For too long, the debate on anti -Semitism in university campus has bogues whether anti -emitting is anti -mitism. Endless ink has been spilled on the distinction (or not) between the two.
Last week, in his testimony To the Committee of Education and Labor Force of the House of Representatives, the Chancellor of UC Berkeley Rich Lyons, the Chancellor of the University of New York City, Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, and the interim president of Georgetown, Robert M. Groves, are going through all this academic hairstyle. “Do you refuse to the Jewish people their rights to self -determination … anti -Semitism? Yes or no?” Burgess Owens (R-UTAH) asked. The three university leaders responded in a simple and unequivocal way: “Yes.”
The right to Jewish self -determination is a definition of textbooks of Zionism. The clarity with which University officials linked anti -rings as an anti -Semitic is very necessary and has long been.
For years, progressives have created awareness about the need to recognize and repudiate intolerant Dog whistle, Microgresions and doubts. However, many of those same progressive have been surprisingly silently when it comes to denouncing the anti-Semitism macroagresses that have become increasingly common in anti-Israel protests. They have insisted that the songs now relatives: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” “We do not want two states! We all want the '48!”, They are not anti -Semitic, only anti -sectionists, with some who are Jews who concur and provide coverage.
However, as there may be “racism without racist“, That is, racist results without racist intentions, there may also be an anti -Semitism without anti -Semitic. Not all antisionists are anti -Semitic, but antisionism, in its most basic form, denying Jewish people the right to self -determination, a right recognized as inherent to others, including the Palestinians, is a form of anti -Semitism.
In addition, because anti -ionism stands out only to the Jewish state for elimination, among the dozens of ethnonational or ethnorelligious states of the world, including a myriad of Islamic, which also makes it a form of anti -Semitism.
Declare antisionism as an anti -Semitic, as the university leaders did, was an important development for the dignity of Jewish students, one who echoed and amplified a Preliminary mandate of the Federal District Court Last year, that said that UCLA could not allow antiisraelel activists to exclude “Jewish students … because they refused to denounce their faith”, of which Zionism was a central component, from parts of the campus, as happened during the protests against the Israel-Ahamas War.
Zionism, in essence, is a belief in Israel's right to sovereignty as a Jewish state in part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. That is an ancient faith for Judaism, as reflected, for example, in daily Jewish prayers, the Easter Seder and the ritual of breaking a glass in weddings. Those who claim the mantle of Zionism for much more aggressive or exclusive objectives do not change that central fact, nor those that treat Zionism as an exclusively evil expression of national liberation or the construction of the nation.
Recognizing antisionism as a manifestation of anti -Semitism is an important step forward to combat discrimination and ostracism that many Jewish students have experienced for expressing their support for Israel's right to exist in front of those who ask for their elimination. Such Collection, In turn, Can Help Concentrate Campus Conflicts About Israel and Palesenians on Whatters Most: Fruitful Debate Over Israel's Actions (Including its Prosecision of the War in Gaza) rather Than Fruitless Shouting Match Match Over Israel's Existence and Neo-McCarthyite Litmus Litmus Litmus Litmus Tests (“Are you now or have you Ever Been a Zionist?”).
As happens, we would be well served to cease and give up using the terms “Zionism” and “anti -rings”, except as historical artifacts. After all, “Zionism” refers to the aspiration to create a nation that is now almost 80 years old. AND anti-Elzionism, therefore, perpetuates a fantasy in which Israel's place in the family of the Nations family is still open for debate. It is not, such as the existence of Russia under Putin or the United States under Trump, no matter how much we can deplore its policies, it is open for debate.
We owe the leaders of Berkeley, Cuny and Georgetown a great debt of gratitude to help raise the intractable conflicts of the campus over Israel and the Palestinians to a higher plane.
Mark Brilliant is an associate professor of American history and studies at UC Berkeley.
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The author affirms that antisionism constitutes anti -Semitism because he denies Jews the right to self -determination, a fundamental principle of Zionism, while extending this right to other groups, including the Palestinians.[1].
- UC Berkeley University leaders, Cuny and Georgetown declared before Congress that denying Jewish self -determination qualifies as anti -Semitism, which reinforces the author's position that anti -riseism is intrinsically anti -Semitic[2].
- Antisionism is framed as discriminatory because it is directed exclusively to Israel for the elimination between the many ethnonational states of the world[3].
- The protests of the campus that use songs such as “from the River to the Sea” are characterized as “anti -Semitic macroagressions, with progressives accused of silence despite their position against other forms of intolerance[4].
- The author argues that Zionism is essential for Jewish identity, pointing out its presence in daily prayers and rituals, and rejects criticism of Israeli policies as justification for anti -risism[5].
Different views on the subject
- Critics argue that definitions such as the anti -Semitism of IHRA combine anti -Semitism with the legitimate criticism of Israel's policies, which potentially suppress freedom of expression and defense of Palestinian rights under the appearance of combating hatred.
- Equipo anti -risks with anti -Semitism risks falsely inflating anti -Semitism statistics by including political dissent, as seen in ADL reports after October 2023.
- The executive actions that encode such definitions, such as Trump's 2025 order, raise concerns of the first amendment when dealing with protected political discourse (for example, calling Israel a “racist effort”) as a hate speech.
- The opponents warn that combining Jewish identity with Zionism inadvertently paints all Jews as objectives for anti -sectionist activism, endangering Jewish communities.
- Some Jewish voices reject the policies of the Israeli State while affirming Jewish self -determination, illustrating that antisionism is not inherently anti -Semitic, but a critique of state actions.
