CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE CONDEMNS CRITICISM OF ISRAEL ON CAMPUS
By Rev. Ted Pike
3 Oct 12
The Jewish Anti-Defamation League and B’nai B’rith International invented hate and speech crimes laws to end free speech, persecute Christians, and criminalize criticism of Israel. (See Twisted "Justice" in Amish Hate Crimes Conviction) Recently, under acknowledged guidance by B’nai B’rith, the California legislature, without dissent, approved a non-binding resolution defining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. It was necessary, proponents of H.R. 35 said, to stem the tide of “anti-Semitic” (anti-Israel) agitation on California’s publicly funded university campuses.
They claimed overt criticism of Israel causes some Jewish students to feel unsafe. Primary sponsor Linda Halderman says, “I introduced this resolution because of the recent rise of anti-Jewish hate crimes, including assaults on California campuses.”
The resolution defines and condemns “anti-Semitism” as follows:
- Comparing Jews (in their persecution of Palestinians) to Nazis. (This asserts that Jews can never behave like Nazis and it is anti-Semitic to say they can.)
- Using language that delegitimizes Israel. (This, according to H.R. 35, means denying Israel the right to have occupied Palestine since the beginning of the 20th century, expelling 800,000 Palestinians in 1948 into concentration camps.)
- Using language that “demonizes” Israel for the above.
- Using language that “attacks” Israel through “anti-Semitic stereotypes.” These include:
- Denying the Jewish people their right of self-determination. (Again, this means criticizing Israeli seizure of Palestinian lands and violent displacement of Arab occupants).
- Applying “double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” (It’s dubious whether condemning Israeli apartheid and oppression could be called a double standard. Nevertheless Judaism has claimed “exalted ethics” since Biblical times and always boasted their standards obligate them to exceed Gentiles in righteousness and justice.)
- “Accusing the Jewish people of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.” (This is a question which should not be dealt with by Jews forbidding and punishing honest inquiry but with scientific investigation to resolve the controversy.)
- Hiding anti-Semitism under the cloak of legitimate criticism of Israel. (What is legitimate criticism of Israel? H.R. 35 provides no clue, giving the impression that virtually all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.)
- Allowing conditions on campus that “could create a hostile anti-Semitic environment.” (This resolution does not document that such an environment exists on California campuses. Yet H.R. 35 assumes proactive legislation should be passed to prevent it.)
- Allowing some Jewish students to endure “physical aggressions, harassment, and intimidation” as a result of protests, rallies, speakers, films and exhibits “that falsely describe Israel as ‘a racist, apartheid, or Nazi state…guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide.’”
- Asserting that Jews in America wield excessive power over American foreign policy.
- Sponsoring “boycotts, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel that are a means of demonizing Israel and seek to harm the Jewish state.”
- Suppressing and disrupting free expression on campus of Israel’s point of view.
H.R. 35 says elimination of all the above forms of “anti-Semitism” “strengthens UC’s [University of California] system-wide policies prohibiting student conduct motivated by bias, including religious bias.” It suggests implementation of “a campus reporting system allowing any member of a UC campus community to report incidents of intolerance or bias.”
Academic Response to H.R. 35
UC has rejected H.R. 35 as influencing campus policy. UC spokesman Steve Montiel said that before H.R. 35 was approved,
UC requested that it be amended to incorporate the constitution’s right to free speech…We had major concerns with the (resolution’s) language regarding the First Amendment rights of students.
However, UC’s suggestions were not followed. UC’s General Counsel affirms that UC “cannot interfere with the content of demonstrations or protests, regardless of the subject matter.”
Also, student newspaper The Daily Bruin says,
Nine community, legal, and student organizations sent a letter to the legislature last Tuesday, asking lawmakers to reconsider the resolution, citing it as ‘poorly researched’ and ‘highly ideological.’ In response to the criticism the resolution has received, Assemblyman Bonnie Lowenthal [a primary sponsor] said in a statement last week that she would work on a resolution that affirms the right of free speech on campus when the state legislature convenes in January.
Meanwhile, UC President Mark Udof (a First Amendment scholar) stands firm that, while UC will oppose and educate against actual anti-Semitism, “I will continue to be the first to defend students’ and faculty rights’ to free speech under the U.S. Constitution.”
Zionist Influences upon H.R. 35
H.R. 35’s definitions of anti-Semitism are derived directly from pro-Zionist Jewish organizations radiating from ADL/B’nai B’rith International. These include the ADL-created U.S. State Department's Office of Global Anti-Semitism (See The Real Motive Behind the 'Department of Global Anti-Semitism') as well as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). (See Global Hate Crimes Gestapo Being Created) European groups similarly influenced by ADL include the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combatting Anti-Semitism and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. All are referenced by Sacramento for helping create the definitions of anti-Semitism found in H.R. 35.
It is thus the self-serving definitions of anti-Semitism provided by overwhelmingly Jewish or Jewish-influenced pro-Zionist groups that inform H.R. 35.
Needed: A Balanced Campus Definition of Anti-Semitism
This controversy lacks a simple, truthful, unbiased definition of anti-Semitism. Here’s one I have applied over a 28-year career defending free speech and criticizing Zionism. It has withstood criticism and the test of time. “Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, particularly the racist belief that Jews, because of heredity, are degenerate, corruptive, and subversive.”
Hitler fulfilled this definition. So do truly anti-Semitic elements in America and Europe today. (See The "Bad Jewish Genes" Theory)
By affirming this simple yet accurate definition, campuses will justly condemn actual anti-Semitism. At the same time, they will eliminate from active consideration all the bogus, Zionist-serving definitions listed in H.R. 35.
Such a non-racist, highly moral criterion was first exemplified by the Hebrew prophets. They anathematized not only evil Jews but the entire Jewish nation when it became corrupt. Christ and His apostles vehemently criticized the Jewish people in their sin without anyone ever accusing them of anti-Semitism. Similarly, no one should be able, under my definition, to legitimately make the case that constructive criticism of Jews or Israel today has become anti-Semitic.
In contrast, we see how problematic, indicting, and inherently Israel-serving is the labyrinth of specious definitions of anti-Semitism put forth by the California legislature at the service of the Jewish lobby. Considering the very purposeful, aggressive and fast-moving agenda of the anti-free speech, pro-Zionist coalition to dominate campus discussion about Israel, it is vital that critics of Zionism be proactive. ADL/B’nai B’rith are straining to establish a uniform definition of anti-Semitism that can be the unquestioned reference point for all educational institutions in America. Critics of Israel on all college campuses should unite to create a simple and workable, non-partisan definition of what anti-Semitism truly is. They must not wait for ADL/B’nai B’rith to set the agenda, merely reacting to the Zionist definition of anti-Semitism once it has been carved in stone. Campus groups and leaders should let it be known very widely beforehand that another, eminently more reasonable, balanced, and unprejudiced definition of what anti-Semitism is, and is not, is available to academics, students, lawmakers and the public.