Berkeley making jew free zones?

#52
#52
n_huffhines said:
Learn a little bit about the world, maybe. Start with the wiki page on Zionism. It explains why they are controversial.

An anti-semite should support Zionism because it would mean Jews "go back to their country."
Click to expand...

The ban is also on anyone who "supports Israel."

That's a pretty wide net they cast on that statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst, hog88 and Orangeslice13
#53
#53
Grand Vol said:
The ban is also on anyone who "supports Israel."

That's a pretty wide net they cast on that statement.
Click to expand...

Specifically "apartheid state of Israel."

“Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

I find both sides of this conflict very problematic and I don't understand people who do not see it that way. Nobody should be surprised that supporting this version of Israel is controversial. The people at Cal should also understand supporting Palestinians is legitimately controversial. Both sides are blinded by their bias. Opposing either side doesn't mean you are prejudiced.
 
#55
#55
SpaceCoastVol said:
Isn't there a large Jewish population in the celebrity universe that these woke morons bow to? They make no sense.
Click to expand...
There's also a large Jewish population in this country that are non-religious or belong to more left leaning forms of Judaism such as Reform Judaism.
 
#57
#57
There probably aren’t any good guys or bad guys here, only self-interest. And everyone thinks they’re the good guys, anyway. “Israel” has been a thing since, what, 1948? And before that, something like 4,000 years of conflict. The editorial here asks you to accept the premise that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing. If you’re not okay with Israel making new settlements in Gaza and then lobbing missiles at anyone who opposes that, you’re an anti-Semite. Objective reality is probably a bit more nuanced. Meanwhile, Putin is doing the same thing, right? Firing artillery at Luhansk and annexing chunks of Ukraine because of some perceived historical claim to a chunk of land with a history of people having beef with each other. This article feels a lot like saying that everyone has no choice but to accept that they’re being anti-Eastern Orthodox if they just think Putin is being an a-hole. You have to accept the premise that religion and geopolitics can’t be unwoven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#58
#58
There is no palatine or Palestinian people.
There are Egyptian and Syrian people abandoned by their government after those governments attacked Israel and lost territory as a result. It’s no coincidence that the territory lost was the staging area for the attack. Yes dipshits want Israel to give it back so their enemies can use it to attack Israel again.
how about we mind our own business for a change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolFaninFla, Smokey X, Orangeburst and 6 others
#59
#59
Orangeslice13 said:
There is no palatine or Palestinian people.
There are Egyptian and Syrian people abandoned by their government after those governments attacked Israel and lost territory as a result. It’s no coincidence that the territory lost was the staging area for the attack. Yes dipshits want Israel to give it back so their enemies can use it to attack Israel again.
how about we mind our own business for a change.
Click to expand...
I was hoping you would chime in on this.

Let’s just be 100% honest for a change. There is a healthy portion of people out there (mostly on the left) that would love to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. They won’t state it publicly, but that’s their desire.

There is no “I can see both sides” argument in this situation. In typical leftist fashion, they’ve identified the aggressor as the victim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz, AM64 and Orangeslice13
#61
#61
n_huffhines said:
Specifically "apartheid state of Israel."

“Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

I find both sides of this conflict very problematic and I don't understand people who do not see it that way. Nobody should be surprised that supporting this version of Israel is controversial. The people at Cal should also understand supporting Palestinians is legitimately controversial. Both sides are blinded by their bias. Opposing either side doesn't mean you are prejudiced.
Click to expand...

It's funny they use the term apartheid since it doesn't drum up any negative history or anything...

Because verbiage like that is extremely telling to the ulterior motives of what they're trying to accomplish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAVol, NurseGoodVol, VolFaninFla and 2 others
#62
#62
The article is just muck raking. It says that a few pro Palestinian groups have adopted some sort of bylaw which is anti Zionist at ucb law school, not UCB law school as a whole. It also says the law school doesn't support those groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#67
#67
Orangeslice13 said:
There is no palatine or Palestinian people.
There are Egyptian and Syrian people abandoned by their government after those governments attacked Israel and lost territory as a result. It’s no coincidence that the territory lost was the staging area for the attack. Yes dipshits want Israel to give it back so their enemies can use it to attack Israel again.
how about we mind our own business for a change.
Click to expand...

