US Justice Department sues UCLA alleging antisemitic educational environment

[u/awaythrowawaying]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-justice-department-sues-ucla-alleging-antisemitic-educational-environment-2026-05-26/

[u/oath2order]

Yeah okay.

We'll see what happens. It is okay to be pro-Palestine. It is not okay to be pro-Hamas. This seems like an easy case, but as we've seen with this DOJ's inability to indict a sub sandwich, I have the feeling it will be bungled.

[u/lostroadrunner22 → u/oath2order]

I think having ‘Jewish Exclusion Zones’ is wrong. Call me crazy

[u/justafutz → u/lostroadrunner22]

Reminder for those denying the above that a federal judge opened his opinion on this subject like this:

“In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this.”

[u/notapersonaltrainer → u/justafutz]

The casual normalization and contempt about the push back is the freakiest part.

No progressive campus would tolerate arab/muslim exclusion zones that force students to denounce Islam while chanting "Globalize the Crusade" "There is only One Solution, Crusade revolution!" or "From the Caucasus to the Red Sea, Mesopotamia will be free!". No one would unironically stick up for this with "but but Crusade just means 'taking the cross'". Or defend leadership condoning "context dependent arab genocide" on national television.

There would be mass expulsions, department purges, and careers nuked for life if a fraction of this targeted any other ethnicity or religion.

There is only one ethnic superminority for whom this kind of farcical treatment is normalized, defended, and celebrated while its whistleblowers are the ones treated as the problem.

It is so normalized that many can't even conceive the valid & overdue lashback without unapologetically invoking more antisemitic "string pulling" tropes.

[u/Mantergeistmann → u/notapersonaltrainer]

unironically arguing "Crusade just means 'taking the cross'"

That one at least has a bit of scholarly argument in support of it, but I'd imagine the vast majority of Deus Vult-Bros have never engaged with it, and certainly would not undertake any difficult or dangerous task in the name of penance themselves, "for the remission of sins".

the faithful went to war to defend Christians, to punish the attackers, and to right terrible wrongs. As Riley-Smith has written elsewhere, crusading was seen as an act of love—specifically the love of God and the love of neighbor. By pushing back Muslim aggression and restoring Eastern Christianity, the Crusaders were—at great peril to themselves—imitating the Good Samaritan. Or, as Innocent II told the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the gospel, ‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’”

But the Crusades were not just wars. They were holy wars, and that is what made them different from what came before. They were made holy not by their target but by the Crusaders’ sacrifice. The Crusade was a pilgrimage and thereby an act of penance. When Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095, he created a model that would be followed for centuries. Crusaders who undertook that burden with right intention and after confessing their sins would receive a plenary indulgence. The indulgence was a recognition that they undertook these sacrifices for Christ, who was crucified again in the tribulations of his people.

[u/notapersonaltrainer → u/Mantergeistmann]

Yes, today's Western Crusades curriculum basically ignores the context that the Middle East was largely Judeo-Christian and was conquered through centuries of Islamic crusades, along with swaths of Europe, before Christendom cooperated and mounted a far more limited counteroffensive. But since crusade is white-coded and jihad brown-coded, the only the crusaders are the baddies.

But that's a whole other tangent in the historical double-standards rabbit hole I didn't want to go down for brevity.

[u/Kawhi_Leonard_ → u/notapersonaltrainer]

That is undoubtedly the worst map I've ever seen. Where's the Reconquista? Where's the Byzantine campaigns in Anatolia? What about the Baltic Crusades or the numerous battles across the Russian Steppe?

[u/Plastastic → u/notapersonaltrainer]

That map is so ridiculous, you only count (some) major crusade battles and you counter with every minor skirmish in which muslims were involved.

EDIT: You might also want to ask Jews in the 11th century how 'Judeo-Christian' the Middle-East was considering the fact that there were more pogroms than you could shake a stick at.

