There is an old saying that it is not what you say but how you say it. I think that certainly applies to the use of the very term "Jew". Today in Germany, the term "Jude" is still an emotion-laden word. During the Third Reich, Nazis didn't have to use slurs and epithets to refer to Jews, they simply used the word "Jude". In most cases, they literally spit out the word, much like Ali does when he says, "Zionist Jews". In addition, the word Jew can be used in a pejorative way in English if used in a certain tone. Even when I use the word (or Jewish), I am conscious of the tone and context in which I use it. I think the same situation exists in other languages and would bet the farm in Arabic.
What Ali is engaging in is code language. To Israel's opponents, Zionism is considered a bad thing. Ali thinks as long as he puts that adjective "Zionist" in front of "Jew", it is OK. As an African-American, Ali knows all about code language since it has been used for ages against African-Americans. If some white racist gets in front of a microphone and starts railing against "welfare queens", everyone knows what he is talking about.
Of course, on both sides of an argument, we can see references to "code" that may or may not be justified. Ali and his friends will tell you that using "Zionist" isn't really code language at all, nor is the term, "pro-Israel lobby". Yet many of them will tell you that the expression "cutting taxes' is now code language for racism directed at African-Americans (which, in my view, is nonsense and, in its own way, insulting to African-Americans).
Ali might want to consider why he never uses the term, "Zionist Christians" (at least I have never heard it from him). If not all Zionists are Jews, then surely he must think that some are Christians who support the notion that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state (like me, for instance).
"Fousesquawk is a straight-up Zionist Christian."
Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it?
Even if Ali sincerely believes that his use of the term, Zionist Jew" is not anti-Semitic and not meant to apply to all Jews, he surely is savvy enough to know that his manner in saying it would lead many to believe there is religious animus involved and would offend many Jews, Zionist or not. After all, white Christians know that when referring to other groups like African-Americans and Muslims, offense can be taken very quickly, and (most of us) use our words carefully so as not to offend-even inadvertently. Those rules of etiquette apparently do not apply to Ali or those who invite him to speak on their behalf.
No, on the other hand, the MSU, prior to all their speaking events the past couple of years, have used a verbal disclaimer given at the opening that it is wrong to label anti-Zionism or opposition to Israel as being anti-Semitic. Indeed, they state that they oppose all forms of racial or religious bigotry-including that directed toward members of the Jewish faith. That apparently opens the doors for speakers like Amir Abdel Malik Ali (and others the UCI MSU has invited through the years like Abdul Alim Musa and Mohammed al-Asi) to step to the microphone and spout their toxic venom. Of course, Ali really offends nobody because he says, "Zionist Jews".
"You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew."
-Mohammed al Asi at UCI in February 2001
Poor Al Asi forgot to say "Zionist Jew". Well, we can certainly forgive the American-born, Ayatollah-supporting imam from Washington since Nowhere Is It Written, "Zionist" Jew.
As long as we are on the topic of momentous declarations at UCI, we might as well include this jewel from a few years back when Jewish students and community members were complaining about the rhetoric at these same events:
"One person's hate speech is another person's education."
That is what they were reportedly told by a university official.
I suppose I can understand having a problem with Zionism, and from what I understand of it, not only Jews can be Zionists. There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who could be considered Zionists because they think it's all what God wants of them.
ReplyDeleteSo, if these guys just criticized "Zionists" then they could say they're not anti-Semitic. But the fact that they have to always add the word "Jew" to the end of the phrase reveals what their problem is - and that's Jews.
It's like saying you don't like black thieves. Why not just say that you don't like thieves?
What is particular to me is that I have never seen a MSU member openly support any of the crazy conspiracy theories made by Malik Ali. I have seen individual members say they cannot speak for other members and refuse to make a statement in agreement or disagreement with anything Malik Ali has said.
ReplyDeleteSome members of the MSU must agree with what he says or they wouldn’t keep inviting him back on the campus.
Any sane person who watched his latest talk on the campus would realize he is a conspiracy nutcase. No one who has a brain can take him seriously.
