Start A Petition

Equating Anti-Zionism With Anti-Semitism Is Anti-Semitic, for It Discriminates Against Non-Zionist Jews and the Rest of Humanity

World  (tags: anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, university, California, Israel, Zionism, discrimination, against, humanity )

- 1188 days ago -
The University of California revised a proposed policy on intolerance to include "anti-Zionism" and anti-Semitism as forms of discrimination that won't be tolerated on UC's 10 campuses, releasing the draft statement to both praise and criticism.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Sam H (410)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 9:48 am
Equating Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism Is Anti-Semitic, for It Discriminates against Non-Zionist Jews, Not to Mention the Rest of Humanity!

Roger G (148)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 10:33 am
noted, thanks

Kathleen M (208)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 4:49 pm
Grimly noted. Thanks for sharing, Sam. Calling out Israeli crimes against humanity is not anti-Semitism. Better beware of untoward attacks on First Amendment rights!

fly bird (26)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 8:19 pm
A new site worth sharing: Protect Your Right To Boycott.

A wave of bills aimed at punishing or suppressing boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns for Palestinian freedom have been introduced in state legislatures across the country. Click on a state below for more information about specific anti-BDS legislation and to take action to protect your #RightToBoycott.

This site is a joint effort by U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Palestine Legal.

Some perspective

These bills are the result of a campaign to suppress Palestine human rights activism in the U.S. Israel's interest in restricting this activism should not override our right to advocate for change.

The good news is that your right to engage in boycotts related to Israeli human rights abuses and to advocate for BDS is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. None of the bills and resolutions described here prohibit you from engaging in BDS activities.

Whatever your views on Israel and Palestine, these bills should be of concern because they threaten the rights of everyone in the U.S. to take collective action to address injustice. Moreover, we should all be alarmed that a foreign government, Israel, is lobbying U.S. politicians to restrict our rights.

Thank you, Sam.

Steve D (13)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 8:26 pm
The last two paragraphs say it all.
If israel was confident and strong they would have to issue with anyone speaking their mind, just shows how insecure religion really is.

fly bird (26)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 8:38 pm
"As a student who considers my work advocating for Palestinian human rights as an expression of my Jewish values, I am surprised to see that criticism of a modern nation-state that regularly violates international law is so centered in a report against intolerance," said Eitan Peled, a UCLA student and campus leader for Jewish Voice for Peace, which has been critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

"Debate over Zionism and the abusive policies of the state of Israel absolutely should be debated vigorously, not silenced by accusations of discrimination," Peled said.

Rose Becke (141)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 9:17 pm
I like you last paragraph Peace

Maria Teresa Schollhorn (42)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 10:43 pm
Your title says it all, Sam. Equating Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism discriminates Non-Zionist jews and the rest of the humanity. THIS is intolerance!

fly bird (26)
Wednesday March 16, 2016, 10:49 pm
Zionism and Campaigns of Delegitimization: a Very Rich History Indeed.

Demonstrating once again the sniveling and shameless fealty to the wealthy that she and her husband have elevated to a high art over the last 30 years, Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban last July 6th in which she said that:

I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority. I am seeking your advice on how we can work together across party lines and with a diverse array of voices to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel.

One of the key reasons for the extraordinary success of the Zionist lobby in America over the last six decades or so has been its ability to generate and repeat sound bites whose discursive purpose is not to enrich the breadth and texture of a debate on the Middle East, but rather to impoverish and attenuate it.

Long before GOP operative Frank Luntz began trawling focus groups for emotionally-charged terms capable of crippling the public’s rational faculties during political campaigns, the people at AIPAC and the many pundits in the mainstream media who faithfully carry their water (e.g. ex-AIPAC employee Wolf Blitzer) were already experts at this game.

Perhaps the most well-known of the tropes employed by Israel’s more fervent advocates is to challenge someone who is criticizing its policies if they support that state’s “right to exist”.

The beauty of the query, at least from the point of view of those that deploy it, is its seeming innocuousness. We all, especially Americans, have an instinctively positive relationship to the idea of “rights”.

And who would want to go on record as being against the idea of some one’s or some country’s “existence”?

So, when our interlocutor says, “Don’t you support Israel’s right to exist,?” most of us freeze and then retreat.

And that is exactly the effect desired by those posing the question.

But of course criticizing someone’s or some thing’s comportment is not the same as seeking their death and destruction. To portray these two activities as being one in the same is nothing short of absurd.

