My View II: Public Flogging is Not Going to Fix This

Share:

mrak-hall

On Thursday, on these pages I spoke of the need to repair the damage caused by the ASUCD vote and we focused on ASUCD Senator Azka Fayyaz, whose picture and comments posted on her personal Facebook page have become the posterized moment for this controversy.

She posted, “Hamas & Shariah law have taken over UC Davis. Brb crying over the resilience.” These words generated a huge public backlash that has really not subsided.

As I noted at the time, I see little to be gained by the public flogging of a UC Davis student, even a student senator who does not seem to be able to extricate herself from a self-created mess.

One comment noted, “nobody talked about a “public flogging.”” They added that they supported “having her removed as a senator who obviously does not feel her mission to represent the student body as a whole seems in order.”

There was a similar sentiment expressed in a recent letter to the editor: “I am disgusted with what I have witnessed throughout the UC Davis community as of late. Jaded statements aimed at mitigating both Israel and Palestine have spread like wildfire. These harmful statements have been said in person, painted onto the sides of buildings and strewn throughout social media.”

They continue, “ASUCD Senator Azka Fayyaz think so. She felt so strongly that the Israeli genocidal forces were closing in that she brought Hamas to UC Davis in a Facebook post stating “Hamas & Shariah law have taken over UC Davis. Brb crying over the resilience.” For those of you who don’t know, Hamas is internationally recognized as a terrorist organization. One of its primary goals is the annihilation of Jews.”

“Shortly after this Facebook post was made, large red swastikas were painted on the building of Alpha Elision Pi, the only Jewish fraternity on campus. They were painted the evening of the Jewish Sabbath, the same week as the 70th anniversary of the European liberation from the Nazi Party,” they write. “Since posting her intimidatory comment on Facebook, Fayyaz has issued an open letter with a slighted explanation of her “satirical caption.” She then attempts to justify her nihilist, racist remarks. Fayyaz has since removed her Facebook profile.”

“Azka has embarrassed not only herself but the community of Davis. It is with no doubt that a suitable replacement could be found with less intolerant views,” they argue. “The Davis community demands that Azka Fayyaz resign from her post as ASUCD senator.”

Our poster is correct – no one has talked about a “public flogging,” they are simply engaging in it. And to what end? My experience is that such heated rhetoric will not change hearts and minds, it will only harden them, entrench, kill whatever moment we may have had for somber reflection and common goals and visions.

It is ludicrous to state that the Davis community “demands” she resign. We in the Davis community are not her ostensible constituents. It would be like Davis residents demanding that West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon resign or that Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann resign.

We have no moral authority to do so because we do not live in their jurisdictions and they do not answer to us.

Demands from the “adults” in this community ring hollow – this is an issue that ASUCD has to grapple with.

The issue brings forth all sorts of questions ranging from the legitimacy of ASUCD as an organization to whether this an issue that ASUCD should involve themselves in, in the first place.

That said, I am more than a little troubled by one thing – the amount of noise generated by the extremes on both sides of this issue. There is a lot of heat being generated especially on the part of the US right, who strongly back Israel, and at the same time relish the chance to poke a stick at what they see or at least want to portray as a rising tide of radicalism and anti-Semitism on liberal US universities.

The trouble here is that the amount of noise that rises leads moderate voices on both sides of the issue rushing for the exits.

As one reader put it, “When this issue comes up, I walk away.  It is not for us to resolve and there are too many people interested in having no resolution.”

In effect, the reader is suggesting they concede argument and the debating grounds to the noisy radicals. The problem is that this is a serious issue – granted an issue that will not be resolved at the low levels of American society.

Nevertheless, when the reasonable voices leave the room we are left with the radical voices. Those radical voices are on one side screaming Allah Akbar, calling things a Zionist conspiracy and complaining that critical voices are really an embodiment of Islamaphobia and on the other side and on the other side we have legitimate concerns cast aside.

As one reader put it, “The settlements are nothing.  They are just something for the collection of those that are Antisemitic, anti-Israel, irrationally victim mentality-obsessed or just plain ignorant about the topic… to latch on to.”

Both sides miss the point, and both sides are screaming so loud that no one else can get a word in edgewise.

How we carve out a place where the reasonable people in the middle can be heard. Those who understand the need for the Jewish state coming out of centuries of Jewish persecution in Europe at the hands of Christians. Those who understand that the Palestinians are themselves displaced citizens who were caught in between the west and local powers in the middle east.

Those who understand that acts of terrorism must be condemned but that Israeli policies often are instigators of those acts of terrorism to generate the excuse for overly heavy-handed response.

Both sides have rightful claims to being victims and neither side is blameless in this dispute.

But more importantly, if we cannot resolve these conflicts at the local level, how can we hope to tackle the ever-more complicated problem at the global level.

Instead of flogging Azka Fayyaz, perhaps we can engage with her. A restorative justice process might be in order where Azka can sit down and explain her passions and how the response to her statement has done her harm, but people in the Jewish community can confront her as well.

