman for UCLA told NBC News in an email on Wednesday “it was never about the bear all by itself” and that it appreciated the groups [sic] alteration to remove the UCLA name. The university, which threatened to cancel the conference, also said that the event would go on as scheduled.

“As you may have heard, some members of the Jewish community have been sharply critical of upcoming conference, demanding that UCLA move to cancel it,” the school said in statement provided by Tamberg. “As a public university, UCLA is legally bound to comply with the First Amendment, which protects everyone’s right to express their views, even those that are offensive and hateful or that the university opposes.”

Yes, it certainly does. Now, many have levied claims of hate speech against SJP. These claims, however you might agree or disagree with them, tend to be fairly laughable. If the best you can trot out is the following to claim a whole group is a hate group, you're not going to meet any kind of First Amendment bar.

In an Oct. 11 letter to UCLA chancellor Gene Block, [State] Rep. Sherman argued that speech on the National SJP website “may very well constitute anti-Semitism” as defined by the State Department — a definition Sherman says was “recently adopted” by the Department of Education “for enforcement purposes.” Sherman’s letter highlights three particular examples contained in that definition, including “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” applying “double standards” to Israel by “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and “[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

None of that is hate speech, no matter what some silly State Department missive might suggest. Words matter, after all, and we can no more accept that the kind of political speech above, even if you disagree with it, is hate speech any more than we can condone the government crying terrorism anytime it's convenient. It also seems obvious to me that if you replaced this pro-Palestinian group with a pro-Israel group, we never would have heard this story at all. Argue with that if you like, but you're wrong.

And, yet, the L.A. City Council is now getting involved in the stupidest way possible, passing a resolution that first acknowledges UCLA's need to adhere to free speech rights and then somehow calling for the cancellation of this conference entirely.

Add the City of Los Angeles to the government actors calling on UCLA to cancel the convention. While dubious California statutes and trademark concerns falter, the Los Angeles City Council has issued an internally incoherent resolution recognizing that the university has First Amendment obligations while demanding that the conference be canceled, First Amendment be damned.

The resolution, embedded below, was unanimously adopted with the “concurrence” of Mayor Eric Garcetti. The resolution cites UCLA’s “responsibility to allow freedom of speech,” but quickly skips past the pesky nuances of the First Amendment to demand that UCLA “cancel and ban” the conference because it would be “inappropriate” to host the conference “given the atmosphere in the country.” The resolution also concludes that there is “never a good time to have this type of event.”

Follow along with me in a resolution too dumb to make up: UCLA needs to protect free speech on campus, but it should cancel this conference given the current political climate and some tragedies that happened on the other side of the country, and, oh, also there will never, ever be a climate in which this conference should take place. The speed with which the city council and mayor got from "we acknowledge free speech rights" to "we can never allow these people those free speech rights" is breathtaking.

And fundamentally stupid, given that these are people in government we're talking about. Frankly, the flailing UCLA administration that once attempted to trademark bully SJP for no good reason comes out looking way better than the City Council for Los Angeles. It's also worth noting that for all the hand-wringing that takes place over the type of political speech allowed on campus by a certain segment of our population, it's been complete crickets when it comes to defending a pro-Palestinian group's rights.

One might nearly call that racist, were there not the worry that such a call would be labeled "hate speech."


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 3:39pm

    Paging Freud?

    No room is made for fair us,

    Indeed :D

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:09pm

    Arabs Are Semites Too

    This usage of “anti-Semitism” to mean only “hatred of Jews” was popularized by the Nazis.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:35pm

      Re: Arabs Are Semites Too

      Care to guess the ethnicity of native-born Palestinians? Semitic. They're descendants of Hebrews who converted to Islam when the Muslim nations had control of Jerusalem.

      So if it's anti-Semitic to support Palestinians over Israelis, it's equally anti-Semitic to support Israelis over Palestinians. Judaism is a religion, not a race.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ShadowNinja (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 10:20am

        Re: Re: Arabs Are Semites Too

        Judaism is a religion, not a race.

        That one always drives me crazy. If people want a different word for people of Jewish heritage only then think of a new word, don't use the same name as the religion.

        People change religions, treating someone's birth religion as their race is harmful and unfair to them, especially in many 2nd and 3rd world countries where there's actual legal complications to changing religions.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:10pm

    This would be one of the rare circumstances when the far-left and the far-right are in total agreement on a political issue, as both passionately hate (((Israel))) and would like to see the end of that apartheid state.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:32pm

      Re:

      The far right adores Israel. Nazi Richard Spencer is a huge admirer of Israel as a model racist ethno-state.

