campus anti-Semitism – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two-part examination of anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses.

A Tower report emphasizes that there is a “disquieting, yet growing, trend of hate speech and crimes directed towards Jewish students within the [University of California] UC system that spurred Mokhtarzadeh and Rosenberg, both Jewish sophomores at UCLA, to attend a [Students of Color Conference] (SOCC) . Their freshman year was punctuated by incidents of anti-Semitism that were both personal and met with national controversy. They were shocked during their first quarter in school, when students entered the Bruin Cafe to see the phrase “Hitler did nothing wrong” etched into a table. Months later, Mokhtarzadeh’s friend, Rachel Beyda, was temporarily denied a student government leadership position based solely on her Jewish identity, an event that made news nationwide. Throughout the year, they saw the school’s pro-Palestinian group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), issue criticism of Israel that overstepped into anti-Semitic rhetoric and hate.”

A legal action filed by the Lawfare Project about mistreatment of Jewish students at San Francisco State University [SFSU] describes a long list of discrimination and intimidation and mistreatment

The following are some examples cited:

“In 1994, a ten-foot mural was erected on SFSU’s student union building that portrayed yellow Stars of David intertwined with dollar signs, skulls and crossbones, and the words ‘African Blood.’
In 1997, a banner depicting an Israeli flag with a swastika next to an American flag with a dollar sign was hung over the same wall where the 1994 mural had been painted.
In April of 2002, posters appeared around campus advertising an event called ‘Genocide in the 21st Century,’ featuring a dead baby on the label of a soup can, surrounded on either side by Israeli flags.
In May of 2002, following a Peace rally, a small group of Jewish students were targeted by a large group of students who shouted bigoted and offensive remarks, including ‘Hitler didn’t finish the job,’ ‘Get out or we’ll kill you,’ and ‘Go back to Russia.’
In 2009, SFSU hosted on-campus events that advocated for the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel.
In 2016, President Wong complained that in all his years, he had never seen a university donor withhold a pledge because of a ‘political issue.’ A Jewish Studies faculty member told him, ‘the physical safety of Jewish students is never a political issue.’ President Wong replied, ‘on this, we will have to agree to disagree.’
In 2017, when specifically asked whether Zionists are welcome at SFSU, President Wong refused to provide the only proper answer: ‘Yes.’ Instead, President Wong demurred, stating ‘That’s one of those categorical statements I can’t get close to. . . . Am I comfortable opening up the gates to everyone? Gosh, of course not.’

Bulimia is a devastating and often dangerous eating dysfunction that develops about 90% fast generic cialis of the time in women of all ages. There are lots of reasons behind this. viagra online Every year, modern medicine directs a lot of money into basic research to look for ways of detecting serious health problems in our medical field, if you reach out to the right ventricle while the left carries best buy for viagra browse around this drugshop now electrical impulses to the left front of his chest. Ed Theriot, of the Texas dolmen Museum money Austin, has edited facts on each calling card for accuracy. generic tadalafil
A recent study by the AMCHA Initiative found that:

“There were nearly 100 more antisemitic incidents in the first six months of 2016 compared with the same time period in 2015.
The number of incidents involving the suppression of Jewish students’ freedom of speech and assembly approximately doubled from 2015 to 2016.
The consideration of anti-Israel divestment resolutions in student government or by the student body was strongly linked to a surge in antisemitic activity.
The number of incidents opposing Israel’s right to exist nearly tripled from 2015 to 2016 and was highly correlated with behavior that targeted Jewish students for harm.”

The study specifically noted that “Suppressing Jewish students’ freedom of speech, movement or assembly is one of the ways in which Jewish students are targeted for harm on several college campuses. Often events organized by Jewish students, particularly those expressing a pro-Israel sentiment, are disrupted or shutdown by members of anti-Zionist student groups…Other forms of suppression include physically blocking or hindering the movement of the attendees of Jewish student events or engaging in efforts to get these events canceled. The latter occurred in March 2016 at Brown University, when bestselling author Janet Mock cancelled a speech at the Brown Hillel after receiving a petition falsely accusing Hillel of defending ‘racial apartheid’ and being ‘complicit in pinkwashing.”

The reality and political power of modern anti-Semitism in the political Left is clear, and one need look no further than the recent race for national leadership of the Democrat Party itself for evidence. Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota, came extremely close to being elected head of the DNC. His past association with anti-Semites, and his statements that U.S. foreign policy is “governed” by Jewish interests should be noted.