I know it’s largely wishful thinking, but my hope is that something good can come out of all of this.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

72 thoughts on “My View II: Public Flogging is Not Going to Fix This”

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      David wrote: “There was a similar sentiment expressed in a recent letter to the editor:”

      Where? The Vanguard, The Enterprise, The Aggie, The Washington Post?

    1. Barack Palin

      LadyNewkBahm, I totally agree.  Some on the left are willing to look the other way and let bygones be bygones if the hate speech is coming from a leftist cause.

        1. Anon

          There is a lot of heat being generated especially on the part of the US right, who strongly back Israel, and at the same time relish the chance to poke a stick at what they see or at least want to portray as a rising tide of radicalism and anti-Semitism on liberal US universities.”

          David, you are the one who interjected “right” and “left” into this discussion.  You cannot have it both ways.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            There are leftists that hold that view, but the pro-Palestinian world view is not a leftist viewpoint.

  1. LadyNewkBahm

    Notice 2 BP how Davids harshest remarks are saved for conservatives, and not the girl:

    “There is a lot of heat being generated especially on the part of the US right, who strongly back Israel, and at the same time relish the chance to poke a stick at what they see or at least want to portray as a rising tide of radicalism and anti-Semitism on liberal US universities.”

    my comment to this would be it is not just anti-semitism either. Support for terrorist groups like hamas is support for our enemies, and using her position of power on ASUCD to achieve this objective via the vote on divestiture and her own statments.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      I already admonished the girl in the previous column. The question is what do we do about it. I don’t see the continued public flogging productive – do you? And if so, to what end?

      1. Anon

        I would agree that what is done about Fayyez is entirely up to the ASUCD (and perhaps UCD), and I suspect ASUCD is doing some serious soul searching to determine if they want someone like Fayyez as a student representative.  After all, she is supposed to represent ALL STUDENTS, including Jewish students (or am I missing something in the way ASUCD works?)!  As the Aggie editorial noted, Fayyez did not embrace nor practice the UCD Principles of Community, as required.

        That said, there is no reason that local Davisites cannot express their opinion about what Fayyez said or what ASUCD did.  After all, taxpayers do fund the public universities to some extent, and alumni contribute to UCD.  Fayyez is bringing controversy to the university  of a type that could be damaging to its reputation, and cause alumni contributions or grant money to decline.  If I were a prospective or current Jewish student, I would not feel welcome on the UCD campus.

        I perfectly understand that Fayyez is a youngster and not fully “baked”, and therefore prone to making mistakes.  Intelligent people are not smart because they never make mistakes, they are smart because they learn from their mistakes.  Apparently Fayyez is a slow learner, since she keeps making incendiary comments that continue to provoke folks.  If anything, she should lay low, think long and hard about what she has done, and at the very least apologize for not embracing the Principles of Community.  The Aggies gave this young woman a graceful exit here, which she as yet to avail herself of.

        This is a defining moment for ASUCD, the UCD administration, and Fayyez.  Let’s see if any of them rise to the occasion.  Thus far I certainly have been very disappointed.

        1. zaqzaq

          I suspect she is a rock star in her community.  She has created more visibility for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.  Since she is such a supporter of violent Islam (Hamas) I wonder what she truly thinks about the extermination of Yazidi men and sale and eventual rape of their females )since I cannot say women since girls aged ten have been sold and raped) in Syria.  Islamist their do not respect their religion and view them as worthy of extermination.  Slavery and rape of children justified by Isalmists.  Sick.  But Islam is a religion of peace.  What a joke.

        2. hpierce

          “After all, she is supposed to represent ALL ” constituents (?). Maybe she’s practicing to be a new Barbara Boxer, or Nancy Pelosi (too  “fixed” to be a Feinstein). Know from personal experience that Boxer, in particular was VERY dismissive of politely worded concerns expressed by constituents, asking her to represent (or even, just consider) their points of view/concerns, if they were inconsistent with Boxer’s “world view”.

  2. Tia Will

    Azka has embarrassed not only herself but the community of Davis. It is with no doubt that a suitable replacement could be found with less intolerant views,” they argue. “The Davis community demands that Azka Fayyaz resign from her post as ASUCD senator.”

    I am in complete disagreement with this statement. First, how do the statements of a single individual with a view which is clearly an extremist and minority position “embarrass the community of Davis” ?  Does anyone believe that we have collective responsibility for the individual opinion of Ms. Fayyaz ?  I hold an extreme ( in our culture ) position with regard to the inequity of wealth distribution in our society. Are any of you personally “embarrassed” because I write frequently about my beliefs ?  If there is any other than personal embarrassment to be felt here, it is not because of Ms. Fayyaz limited post, it is rather about those who have jumped on this to promote their own extreme denial that their side could be at any fault at all. It is this “screaming” at each other, as David has said that is the only thing that I see as embarrassing.