[u/Mantergeistmann → u/Plastastic]

It also seems to be limited to a certain number of Crusades... I believe it was the 4th Crusade that sacked Constantinople? Plus I think some various Eastern European Crusades.

[u/Plastastic → u/Mantergeistmann]

The Northern Crusades, yeah. You could also count the Hussite wars and the Albigensian Crusade.

If you really want to be fair and adhere to the same standards as the 'Muslim conquest battles' there's countless other conflicts you can include as well.

[u/TintedApostle → u/justafutz]

The rest of the writing is as follow: "“Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters."

[u/justafutz → u/TintedApostle]

Yes, and the next sentence is the federal judge saying they are wrong.

[u/BaudrillardsMirror → u/justafutz]

> they refused to denounce their faith

Kind of crazy for a judge to conflate judaism and zionism to this level. The students didn't have to denounce their faith to enter the area, they had to denounce Israel.

[u/justafutz → u/BaudrillardsMirror]

It's kind of crazy to read about the creation of Jew-free zones on campus and say "Ah, but they just had to denounce Israel!", ignoring all the history, what the encampment organizers actually did, the religious significance, and more.

[u/ATLEMT → u/BaudrillardsMirror]

They shouldn’t have had to denounce anything.

[u/ArcBounds → u/justafutz]

Can you clarify what happened? Were the students barred from classes, dorms, etc? Did the university ask them to reject their religion? What specifically happened and who did what. I gather there were student protestors, university officials, and Jewish students. What did each group do? It seems to me that it is a tough situation between the 1st amendment and allowing people to be safe.

[u/justafutz → u/ArcBounds]

Can you clarify what happened? Were the students barred from classes, dorms, etc?

This report by the UCLA Antisemitism Task Force is helpful. Another useful place to look is the DOJ complaint in this case.

Jewish students were blocked by the encampment and protestors from entering Powell Library on campus, as well as Royce Hall, where some classes are held. Students wearing a kippah (yarmulke) or Jewish star (Star of David) were turned away from Royce Hall and Powell Library. Others were turned away unless they said Israel should be destroyed, which would deny Jews self-determination and for the vast majority of Jews (we're talking over 90%+ worldwide) would be the same as saying "I don't believe in my faith", as the task force notes.

UCLA itself did not block the students. The allegation is not that they did so. It's that they allowed a hostile environment against Jews to be enacted on campus and took no action to stop it, despite the underlying issues violating their campus policies. This is illegal under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The university previously claimed, in another lawsuit brought by students, that it had no obligation to intervene and couldn't be held liable because it didn't run the encampment. But this is, as a federal judge already ruled, contrary to civil rights law, which says if you're a taxpayer-funded institution, you can't just let people freely block students based on their religion or race or nationality on your campus, refuse to enforce the rules, and then claim "well it wasn't me doing it!".

UCLA took no action to disperse the encampment or guarantee free action. It also has/had an office dedicated to complaints about bigotry and discrimination, and it received over a hundred complaints and took no action on any of them. Students who reported being assaulted by the protestors or others and called "k-words" and similar were brushed off by university officials, who either downplayed the assaults and language or ignored them entirely.

UCLA declined to enforce its own rules to prevent this hostile environment. UCLA also refused to report any of its own students or cooperate with authorities when those students were sought for criminal activities, including assaulting Jews. UCLA is not required to cooperate of course, but it is part of a pattern of protecting those who were assaulting and harassing Jewish students, and proves deliberate indifference to the hostile environment.

As the DOJ complaint says, "Although students and faculty have a right to peacefully protest, they may do so only in accordance with UCLA's lawful time, place, and manner restrictions," but UCLA failed to enforce its rules at all, "resulting in failure to protect the Constitutional rights of Jews on campus."

