Opinion

Is Anti-Zionism, Anti Semitism?

Photography Courtesy Ahmed Abu Hameeda

By Gilbert Aguirre
Published 10/19/2023 | 7:22am PST
Photography Ahmed Abu Hameeda

NOTE to readers: This is a reprint of an article that The Pomonan printed a year and a half ago about what was happening not only on the University of California at Riverside campus, but on college campuses across the country. Now, here we are some twenty months later, and the question Is Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism? is just as pertinent - perhaps more so -  than it was back then. With the Israel-Hamas War raging in the Middle East, universities including Harvard, Stanford, Arizona State, Tufts, to name a few, are erupting over this issue. The Pomonan asks its readers to reconsider this issue in light of recent events. This opinion piece was written by former UCR student Gilbert Aguirre.


An email sent to UCR students from the UCR Life email list on May 27, 2021, caught this recipient’s attention with the subject heading: Anti Semitism: then and now. Instead of providing information on antisemitism, an abhorrent form of discrimination which has no place in civil society, the piece intended to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and erase the existence and justified resistance of Palestinian people. 

This is my critique of the interview of UCR Jewish Studies professor Michael Alexander, and his interviewer Omar Shamout, for the disingenuous framing of critiques of the apartheid, settler-colonial state of Israel as antisemitic. Their discussion can be read here (1).

In the article’s opening lines, anti-Zionists, educated on what anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, are made aware that the framing of this article is entirely disingenuous— the working definition of antisemitism in the article comes from the Anti-Defamation League, which classifies antisemitism as being “based on age-old stereotypes and myths that target Jews as a people, their religious practices and beliefs, or the Jewish State of Israel” (2). 

I will repeat that antisemitism, like all forms of prejudice, is absolutely abhorrent and must be destroyed by any means necessary. However, in framing critiques of Israel as antisemitic, activists fighting for justice in Palestine are silenced, as the Anti-Defamation League’s definition of antisemitism functions to quell dissent of Israel. 

Shamout frames his interview of Alexander as a response to “data compiled by the Anti-Defamation League [which] shows an increase in violent attacks, vandalism and harassment of Jews in the U.S., around the world, and online, since fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas earlier this month.” Shamout, in analyzing this framing, identifies that actual antisemitic attacks are being lumped in with “vandalism and harassment” - meaning that vandalizing the phrase “Free Palestine'' on a wall or critiquing Israel on twitter would  qualify as antisemitic under this definition. 

Again, critiquing Israel is not antisemitic, and this framing portrays a fictitious world in which critiques of Israel have the same material impacts on Jewish people as violent hate crimes committed by white supremacists.

Additionally, others have contested the data compiled by the Anti-Defamation League. In an analytical article published by Jewish Currents, a magazine committed to leftist Jewish discourse, Mari Cohen questions and analyzes the data and methods that contribute to the ADL’s report. Cohen is concerned by the weaponizing of anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and her analysis is critical to the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism contributes to misinformation and skewed data— which she states that the ADL’s report exemplifies (3).

My critique also includes the constant erasure of Palestinian people and Palestine as a sovereign state. In the quotation provided above, Shamout makes his first attempt, through the phrase “fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas—“ not Israel and Palestine, not the Israeli Defense Force and Palestinian’s resistance movement, not Israel’s occupying force and the Palestinian resistance; Shamout erases Palestine entirely, as if it were a dirty word.

Shamout proceeds in the next paragraph to use the problematic framing that critique of Israel equates to antisemitism when he asserts, “while hatred toward Jews is sadly nothing new, these incidents are framed against the backdrop of recent Middle East violence, a surge in pro-Palestinian sentiment,” which implies that Palestinian existence is itself a problem.

So I ask, what exactly does the term “pro-Palestinian sentiment” imply? What makes “pro-Palestinian sentiment,” in other words defense of Palestinian’s right to exist and resist violence from the state of Israel, support hatred towards Jewish people? Would the international movements and demonstrations against police violence after the murder of George Floyd be considered “pro-Black sentiment”? Why is Palestinian existence framed as a problem?