    Secondly as has already been pointed out the Davis community certainly does not demand that Ms. Fayyaz resign. I am a long standing member of this community ( 27 years) and I do not want Ms. Fayyaz to resign. I want her to learn how to better engage those of different beliefs so that she will be a more effective represntative in the future. I do not believe that anyone should resign for a statement that they made that is not a direct call to violence. I personally do not believe that any state should be based on the religion of the majority group. I do not care whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or the Jewish faith. I believe in separation of church and state and believe that anything less will result in the oppression of the religious minority by the majority.

    Thus, I do not see her wish for the failure of the Jewish state in quite the same light as some posters. I personally favor a two state solution and do not see either side of the issue as blameless. So Ms. Fayyaz was making an unqualified statement in favor of her side. How is that different from the voices making an unqualified defense of all Israeli actions ? Would any of you believe that a student representative should be forced to resign if they made an unqualified statement praising the Jewish settlements knowing that this resulted in the destruction of the homes of children who have never been old enough to vote or protest or have any opinion or guilt in the matter at all ?

    Should not the same standard for self expression be used for all? Or are we just going to castigate the one person who made a “private” statement on Facebook, which then went viral ?  Maybe there is some room for group embarrassment here. But the statement of Ms. Fayyaz is not the cause. If there is cause for embarrassment, it would be the pack mentality of the two extremes, not this one young woman’s less than diplomatic comment.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      It sounds as if she failed to follow the local PC Bible of the Left, the UC Davis Principles of Community.

      She wrote: ““Hamas & Shariah law have taken over UC Davis. Brb crying over the resilience.” “

      Hamas? A leading terrorist group.

      Wikipedia: “The Hamas Covenant also known as Hamas Charter, refers to the Charter of the Hamas, issued on 18 August 1988, outlining the movement founding identity, stand, and aims.[1]

      “The Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who “fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors.” The charter states that “our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious” and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[2] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[3][4] It emphasizes the importance of jihad stating in article 13, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”[5]

      “…According to Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, “The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core. The Hamas Charter reads like a modern-day ‘Mein Kampf.'”

      I’m not sure how to soft peddle Hamas or Sharia Law, but people still do.

      P.S. Her “private Facebook” is something teenagers say when they’re caught smoking pot or acting up. Posting an item on Facebook and claiming it is “private” defies logic.

      1. Michelle Millet

        P.S. Her “private Facebook” is something teenagers say when they’re caught smoking pot or acting up. Posting an item on Facebook and claiming it is “private” defies logic.

        While I agree with you, I had to learn this lesson in a the hard, and painful, way in my late 30’s.

        Again I do not know Azka Fayyaz, not nor can I speak to her intentions. That being said I don’t think it is fair to use a Facebook post to draw definitive conclusions about her character.

        1. zaqzaq

          Her facebook posts are a doorway into her soul.  Those comments clearly show what she really thinks.  Lets not give her the chance to try to temper them as “satire”.  Who believes that.

        2. Michelle Millet

          Her facebook posts are a doorway into her soul.  Those comments clearly show what she really thinks.  Lets not give her the chance to try to temper them as “satire”.  Who believes that.

          What good comes from not giving her the opportunity to explain her post?

          Do know her? Do you know what she really thinks?

          You believe her post was the doorway to her soul, but not her explanation. With out knowing more about her how do decide that?

          As for who believes it is was satire, a lot of people do.

        3. zaqzaq

          Do you believe it was satire?  You have to be kidding.  Her claim that it was satire is about as good as Clinton’s claim that he did not have sex with Lewinski.

        4. Michelle Millet

          I will add that IMO if this was indeed a satirical comment I have concerns about Fayyaz using this type of humor on her Facebook page, and concerns with how she responded to criticisms of it .

          I agree with the editorial board of the Aggie:

          We feel that Fayyaz’s public statement was insensitive not only for its absence of remorse to the general community but also for its incendiary nature in this sensitive time. The campus community would benefit from its leaders showing cooperation and positive communication over this indisputably-divisive and polarizing issue.
           

           

      2. hpierce

        TBD… you do realize many elements of “Sharia law” come from ancient “Judaic law”, right?  Both forbid usury, both have provisions for stoning, etc.  Mohammed and his followers derived much of their laws/beliefs from available Hebrew/Christian texts.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Yes, and Jews, Christians, and Western Europe went through an Enlightenment and Reformation that apparently hasn’t happened yet with a significant number of radical Islamic Muslims.

          For example, many Christians believe the Old Testament was the “God of War”, and the New Testament is the “God of Love”. There is an evolution towards peace and love.

        2. hpierce

          Ironic… the Muslim influence/contributions to knowledge, coupled with their mostly peaceful collaboration with Jews and Christians, was actually a source of the change in Europe from “Dark Ages” to “Renaissance”.