      They may hate Jews (as you appear to do), but they love what Israel represents.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Most Wanted Poster, 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:41pm

        Re: Re:

        The far right adores Israel.

        Only part true. The "real right" who usually go by paleo-conservative or Populist, despise Israel for its murderous, manipulative, propagandizing while screaming they're the victims, and advocacy of usury in banking, with which they gained nuclear weapons and now blackmail the whole world.

        We really need new, clear and fixed terms, but problem is that the terms have been hijacked. Indeed, actual Marxists like Bill Kristol just started calling themselves "the right", "neo-conservatives", and "Republicans" in the 80's, deliberately confusing. -- By the way, that was begun by William Buckley, a typical Ivy League commie who pretended to be a "conservative" to destroy the term.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 8:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Indeed, actual Marxists like Bill Kristol

          Kristol is a Marxist? How did you come to this conclusion?

          By the way, that was begun by William Buckley, a typical Ivy League commie who pretended to be a "conservative" to destroy the term.

          Oh I see, you're a crazy person. Never mind.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 11:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Kristol is a Marxist? How did you come to this conclusion?"

            Bill Kristol's father Irving Kristol was a card-carrying Communist (of the Trotskyist variety) before forging the Neoconservative movement, which was originally allied with Democrats (in particular, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats) before migrating to the Republican party, which they basically took over in the early 2000s. (Then after Trump emerged, many prominent Neocons migrated back to the Democratic party and supported Hillary Clinton over Trump.)

            "Oh I see, you're a crazy person. Never mind."

            Actually, "Most Wanted Poster" seems to have a much deeper understanding of what's really going on behind the scenes in politics than the average "lemming on the street." Many adherents of subversive ideologies (of which Neoconservatism is just one of many) have traditionally disowned the things they really believe, while pretending to be part of a more mainstream movement in order to take it over from within.

            Marxism is far from dead. It still infects many political and ideological movements.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 6:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So when are Kristol and the other neocons going to actually start advocating for communism? What are they waiting for? I mean, this is a really long game they're playing.

              Actually, "Most Wanted Poster" seems to have a much deeper understanding of what's really going on behind the scenes in politics than the average "lemming on the street."

              Actually, you are both showing classic signs of conspiratorial thinking: you think you're the few who really understand what's happening and everyone else is in the dark; you profess to have a deep understanding without being able to provide evidence; and I'm guessing you probably believe in various other conspiracy theories as well.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:42pm

        Re: Israel as a model racist ethno-state.

        If you remember, there was a UN report due to be released last year which was officially going to classify Israel as an apartheid state. Only it was suppressed after massive political pressure from you-know-who.

        But it got out anyway.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ShadowNinja (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 9:07am

      Re:

      ... What?

      Some far right hate groups hate Israel and Jews yes. But among politicians the Far Right ones can't get enough of making themselves look like friends to Israel. Many Evangelicals (especially in the US) view siding with Israel as a way of protecting Christian holy land from the Muslims in the Middle East.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:25pm

    Correct me if I'm wrong

    Hate speech doesn't need to be legally regulated. It needs to be free so it can be socially regulated. Better speech triumphing over misguided speech. Education and enlightenment for all of us.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:02pm

      Re: Correct me if I'm wrong

      Really I think hate speech as a term is far too vague - especially if legal regulation is involved. Hate crimes are constitutional as a charge because they are in fact a separate aspect of the crime - intimidation against the group. If someone is just hanged for not paying their debt that is still a horrible murder. If someone hangs an ethnic minority as a message to 'keep out you <slur>s' then that is both a horrible murder and an attempt to intimidate the group through violence.

      Granted given the current jurisprudence it is doubtful that even 'incitement to violence against a protected class' would qualify when the standard is an incitement to imminent violence as when it is no longer free speech.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:16pm

        Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong

        hate speech as a term is far too vague - especially if legal regulation is involved

        …which is why hate speech laws, at least in the U.S., rarely get any traction in legislatures of all levels: The potential collateral damage that could be done to already-protected speech would outweigh any benefit gained by outlawing “hate speech”. The primary sticking point of any such proposition lies in its patently “vague” nature: What would qualify as hate speech, who would determine what qualifies, in what contexts would hate speech be legal to print/say, and how should we deal with pre-existing speech that would get dinged by a hate speech law if it were made after the passage of that law?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 4:39pm

    group called National Students for Justice in Palestine

    Wow, that's Republican Legislation-level doublespeak there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:22pm

      Re: Republican Legislation-level doublespeak there.