Shamout seems to suggest that anti-Zionism is separate from antisemitism when he asks Alexander, “Many of the recent antisemitic incidents have used the term ‘Zionism.’ Can you explain what Zionism meant historically, what it means today, and how the term has been used by racists to target Jews?” To which Alexander gives a bloated, incoherent response that doesn’t state the clear intentions of Zionism, which is a colonial project whose modern conception was proposed and propagated by Theodor Herzl (4).

Zionism, a political position, is framed by Alexander as, “simply Jewish nationalism: the desire for the Jewish people to have and hold their own state,” ignoring that this political position hinges upon the colonization of Palestine, and the genocide of its native occupants. Alexander seems to support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians when he states, “Let’s not forget, the logic of self-determination implies the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority. Cleanse or be cleansed. The logic is stark, but to date it remains the main means by which nation states are formed.”

So I ask, how is it that  UCR News published this violent, genocidal speech that it circulated to its student body? How can a professor be unashamed of giving a defense of what he himself refers to as “the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority”?

Shamout, expecting an answer to the question, “So it’s fair to say that not all critics of Zionism should be cast as antisemitic?” instead receives another bloated, asinine response where Alexander further defends genocide. Alexander proposes a both-sides defense of genocide in his next monologue, by skirting the question, as he states, “Zionism is as legitimate and as problematic as any other nationalism.”(5)

To this, I argue that nationalism against an oppressive force is legitimate. Nationalism against colonizing forces is what has historically motivated the Cuban Revolution, the Irish Republican Army’s resistance against British colonial rule, and Palestinians’ fight against the Israeli government - to name a few. In the case of Palestine, Israel has  actively pushed Palestinians out of their homes, murdered Palestinian children, and bombed its densely populated territories (6). This kind of nationalism is quite different from the kind of nationalism that seeks to oppress another group while expanding the nation’s borders in disregard to human rights and international law.

Alexander continues, “it is problematic in the sense that having formed an ethnic majority, Israel turns around and polices its remaining minorities.” As a reminder, the minorities Alexander refuses to name are Palestinians. Additionally, the Palestinians Alexander refuses to name have only become minorities as a result of Israeli occupation, a modern project that ironically results in some Palestinians being older than the illegitimate state of Israel.

Further Alexander states, “Nearly all majorities do this. This past year, we all saw once again how the American policing of minorities is no exception. The problem of minorities is systemic and is not particular to Israel or to the U.S. Yet that does not excuse Israel from the need to acknowledge and cease the violence of its nation building.”

Implicitly, excusing is exactly what Alexander is doing. To both-sides and what-about state violence via settler-colonialism and white supremacist policing in both Israel and the United States is a disingenuous deflection that attempts to justify the violence of Israel. Alexander is saying— Yeah, it sucks, but that’s just how it goes. By putting on an apolitical mask, in this case and in any other case, it is very clear that the person engaging in the both-sides / what-about argument is on the side of the oppressor.

In the last two sentences of his pro-genocide diatribe, Alexander attempts  to answer Shamout's question on whether or not all critiques of Zionism equate to antisemitism even though, thus far, he has shown a clear aversion to answering any question directly. He states, “I would say this is the great moral imperative and conundrum of the Jewish people in our time. Still, it is a conundrum that rightly should be admitted and shared by hundreds of nations and national movements.” Again, Alexander’s answer is an asinine non-answer that serves to conflate all Jewish people with the ideology of Zionism. It is all in service of Alexander’s personal political agenda.

At the interview’s conclusion, Shamout asks Alexander, “what do you think are the best ways to combat antisemitism in our communities, both physical and online?” to which Alexander does not speak to antisemitism, but once again to the prospects and effects of propagating Zionism without consequence. His opening statement to this sentence is, again, incoherent, so I’ve done the work of decoding it. He states, “I would need to expand the purview of the mandate to include the elimination of Islamophobia and the denial of Palestinian rights to a free and self-determined state.” This thirty-one word sentence means almost nothing, but serves to frame the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a religious issue.