          Your point, “hasn’t happened yet with a significant number of radical Islamic Muslims.” is on point. It is a very small percentage of Muslims who are “radical” and still have the violent element of “faith”.  One could point to second-class status of women.  In the “enlightened”, primarily Christian, US, women have had the right to vote for less than 100 years.

          Equating Islam with Al-quida, etc. is “not appropriate” (have to choose my words carefully to get past those who would be offended by my true terminology).

           

           

           

    2. hpierce

      “I am a long standing member of this community ( 27 years)”.  Tia, with all due respect, you don’t need to/shouldn’t “play that card”.  My view of the community is, if you’re here, you should be part of the “community” (common-unity?).  I’ll admit I’ve played that card, but in a different way… if someone says, particularly in front of the City Council, that “I’m a long term member of this community, for 15 years”, I tend to say “I’m a ‘newbie’ in this community, because I’ve ONLY been here 42 years”.  I respectfully suggest that you don’t try to play a “card” that is easily “trumped”.

      I take no exception to the rest of your post, although I may disagree with many of the specifics.

      Yeah, I know, due to my recent ‘bad”, that this comment may be edited out.  So be it.

  3. Frankly

    This is absolutely a right versus left debate.  On the micro level it is Israel’s right to exist versus the Palestinian’s right to have Israel cease to exist. (And someone please delineate the Palestinian rights being demanded if not this.)

    At the macro level it is simply the common left-right victim verses strong conflict.

    Focusing on the macro-level debate, here is the way I see it…

    Those with true liberal political tendencies, (the kind that they were born with, not the kind that that they adopt for monetary reasons), tend to side with, and amplify, the plight of any person or group they see as being in a state of victim.  This is defined as a victim mentality.  It is largely a reactionary tendency that is fired by primary emotions, and then secondarily propped up by both rational and pseudo-rational topic arguments (more about this point below).

    Those with true conservative tendencies, (the kind that they were born with, not the kind that they adopt for monetary reasons), tend to side with and amplify the demand for the rights of any person or group they see as having their shit together.  Conservatives are fired by emotions too… but usually as a secondary reaction following a rationalization of criteria and values.  But after this, conservatives are also prone to propping up topic arguments with pseudo-logic and rhetoric.

    I could go on and on about the differences between these two groups that continue to drive a deeper wedge into just about every government policy decisions.  There are many books and studies written about it and I cannot get enough because it has become one of my key interests to learn about.  Within all of the books and studies are the keys to getting along better and becoming more effective at solving domestic and world problems.

    Both sides prop-up arguments from an emotional basis.  The difference though, as I see it, is that conservatives generally know it while liberals are generally blind to it.

    Distilling this down to a point relative to the Israel vs Palestine issue… the problem is the individual enabling of bad behavior from that emotionally-drive tendency to prop-up topic arguments.

    Let me use an example.

    Let’s say you are the manager of people.  You are liberal or you are conservative.  You have employees that fit into your victim or “shit together” box.  And you favor one or the other because of your tendency to prop up your own worldview.  You make excuses for the behavior for certain employees because they are “on your team”.

    It is your behavior that is the most impeachable because you have effectively trained your subordinates to believe their behavior was righteous and justified when it is actually wrong and bad.   This may start out as small potatoes stuff… but it is the setting of a path toward a greater risk that things terrible will be said or that terrible things will be done.

    Liberals used this same argument against the members of the Tea Party… claiming that all the anger and guns demonstrated would result in violence.  Liberals were so sure of this that they jumped to conclusions claiming Congresswoman Gabby Gifford was shot by a Tea Party member when it ended up being a mental health case (as it usually is when random shootings occur).

    My point here is that liberals should stop defending the actions of this UCD student.  And liberals should go even further to demand a change on campuses to eliminate any and all instances of hate and bias against another people… especially the people that liberals do not see as being on their team.

    And conservatives need to do the same.   Conservatives need to support the debate of Palestine and Israel.  And conservatives need to hold this “shit together” country to some reasonable standards of behavior.  Maybe the settlements are an example of the bad behavior that must stop.  I don’t think it will change a thing other than for Israel to concede territory that will make it easier for Hamas to lob rockets on them.  But then again it is bad behavior and we should not support bad behavior just because they are on our team.

    We should all demand that this young lady step down from her position to establish well-understood principles for behavior that she and others will respond to.   If we defend her as a victim, it only serves to support more of the same behavior… and potentially much worse behavior.

    1. Don Shor

      On the micro level it is Israel’s right to exist versus the Palestinian’s right to have Israel cease to exist. (And someone please delineate the Palestinian rights being demanded if not this.)

      They want an independent state and the right of return.

      1. Anon

        Palestinians have been given the two state option again and again, and choose not to avail themselves of it, depending on their excuse of the day.  They don’t want a two state solution, they want the destruction of Israel.