      Says the Republican Zionist sympathizer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:58pm

        Re: Re: Republican Legislation-level doublespeak there.

        Ha ha ha ha.
        Oh, wait, you're serious?
        Let me laugh harder.
        HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
        Whatever, Blue2.0

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Most Wanted Poster, 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:18pm

    There. You've covered the whole conflict.

    Sure shut me up that never cover Palestinians favorably here, but by golly, here's a whole piece on a case the anti-Palestines were practically certain to lose anyway.

    But isn't even faint hint of the underlying cause, why Palestinian here must fight for clear rights.

    It's because OVER THERE is a "nation" stolen from Palestinians, that has recently murdered hundreds and wounded thousands for the crime of protesting themselves locked up behind an apartheid wall:

    --------
    Israeli military shot over 500 Palestinians in the head during Gaza protests

    http://mondoweiss.net/2018/05/military-palestinians-protests/

    502 Palestinians were shot in the head and neck.
    283 were shot in the chest and back.
    225 were shot in the abdomen and pelvis.
    938 were shot in the arm.
    325 were shot in the leg.

    Not even up to date, still going. Those were UNARMED protesters, distant, other side of The Wall, with the murdering / intentionally maiming snipers using special new expanding bullets from complete safety.
    --------

    Nor does it hint at:

    Facebook's New Propaganda Partners

    https://fair.org/home/facebooks-new-propaganda-partners/

    > Glenn Greenwald (Intercept, 12/30/17) reported that "Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials."

    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-directio n-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/
    --------

    Israeli soldier gives 74-year-old Palestinian woman water then shoots her in the head

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20150120-israeli-soldier-gives-74-year-old-palestinian-woman-w ater-then-shoots-her-in-the-head/

    > During the Israeli bombardment and shelling of the Gaza Strip last summer, an Israeli soldier approached a 74-year-old Palestinian woman Ghalya Abu-Rida to give her a sip of water. **He gave her the water, took a photo with her and then he shot her in the head from a distance of one metre.** He then watched as she bled to death, the Palestine Information Centre reported. This is how Ahmad Qdeh, a journalist in Al-Aqsa TV, described the scene that he witnessed during the latest Israeli aggression. The spokesman of the Israeli army, Avichay Adraee, shared the photo of an Israeli soldier holding the water bottle and helping the old woman drink as an example of the "humanity" of the Israeli army towards the civilians in the Gaza Strip.
    --------

    BUT it'll be enough for Techdirt to claim that the whole conflict has been covered fully and fairly.

    My underlying point here is to refute Masnick's claim today that he isn't "a partisan". Of course he is. He's a hidden partisan for views that he can't actually say in public. It's proven by the decades of what's NOT written up here, almost nothing anti-war or anti-Israel.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 7:53pm

      Re: There. You've covered the whole conflict.

      Your orange-haired President endorses the Israelis, dumbfuck. If you're going to bitch on partisan lines make sure your own compaaa is wired right.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 8:11pm

      Re: There. You've covered the whole conflict.

      He's a hidden partisan for views that he can't actually say in public. It's proven by the decades of what's NOT written up here, almost nothing anti-war or anti-Israel.

      He's also pro-bestiality. It's proven by decades of him not writing pieces against bestiality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 8:58pm

        Re: Re: There. You've covered the whole conflict.

        Come to think of ot, he hasn't written any anti-oxygen articles either. That means he's pro-oxygen. Which means blue is morally obliged to be anti-oxygen.

        Oh snap!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Most Wanted Poster, 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:21pm

    Section 230 & 1A from another direction:

    First: Hey, fanboys: YES, this IS my web-site where I publish my views and you can LUMP IT! Techdirt is just the mechanism, the "platform" where I publish. MY right to use this site is what Section 230 actually establishes, but Masnick doesn't want to fully implement, instead asserts that he has full editorial control over all that's typed into the plain HTML box that he willingly provides. Now you can censor it away with the mechanism he also sneakily provides to disadvantage all speech that you / he don't approve of, but at least quit lying that you aren't censoring!

    Anyhoo, above is another useful point:

    "As a public university, UCLA is legally bound to comply with the First Amendment, which protects everyone's right to express their views, even those that are offensive and hateful or that the university opposes."

