UC Berkeley student groups' refusal to invite Zionist speakers draws civil rights complaint

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Lerner, Nov 24, 2022.

  1. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    UC Berkeley student groups' refusal to invite Zionist speakers draws civil rights complaint


  2. AsianStew

    AsianStew Moderator Staff Member

    You'll have multiple sides of an article; one side mentions this is targeting the Jewish community, the other side says this is not the case and they're targeting Israeli government's treatment of others. Really, no win in this situation, on one side - they're trying to explain, but the other will not listen.
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  3. ArielB

    ArielB Member

    It is targeting Jews. One can be a Zionist but still be critical of the Israeli government's policies. All Zionism means is the belief that Jews should be able to self-determine in their ancestral homeland. The vast majority of Jews agree with this. However, that doesn't mean that all Jews support, for example, settlements in the West Bank.

    In any event, why not let both sides speak? Otherwise things become an echo chamber. Have a debate, entertain all ideas.
    Helpful2013 likes this.
  4. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    It is not clear to me how refusing to invite a speaker infringes on anyone's civil rights. Do I have to invite every alt-Right loudmouth to my house? Or hard-Left, for that matter?
    Rachel83az likes this.
  5. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    JERUSALEM, Israel – In March of this year a wave of terror attacks swept through Israel when Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israelis within days. The story of one victim—a Christian Arab policeman—spread throughout the country, bringing together both Jews and Christians. They called Sergeant Amir Khoury, 32, the “hero of Israel.” He died while confronting a terrorist in the predominantly ultra-Orthodox Jewish town of Bnei Brak near Tel Aviv.
  6. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    75 years ago, on November 29th, the United Nations accepted the partition plan which called for two states: a Jewish one and an Arab one. Take notice of the wording - the state for the Jews was described as a Jewish state and the state for the Arabs was described as an Arab state.

    There is no mention of the word Palestinian in the plan, since that was just the Roman era name given to the land and not to any group of people.

    Today, the Palestinians are against both these identifiers. They want Israel not to be defined as or called a Jewish state, and they want theirs not to be called Arab but Palestinian. Their demands are not at all in sync with the demands UN plan.

    Lastly, this resolution of the General Assembly of the UN was just declarative and not binding legally. The legal rights of the Jews over their land are anchored in the San Remo conference in 1920 that adopted the Balfour declaration which promised the Jews a Jewish homeland in what was then (1917) called Palestine. This is Israel and Jordan of today. The resolution of the League of Nations to adopt that San Remo conference decision is still valid today as the United Nations, which was born in October 1945, agreed that all resolutions of its predecessor are automatically effective and valid.

Share This Page