        See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oslo/negotiations/

        The Palestinian intifada’s cycle of violence continued and escalated. On March 29, 2002, after a suicide bomber killed 30 people, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield. Israel’s troops re-entered Palestinian cities and refugee camps, hunting down terrorists and often leaving massive destruction in their wake.
        Three months later, in mid-June 2002, two more suicide bombings struck Israel. Sharon announced Israel would immediately begin a policy of taking back land in the West Bank, and holding it, until the terror attacks stopped.

        1. Don Shor

          The PLO accepted the two-state solution in 1988. Hamas has not. Public opinion of Palestinians is closer to the PLO than to Hamas on this. But opinion is divided there, just as opinion is very divided in Israel.

      2. hpierce

        “They…”  with all due respect, Don, Palestinians, even Muslim Palestinians, are NOT mono-lithic. There are many who would prefer living in a land, and with a government, that allowed them to peacefully live their lives, interacting with other races/religions etc., without religious, political, and/or economic impediments.  Currently, those folk have little/no “voice”.  If you were born in Davis (or ancestors came from there), and you felt disenfranchised, would placing you in your own “state”, where you had complete autonomy, ‘make your day’?  I suspect not.  I know it would not work for me.

        Palestinians do not EQUAL Muslims.  Like it or not, as much as we like to ‘pigeon-hole’ people, even the two-state “solution” isn’t really one.  It may be the best we can do in our current level of social/moral/ethical development/evolution.  There are no simple answers, and I am very wary of anyone who claims “truth”.  Including myself.

         

        1. Don Shor

          “They…” with all due respect, Don, Palestinians, even Muslim Palestinians, are NOT mono-lithic

          That is actually a point I’ve been trying to make as some commenters here have made broad-brush assertions about Palestinians to suggest that the views of the general populations of Gaza or West Bank are represented by Hamas. Much less the views of Palestinians who live abroad.
          There is not consensus among Palestinians. There is not consensus among Israelis either, for that matter.
          But the positions I’m referencing have been key discussion points in the various peace processes now for decades.

        2. hpierce

          Don, not sure we’re much in dissonance on this… my impression has been Palestinians (ethnic/heritage) want to live life in the historical Palestine.

          The Israeli law(s) downplays this, but grants the “right” to live in their portion of the historical Palestine irrespective of ethnicity, heritage, but only based on religion.

          I am active in living my moral/spiritual values in a ‘religious’ context. My moral/spiritual values would most likely be no different, absent “religion”.  The seeds of my ‘religion’ is based on elements common to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.  There are many other religions that show evidence of the same “seeds”.

          Like it or not, I think the human race is still evolving, and hopefully, maybe 1000 years from now, folk would look back and laugh at our primitive/’arrogant’ ways.

          If we don’t manage to kill ourselves off, first.

      3. Frankly

        I think this is not correct.

        As I understand, prior to sometime long after 1947 Arab leaders rejected the concept of a unique “Palestinian Arab” identity, insisting that Palestine was merely a part of “Greater Syria.”   Historically the term “Philistine” and later “Palestine” were primary naming a Jewish territory.

        It was the Brits in the early 1900s that screwed this all up.  They worked with the Arabs to defeat the Ottoman Turks.  They promised the land to the Arabs in return.  However, the Brits also promised the land to the Jews.  The Brits never understood that the two would be like oil and water.   At the time there were more Arab Palestinians in and around Jerusalem than there were Jewish Palestinians (but not so historically centuries before).  Then Jewish persecution and the Nazis became all the rage and more Jews fled to the area for safety.

        In 1947, the UN proposed what appeared to be a logical solution—partitioning the land between the two peoples. The mufti of Jerusalem, the spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs, rejected it. The Jewish immigrants, at the time, accepted the idea.

        Then in 1948 the Arabs attempt to wipe Israel of the map for the first time in modern time… and they fail as they always do.  Israel rightfully claims land from the war and to protect herself.

        Then similar attempts were made by the Arabs in 56, 67 and 73… they failed again.

        The problem is that the Arabs and Jews cannot peacefully cohabitate together.  You know this and most liberals know this so it is frankly quite disingenuous to put it out there as a reasonable claim from the Palestinians.  Regardless if 70% of them are peaceful, there are more than enough Islamic extremists and Jew-haters that would leverage their religious culture of death to kill as many Jews as possible.  Again, you know this.  Please stop denying it.

        The problem with a separate state is that the Palestinians already have it.  But they claim they want more… west of the Jordan River.   The problem with granting them that is that they have proven over and over again that some is never enough.

        It is in fact a problem with Arab culture and Arab politics that the goal post always move.  The offers have been made and the Palestinian Arabs have rejected them.  They will not accept anything other than their maximum demands, and even if Israel conceded, the Arabs would just come back and demand more.

        What we need is to focus on the reasonable compromise and then the entire western world needs to get behind it and demand that the Palestine people and Arab world accept it or risk being ostracized.  But instead western liberals help the Palestinian people and the Arab world keep rejecting reasonable compromise and then keep moving the goal post.