It is similarly absurd to speak—here again I am referring to the above-mentioned question/rejoinder—of a “right” existing in isolation from other values and concerns.

Every social or political “right” is necessarily constructed upon a matrix of tradeoffs. My “right to live” and my “right to pursue happiness” are necessarily and without exception mediated by a need to be cognizant of, and responsive to, the rights and needs of others around me.

So the real question when it comes to Israel (and every other national polity for that matter) is under what specific legal and moral conditions— both in relation to its geographical neighbors and all those subject to its forms of organized power—can and should be permitted and/or encouraged perpetuate its present modes of existence?

And this, of course, is the very this conversation that the ridiculously unspecific and often smugly issued challenge regarding Israel’s “right to exist” is specifically designed to head off.

Those issuing it understand all too well that, should such a detailed discussion ensue, Israel, with its ongoing record of ethnic-cleansing and deeply institutionalized racism, would not fare very well among most fair-minded people.

We are now witnessing the widespread and seemingly concerted re-deployment of yet another trope: one that holds that the central goal of the BDS movement is to cruelly effect the “delegitimization” of the state of Israel.

According to the Collins on-line dictionary, to delegitimize means “to make invalid, illegal, or unacceptable”.

On one level, then, the use of the term by Israel’s defenders is fairly accurate. Those in favor of BDS do indeed seek to invalidate and eventually render illegal and unacceptable the racist and expansionist practices of the Israeli government.

On another level, however, they are clearly exaggerating when, as they often do, they simplistically equate drive to dismantle odious racist practices with the destruction of the state itself (What does it say about a society when the abolishment of blood-based schemes of citizenship and legalized ethnic supremacy are widely viewed its members as tantamount to annihilation?), something that all BDS statements of purpose explicitly disavow.

For anyone who has followed the Israel lobby’s actions over the years, such exaggerations and cynically purposeful conflations are, of course old—very old—hat.

What is much more interesting to me is the righteous indignation that almost inevitably accompanies Zionists’ mention of the carefully circumscribed “delegitimizing” efforts of the BDS movement.

After all, it is not as if delegitmization as a tactic is new to Zionism.

Indeed, a strong case could be made that it has been perhaps the single most ubiquitous and effective tool of the movement in the US and elsewhere over much of the last century.

And, generally speaking, its use in Zionist circles has not been marked with any of the thoughtful circumscription employed by the BDS movement in its campaign to modify Israeli behavior toward the captive Palestinians under its control.

Rather, it has usually conformed to the behavior implicit in a second, much more harsh, definition of the term found on Wikipedia which speaks of delegitimization as the process of classifying “groups into extreme social categories which are ultimately excluded from society” and an activity that provides “the moral and the discursive basis to harm the delegitimized group, even in the most inhumane ways”.

What am I talking about?

For example, how, back in the first decade of the 20th century, the influential British Zionist Israel Zangwill famously wrote “Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country”.

Could there be any more direct and forceful delegitmization of a people than to have them ontologically disappeared by another group covetous of their land?

When, after the fledgling Israeli government engaged (despite all you might have read or been told about spontaneously fleeing Arabs) in a well-orchestrated plan to terrorize Palestinians into leaving their houses and lands in the new state in 1948, a number of the same refugees came back and sought to reclaim their properties, the Ben-Gurion government quickly labeled these people as “infiltrators”.

Could there be any more eloquent case of delegitimization than describing people returning to their lawfully titled homes after being driven out of them at the point of gun and/or the demonstrable threat of summary assassination as “infiltrators”?

When, after capturing the so-called West Bank thanks to a war in 1967 that—again, despite all you might have read or been told—Israel clearly initiated, some of the occupied Palestinians, seeing absolutely no attempts on the part of the Israeli government to begin the process of territorial devolution, or to abide by international conventions governing the behavior occupying armies, began to pursue their UN-sanctioned right to engage in armed resistance to that occupation, they were quickly and universally tarred by Israel as “terrorists”, a term designed to morally delegitimize them and their struggle in the eyes of the world.

When a non-Jew criticizes Israeli political and military behavior in exactly the same manner and tone that he or she might use to criticize analogous Russian, Spanish, French or American comportments, many Zionists have little or no compunction about quickly labeling such a person an Anti-Semite, which is to say a person possessed by a malign moral sickness, rooted in a wholly irrational hatred, for which there is therefore no cure.