Repeatedly inviting him to speak on the campus damages any creditability the MSU has a group in creating a positive change in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The MSU has a right to invite Malik Ali to speak on campus. And they have the right to invite and celebrate the boorish behavior of members of the “Irvine 11” who gained their fame by preventing someone from saying whatever he wanted to say on the campus. The MSU may be playing up to their base by inviting these people to speak. However, it is a tiny base and isn’t going to grow when these are the type of people they think need to be heard.
Anteater,
ReplyDeleteI have always assumed perhaps erroneously, that many Muslim students join the MSU for all the honorable reasons as a support group for their religious affiliation. Yet, in my opinion, whoever is in a leadership position will be there because they adhere to the anti-Israel line and that line propagated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Don't forget that the Muslim Student Associations in the US are a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. Don't expect any reform.
@ Anonymous and Anteater
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
Malik Ali likes to invoke the sayings of Dr. Martin Luther King. But, Malik forgets that Dr. King said " Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Thus, an anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite. So, Anonymous, you are and anti-Semite.
Anteater,
In the months just prior to the Irvine 11 civil disobedience that landed them a midomeanor charge for violating Ambasador Oren's presentation, Malik told the MSU crown attending his speech, to engage in "civil disobedience". This is exactly what the MSU did, by following the suggestions of Malik.
Squid
Findalis,
ReplyDeleteDid I say that I was anti-Zionism.
Also believing that Jews can defend themselves and believing that they have the right to move to their ancient homeland no matter what are not the same ideas.
There are plenty of real anti-Semites out there. You don't need to go looking for more.
I wonder if inviting Malik Ali to speak is a ploy by the MSU to try to generate an overreaction that would lead to demeaning comments against Muslims from the extreme right wing. Then the MSU can use those comments and claim how widespread discrimination and hate is against all Muslims in Orange County.
ReplyDeleteThis is only a guess. I cannot figure why they would repeatedly invite him to speak. What he says makes no sense and I have not seen MSU openly support his wild conspiracy stories.
I have seen members of the "Irvine 11" claim they were not practicing civil disobedience. They claim they were merely protesting and exercising their rights granted under the First Amendment. I cannot tell if they are delusional, ignorant or are trying to deliberately mislead people.
The evidence in their emails show they went to prevent Oren from saying whatever he wanted on the campus. It is pretty clear cut that they [1] substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting by intentionally committing acts [2] in violation of implicit customs or usages or of explicit rules for governance of the meeting, of which they knew, or as a reasonable man should have known,” and [3] they were convicted for the activity itself —and not the content of their speech.
I was against the criminal prosecution of the "Irvine 11"
because the case gave them more publicity that they seem to cherish and much more publicity than they deserve. However, once the charges were filed, I fully expected a guilty verdict.
I have been following Ali for some time. I have seen no over-reaction to his comments that would discredit the opposition to him at UCI. It is true that when he spoke at Yorba Linda, a few dozen protesters acted in a appropriately and ruined what had been a responsible and effective protest. I have seen a video of his appearance at UCI in (I think) 2001, in which his talk was disrupted. While I was teaching at UCI at that time, I was not involved in these events until 2006-2007.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Kathleen Sibelius spoke at a graduation ceremony at Georgetown last week and was disrupted by an anti-abortion protester, who was taken out by the police. It was wrong to disrupt her.
One can only conclude that the leadership of the MSU subscribes to Ali's beliefs. He received a lot of applause from the MSU.
Findalis, there is the small difficulty that people were already living in the land the Zionists wished to return to.
ReplyDeleteThe earliest Zionists had legal permission from Ottoman authorities, to be sure, and there was a good deal of undeveloped land for them to settle in. The means employed by those already living there to discourage Jewish immigration were at times violent, and some of the local feudal tinpots stirred up irrational mob violence for ulterior motives.
Still, Zionism was not written on a blank slate. Failure to recognize that undermines your pristine definition, no matter what reference work it came from.