        Again, bad behavior by the victims is supported and then they just keep behaving badly.

        1. Don Shor

          They will not accept anything other than their maximum demands

          False. I’m not going to debate your history of the peace negotiations. Here’s Wikipedia, if you accept that as a reference source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_peace_process

          What we need is to focus on the reasonable compromise and then the entire western world needs to get behind it and demand that the Palestine people and Arab world accept it or risk being ostracized.

          Gosh, yes. That sounds like the definition of the word “compromise” to me. You’re funny.
          What “we need” is for the American government to continue to support steady movement, without preconditions, toward negotiations that will implement the two-state solution. We need for the Republican Party, in particular, to stop siding with the Netanyahu government on this issue. We are accepted as honest brokers in this issue so long as we stay reasonably impartial between the parties.
          There’s plenty of “bad behavior” on both sides. On balance, I’d say the current leadership of the Palestinians gets the majority of the blame for the peace negotiations being stalled. But not 100% of the blame.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Don, isn’t it true that even President Clinton said that Yaser Arafat got 97% of what he desired, but he still could not transition from a revolutionary to being a peacemaker and accept a two-state solution?

          Various audits also claimed that Arafat absconded with roughly $1 Billion from his people (and the PLO $10 Billion), while at the same time claiming poverty.

          1. Don Shor

            The PLO did accept the two-state solution, but it was an excruciating process. And Arafat risked his life to do that, just as Sadat risked his life by making a peace deal with Israel.
            Arafat and most of the top leadership of the PLO were very corrupt.
            Clinton has often mentioned that one of his greatest disappointments was that Arafat backed off from finalizing an agreement.

        3. hpierce

          Frankly, you seem to not understand.  Palestinian is not equal to Arab.  Arab is not equal to Muslim.

          Many confuse ethnicity (ex.: Arab), Semite, etc., religion (Jewish, Muslim, all the flavors of Christian), and politics.

      4. zaqzaq

        They will never get the right to return.  That would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel as we know it.  That would also create all sorts of land ownership issues almost 60 years after they left.

    2. hpierce

      Frankly, the zealot/radical portion (also the loudest, most violent) of those who cloak themselves as being Islamic, have to be discredited, and as necessary, isolated from society, as they show anti-social/psychotic tendencies/behaviors.  IMO.

  4. Anon

    Don Shor: “The [Palestinians] want an independent state and the right of return.”

    Don Shor: “The PLO accepted the two-state solution in 1988. Hamas has not. Public opinion of Palestinians is closer to the PLO than to Hamas on this. But opinion is divided there...”

    You cannot have it both ways.

    The one thing Palestinians do seem to agree on is the destruction of Israel.  See http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=449

    The Palestinian Authority makes no attempt to educate its people towards peace and coexistence with Israel. On the contrary, from every possible platform it repeatedly rejects Israel’s right to exist, presents the conflict as a religious battle for Islam, depicts the establishment of Israel as an act of imperialism, and perpetuates a picture of the Middle East, both verbally and visually, in which Israel does not exist at all. Israel’s destruction is said to be both inevitable and a Palestinian obligation.”

    1. Don Shor

      Don Shor: “The [Palestinians] want an independent state and the right of return.”

      Don Shor: “The PLO accepted the two-state solution in 1988. Hamas has not. Public opinion of Palestinians is closer to the PLO than to Hamas on this. But opinion is divided there…”

      You cannot have it both ways.

      Of course you can. There is no contradiction in what I said.

      1. Anon

        Huh?  The Palestinians want an independent state w a right to return (which is a one state solution – the annilation of Israel); but public opinion is divided on the two state solution (clearly certain factions of Palestinians refuse to accept a two state solution).  You cannot have it both ways – an independent state with a right of return and a two state solution.  Secondly, the Palestinian Authority, which represents Palestinians or is as close to their “gov’t”, wants the destruction of Israel, period.

        1. Don Shor

          No, you don’t understand what they want, or what I’m saying. An independent state for Palestinians is not the annihilation of Israel. In fact, it exists right now to some degree. The majority of Palestinians say in public opinion surveys that they want a two-state solution. They voted for Hamas in Gaza because they were tired of the corruption of the other party. Yassir Arafat explicitly recognized the right of Israel to exist.

          1. Don Shor

            This, by the way, is an important point and part of the current stalemate. Arafat had recognized the right of Israel to exist. Prime Minister Olmert, in 2009, demanded that the PA accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. They, of course, refused to do that, because it would have essentially nullified their demand for the right of return (of Palestinians into current Israel). That is not a contradiction with their position demanding a Palestinian state; i.e., the two-state solution. The current Israeli government (and evidently some on this blog) oppose the right of return for Palestinians into Israel, because it could lead to an Arab majority within Israel. That was the point of his demand, and the point of their rejection of it. But despite examples of fiery rhetoric that you can find, Fatah specifically accepted the right of Israel to exist. Hamas has not. The PA is currently split between Fatah and Hamas — which is another major factor in the lack of progress.