There is also a double-standard, which helps show that the school is not merely motivated by the First Amendment. The school generally cracks down against Jews. Here is testimony from one person on UCLA's campus recorded in the task force report:

People on campus are allowed to wear identity concealing masks and harass Jewish students and faculty with impunity while the campus community calls them ‘peaceful’ and comes to their defense. Meanwhile I know Jewish faculty who have been written up for microaggressions, as Jews are attacked for weaponizing antisemitism against free speech and racial equity simply for speaking out against civil rights violations. Insanity reigns.

Jews are being punished for complaining about antisemitism by faculty and administrators, while those assaulting, harassing, and excluding Jews are given free rein.

If you want a full rundown, I suggest you read both the complaint and the report. They contain mountains of information. The complaint repeats the report in portions, but also has its own additional information. But it is not really a tough situation. When you have Jewish students being punished by administrators for "micro aggressions" for complaining about antisemitism, while antisemitism is not being punished, and you have Jewish students being physically assaulted and intimidated and harassed on campus while administrators do nothing and stand by and watch (which they do not do when it's any other group being targeted), it's clear there's a huge problem. Whether that's enough to show deliberate indifference is always a tough fact-specific question, because UCLA will undoubtedly try (again) to plead ignorance, or settle, or claim they couldn't do anything about it, but that doesn't change that there was antisemitism on campus that violated their rules, even if they get away with arguing they were just powerless to stop it (absurd as that would be).

[u/markantona → u/justafutz]

I was a UCLA student at the time and it was not a Jewish exclusion zone. I was not allowed into that area and am not Jewish. Literally majority of people weren’t. I tried to walk to class through it and they were turning around everyone. There were a few Jewish students that would go on Fox News, post on social media, and openly lie about the conditions to build a narrative. I knew multiple of them personally.

On top of this, the encampment started as a peaceful area people could enter and leave freely. The quad was open and you could walk in and around it. One night, counter protesters came in and started launching fireworks and assaulting people in the encampment with bats. Meanwhile, the news helicopter showed a line of police cars at chick fil a on Westwood Blvd. They refused to respond to it, which is why the encampment blocked off areas as they had to fend for themselves as they were assaulted.

I have no doubt there was some level of antisemitism and pro Hamas beliefs within the encampment. But it’s also inaccurate to say that it was a Jewish exclusionary zone because it wasn’t.

[u/justafutz → u/markantona]

The antisemitism task force on UCLA’s campus and multiple others say you’re wrong, including people I personally know, and to call them peaceful is astounding when there are multiple documented assaults by them, including the day before the clash with counterprotestors.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/lostroadrunner22]

Allegations from the DOJ shouldn't be assumed to be true.

It charged a woman for ramming an ICE vehicle, which sounds crazy too, but then it turned out that ICE is the one that rammed her vehicle.

[u/lostroadrunner22 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

UCLA already admitted this. They paid 6 million dollars in settlement money

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/lostroadrunner22]

From the article:

UCLA REJECTS ALLEGATIONS

Edit: The settlement is from last year, and no wrongdoing was admitted. If that alone means they're always guilty, then we should also say any accusation against Trump is accurate too.

[u/pinkycatcher → u/Interesting_Total_98]

The article has less value than the court case where they admitted many of these issues and don't dispute them.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/pinkycatcher]

court case where they admitted

That never happened. The settlement excluded any admission. Paying money to end a more costly legal process is common and doesn't automatically prove guilt on its own.

Regardless, this is it's own case, and bringing up an old one isn't good enough to win.

[u/eddie_the_zombie → u/lostroadrunner22]

Does that mean we can presume Trump guilty in every lawsuit he's ever settled, too?

[u/Big_TigerToes → u/eddie_the_zombie]

Yes have you not already been doing that?

[u/capecodcaper → u/Interesting_Total_98]

This isn't any different than any other time

Police lie, agents lie. DOJ sometimes backs them. Happens under all the admins

I generally accept DoJ stuff but with a healthy dose of skepticism

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/capecodcaper]

The DOJ is far more aggressive and incompetent than before. The example I mentioned is particularly bad.