Contrary to what Alexander is propagating, there are Palestinians of Muslim faith, Christian faith, Jewish faith, and atheists (7)— keep in mind the question Shamout asked concerned how to combat antisemitism, but Alexander’s monologue concerns Zionism.

In the following sentence, Alexander reveals his true intentions as he states, “it would also have to include complete civil rights for Palestinians and other minorities who are Israeli citizens.” By granting Palestinians citizenship status, he is finally revealing his agenda as a one state solution Zionist. Under the proposed civil rights, Palestinians won’t have their land, and they would be citizens of the illegitimate state of Israel that imposed itself onto the Palestinian people.

Ultimately, this interview published by UCR News is unacceptable in its disingenuous framing of a human rights issue that affects the lives of real people, and has affected the lives of Palestinian students at UCR. In framing critiques of Zionism as antisemitic, and speaking almost exclusively to Zionism in an interview which is supposedly about antisemitism, Alexander constructs an argument that, within the argument’s fabrication, cannot be critiqued without being antisemitic.

Furthermore, the answers Alexander gives are so bloated and incoherent, I don’t understand how he is a professor at UCR, as I’ve had more coherent and substantive conversations with my five-year-old brother, who would stand firmly against genocide if knowledgable enough to understand it— rather than providing  a both-sides / what-about defense so that his in-group can commit atrocities without critique.

To be explicit, my use of “in-group” is not an allusion to an antisemitic conspiracy, but a direct contention of the conflation of critiques of Zionism as antisemitic— a clear and obvious disingenuous framing that uses identity as a shield and weaponizes actual hate towards Jewish people, which has material consequences and thus should not be minimized to serve a political agenda.

,

Fight For Your Right to Programming

,

Photography Courtesy Julian Lucas ©2013

By Anthony Solorzano
Photography Julian Lucas
Published August 1, 2023 12:15 Pm

This might be too much information for you to handle right from the start, but when you have to go, YOU HAVE TO GO. A few years ago, I found myself in a situation where my business couldn’t wait until I got home. An emergency pitstop at Ganesha Park in Pomona was imminent. 

After quickly parking, I dashed out the car and ran towards the restroom. On my way in, I exchanged head nods with a teenage boy loitering outside the restroom. Once inside the restroom, I encountered a conundrum: Is my emergency worthy of a public restroom with no stall, only half a wall covering the restroom and a few squares of toilet paper? 

As I contemplated my situation, the teenager approached me. He introduced himself by extending his hand for a handshake and called himself Henry. After acknowledging his presence, Henry asked if there was anything he could do for me in a very objectifying manner. His eyes swept me from head to toe as he licked his own lips.

It's an uncomfortable situation that reminds me of how much the city of Pomona has failed its youth.

During my teenage years, I had the opportunity to play soccer and be involved in activities that kept me from the streets and occupied. I played soccer until I started working at the age of 16. 

When playing in the Sunday leagues, the popularity of soccer in the city was evident in numerous public parks. Regardless of which park you found yourself at on a Sunday, you would come across teams of various age groups, ranging from 5 years old to 30-something year olds, celebrating a goal.

Throughout my adult years, and especially since the pandemic, I have noticed a significant decline in the number of Sunday soccer leagues in the city, along with other types of teen programming. Currently, the city offers soccer and basketball programming for kids between the age of 4 to 7-years-old. The only options for teenagers are limited to tennis and music classes available for individuals aged 8 through 17 years.

Meanwhile, four private baseball leagues also operate within parks in the city.

According to the Gente De Pomona Equity Report, from 2021 to 2023, the city experienced an increase of $20,412,383 in their general fund expenditures. The majority of this funding is allocated to the Pomona Police Department, which has seen $15 million dollars increase since 2021.

Instead of prioritizing investments in youth and creating programs specifically for teenagers, the city places a higher emphasis on policing. According to the same report by Gente de Pomona, during the period of January 2019 through December 2021, it was found that 44% of the individuals arrested for gang-related crimes were youth and transitional age youth.