    2. hpierce

      Does your government fully reflect your views? The PLO is not equal to Palestinians, but they are/were loud, and intimidate(d) those they profess(ed) to represent.  Did Hitler reflect the views of most Germans? Was Torqumada an accurate reflection of Catholic faith.

      PLO, Hamas, etc. are/were political entities, as were the Nazis.  I do not “equate” political organizations with people.  I would have problem with calling for a Fatwah/Holocaust/Inquisition for the political organizations, as entities.  Neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties represent me, although I firmly believe in a republic with the principles of democracy.

  5. Tia Will

    A word about one of Frankly’s favorite phrases “victim mentality”. Just because one has a “victim mentality” does not mean that they are not being objectively victimized. There were many Jews of differing economic groups prior to their objective victimization by the Nazi’s. Some would clearly have fit nicely into your “have their shit together” economically based group and some would not.

    All were objectively victimized by the Nazi’s. Or don’t you agree?

    Now we have a situation in which some Palestinians want Israel to fail as a religiously based state they see as oppressive to members of other religions or groups. Some, as is the case of infants and young children, do not hold these views, and yet when their homes are bull dozed, in my view, they are objectively being oppressed or “victimized” not on the basis of their views or potential future actions, but solely on the basis of the group into which they happen to be born.

    I fail to see how in this case, recognizing these children as “victims” of oppressive policies is either a leftist or rightist position. Can we not all agree that bulldozing down the home of a child is as much an oppressive act as is launching a rocket into a neighborhood where there are children ?

     

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > Can we not all agree that bulldozing down the home of a child is

      > as much an oppressive act as is launching a rocket into a

      > neighborhood where there are children ?

      If a child’s parents set up a rocket launcher on the roof of their home to launch rockets in to Israeli school yards are you mad at:

      1. The kids parents who hates Jews and wants to kill Jewish children with the rocket launcher on his roof.

      2. Israelis that bulldozing the home so it can not be uses as a rocket launch pad.

      3. The company that made the bulldozer.

      4. The pension fund that invests in the company that made the bulldozer.

      5. All of the above

      P.S. I find it funny that the kids at UC are upset about a pension fund that invests in bulldozers that are used in the middle east but don’t seem to have any problem with a US drone program that kills kids all the time…

      http://rt.com/usa/159032-obama-bringbackourgirls-drone-memes/

  6. Michelle Millet

    I don’t know enough about Azka Fayyaz to speak to her intent. But as someone who has had a satirical Facebook post result in disastrous (although on a much smaller scale) consequences I would recommend to anyone who does not want their humor misconstrued and used against them to avoid making these types comments on social media. My guess is that Azka Favyaz has had to learn this lesson in a very painful way. 

      1. Michelle Millet

        While this is none of our business I’d feel more comfortable drawing conclusions about her character and intent based on this, rather then the little we know about her now.

        1. Anon

          I think we have a pretty fair idea of how Fayyez feels about Israel (Israel will die Allah willing), and her stance on the Hamas and Sharia law (they have taken over UCD).  She has not backed away from those positions one iota.  And supposedly she is representing UCD students.

  7. Frankly

    All were objectively victimized by the Nazi’s.

    Jews became the victims of Nazi Germany because of victim mentality.  Namely the envy and hatred over the perception that Jews did well and controlled wealth while the average German suffered.  So then the Jews became the victim.  But Jews in general did not adopt a victim mentality.  They got their shit together again.

    And so here we are again.

  8. UCDStudentA

    As a UCD Student, I’m scared and saddened. I am not participating in the divestment debate, but I am identifiably put into a group based on my appearance and ethnicity. I also don’t think the anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Davis is completely based around the Israel issue. This is something Davis is an community grapples with even independently of Israel. Based on the history of vandalism of the Islamic Center of Davis, I don’t write off intimidating screams of ‘terrorist!’ at anyone with a headscarf on campus as being from the anti-divestment movement. Based on the history of swastikas at Davis, I don’t write off the AEPi swastikas, Hillel House vandalism or today’s new swastika vandalism (see the City police daily logs) as being from supporters of divestment. I see both of these as coming from the greater UCDavis/Davis community. The community is quick to say “isolated incident” and “progressive, liberal town” and “probably just teenagers” instead of “We see what you have to go through getting your education here and we want to you to know that these are disgusting acts, we understand it affects your emotional state, we do not tolerate this kind of behavior and we’re willing to stand up to it.”

    1. Anon

      It is up to the UCD administration/ASUCD itself to work on making students of all faiths, ethnicities feel welcome on campus.  But when hecklers are allowed to shout down speakers, and the UCD administration instructs the police not to interfere with hecklers, it only incites further acrimony between students of different faiths/ethnicities, and discourages freedom of speech on campus.  There needs to be some serious policy changes as to how these incidents are handled by the UCD administration and ASUCD IMHO.