Another is trying to indict someone on a felony for throwing a sandwich at law enforcement. The grand jury reject it 3 times, which is embarrassing. The misdemeanor charge went to trial, but that failed too.

[u/lostroadrunner22 → u/capecodcaper]

This is more of the DoJ piling on. UCLA has already admitted guilt

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/lostroadrunner22]

From the article:

UCLA REJECTS ALLEGATIONS

[u/lostroadrunner22 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Which is why they paid millions. To say that. Lol.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/lostroadrunner22]

You conflated two different cases. You're talking about a settled case from last where no wrongdoing was admitted.

It's common to pay money to make a case go away because litigation can be most costly, regardless of guilt. Trump has done it, so you might as well say that any accusation against him is accurate as well.

This case is separate, so even if they were guilty last time, the DOJ still has to show proof.

[u/seacucumber3000 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

You see you're honor, from the inertial reference frame of the ICE vehicle...

[u/MinaZata → u/lostroadrunner22]

Reading into it, they NEVER called it that, they never stopped Jews specifically, they never engaged in anti-semiatic attacks, but asked people crossing the picket line to condemn Israel.

[u/justafutz → u/MinaZata]

You are wrong. That has already been debunked by a federal judge and admitted tacitly by UCLA, and by its task force on antisemitism.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-cd-cal/116482817.html

The judge’s opinion opens very clearly.

[u/lostroadrunner22 → u/MinaZata]

https://abc7.com/amp/post/ucla-pay-6-million-settle-complaints-antisemitic-discrimination-jewish-students/17352511/

UCLA had metal barriers and forced Jewish students and faculty away.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

UCLA said it didn’t do anything wrong because it claimed it had no control over the encampment (though a judge rejected that argument already).

But earlier in the case, as a federal judge explained, UCLA did not dispute (and thus already admitted) that Jews were excluded from campus based on their faith:

“In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.”

They may have claimed innocence of legal liability. They did not deny that Jews were excluded from campus because of their faith.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

I guess it’s you versus a federal judge, the testimony of Jews on campus, the UCLA task force on antisemitism, the people I personally know who were denied access because of their Jewishness, and mountains of evidence.

It’s funny though that you think simply saying “it never happened” works. I guess you are pushing alternative facts. Not me.

[u/theKGS → u/justafutz]

The linked article claims the same thing as the person you are responding to..

"News reporting indicates that the encampment's entrances were guarded by protesters, and people who supported the existence of the state of Israel were kept out of the encampment."

"Plaintiffs are three Jewish students who assert they have a religious obligation to support the Jewish state of Israel."

[u/justafutz → u/theKGS]

So, again, Jews were excluded from campus because they believe in the religious Jewish tenet that Jews should have a homeland in Israel…the judge even explains this point and the denial of services to Jews in detail. The antisemitism task force at UCLA provides even more detail, pointing out that merely wearing a yarmulke or Star of David led to students being targeted.

Thank you for agreeing?

[u/theKGS → u/justafutz]

There is something weird about how reddit is showing me this thread so it's difficult for me to see the rest of the conversataion.

The person you are replying to is saying that jewish students were not blocked from campus.

I posted text from the article that seems to confirm that.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

Let's compare what you aid with what the federal judge said at the link I provided.

You:

It says students were denied access to an encampment in an outdoor quad by a group of protestors if they did not denounce support for the state of Israel

The judge:

Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith

You:

What it does NOT say is that Jews were blocked from accessing any "services" by the school on account of their religious beliefs.

The judge:

Here, UCLA made available certain of its programs, activities, and campus areas when certain students, including Plaintiffs, were excluded because of their genuinely held religious beliefs.

