Dianne Feinstein – Fighting Against Free Speech for Palestinians

Dianne Feinstein – Fighting Against Free Speech for Palestinians

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post-Blog

Dianne Feinstein and Arms Trading Husband Seek to Expel Students Who Criticise Israel

The world through Zionist spectacles

Dianne Feinstein is a Senator and a pillar
of the US Democratic establishment. 
Fiercely Zionist she and her war profteering husband, Richard Blum have
been exerting heavy pressure on the University of California to suppress free
speech for Palestinian supporters.  The
pretext?  You guessed it.  Anti-Semitism of course.

Berkley Campus UC campus
It is based on the State Department’s 2010 definition
of anti-Semitism whch means: 
State Department Definition of anti-Semitism

State Department Definition of anti-Semitism relative to Israel
(1) “Demonizing Israel” by “drawing comparisons
of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”
Presumably blowing
people up or burning them alive inside their homes was not something Nazi Germany
did?  Or was turning whole areas into ghettos
not a Nazi mode of operaton?

“blaming Israel for all inter-religious or
political tensions”;

It is a matter of fact that the leaders of Israel
have deliberately set out to destablilise their neighbours on
religious/confessionalist lines.  In
Liviah Rokach’s book Sacred Terrorism, she quotes 

The
Chief of Staff
[Dayan] supports a plan to hire a [Lebanese] officer who
will agree to serve as a puppet so that the Israeli army may appear as
responding to his appeal to liberate Lebanon from its Muslim oppressors…’
(5/28/54;
1024). 

The latter, of course, came about with the creation of the ‘security
zone’ in Lebanon from 1979-1990.’ 
One of 10 UC campuses, Royston Hall, Los Angeles
And she quotes him again in May 1955 as
saying that Israel ‘must—invent dangers, and to do this it must
adopt the method of provocation- and-revenge… And above all—let us hope for a
new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles
and acquire our space.”
What ‘space’ was Dayan referring to if not ‘living space’ lebensraum?
(2) Espousing a “Double standard for Israel” by
“requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic
nation”
It’s difficult to
know why the State department believes that evicting Palestinians who’ve lived
in their homes for generations in order to make way for Jewish settlers isn’t
something one would expect of any half-decent toilet trained western state?  Or perhaps torturing and killing children as
young as 12 is acceptable in the European Union now?  Or is criticising the confiscation of land,
water and  natural resources for the benefit
of the Untermenschen anti-Semitic? 
Perhaps condemning the burning alive of the Dawabsheh family in  Duma village was also anti-Semitic?  And how about the refusal to pay them
anti-terrorism compensation, which Jewish settlers receive?  Is that anti-Semitic?
Feinstein – Police State Democrat
or “multilateral organizations focusing on
Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”; or 
Would Israel feel
happier if it was in the company of Saudi Arabia and Quatar or China?  Does this double standard apply to
organisations that focus only on Tibet or the Syrian Kurds or any other
minority people?  What has this to do
with racism?  What about anti-Apartheid
groups?  Were they anti-White as the
Afrikaaners used to claim?
(3) “Delegitimize Israel” by “denying the Jewish
people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to
exist.”
This is the clincher.  Delegitimising Israel.  Questioning its ‘right to exist’.  But some of us would have questioned ‘the
right to exist’ of Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, the Protestant state
of Ulster and any other settler state. 
What has this to do with racism as opposed to anti-racism?
And what’s this about the ‘right to self-determination’ of the Jewish people?  It used to be the case that those who
asserted there was one Jewish people were considered anti-Semitic.  After all the unbroken links between Jews,
wherever they lived, formed the basis of the world Jewish conspiracy.  Jews are part of the countries they live
in.  They are not a separate people.
Thus
is the dishonesty of the ruling class attempt to police free speech
demonstrated.  In fact this whole
definition rests on the idea that you can be racist against a state.  You can’t. 
A state is a human construct, it is inanimate, it has no feelings, it
doesn’t live.  Racism is meaningless
against anyone bar human beings.
Tony
Greenstein

The
Greatest Threat to Campus Free Speech is Coming From Dianne Feinstein and her
Military-Contractor Husband