“Money for parks and [recreation]. That has been an issue for a long time,” explains Garey High School student Isabella Luna Tovar. “More than half the money [the city gets], it's going to the police, because crime rates are so high and everything, and that's understandable. But, they are so high because kids have nothing to do.”

Isabella became aware of the lack of teen programming in the city when she started playing soccer. After her high school season ended, she embarked on a search for leagues within the city by seeking recommendations from friends. Unfortunately, instead of discovering a league operated by the city,  Isabella had to rely on unorganized private leagues where she often feels  deceived due to the lack of effective communication.

“It took me a while to pay, because it's a random person,” explains Isabella. “I paid 50 dollars a couple of weeks ago and I still haven't gotten a uniform.”

When the city does offer an opportunity for teenagers to participate in their desired sport, it often makes it challenging for them to access it without adult supervision. The city’s requirement to rent out a goal post at a park can be costly and necessitates the use of a credit card. In a community where most of the parents work overtime, having an adult to accompany them is not always feasible.

“The city attempts to counter our work, they are trying to give themselves credit for just ridiculous things,” states the co-founder of Gente Jesus Sanchez. “Under the scope of youth funding, you'll see Santa Cop. You’ll see a school resource officer. These are all our funds that go to our youth.” 

“It's misleading. They’re trying to claim something they’re not. There's no strategic plan to work with young people in this city that's effective. There's no [collaboration] that the city is behind that's leading us into the future and that's a problem.”

The citizens of Pomona are joining forces to take matters into their own hands by supporting an initiative called “ Pomona Kids First.” The initiative aims to allocate 10% of the city’s budget towards creating programming specifically for children throughout the city.

If the initiative is successfully passed, it will become the second largest department in the city of Pomona, trailing behind the Pomona Police department and Public Works. 

Anthony Solorzano II was born and raised in Pomona, California. He writes about the Dodgers and the LA Galaxy to overcome the anxiety the teams cause him.

Julian Lucas, is a photographer, a purveyor of books, and writer in training, but mostly a photographer, but don’t ever ask him to take photos of events. Julian is also the owner and founder of Mirrored Society Book Shop.

Abuse of Power, Lies and Videotape

It is well past time to call out the Pomona City Council for their egregious behavior during a City Council meeting nearly four months ago on February, 6, 2023.

By Julian Lucas

Published 06/06/2023 9:11 Am PST

Updated 06/06/2023
Last original paragraph retracted.


Pomona’s Mayor Tim Sandoval lost control of his meeting, and failed to stop his fellow Council Member, Robert S. Torres, son of Congresswoman Norma Torres and current candidate for the California State Assembly, from berating a member of the public from the dais.

The incident occurred during the beginning of the meeting on the agenda item listed vaguely as “ MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER COMMUNICATIONS. Reports on conferences, seminars, and regional meetings attended by Mayor and City Council and announcements of upcoming events, and also items for future City Council consideration as requested by Mayor or Members of the City Council.” 

No one in the public could have known from reading the agenda that this was the time that the Council would address two recent events within the last couple of weeks that involved the murder of three teens in the area: 

  1. On Saturday night, January 28th,  a 17-year-old Pomona boy and a man were killed in a shooting at a house party in Pomona. 

  2. A few nights later, on Thursday, February 2nd, a 15-year-old boy was killed in a shooting at Montclair Plaza. A second shooting victim was wounded. At least four people have been arrested as suspects in connection with the incident at Montclair Plaza shootings. The Montclair Police Department said detectives served search warrants in Pomona and arrested three suspects: two 20-year-old men and a 16-year-old boy.

Understandably, emotions ran high discussing these youth deaths and arrests in the recent weeks. Mayor Sandoval issued a call for “all community members to come together to bring forth change,” and Council Member Nora Garcia applauded several organizations in Pomona who have directed their efforts to helping teens - Gente Organizada among them. Even Council Member Torres, in the first part of his speech, spoke in favor of the organizations in the City who worked with teens and spoke of the need for the City Council to “engage the community” to do more to solve its problems.