The goal in quickly slapping this toxic label on a person is to effectively remove him or her from the field of “respectable” debate, that is, to delegitimize them and the set of often quite valid and universally-grounded critiques they might trying to bring to the public square.

Similarly, when a Jew decides (judging from the cases I have known, almost always after a period of gruelingly careful consideration), to reject the political ideology of Zionism, many of those still working within the fold of this school of thought will show little hesitancy in delegitimizing this person, and with it, his or her freely-arrived-at moral choice, by labeling them with the implicitly pathological label of “self-hating Jew”.

Even former US Presidents are not immune from organized Zionist campaigns of delegitimization.

In 2006, former President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter published a book in which he described the obvious: that in the Occupied Territories of Palestine, Israel runs a confiscatory colonial enterprise wherein Jews and non-Jews enjoy vastly disparate privileges and legal protections.

What did Carter get for this simple and irrefutable statement fact?

An organized Zionist campaign of delegitimization that culminated in his being, at least to my knowledge, the first living ex-president to be forcibly barred from speaking to the assembled delegates of his own party’s presidential nominating convention.

In October of 1988 the comic actor and writer John Cleese donated $140,000 to the University of Sussex in England to finance a study on psychological projection and denial, describing those phenomena to be “frightfully important” to understanding many life conflicts, especially those that play out in realm of politics.

Looking irony-free use of delegitimization in certain Zionist reactions to BDS, it seems safe to say that the famous jester’s intuitions about the importance of these phenomena in public life were spot on.

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 1:34 am
Given that Zionism is political rather than either ethnic or religious .....

Then being anti-Communist should also be classified as unacceptable, shouldn't it?

Or, yet again, is it to be forbidden to draw the parallels, to apply the same rules & measures to other circumstances that are used to provide impunity to one (relatively small) part of one people?

And a part of that people that condemns even those of the same ethno-religious category who do not share their POLITICAL stance?

Trump would probably love to apply such measures to all who do not agree with his political position on left-wingers .... and that could be expanded to those who dare criticise the White Supremacists ......

We are quick to condemn the many regimes that do not allow opposition political movements .... yet a "respectable" university goes along with rulings that allow criticism and strong disagreement with an anti-political movement connected to ONE country ... Why do they endorse such discrimination?

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 1:38 am
Sam - your title says it perfectly.

Jews should have the right to reject a political movement that they consider flouts the ethics of their religion & allows their religion to be used as an excuse to abuse human rights ......

Farah Hage Ali (154)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 8:50 am
noted, thank you for sharing

Janet B (0)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 12:30 pm

Birgit W (160)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 1:26 pm

Doris F (19)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 3:06 pm
Thank you, and the commentators before !

Lois Jordan (63)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 3:31 pm
Noted. Thanks for posting, Sam.

Freya H (345)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 3:38 pm
A prime example of not so much political correctness on steroids, as utter paranoia and sweeping generalizations. Real anti-Jewish crumbags are going to eat this up with a spoon as "proof" that the [insert derogatory term for Jews of your choice here] run everything.

Anti-Zionism is not discrimination, it is a matter of politics. What's next, making it a rule that one cannot say or write anything derogatory about any country - not even North Korea?

Veronica B (33)
Thursday March 17, 2016, 4:44 pm
Noted. Thanks for sharing.

Roslyn McBride (26)
Friday March 18, 2016, 3:05 am
If anyone can make sense out of that headline, then good luck to them.

AWAY AWHILE Cal M (1065)
Friday March 18, 2016, 3:53 am
Sam, I am not sure how protection individuals from violence based on their political views and your creative tittle change for this article have anything to do with Mideast politics. Protecting people from violence based on their political views is at the heart of the Bill of Rights in the US and is part of human rights campaigns and declarations worldwide. Islamophobia and anti-semitism are flip sides of the same coin--don't surrender protecting human rights for a political forum which does the opposite!

Sam H (410)
Friday March 18, 2016, 4:23 am
Roslyn and Cal, I think PeaceGoodwill To All answered your points quite convincingly!

"Protecting people from violence based on their political views is at the heart of the Bill of Rights in the US and is part of human rights campaigns and declarations worldwide." Absolutely! But that does NOT apply only to Zionists, but ALSO to those who oppose them!, I hope you didn't miss this minor detail!

Thanks for the good wishes, Roslyn!

Evelyn B (63)
Friday March 18, 2016, 9:52 am
Freya - "Anti-Zionism is not discrimination, it is a matter of politics." deserves more than one star - it is the crux of the point Sam is making.