      1. MrsW

        UCDStudentA–  I’ll say it:

        We see what you have to go through getting your education here and we want to you to know that these are disgusting acts, we understand it affects your emotional state, we do not tolerate this kind of behavior and we’re willing to stand up to it.

        I am so glad you contributed your thoughtful and articulate comments to this thread.  Your parents are blessed.

        You are being challenged to stay true, with all of the craziness around you.  I want to tell you, you can do it.  There are many many good people in Davis, both at UC and the community. Please look for us, and see us.  We are on your side.

         

  9. TrueBlueDevil

    Islamophobia must not be tolerated

    “The following is a copy of a letter to the UC Davis community:

    “On Tuesday, we learned the terrible and heartbreaking news that three Muslim students near the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were senselessly shot and killed.

    “The investigation into this horrific act of violence is ongoing. All the facts are not yet known. But our campus community is deeply troubled and saddened by this attack. We stand with our students and empathize with the sense of vulnerability and fear these killings instill in all of us, particularly those within the Muslim community. Our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected by this terrible news.

    “No matter what the motive for these murders turns out to be, we understand from recent events at UC Davis and the ugly attacks through social media on some of our own Muslim students, that Islamophobia is extremely hurtful and must not be tolerated.

    “We have been meeting with students to address their concerns about safety on campus. We have also begun working with leaders from Celebration of Abraham, the Sacramento Area League of American Muslims and Congregation Bet Haverim in Davis for greater outreach and understanding between community members of all faiths.”

    Linda P.B. Katehi

    Chancellor, UC Davis

    http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/letters/islamophobia-mut-not-be-tolerated/

     

    1. Anon

      The killing of the three Muslim students on the U of NC campus was an ongoing neighbor dispute over a parking space, and is nothing but a red herring.  That is entirely different from what is going on here at UCD, where a ASUCD senator is calling for the downfall of Israel; and insisting that Hamas (a terrorist group) and Sharia Law (which deprives women of basic freedoms) rule UCD.  That is not in any way acceptable behavior from an ASUCD senator who is supposed to be representing the student body (including Jewish students).  I have as yet to hear an apology from Ms. Fayyez, so I have to assume she stands by her anti-Semetic words, especially in light of her excuses her disgusting remarks were somehow merely “satire” and intended to make people “mad” to ensure everyone understood the seriousness of the issue.  She owes an apology at the very least, and my hope is that upon reflection, ASUCD has her removed or she voluntarily steps down as an ineffective student representative.  I don’t think she understands that freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Hasn’t she made her position, already tough, tougher?

          I didn’t see her express any remorse for the two new shooting incidents in Northern Europe near synagogues, nor for the 2,000 Christians recently butchered in Africa.

          There seem to have been a number of anti-Jewish acts the past several years in Davis, it is hard to discount them as being a “one-off” event. Last night’s police blotter noted that a swastika was painted on a local bridge.

          I’d think the Chancellor might have better success if she spent more time solving as best possible our local on-campus conflict.

          If the ASUCD Senator stays or goes, there will be conflict.

        2. hpierce

          You have a problem with folk saying “God is great”?  Yahweh/God/Allahu (Allah) are one and the same “entity”, in my belief.  I think God is not particularly pleased with the nastiness of the ‘sibling rivalry’.  But, we are not puppets.  We have free will.  We need to choose how to live, as humans.  May we choose wisely.

    1. Anon

      The Aggie editorial was spot on, and gave Ms. Fayyez a graceful exit out of all of this.  Instead she has chosen to pour gasoline on the fire with further incendiary remarks.

        1. Anon

          From http://www.theaggie.org/2015/02/10/editorial-board-reflects-on-actions-of-asucd-senator-azka-fayyaz/

          “Hamas & Shariah law have taken over UC Davis. Brb crying over the resilience.”

          “If a movement is not controversial, if no one is mad, it’s not strong enough & it’s not worth the fight. Israel will fall Insha’Allah : )”

          “Although I made a comment on the picture stating that the caption was satirical, the anti-divestment community conveniently left out the comment from the rest of the picture and took the caption out of context,”

          From http://www.amchainitiative.org/amcha-responses-uc-davis/

          “These are not Ms. Fayyaz’s only openly hateful acts; on a separate occasion, she helped hold a sign depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with devil’s horns and an Adolph Hitler mustache and outrageously equating Gaza – which is controlled by the terrorist group Hamas, not Israel – with a concentration camp.”

    2. Michelle Millet

      The Aggie article did shed some more light on the situation. While her post may have been satirical, it seems as if she may have been gloating in a demeaning way.

      From her letter it appears that in the past she has been harressed both verbally and on social media.

      I agree with David, that restorative justice could play a useful practice in this circumstance.

       

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for