However, after Torres announced that he had been instrumental in working with the City to secure a 4 million dollar federal grant for La Casita Teen Center at Palomares Park, he launched into what can only be characterized as a personal verbal attack on Jesus Sanchez, founder and former Executive Director of Gente Organizada, who now serves as the organization’s Economic Justice Director. 

In the past, Sanchez has been an outspoken critic of public officials who have used violent incidents such as the aforementioned as an opportunity to expand police presence. He has maintained that it is the wrong approach to the problem - insisting that the best allocation of resources are those that address the root of the problem. In the past few years, Gente Organizada has published several reports that have pointed out the inequities of arrests and incarcerations in the city. 

Sanchez had not yet spoken in this meeting, but Torres took exception to the fact that Sanchez shook his head at some of his comments. 

Torres’ diatribe against Sanchez began by warning members of the public that “we have individuals here who I call divisive individuals, who represent themselves, and they don’t represent this community. And the bottom line is each one of the City Council members here have been elected to represent this community whether you like it or not, Sir.”  Here, Torres began addressing Gente Organizada’s Jesus Sanchez directly, continuing: “And the sad part about it is this - we need more police presence - whether you like it or not. We need to hire more police on the street.” 

Torres’ comment about expanding police presence elicited a quiet rumble of dissent from the audience. 

Mayor Sandoval attempted to interrupt Torres, saying “Ro-, Ro-, Ro-,” but Torres continued: “the fact that you have a few officers patrolling the streets at one time is flat-out dangerous. And if you talk to the residents of Pomona . . . they want more investment in public safety. And . . . If you knock on that door, Jesus, (Here, Torres addresses Sanchez directly, while knocking 4 times on the dais)  and you tell them to defund the police . . . they will throw you out.”

This is the part of the meeting when Sanchez, from the audience, directed an expletive at Torres. It is easy to pin culpability on the person who is yelling and swearing in the audience, but upon examination, Sanchez was provoked. It is not the job of public officials to incite the audience in the way that Torres did.

From that time on, it became a cacophony of voices. Other members of the audience and City staff members chimed in.  At various junctures, Mayor Sandoval tried to address both Torres and Sanchez, by repeatedly calling them out by their first names. Sandoval also called out several times to Police Chief Ellis. 

From the audience, Sanchez yelled that he was angry that Council Member Torres took the topic of the teen deaths only to turn it around and make it about him. Sanchez said, “that’s the message here tonight. All of you haven’t done shit. And the kids are fucking dying.” 

The Mayor’s response was: “I want him removed,” and called for the Police Chief to do so.

Both staff and the Mayor called for a break, but even after the Mayor stood to leave the dais in order to walk toward the audience, and even while he was walking behind Council Member Torres and some of the other Council Members, Torres continued to taunt Sanchez: “Dude [he said to Jesus Sanchez] . . . Don’t be flipping people off. Don’t represent yourself like that. And, if you are the type of person who likes to dish it out, try to be the type of person that can take it.” 

It’s been reported that after speaking with the Pomona Chief of Police Ellis, Jesus Sanchez removed himself from Council chambers. 

When Gente Organizada’s Jesus Sanchez was escorted out, Mayor Sandoval told the remaining members of the organization that they should ‘keep him in check since he represents all of you”. When they replied that Council Member Torres represents the entire Pomona City Council and the Mayor should ‘keep his own Council Members in check, the Mayor disagreed and said that Council Member Torres “represents himself.” The double standard was definitely in play that night at the Council meeting.

On the original videotape, Torres’ last comment to Sanchez is audible, but shortly after, the videotape is muted for the next 7 minutes or so. During this time, the Mayor is seen on screen, speaking to several individuals including staff and security officers, at least one member in the audience, along with several other Council Members.

However, the official ‘scrubbed’ version of the videotape, does not include Torres’ last comments to Jesus, nor does it show the muted film footage of all that ensued during the break. 

While there are no laws that require the City to show the full tape, it appears shady when the city’s original tape was specifically edited for public review. This raises the question of transparency. How can city council members including the mayor campaign and include transparency as a core value, but take time to edit something so minuscule as a city council meeting not being butterflies and unicorns as they often imply.