Cal - I'm not sure how you can't see how this relates to the Middle East ...... But I agree fully with your point that "Protecting people from violence based on their political views is at the heart of the Bill of Rights in the US and is part of human rights campaigns and declarations worldwide." - so why are anti-Zionists (Jewish or other) to be condemned for their political views? Which is what this ruling does .... it condemns a political view.
(And just a little reminder ..... not all Zionists are Jewish ... there is also a Christian Zionist political movement.)

So, Cal, I'd agree - and give you more than one GS for "don't surrender protecting human rights for a political forum which does the opposite! " . ********************************

The political Zionist stance expressed by more right-wingers vis-à-vis rights of Palestinians definitely is harmful to their human rights.

Janet B (0)
Friday March 18, 2016, 12:20 pm

Hilary S (65)
Friday March 18, 2016, 5:03 pm
this specious argument seeks to justify both anti-semitism and anti-zionism, when the links between the two reveal the deeply embedded anti-semitism in the vast majority of those who single israel out for criticism, and ignore the egregious human rights violations in most countries, and particularly muslim countries.

Colleen L (3)
Friday March 18, 2016, 10:29 pm
Thanks Sam

fly bird (26)
Friday March 18, 2016, 11:17 pm
So many great comments.

Sam, Eleonora, PeaceGoodwillToAll, ******************


Evelyn B (63)
Saturday March 19, 2016, 8:40 am
Ros, I am far more interested in tackling the blinkers that prevent communication & understanding, than in perpetuating situations where people so no way out except either killing others or falling on their swords!

And BD knows that there are far more than one family in similar situations .... Just doesn't want people to be aware of it.

There are a number of people that try to blur the political character of Zionism in order to silence criticism of such politics. It is a dangerous game to play, because genuine anti-Semites get categorised along with those who criticise the political "values" (rejected even by a number of Jews & supported by some non-Jews) - and are then in a more protected position to spread their racist/ anti-Judaism toxic propaganda. We need to ensure that those whose opposition & criticism is to political positions are clearly distinguished from anti-Semites .... and muster joint opposition to real anti-Semitism. Get the focus right - to defend Judaism and the ethnic Jews against those who attack the religious & ethnic population as a whole.

Winn Adams (179)
Saturday March 19, 2016, 10:10 am

Vlasta M (7)
Saturday March 19, 2016, 12:45 pm
This is warped and idiotic reasoning as the authors do not know anytghing either about Zionism (a liberation movement of the Jewish people) or Judaism... some American Jews are assimilated and do not know much about Judaism or Zionism and had been brain washed by their neo-Marxist professors in academia, who are mum about truth in the Middle East.

this article is as trashy as they come.

Stan B (123)
Saturday March 19, 2016, 1:52 pm
Interesting how you can disguise Jew hatred with primitive tortology and the lemmings can't wait to join in.

Evelyn B (63)
Saturday March 19, 2016, 4:00 pm
Well said, Ros!
I fully agree!

Janet B (0)
Saturday March 19, 2016, 4:37 pm

Vlasta M (7)
Sunday March 20, 2016, 12:38 pm
Martin Luther King also was a Zionist (believing in the Jewish liberation movement), which existed since Jews were expelled to babylon after destruction of the First Temple by the babylonians in 586 BC.

George Washington and John Adams were also Zionists who believed that Jews should reconstitute their country in Palestine... that was 100 years before Theodore Herzl realized that delusional Jew hatred is a diseases of humanity, which is now again growing in Europe which is being invaded by Jew hating Mohamedans.

It was a Jew from New York who saved American Revolution by giving Continental Congress money to buy weapons for Geroge Washignton army.

Knud Thirup (53)
Sunday March 20, 2016, 1:09 pm
No No- am 100% un - agree(propaganda)

Angelika R (143)
Sunday March 20, 2016, 2:19 pm
Looks like for some unknown reason I've missed this post until now. Thanks Sam!
As usual, your headline is spot-on and I am pleased to see that even Evelyn does not object this time, on the contrary! ;)
Of course, I couldn't agree more myself.
In three days we'll all know if reason and common sense like Eitan Peled phrased it will prevail, or if a twisted perception, or should I say a deliberately altered meaning like that of Rossman-Benjamin would win. What she claims a "fact" is merely her assumption which I would seriously challenge.
Being a lecturer in Hebrew, perhaps in that language there is no difference between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, I can assure you in German and English the way I understand it there most definitely IS one!
It is equally absurd to say anti-zionism "includes calling for the elimination of Israel". Who says so?
That's the very same BS as accusing the BDS movement of the same. A Netanyahu concept, invention!