    Well, isn't THAT interesting? Guess no one will claim that university is actual gov't, and so you can't explain why it's "bound to comply with the First Amendment". But anyone who believes in free speech would naturally believe that all other "public" corporations are equally bound to comply, especially the "platforms" that were created for The Public to exercise their free speech on. But here at Techdirt, masnicks assert that public corporations are super-publishers, immune from liability for the content, while yet able to exercise full arbitrary control over all speech on "platforms". -- Oh, different, eh? No, shouldn't be. Isn't in fact: Masnick's assertions haven't actually been tested with good case. Supreme Court in Sandvik have already signaled that "platforms" are the new "public forums" and therefore not subject to corporate tyranny.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 5:51pm

      Re: Section 230 & 1A from another direction:

      You're lying, again.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 8:05am

      Re:

      Guess no one will claim that university is actual gov't, and so you can't explain why it's "bound to comply with the First Amendment".

       

      Not sure what you are babbling about, but I can absolutely explain why UCLA is bound to comply with the First Amendment.

      UCLA is a public university and the main legal difference between a private university and a public university is where the operating funds come from. A public university is funded (at least in part) from the government and that makes it legally a "state actor".

      This is well established in existing caselaw and has been for many years. So well established in fact, that it is rarely brought up in articles about these subjects because it is such common knowledge.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 9:33am

        Re: Re:

        A public university is not just funded by the state, it's operated by the state.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 10:14am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ok. I wasn't really sure if it was that way everywhere.

          I know in my state we do vote for the Board of Regents for a couple of universities, but not for others that I'm pretty sure are public universities.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        stderric (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 12:52pm

        Re: Re:

        This is well established in existing caselaw ... it is rarely brought up in articles about these subjects because it is such common knowledge.

        Maybe so, but do you have knowledge of an existing case in common law?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 8:25am

      Re: Section 230 & 1A from another direction:

      Regarding the other part of your silly assertion, just because something is considered a "public space" that doesn't make them a "state actor".

      For example, shopping mall common areas (lobbies, hallways, etc..) are considered "public spaces" even though they are mostly privately owned. You can be trespassed from these "public spaces" for any reason at all, including if they disagree with your speech (except in California where you been given some additional speech rights above and beyond the normal for the rest of country).

      While this blog could, perhaps, be construed as a "public space" (that's really a stretch though, in my opinion) it is in no way whatsoever a "state actor" and therefore can limit your speech on this platform however they see fit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 8:34am

      Re: Section 230 & 1A from another direction:

      Masnick's assertions haven't actually been tested with good case.

       

      Well then, why don't you give it a go, Blue?

      Go see a lawyer and ask them to sue Techdirt to force them to unhide all your comments you've made over the years and see how far it gets you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 6:57pm

        That's just cruel

        Come now, I know lawyers get a bad rap at times, but (barring the Prendas of the field) do you really think they deserve that?

        They'll end up hospitalized either from laughing themselves unconscious, or facepalming hard enough to cause a concussion.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:17pm

    Save me, save me!

    I am totally confused: ACLU and UCLA have the same letters. However shall I tell them apart? Help me, trademark law, help me!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Boo Boo Bwain, 14 Nov 2018 @ 6:35pm

    Hate Speech Defined

    If we just define words critical of hate speech laws as hate speech itself then we can end all this controversy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2018 @ 11:33pm

    Hate Chain

    "It also seems obvious to me that if you replaced this pro-Palestinian group with a pro-Israel group, we never would have heard this story at all."

    No, you're not allowed to hate other people, but, yes, you're allowed to hate people who hate other people. For your hate speech to be "kosher," i.e., "not called hate speech,", you just got to know where to position your link in the chain-of-hate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 4:33am

    No Such Thing as a ``Palestinian'' Flag

    bear flying a kite with the colors of the Palestinian flag

    There may be some sort of affinity group, but there is no more a country of "Palestine" with a flag than there is a country of ``Central Arizona'' with a flag.

    As for the bear, well, let me feign sympathy for the school. Images of bears are fairly common. Indeed, if memory serves, there is a bear on the state flag of the state where the school is located. Claiming control over bears, with or without kites, is an obvious over-reach.

    [and who's idea was this "markdown" crud where you cannot even use proper quotes?]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 7:08am

      Re: No Such Thing as a ``Palestinian'' Flag

      but there is no more a country of "Palestine" with a flag than there is a country of ``Central Arizona'' with a flag.

      Or a country of "The International Red Cross" with a flag. Or a country of "The Boy Scouts of America" with a flag. Or a country of "The Holy See" with a flag.