In addition, while it appears no laws were broken, a public meeting where the Mayor allows a member of the Council to single out, target and slander one member of the public reflects poorly on the entire City Council. It is the job of the Mayor to keep the individual members of the Council in check. At times during the meeting, the Mayor did try to interrupt Council Member Torres, but Torres disregarded him. This should be addressed. There is a risk here that this kind of action could become the norm, with any Council Member choosing to ignore the Chair. In this case chaos, rather than order, would rule. 

The Mayor needs to reaffirm his role to the Council as Chair, and the Council needs to reaffirm that they are a body dedicated to representing and making decisions on behalf of the public - rather than attacking them. 

The kind of behavior, exhibited on February 6th, could very well have had a chilling effect on public participation. No member of the public wants to feel like they could be potentially singled out and publicly ridiculed as a consequence for their attendance at a public meeting.

The appropriate remedy is for the Mayor to apologize to the public directly and schedule a meeting with the Council to discuss and adopt norms and protocols for public meetings. Currently, it does not appear that Pomona has anything on the books concerning such for its Council Members, other than referring to Robert’s Rules of Order. That said, there's an existing version of Robert's Rules  recommended by League of California Cities called Rosenberg's Rules of Order, which states that:

"The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the  personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off  discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude."

While this particular rule applies to the conduct between Council Members, it would seem like this rule would apply to the conduct between Council Members and the public as well.

No meeting should begin with elected officials taking jabs at people. It needs to be made very clear that Council Members should only speak directly to members of the public if they are seeking clarification on issues that the members of the public addressed in their comments during the time allotted for public participation. It is not the job of an elected official to berate, argue or debate the public from the dais. The job of an elected official to take on the role of active listener - it is not always easy, but officials were elected to respond to the public's concerns.

It is important that the Council determine clear requirements for agenda items that include more specificity - preventing abuse of the topic in the future. It’s very hard for the Mayor to call out ‘point of order’ when the topic has not been defined.

Ordinarily, cities and school districts begin meetings with recognition of typically positive things that are happening in the district. This sets a positive tone for the meeting. No one should be surprised about the topic. This means that the agenda should be specific enough so that members of the public can decide beforehand whether they want to speak on a topic.

Once the Council passes a set of protocols or norms, these should be posted so that the public can hold the Council accountable. The City of Pomona, though a fairly large City, lacks a newspaper that consistently reports on its Council meetings. In lieu of this kind of reporting, it is particularly necessary that the Council have systems in place to hold themselves accountable to the public who elected them in the first place.

The bottom line is politicians should not be attempting to catapult their careers over the deaths of two Black kids.

The Pomonan delayed writing about this incident out of respect for the families, friends and loved ones of the victims, and offers sincere condolences to all who have been adversely-affected by these deaths.

Download transcript of the Pomona City Council Member Robert Torres’ speech here

Julian Lucas, is a photographer, a purveyor of books, and writer in training, but mostly a photographer, but don’t ever ask him to take photos of events. Julian is also the owner and founder of Mirrored Society Book Shop.

Critique of Zionist Propaganda

By Gilbert Aguirre
Published 2/23/2022 6:00Am PST
Photography Ahmed Abu Hameeda

An email sent to UCR students from the UCR Life email list on May 27, 2021, caught recipient’s attention with the subject heading: Antisemitism then and now. Instead of providing information on antisemitism, an abhorrent form of discrimination which has no place in civil society, the piece intended to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and erase the existence and justified resistance of Palestinian people. This is my critique of the interview of UCR Jewish Studies professor Michael Alexander, and his interviewer Omar Shamout, for the disingenuous framing of critiques of the apartheid, settler-colonial state of Israel as antisemitic. Their discussion can be read here (1).