I would call myself a proud anti-zionist, which IS a political movement and not a positive one by all accounts, but I do acknowledge Israel's right to exist - as a DEMOCRATIC non-apartheid state which in turn acknowledges the right of Palestinians to their own state or at least full equal rights across the board.

fly bird (26)
Sunday March 20, 2016, 5:51 pm
The Zionists Censor a Textbook – An Analysis by Lawrence Davidson.

Part I – Map Censorship

What is the difference between a textbook publisher giving into pressure from Christian fundamentalists seeking to censor the teaching of evolution, and a publisher giving in to Zionists seeking to censor awareness of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Neither phenomenon is a matter of opinion or perspective. One act of censorship denies facts established by scientific research. The other denies the documented violation of international law (for instance, the Fourth Geneva Convention) and multiple UN resolutions. So the answer to the question just asked is – there is no difference.

The Zionists Censor a Textbook - An Analysis by Lawrence Davidson

In early March 2016 executives at McGraw-Hill took the extreme step of withdrawing from the market a published text, Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World, and then proceeded to destroy all the remaining books held in inventory. (Did they burn them?) Global Politics, which had been on the market since 2012, was a text designed by its authors to “offer students a number of lenses through which to view the world around them.” Why did McGraw-Hill do this?

Apparently the book was obliterated (this seems to be an accurate description of the publisher’s actions) because, like a biology text that describes the established facts of evolution, Global Politics offered a “lens to view the world” that was judged blasphemous by a powerful, influential and ideologically driven element of the community. Of course, that is not how McGraw-Hill rationalized its action. Instead, the publisher claimed that a serious inaccuracy in the text was belatedly discovered. This took the form of a series of four maps that show “Palestinian loss of land from 1946 to 2000.” The maps (see also attachment) are the first set which can be seen at the following link:

The maps in question are not new or novel. Nor are they historically inaccurate, despite Zionists’ claims to the contrary. They can be seen individually and in different forms on websites of the BBC and Mondoweiss and are published in a number of history books, such as Mark Tessler’s well-received A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Perhaps what the Zionists can’t abide is lining up the maps together in chronological order.

In truth, the objections reported to have been used by those who pressured McGraw-Hill are historically perverse – the sort of grasping at straws that reflects a biased and strained rewriting of history. For instance, an objection was made to the labeling of public land in pre-1948 Palestine as “Palestinian.” Why? Because the Zionist claim is that Palestine before 1948 was a British mandate and so the land was British and not Palestinian. As their argument goes, “no one called the Arabs [of this area] Palestinians.” Of course, prior to 1948, no one called the East European Jews pouring in at this time “Israelis.” Further, according to those taking these maps to task, the West Bank at this time was controlled by Jordan and so it too was not Palestinian. Obviously, no one brought up the fact that in September of 1922 the British had divided Palestine in two in order to artificially create what is now Jordan. The period after World War I was one of territorial transition, however, in Palestine, the one constant was the persistent presence of the Arab Palestinians.

The Zionists offered many other dubious objections to the maps, which seem to have sent the publisher into something of a panic. It would certainly appear that no one at McGraw-Hill knew enough relevant history to make an accurate judgment on the complaints.

Part II – Running Scared

McGraw-Hill’s response was to “immediately initiate an academic review,” which “determined that the maps in question “did not meet our academic standards.” Who carried out the review? Well, McGraw-Hill won’t say, but insists those who did so were “independent academics.” Just what are McGraw-Hill’s “academic standards”? Well, those haven’t been articulated either. The publisher’s reluctance to elaborate its claims makes their actions suspicious at best.

As Rania Khalek noted in an 11 March 2016 article on the incident in Electronic Intifada, these particular maps, showing the loss of Palestinian land over decades of Israeli expansion, “have the ability to cut through Israeli propaganda that portrays Palestinian anger and violence as rooted in religious intolerance and irrational hatred rather than a natural reaction to Israel’s colonial expansionism, land theft and ethnic cleansing, all of which continue today.” This gives insight into the strenuous efforts made by Zionists to keep the sequenced maps away from any mass market distribution. As it is, they seem to have overlooked this textbook source for some four years. However, once they spotted it, and began “flooding” McGraw-Hill with complaints from “multiple sources,” it took the publisher only about a week to suspend sales of the book.