Sep. 25 2015,
8:47 p.m.
There
is no shortage of American pundits who love
to denounce “PC” speech codes
 that restrict and punish the
expression of certain ideas on college campuses. What these self-styled
campus-free-speech crusaders typically — and quite tellingly — fail to
mention is that the most potent such campaigns are often devoted to
outlawing or otherwise punishing criticisms of Israel. The firing by the University of
Illinois
of Professor Steven Salatia for his “uncivil” denunciations
of the Israeli war on Gaza — a termination that was privately
condoned
 by Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin — is merely
illustrative of this longgrowing
trend.
One
of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at
the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling
collection of 10 campuses that includes UCLA and UC Berkeley.
The university’s governing Board
of Regents
, with the support
of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by
the state’s legislature
, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that
— in the name of combating “anti-Semitism” — would formally ban various forms
of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.
Under
the most stringent such regulations, students found to be in violation of these
codes would face suspension or expulsion. In July, it appeared that the Regents
were poised to enact the most extreme version, but decided
instead
to push the decision off until September, when they instead would
adopt non-binding guidelines to define “hate speech” and “intolerance.”
One
of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the
speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is
married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. At a Regents meeting last week,
reported
the Los Angeles Times
, Blum expressly threatened that Feinstein
would publicly denounce the university if it failed to adopt far more
stringent standards than the ones it appeared to be considering, and
specifically demanded they be binding and contain punishments for students found
to be in violation.
The
San Francisco Chronicle
put
it
this way: “Regent Dick Blum said his wife, U.S. Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-Calif., ‘is prepared to be critical of this university’
unless UC not only tackles anti-Jewish bigotry but also makes clear that
perpetrators will be punished.” The lawyer Ken White wrote that
“Blum threatened that his wife … would interfere and make trouble if the
Regents didn’t commit to punish people for prohibited speech.” As campus First
Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn put it the
following day
, “Feinstein and her husband think college students
should be expelled for protected free speech.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., left, and her husband, Richard Blum, in the audience prior to a debate between California gubernatorial candidates at Dominican University of California in San Rafael, Calif., Oct. 12, 2010.  
Photo: Paul Sakuma/AP
Blum’s verbatim
comments
at the Regents meeting are even creepier than that
reporting suggests:

‘I
should add that over the weekend my wife, your senior Senator, and I talked
about this issue at length. She wants to stay out of the conversation publicly
but if we do not do the right thing she will engage publicly and is prepared to
be critical of this university if we don’t have the kind of not only statement
but penalties for those who commit what you can call them crimes, call them
whatever you want. Students that do the things that have been cited here today
probably ought to have a dismissal or a suspension from school. I don’t know
how many of you feel strongly that way but my wife does and so do I.’