Among other things, the encampment protestors prevented the Plaintiffs from accessing portions of campus (which are services), including accessing the services of the library ("Similarly, Plaintiff Ghayoum was unable to access Powell Library because he understood that traversing the encampment, which blocked entrance to the library, carried a risk of violence"), and they were denied access to the services of the student union ("He also canceled plans to meet a friend at Ackerman Union after four protesters stopped him while he walked toward Janss Steps and repeatedly asked him if he had a wristband").

So it's weird you would completely ignore that the link says you're wrong while insisting that you're repeating what is in the link. The same is backed up by the antisemitism task force, which found that:

By April 30, students wearing a Star of David or a kippah, or those refusing to denounce their Zionism (which for many Jews, but not all, is akin to renouncing their Jewish faith), were physically blocked by the protesters’ phalanxes from entering or passing through the occupied area of Royce Quad, entering Royce Hall, or entering Powell Library.

[u/knign → u/MinaZata]

asked people crossing the picket line to condemn Israel.

How is it any better?

[u/MinaZata → u/knign]

It isn't worse or better, but it isn't what the comment said it was. It is about true and false.

There's a massive difference between a Jewish Exclusion Zone and a picket line over a political issue.

[u/knign → u/MinaZata]

To me this seems like a distinction without a difference, but as long as we agree that it's not any better, ok.

[u/Caisers → u/knign]

Facts matter.

[u/knign → u/Caisers]

As I said above: I don't mind people's splitting the hair and try to never argue about definitions. To me, "condemn Israel to enter" is 100% a "Jewish Exclusion Zone", but the most important thing to agree that these are both equally unacceptable.

[u/Caisers → u/knign]

Do you believe all Jews supports Israel? That sounds like what you are saying and is blatantly antisemitic.

[u/knign → u/Caisers]

First, "support Israel" ≠ "refuse to 'condemn' Israel"

Second, vast majority of Jews do support Israel, regardless of their opinion about specific policies.

Third, it's immaterial. Some ethnic Jews don't even identify as Jews, other do identify as Jews but aren't considered "officially" Jewish, etc. People have ethnic identities, religious identities, cultural identities and political identities which often get intertwined in a complicated mesh. That's not the point.

Point, Israel as the Jewish state is inseparable from Jewish identity.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/knign]

vast majority of Jews do support Israel, regardless of their opinion about specific policies.

The discussion was about the latter.

63% pro-Israel. 23% pro-Israel and supportive of Israeli policies.

64% of Jewish Americans have a favorable view of Israel. 56% of Jewish Americans have little or no confidence in Benjamin Netanyahu.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:

Law 0. Low Effort

~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/sacredpredictions → u/knign]

How so? I’m a Jewish born us citizen and my family and I have never been to Israel, in fact a lot of friends of ours have also never been. I personally could care less about Israel. I condemn the governments actions all the time and would have been able to pass thru the picket line 

[u/knign → u/sacredpredictions]

And if this was a picket line “no Jews allowed”, you could still claim you’re not and walk through. So?

[u/20000RadsUnderTheSea → u/knign]

That’s true, a different situation from the one at hand in which people were excluded on the basis of their faith and which they would have to lie to get in would be different and bad, thank you.

I don’t know why you thought a good rebuttal to “the line was in reality permitting access on political belief and not religion” was “but what if they excluded on the basis of religion, hypothetically” when the law permits the first and doesn’t permit the second. Yeah dude, illegal things are illegal, but the point is that nothing illegal happened.

If the protestors refused to let people in unless they denounced Rhodesia, a white ethnostate instead a Jewish ethnostate, would you be claiming white people were prevented from entering?

[u/justafutz → u/20000RadsUnderTheSea]

That’s true, a different situation from the one at hand in which people were excluded on the basis of their faith and which they would have to lie to get in would be different and bad, thank you.

The encampment and co. explicitly targeted anyone wearing Jewish symbols. The fact that some Jews are willing to denounce their religious beliefs in order to get by doesn't make it less of a Jewish exclusion zone.