      Amazingly enough, all sorts of groups which are not government bodies have flags... though since 137 countries recognize the sovereign country of Palestine, whether or not it's a country is rather dependent on where you live.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Tanner Andrews (profile), 16 Nov 2018 @ 10:37pm

        Re: Re: No Such Thing as a ``Palestinian'' Flag

        Or a country of "The International Red Cross" with a flag. Or a country of "The Boy Scouts of America" with a flag. Or a country of "The Holy See" with a flag.

        Right. Like I said, there is no more a country of "Palestine" with a flag than there is a country of "Central Arizona" with a flag, though there may be some sort of affinity group.

        For pretty much any such group, if they have art depicting a bear flying a kite in their preferred colors, it is hard to see a California state school having the power to restrict their use of that art. The challenge is getting good art, not a need for state permission from a state which uses a bear as one of its symbols.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 8:59am

      Re: No Such Thing as a ``Palestinian'' Flag

      They use the British-designed flag of the Hejaz Revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate after the British convinced the Wahhabis that only the Arab race could represent Islam. They fly the flag upside down because they had forgotten which side was up by the time that they hauled it out of storage for a new war against the Jews.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    anon, 15 Nov 2018 @ 4:42am

    hmmm

    BTW 'from-the-horse's mouth' dept https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/13/only-jews-can-tell-the-truth-about-israel/

    Only Jews Can Tell The Truth About Israel November 13, 2018

    Imagine what would happen to Chomsky if he were a white gentile Chomsky Warns of the Rise of ‘Judeo-Nazi Tendencies’ in Israel

    Prominent Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky has raised concerns over what he believes is the rise of “Judeo-Nazi tendencies” in Israel. Speaking to i24NEWS last week, the renowned political dissident, linguist and scholar repeated warnings given by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, an Israeli public intellectual, biochemist and polymath, concerning the dehumanising effect of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine on the victims and the oppressors.

    Chomsky commented on remarks by Leibowitz who was nominated for the Israel Prize saying that “Leibowitz warned that if the occupation continues, Israeli Jews are going to turn into what he called, Judeo-Nazis”. Chomsky recognised the description was a “strong term” and that most people wouldn’t be able to get away with describing Israel in this manner but explained that Leibowitz’s status meant that he was able to speak about Israel without incurring fury...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 15 Nov 2018 @ 9:53am

      Re: Required Reading

      >>The Palestinians are banned from the United States by the Anti-terrorism Act of 1987.
      The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is banned from recieving government funds or assistance. Not "the Palestinians".

      >> The Palestinians are a Nazi hate group. They are literal Nazis who advocated for the Final Solution and were armed by Adolph Hitler.

      I mean, we are friends with Germany and Japan and Italy now, because 70 Years is a long time. It was the policy of the US Military to deny land, life and culture to native Americans through violence and we don't consider the United States a terrorist organization. I do not see why these facts free us from needing to think critically about modern Palestine.

      >>However, universities like to take "donations" from the Middle Eastern oil powers who are at war with Israel.

      I'm not sure largely what this article seems to "prove". You certainly believe nefarious intent, but aside from preaching tolerance, I am unsure how the center is involved in a "war" with Israel, or how this center has anything to do with the article.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 15 Nov 2018 @ 5:14pm

        Re: Not "the Palestinians".

        Notice how particular political groups that you might not like are being conflated with an entire ethnicity, just to delegitimize the very existence of the latter?

        Thus are the seeds of genocide sown ...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2018 @ 11:34am

    It's not about the pro-*, it's about the anti-*

    The SJP is not actually very pro-Palestinian, but it is very anti-Israel and anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish to the pedants out there). Like the similarly corrupt BDS movement, and the terrorist groups that support them, they only care about hurting Israel, even at the expense of Palestinian interests. This can plainly be seen from either side. Unlike the terrorist groups that support them, they don't even have the honesty to be open about their goals. Do they have the right to free speech? Like real Nazi groups, alt-right, KKK, and other openly racist groups (who are also more intellectually honest groups than SJP) they do, as repugnant as their message is. That doesn't mean anyone has to listen to them, or that there can't be counter protestors. Treat them like any other hate group, and they will hopefully fade to a well deserved obscurity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 15 Nov 2018 @ 9:45pm

      Re: The SJP is not actually very pro-Palestinian

      Says somebody who has the best interests of the Palestinians at heart and has no wish to exterminate them or drive them out of their lands, am I right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2018 @ 6:58am

        Re: Re: The SJP is not actually very pro-Palestinian

        Are you right? That would depend if I interpret your pathetic response literally, or read it as being from a sarcastic 5th grader, i.e. as intended. When your only response to a criticism is basically "But you're a racist because!" just do us all a favor and give your keyboard a rest.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Close
Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.