In the article’s opening lines, anti-Zionists educated on what anti-Zionism and antisemitism are, are made aware that the framing of this article is entirely disingenuous— the working definition of antisemitism in the article comes from the Anti-Defamation League, which classifies antisemitism as being “based on age-old stereotypes and myths that target Jews as a people, their religious practices and beliefs, or the Jewish State of Israel” (2). I will repeat that antisemitism, like all forms of prejudice, is absolutely abhorrent and must be destroyed by any means necessary. However, in framing critiques of Israel as antisemitic, activists fighting for justice in Palestine are silenced, as the Anti-Defamation League’s definition of antisemitism functions to quell dissent of Israel. Shamout proceeds to frame the purpose of his interview with Alexander as a response to “data compiled by the Anti-Defamation League [which] shows an increase in violent attacks, vandalism and harassment of Jews in the U.S., around the world, and online, since fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas earlier this month.” So, in analyzing this framing, actual antisemitic attacks are being lumped in with “vandalism and harassment,” keeping in mind that the working definition of antisemitism in Shamout’s piece includes critique of Israel as antisemitic, vandalizing the term “Free Palestine” on a wall, or critiquing Israel on twitter would also qualify as antisemitic. Again, critiquing Israel is not antisemitic, and this framing portrays a fictitious world in which critiques of Israel have the same material impacts on Jewish people as violent hate crimes committed by white supremacists.

Additionally, the data compiled by the ADL reporting an increase in antisemitism is contested. In an analytical article published by Jewish Currents, a magazine committed to leftist Jewish discourse, Mari Cohen questions and analyzes the data and methods that contribute to the ADL’s report. Cohen, like many leftists, is concerned by the weaponizing of anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and her analysis contributes greatly to how the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism contributes to misinformation and skewed data— which the ADL’s report exemplifies (3).

Another part of my critique will include the constant erasure of Palestinian people and Palestine as a sovereign state. In the quotation provided above, Shamout makes his first attempt, through the phrase “fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas—“ not Israel and Palestine, not the Israeli Defense Force and Palestinian’s resistance movement, not Israel’s occupying force and the Palestinian resistance; Shamout erases Palestine entirely, as if it were a dirty word. Shamout proceeds in the next paragraph to use the problematic framing that critique of Israel equates to antisemitism to assert, “while hatred toward Jews is sadly nothing new, these incidents are framed against the backdrop of recent Middle East violence, a surge in pro-Palestinian sentiment,” which implies that Palestinian existence is itself a problem. So I ask, what exactly does the term “pro-Palestinian sentiment” imply? What makes “pro-Palestinian sentiment,” in other words defense of Palestinian’s right to exist and resist violence from the state of Israel, support hatred towards Jewish people? Would the international movements and demonstrations against police violence after the murder of George Floyd be considered “pro-Black sentiment”? Why is Palestinian existence framed as a problem?

Shamout almost comes to see that anti-Zionism is separate from antisemitism when he asks Alexander, “Many of the recent antisemitic incidents have used the term ‘Zionism.’ Can you explain what Zionism meant historically, what it means today, and how the term has been used by racists to target jews?” To which Alexander gives a bloated, incoherent response that doesn’t state the clear intentions of Zionism, which is a colonial project whose modern conception was proposed and propagated by Theodor Herzl (4).

Zionism, a political position, is framed by Alexander as, “simply Jewish nationalism: the desire for the Jewish people to have and hold their own state,” ignoring that this political position hinges upon the colonization of Palestine, and the genocide of its native occupants. Alexander seems to support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as he states, “Let’s not forget, the logic of self-determination implies the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority. Cleanse or be cleansed. The logic is stark, but to date it remains the main means by which nation states are formed.” So I ask, how did UCR News allow this violent, genocidal speech to get published to its student body? How can a professor be unashamed of giving a defense of what he himself refers to as “the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority”?