Sarah
McLaughlin of the campus free-speech group FIRE wrote:
“Yes, a UC Regent flatly threatened the university with political consequences
if it failed to craft a ‘tolerance’ policy that would punish — and even
expel — its violators.”
In
response to inquiries from The Intercept, Feinstein refused to say
whether her husband was authorized to make such threats on her behalf, but she
refused to distance herself from them. “This is a matter before the
University of California and Senator Feinstein has no comment at this time,”
her Press Secretary said.
The specific UC
controversy is two-fold: whether, in combating “anti-semitism,” the
university should adopt the State Department’s
controversial 2010 definition
of that term, and separately, whether
students who express ideas that fall within that definition should be formally
punished up to and including permanent expulsion. What makes the State
Department definition so controversial — particularly for an academic setting —
is that alongside uncontroversial and obvious examples of classic
bigotry (e.g., expressing hateful or derogatory sentiments toward Jews
generally), that definition includes a discussion of what it
calls “Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel.”
How
does speech about Israel become “anti-Semitic”? According to the State
Department, “anti-Semitism” includes those who (1) “Demonize Israel” by
“drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” or
“blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions”; (2) espouse a
“Double standard for Israel” by “requiring of it a behavior not expected or
demanded of any other democratic nation” or “multilateral organizations
focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”; or (3)
“Delegitimize Israel” by “denying the Jewish people their right to
self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.” The State
Department generously adds this caveat at the end: “criticism of Israel
similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as
anti-Semitic.”
The
ironies of this definition are overwhelming. First, it warns
against advocating a “double standard for Israel” — at exactly the same
time that it promulgates a standard that applies only to Israel. Would
the State Department ever formally condemn what it regards
as excessive or one-sided criticism of any other government, such as
Russia or Iran? Why isn’t the State Department also accusing people of bigotry
who create “double standards” for Iran by obsessing over the anti-gay
behavior of Iran while ignoring the same or worse abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt
and Uganda? The State Department is purporting to regulate the discourse
surrounding just one country — Israel — while at the same time condemning
“double standards.”
Worse,
this State Department definition explicitly equates certain forms of criticism
of Israel or activism against Israeli government policies with “anti-Semitism.”
In other words, the State Department embraces the twisted
premise that a defining attribute of “Jews” everywhere is the
actions of the Israeli government, which is itself a longstanding anti-Semitic
trope.
But
most important of all, whatever you think of this State
Department definition, it has no place whatsoever regulating which ideas
can and cannot be expressed in an academic institution, particularly one
that is run by the state (such as the University of California). Adoption of
this “anti-Semitism” definition clearly would function to prohibit the advocacy
of, say, a one-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict, or even the
questioning of a state’s right to exist as a non-secular entity. How can anyone
think it’s appropriate to declare such ideas off limits in academic
classrooms or outlaw them as part of campus activism?
To
ban the expression of any political ideas in such a setting would not only be
wildly anti-intellectual but also patently unconstitutional. As UC Irvine
School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky put it today in an LA
Times
 op-ed
: “There unquestionably is a 1st Amendment
right to argue against (or for) the existence of Israel or to contend that it
should meet (or not have to meet) higher standards of human rights than other
nations.” Even the now-retired Executive Director of the
Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman — while arguing that “the effort to
support boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, is sinister and
malicious and is having a negative effect on Jewish students on some campuses
and on the wider Jewish community” — acknowledged
in May
that such bans would be clearly unconstitutional:
Legislation
that bars BDS activity by private groups, whether corporations or universities,
strikes at the heart of First Amendment-protected free speech, will be
challenged in the courts and is likely to be struck down. A decision by a
private body to boycott Israel, as despicable as it may be, is protected by our
Constitution. Perhaps in Europe, where hate speech laws exist and are
acceptable within their own legal frameworks, such bills could be sustained.
But not here in America.
But
none of that seems to matter to Dianne Feinstein and her war-profiteering husband,
Richard Blum. Not only is Blum demanding adoption of the State Department
definition, despite the fact that (more accurately: because) it would
encompass some forms of BDS activism and even criticisms of Israel. But, worse,
he’s also insisting that it be binding and that students who express the ideas
that fall within the State Department definition be suspended from
school or expelled
. And he’s overtly threatening that if he does
not get his way, then his wife 0- “Your Senior Senator” — will
get very upset and start publicly attacking the university, a threat that
public school administrators who rely on the government for their budgets
take very seriously.
This
behavior is as adolescent as it is despotic. Does anyone believe that college
and post-graduate students should be able to express only those ideas about
Israel that Dianne Feinstein and her war-profiteering husband deem
acceptable?
It’s
no mystery what this is really about. The Israeli government and its most
devoted advocates around the world are petrified at the growing strength of the
movement to boycott Israeli goods in protest of the almost five-decade
occupation. As Foxman conceded, the boycott idea “seems to be picking up steam,
particularly on college campuses across the United States. While no
universities have yet adopted or implemented BDS, there are a growing number of
campuses — now up to 29 — where student organizations have held votes
to determine whether they support BDS.” Just this week, the City Council of
Reykjavik, the largest city in Iceland, voted
to boycott
all Israeli goods as long as the occupation persists (days
later, the City quickly
retracted
the vote, citing the unexpectedly intense “backlash” from
Israel).
After
the horrific
massacre they committed
in Gaza last summer, followed by
its devastating defeat on the Iran Deal, the Israeli government
is rapidly losing the PR battle around the world, and they know it.
The boycott movement scares them above all else because it is predicated on the
truth that they are most eager to suppress: the similarities
between what Israel is doing to the Palestinians
and the apartheid policies
of South Africa (which were undermined by a global boycott movement and which
the world now universally regards as evil).
Since
they are losing the debate about this movement, the Israeli
government and its loyalists are instead seeking to suppress it altogether, to
literally outlaw it. Recall that in May, the right-wing Canadian government threatened
hate speech charges against
those who advocate a boycott of Israel; the country’s Liberal Leader, Justin
Trudeau, decreed
via Twitter
that “the BDS movement, like Israeli Apartheid Week, has
no place on Canadian campuses.” Back in 2013, the ADL took out
a full-page ad
in the New York Times announcing that
“the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel — known as BDS — is
anti-Semitic hate speech.”
The
effort to formally re-define “anti-Semitism” to include certain criticisms of
and activism against the Israeli government has been coordinated
and deliberate. That history is laid out with ample evidence here
by the non-profit group Palestine Legal; here
by Ali Abunimah’s book The Battle for Justice in Palestine, the
relevant portion of which was published by The Intercept; and here
by the writer and activist Ben White. In essence, this re-definition was first
promulgated by Israeli lobbyists and academics, imposed with varying degrees of
success on the EU, and then successfully imported into the Clinton-led State
Department.
It’s
one thing to apply political pressure to induce governments to adopt
speech-repressive definitions of “anti-Semitism” that are non-binding. It’s
another thing entirely to try to import them onto state-run college campuses
where they are used to outlaw the expression of certain forms of criticisms of
the Israeli government. And it’s another thing entirely for a prominent public
official like Dianne Feinstein to have her husband throw their ample
financial and political weight around in order to threaten and bully school
administrators to ban ideas that this power couple dislike and punish
the students who express them.
The
obvious goal with this UC battle is to institutionalize the notion on American
college campuses that activism against the Israeli government is not
merely wrong but is actually “hate speech” that should subject its student
advocates (or professors) to severe punishment. If this menacing
censorship is allowed to take hold in an academic system as large and
influential as the University of California, then it’s much easier for the
censors to point to it in the future as a model, in order to infect other academic
institutions in the U.S. and around the world. That’s all the more reason to
vehemently oppose it in this instance. If defenders of Israel are determined to
defeat the boycott movement, they’ll have to find other ways to do it besides
rendering its advocacy illegal and, in the process, destroying the
long-cherished precept of free speech in academia.

Contact the author:

 

 

 

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This