The next obvious question is why didn’t McGraw-Hill move to change the maps or just remove them? Why destroy the entire inventory? The extreme nature of the publisher’s response remains unexplained but may stand as a testimony to the fact that the Zionist lobby has the same power within the corporate ranks of this textbook publisher as the anti-evolution fundamentalists have over most biology textbooks.

Part III – The Zionists’ Maps

The Zionists who made the claim that the Global Politics maps are “mendacious” do so from a starting assumption that all the land from the Suez Canal to Golan Heights and Jordan River has always been Hebrew-Israeli. On this basis they posit their own maps (see also attachment) to make the claim that modern Israel, at least since 1967 and “in the pursuit of peace,” has voluntarily relinquished land rather than illegally taken it. These maps are the second set seen at

It is significant that the Zionist maps begin in 1967, a year of major Israeli expansion through conquest. And, of course, the only land concession of any consequence since then is the Sinai Desert. The Zionist cartographical suggestion that Israel has given up Gaza and West Bank land is just a sleight of hand, given Israel’s use of Gaza as a prison colony and continued military control of every inch of the West Bank.

Finally, it is important to note that Israeli school maps are often pure propaganda. For instance, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently carried a story about a map used to teach seventh graders about the country’s geography. The map omits the “green line,” which is recognized internationally as Israel’s eastern border, as well as the majority of the nation’s Arab-Israeli communities. Maybe the Israeli Ministry of Education used McGraw-Hill’s “academic standards” to create this map.

Part IV – Conclusion

Within academia there is the belief that textbooks are not to be subject to ideological censorship. This is a rather naive, but important, ideal. If such texts cannot maintain this level of integrity, the entire educational exercise becomes open to propaganda. Unless McGraw-Hill becomes transparent about its “independent academic review” and offers an explanation as to why it went to the extreme of destroying its inventory of Global Politics, one can only assume that the publisher has no objection to censoring its products in the face of pressure from an ideologically driven group. No doubt the motivation here is fear of controversy and subsequent market losses. In the absence of substantiating information, the whole story of an independent review and academic standards must be dismissed as a cover-up.

The sad truth is that the suborning of textbooks addressing culturally sensitive subjects has become a standard practice. Thus, the process of education is indeed threatened by incessant propaganda. This includes the culture war that swirls around American biology textbooks. It also includes the powerful Zionist drive to literally wipe the Palestinians off the map.

Angelika R (143)
Sunday March 20, 2016, 7:08 pm
BTW - I really like our bidet kittie's new avatar with that nerd look now, despite the same old view even with glasses. But it suits her well and now really resembles a Klobrille! :-)
(Klo= toilet Brille= glasses Klobrille= toilet seat)

fly bird (26)
Monday March 21, 2016, 1:11 am
SIGN PETITION: Protest Censorship of Palestinian History.

Publishing giant McGraw-Hill Education has censored and is planning to destroy copies of a US college textbook entitled "Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World," after complaints about a series of maps showing loss of Palestinian land from 1946-2000.

Send a letter to McGraw-Hill Education to let them know it is unacceptable to censor Palestinian history!

Use the form below to send an email to McGraw-Hill Education executives. You can use these suggested points to serve as a reference for messages. Please make sure to write letters in your own words rather than repeating suggested points verbatim. Your signature will be automatically included so no need to write it.

•This is a blatant example of censorship of an academic text for political reasons.
•The maps in question were in fact accurate and only removed because of complaints from supporters of Israel who wish to prevent people from learning the truth about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its ongoing theft of Palestinian land.
•Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinian people and taking of their land, as illustrated by the censored maps, is the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For students and others to properly understand what’s taking place in Israel-Palestine, it is vital for them to learn about this dispossession and the story told by these maps. This is why Israel’s supporters are working so hard to suppress them.
•Rather than caving into complaints from right-wing supporters of Israel who wish to deny Palestinian history, McGraw-Hill should demonstrate professional integrity and reinstate the maps and textbooks in question.
•The campaign to censor "Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World” is part of a larger campaign being waged by the Israeli government and its supporters to suppress the Palestinian narrative and Palestine human rights activism in the United States, including in schools and on campuses across the country. Last year, Palestine Legal (which is part of the Center for Constitutional Rights), released a report entitled “The Palestine Exception to Free Speech” that documented widespread attacks against student Palestine rights activists on US campuses, including numerous cases of attempted censorship.
•It is deeply disappointing that McGraw-Hill Education has succumbed to political pressure and censored the Palestinian narrative from a textbook. I urge you to reconsider this shameful decision.