If the protestors refused to let people in unless they denounced Rhodesia, a white ethnostate instead a Jewish ethnostate, would you be claiming white people were prevented from entering?

If I targeted anyone wearing Muslim garb and insisted they denounce the Palestinian ethnostate that Palestinians, per polls, seek to establish (contrary to Israel, which is not an ethnostate and which is a multi-cultural democracy with 2 million Arab citizens), that would be just as bigoted. It would be just as wrong. I'm not sure why people are pushing so hard to excuse it when it's happening to Jews, especially not when the best response is "but some Jews are willing to denounce key portions of their faith!"

[u/20000RadsUnderTheSea → u/justafutz]

The denunciation of a state and its actions is not the denunciation of a religious belief. Conflating them is anti-semitic, Israel and its actions do not represent all jewish people, and associating them is causing a marked rise in anti-semitism. So no, it wasn't and isn't a jewish exclusion zone.

[u/knign → u/20000RadsUnderTheSea]

illegal things are illegal, but the point is that nothing illegal happened.

As a matter of fact, I believe a judge called this illegal. But this wasn't even my point.

Also, "ethnostate" is not a thing, and especially absurd when used with respect to Israel, one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world with full equality.

[u/20000RadsUnderTheSea → u/knign]

As a matter of fact, I believe a judge called this illegal.

Dang, seems like there should be some sort of court case you could point to where it was found illegal that you could point to, then. UCLA was not decided against and admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, and agreed to a permanent court order forbidding it from excluding Jews from campus, which it already wasn't doing.

with full equality.

Barely de jure, not at all de facto. Their own reports have found as such, and anyone familiar with discrimination faced by Israeli Arabs could tell you as such. Even that report is biased against Israeli Arabs, blaming the rhetoric of Arab leaders while completely ignoring the rhetoric of Jewish Knesset leaders and other political figures.

Their defense minister's first date with his wife was to the grave of a mass murderer who killed 29 Palestinians and wounded over 100 more. A random selection of the Knesset would be more likely than not to find someone who has expressed anti-Arab sentiment in the past. "Death to Arabs" is a common chant as Israeli football games. It's ridiculous and disrespectful to the intelligence of the reader to claim that Israel is an equal society to Arabs. Your line read like North Korean-tier propaganda more than an actual assessment of reality.

[u/MinaZata → u/knign]

That's a big difference. Just actually think for a moment which is worst.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/jabberwockxeno → u/knign]

I'm Jewish and I find Israel's actions abhorrent, so clearly the distinction does exist.

[u/justafutz → u/jabberwockxeno]

Are you supportive of encampment protestors who target anyone wearing a kippah and say they cannot get by unless they express support for globalizing the intifada, destroying the world's only Jewish state, and taking off Jewish star necklaces?

Because that's what happened on UCLA's campus. I don't know you or have any way to know if you're Jewish, but if you are as you say, do you support that kind of action, or do you condemn it?

And can you understand why the 90%+ of Jews worldwide, with very few exceptions, would be appalled at that kind of behavior?

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

Believing Jews have the right to self determination (Zionism) is not only an issue of rights for Jews (regardless of whether it’s a religious tenet), it is also something that the vast majority of Jews consider a fundamental tenet of Judaism. There are offshoots, as with any religion, but that doesn’t change the point about the vast, vast majority of Jews.

[u/justafutz → u/[deleted]]

Well, you’ve rewritten the definition of Zionism while accusing Jews of “colonizing” their historical homeland.

Zionism existed before the 19th century. It was not organized as a political movement until the 19th century. But it existed nevertheless.

It seems a little like you should read more about the origins and definition of Judaism and Zionism. I would suggest this guide. It’s very informative. It also details the issues you are wrong about.

[u/knign → u/[deleted]]

I have no idea how this debate is related to either, sorry.

[u/knign → u/[deleted]]

As I said above: a distinction without a difference.

Also, being Jewish is not a religion, and none of that has anything to do with Zionist movement.