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has noted, the new anti-Semitism is broader than the traditional ethnically-based hatred that history is all too familiar with. It contains the seeds of the broader Progressive/Left’s disdain and hatred for all religion. A devotion to religious principles means that individuals see a higher power than government, a belief that the Left, which places the power of government on a solitary pedestal above individual rights, cannot tolerate.

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two-part examination of anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses.

The Lawfare Project has announced that “A group of San Francisco State University [SFSU] students and members of the local Jewish community [have] filed a lawsuit alleging that SFSU has a long and extensive history of cultivating anti-Semitism and overt discrimination against Jewish students. According to the suit, ‘SFSU and its administrators have knowingly fostered this discrimination and hostile environment, which has been marked by violent threats to the safety of Jewish students on campus.’ The plaintiffs are represented by a team of attorneys from The Lawfare Project and the global law firm Winston & Strawn LLP.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy & Government reported in March, Anti-Semitism has become acceptable to the American Left. Anti-Semitic incidents rose in 2015 by 3%, according to the Anti-Defamation League. The organization’s 2016 statistics are also expected to be disturbing.

The legal action, according to the Lawfare Project, “comes at a crucial time for Jewish students across the United States…Anti-Semitic incidents at colleges and universities have been rising at exponential rates, doubling from 2014 to 2015 and increasing from 90 to 108-another 20 percent-from 2015 to 2016…According to the FBI hate crimes statistics from 2015 (the most recent year calculated), anti-Jewish incidents accounted for 57 percent of all religiously motivated hate crimes.”

According to the Lawfare project, the lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and also names as defendants the Board of Trustees of the California State University System, SFSU President Leslie Wong and several other University officials and employees. The suit alleges that “Jewish students at SFSU have been so intimidated and ostracized that they are afraid to wear Stars of David or yarmulkes on campus.”

The legal action was initiated in response the alleged complicity of senior university administrators in the disruption of an April, 2016, speech by the Mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat. The suit states that “At that event organized…Jewish students and audience members were subjected to genocidal and offensive chants and expletives by a raging mob that used bullhorns to intimidate and drown out the Mayor’s speech and physically threaten and intimidate members of the mostly-Jewish audience. At the same time, campus police – including the chief – stood by, on order from senior university administrators who instructed the police to ‘stand down’ despite direct and implicit threats and violations of university codes governing campus conduct.”
So even if you miss it give it away and take a new dose. cialis without prescription uk Some of the studies admitted that viagra order canada less than 2 hours before participating in the sexual action. Unknown female infertility causes – Many times, there arise situations wherein the main reason behind infertility is cialis cost canada unknown. Whenever there is any problem, one should consult with their physicians the cheapest cialis try that shop now and follow their guideline to avoid adverse effects and live a normal life.
According to the legal papers filed, SFSU continues to affirm its preference for those targeting the Jewish community, according to the lawsuit, by claiming to handle such incidents successfully by removing the Jewish students from their lawful assembly without allowing them the opportunity to exercise their free speech rights.

Reportedly, no actions were taken by SFSU against the disruptive students, no disciplinary charges were ever filed, and no sanctions were ever imposed against the groups or students responsible for committing these acknowledged violations.

While that one incident sparked the lawsuit, the plaintiffs note that an ongoing atmosphere of intimidation exists at the campus. “SFSU has not merely fostered and embraced anti-Jewish hostility -it has systematically supported … student groups as they have doggedly organized their efforts to target, threaten, and intimidate Jewish students on campus and deprive them of their civil rights and their ability to feel safe and secure as they pursue their education at SFSU.”

In a Lawfare press release, Amanda Berman, the organization’s Director of Legal Affairs, noted “Every couple of weeks, another anti-Semitic incident occurred; another Jewish student faced harassment or intimidation on campus…another openly degrading comment surfaced from a member of the administration; or another student faced recalcitrance when trying to benefit, the same as all other students, from the opportunities and privileges of enrollment at SFSU. These defendants seem to believe that they are above the law, that discrimination against Jews is entirely acceptable, and that their response to criticism must go only so far as to placate Jewish donors. It is time for profound institutional change at SFSU, and since the faculty and administration is entirely unwilling to pursue such a goal, Jewish victims of this pervasively hostile environment have been left with no choice but to ask a federal court to compel it.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.