Evelyn B (63)
Monday March 21, 2016, 1:44 am
Angie - your comment of Sunday March 20, 2016, 2:19 pm is spot on!

The conflation of political Zionism with ethnic Judaism is in itself a political movement! By .... pro-Zionists, who do not want their politics criticised, & by hiding the politics behind religion & ethnicity, they use "anti-Semitism" as a weapon. There are numerous articles by Jews who see this conflation as very dangerous for their people and their faith.

I know that there are Zionists who are not extremist - I've met some who are very sensitive to the way that history has been being rewritten (e.g. as spouted by Vlasta ...) - and who are not at ease with the direction that pro-Zionists are taking Zionism. Some end up moving away from Zionism (some can be found in organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace), feeling betrayed by today's political Zionists; some move to J-Street, hanging on to "their" understanding of Zionism which is not aligned to that of the extremists.

NB - The driving interest of the Zionists is to erase recognition of the settlements as being outside the internationally recognised geographic State of Israel - where BDS shines a light on the reality of settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories - something that is not in conformity with International Law. There are two critical developments evolving here
.... killing the non-violent BDS movement (which will leave what options for Palestinians who do NOT want to turn to violent defence of their rights?) in order to place the settlements back out of the limelight, AND
.... introducing with increasing frequency the term "annexed" instead of "Occupied" - apparently just a synonym but in reality very different under International Law, allowing take-over & development of "annexed" territories in a way not authorised for "occupied" territories.

Janet B (0)
Monday March 21, 2016, 12:47 pm

Evelyn B (63)
Wednesday March 23, 2016, 11:04 am
It must be the vocabulary that she can't resist using, Ros - I too have wondered why it is like talking to the Cheshire Cat .....

Sam H (410)
Wednesday March 23, 2016, 11:37 am
Suppressing criticism of Zionism on campus is catastrophic censorship

Evelyn B (63)
Wednesday March 23, 2016, 12:04 pm
The situation is evolving ...
Developing -- UC regents say anti-Semitism has 'no place' on campus but reject blanket censure of anti-Zionism


Angelika R (143)
Wednesday March 23, 2016, 2:28 pm
Thanks Sam, excellent analysis in that article you link above. Aand thanks Evelyn for the update as that decision was due today.
At least the regents maintained some common sense, even if the outcome looks a bit like a forceps delivery. The first version would indeed have been catastrophic and not only on campuses as it would have spread like wildfire to become accepted by the general public worldwide, most likely a desired result.

I wonder if there will be a new debate over the issue or calls to amend the amendment ;-)
Funny, in the past I don't recall any such difficulty with the term "anti-semitism". Everybody on earth has heard it and knew and understood exactly what it meant. All the fuzz in the recent past was deliberately and artificially stirred by weknowwho out of desperation, hatred and panic.
Suppression isn't going to work any longer and those "free-speech activists" are representing much more than that when it comes to the Palestinian issue. They are a movement, pretty much like feelthebern, a political revolution that cannot be stopped. Time for Israel and its zionist supporters to realize that.
And even without litigation, having a "protected debate and study of Zionism and its alternatives" doesn't sound like a bad idea after all!


Angelika R (143)
Wednesday March 23, 2016, 5:38 pm
Ros, that's the Israeli version of free speech. These people have no shame. Neither does Nutyahoo as I think it would be his job to apologize for shameful remarks by members of his cabinet. They must have been so sure there aren't any jews among the victims,- amazing when we have about 300 injured and many missing and not even the Americans have full information yet of their injured or possibly dead citizens.

Evelyn B (63)
Wednesday March 23, 2016, 10:41 pm
Ros, thanks - rather than take this thread off topic, I've posted that one ...
Israeli Minister Lambasts Belgium for 'Eating Chocolate' & Not Fighting Terror

fly bird (26)
Saturday April 16, 2016, 12:45 am
Enduring Roots: Over a Century of Resistance to the Jewish National Fund.

This 40-minute documentary chronicles stories of al-Nakba survivors, interviews with their descendants about the case of refugee return, and current and growing resistance to the ongoing colonization of Palestine by the Jewish National Fund.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.