Shamout, expecting an answer to the question “So it’s fair to say that not all critiques of Zionism should be cast as antisemitic?” receives another bloated, asinine response where Alexander goes to further defend genocide. Alexander proposes a both-sides defense of genocide in his next monologue, again not answering the question, as he states, “Zionism is as legitimate and as problematic as any other nationalism”— to this point I argue that nationalism against an oppressive force is legitimate (5). Nationalism against colonizing forces has been used historically by Cubans proud of their nation’s decolonial revolution, the Irish Republican Army’s resistance against British colonial rule, and Palestinians’ fight against the Israeli government that actively pushes Palestinians out of their homes, murders Palestinian children, and bombs densely populated territories (6).That nationalism is quite separate from nationalism that seeks to oppress another group, and expand the nation’s borders, disregarding human rights and international law— which is precisely what Palestinians have been resisting since the birth of Zionism. Alexander continues, “it is problematic in the sense that having formed an ethnic majority, Israel turns around and polices its remaining minorities.” As a reminder, the minorities Alexander refuses to name are Palestinians. Additionally, the Palestinians Alexander refuses to name have only become minorities as a result of Israeli occupation, a modern project that ironically results in some Palestinians being older than the illegitimate state of Israel. “Nearly all majorities do this. This past year, we all saw once again how the American policing of minorities is no exception. The problem of minorities is systemic and is not particular to Israel or to the U.S. Yet that does not excuse Israel from the need to acknowledge and cease the violence of its nation building.” Although implicitly, excusing is exactly what Alexander is doing. To both-sides and what-about state violence via settler-colonialism and white supremacist policing in both Israel and the United States is a disingenuous deflection that attempts to justify the violence of Israel. Alexander is saying— Yeah, it sucks, but that’s just how it goes. By putting on an apolitical mask, in this case and in any other case, it is very clear that the person engaging in the both-sides / what-about argument is on the side of the oppressor. In the last two sentences of his pro-genocide diatribe, it appears Alexander returns to answer Shamout's question on whether or not all critiques of Zionism equate to antisemitism, I am not sure because Alexander has thus far shown a clear aversion to answering any question directly. He states, “I would say this is the great moral imperative and conundrum of the Jewish people in our time. Still, it is a conundrum that rightly should be admitted and shared by hundreds of nations and national movements.” Again, an asinine non-answer that serves to conflate all Jewish people with the ideology of Zionism, to serve Alexander’s personal political agenda. 


At the interview’s conclusion, Shamout asks Alexander, “what do you think are the best ways to combat antisemitism in our communities, both physical and online?” to which Alexander does not speak to antisemitism, but once again to the prospects and effects of propagating Zionism without consequence. His opening statement to this sentence is, again, incoherent, so I’ve done the work of decoding it. He states, “I would need to expand the purview of the mandate to include the elimination of Islamophobia and the denial of Palestinian rights to a free and self-determined state.” This thirty-one word sentence means almost nothing, but serves to frame the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a religious issue. Contrary to what Alexander is propagating, there are Palestinians of Muslim faith, Christian faith, Jewish faith, and atheists (7)— keep in mind the question Shamout asked concerned how to combat antisemitism, but Alexander’s monologue concerns Zionism. In the following sentence, Alexander reveals his true intentions as he states, “it would also have to include complete civil rights for Palestinians and other minorities who are Israeli citizens.” By granting Palestinians citizenship status, he is finally revealing his agenda as a one state solution Zionist. Under the proposed civil rights, Palestinians won’t have their land, and they would be citizens of the illegitimate state of Israel that imposed itself unto the Palestinian people.

Ultimately, this interview published by UCR News is unacceptable in its disingenuous framing of a human rights issue that affects the lives of real people, and has affected the lives of Palestinian students at UCR. In framing critiques of Zionism as antisemitic, and speaking almost exclusively to Zionism in an interview which is supposedly about antisemitism, Alexander constructs an argument that, within the argument’s fabrication, cannot be critiqued without being antisemitic. Furthermore, the answers Alexander gives are so bloated and incoherent, I don’t understand how he is a professor at UCR, as I’ve had more coherent and substantive conversations with my five year old brother, who would stand firmly against genocide if knowledgable enough to understand it— not provide a both-sides / what-about defense so that his in-group can commit atrocities without critique. To be explicit, my use of “in-group” is not an allusion to an antisemitic conspiracy, but a direct contention of the conflation of critiques of Zionism as antisemitic— a clear and obvious disingenuous framing that uses identity as a shield and weaponizes actual hate towards Jewish people, which has material consequences and thus should not be minimized to serve a political agenda.

LINKS