I'm not a student of history (at least formally), but I always thought the Palestinians were the people who more or less coexisted with Jews in what used to be called Palestine before 1948. Don't get me wrong; I absolutely support Israel, and her enemies have richly deserved all the beatdowns they've gotten. The books I've read on the formation of Israel as a state somewhat parallel the problems with forming independent states when differing populations comingle - like India/Pakistan and much of eastern Europe, but the concept of separate Jewish and Arab states made and still makes sense. One of the bigger problems was the hatchet job the UN did in partitioning the land - probably aided and abetted by idiot British "diplomacy" and "nation building". I've always thought that entire part of the world would have been far better off if the Brits had stay at home and minded their own business.

What I've read could be one sided, but it sure looked like Israelis immediately did a lot more with the land than Arabs (Palestinians or whoever) did over centuries. The Arabs were the ones who attacked Jewish settlements and lobbed mortars from the Golan Heights ... and had the land taken from them to put a stop to it. You stage attacks on a non aggressor and they take your land away, tough. Israel has made no bones about retaliation, and they've proved themselves up to the task, too ... unlike a lot of other countries including the US. Some of it has always looked like the difficulty that comes with nomad or semi nomadic people vs others who are serious nation builders - not unlike Europeans and American Indians here; but, damn, those people need to just take the loss and quit poking the bear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#69
#69
AM64 said:
I'm not a student of history (at least formally), but I always thought the Palestinians were the people who more or less coexisted with Jews in what used to be called Palestine before 1948. Don't get me wrong; I absolutely support Israel, and her enemies have richly deserved all the beatdowns they've gotten. The books I've read on the formation of Israel as a state somewhat parallel the problems with forming independent states when differing populations comingle - like India/Pakistan and much of eastern Europe, but the concept of separate Jewish and Arab states made and still makes sense. One of the bigger problems was the hatchet job the UN did in partitioning the land - probably aided and abetted by idiot British "diplomacy" and "nation building". I've always thought that entire part of the world would have been far better off if the Brits had stay at home and minded their own business.

What I've read could be one sided, but it sure looked like Israelis immediately did a lot more with the land than Arabs (Palestinians or whoever) did over centuries. The Arabs were the ones who attacked Jewish settlements and lobbed mortars from the Golan Heights ... and had the land taken from them to put a stop to it. You stage attacks on a non aggressor and they take your land away, tough. Israel has made no bones about retaliation, and they've proved themselves up to the task, too ... unlike a lot of other countries including the US. Some of it has always looked like the difficulty that comes with nomad or semi nomadic people vs others who are serious nation builders - not unlike Europeans and American Indians here; but, damn, those people need to just take the loss and quit poking the bear.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of truth in what you say.
For the most part those people who were there and coexist with the Nation of Israel continue to do so in peace to this day. It’s strictly the leftovers that were abandoned and locked out of their home nations that continue to be a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#70
#70
hndog609 said:
Honest question since I dont't know...when you say "prohibiting Russians" do you mean people that happen to be from Russia or "as representatives of Russia". I'm not aware of any of the former and even specific caveats to allow the latter.

US Open lets Russian tennis players compete after Wimbledon ban

Sherr said athletes from Russia and Belarus will play at Flushing Meadows under a neutral flag
Click to expand...
Does it really matter?

IOC eyes way for Russians who do not support war to compete as neutrals
 
#72
#72
happy-go_vol said:
I'm not familiar who slice is, but if a jew becomes a Christian, then he's a Christian. The Bible does prophesize that hundreds of thousands of jews will become Christians in the last days.
Click to expand...
Jews are descendants of Judah... one of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel.

Levi, Zebbulon and the other brothers all had descendants but were all considered Hebrews.

That is the distinction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#73
#73
VOLS INC. said:
I was hoping you would chime in on this.

Let’s just be 100% honest for a change. There is a healthy portion of people out there (mostly on the left) that would love to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. They won’t state it publicly, but that’s their desire.

There is no “I can see both sides” argument in this situation. In typical leftist fashion, they’ve identified the aggressor as the victim.
Click to expand...
Let's not act as though the Israelis are just innocent bystanders. They've well earned plenty of condemnation for many of their tactics. That isn't me saying that a Jewish state shouldn't exist. I'm just saying that the Israelis have played a part in shaping their negative reputation.
 
#74
#74
Grand Vol said:
It's funny they use the term apartheid since it doesn't drum up any negative history or anything...

Because verbiage like that is extremely telling to the ulterior motives of what they're trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...
Well technically, the term "apartheid" is one used in international law that comes from the United Nations.

Apartheid Convention - Wikipedia

It was adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973 and came into force on 18 July 1976. It passed by 91 votes in favor, four against (Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) and 26 abstentions.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top