r/moderatepolitics • u/awaythrowawaying • 2d ago

News Article US Justice Department sues UCLA alleging antisemitic educational environment

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

74% Upvoted

158 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-11

u/MinaZata 2d ago

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.

19

u/knign 2d ago

asked people crossing the picket line to condemn Israel.

How is it any better?

6

u/MinaZata 2d ago

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.

-5

u/knign 2d ago

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

9

u/Caisers 2d ago

Facts matter.

3

u/knign 2d ago

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.

6

u/Caisers 2d ago

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

19

u/knign 2d ago

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.

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago

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.

-1

u/sacredpredictions 1d ago

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 

7

u/knign 1d ago

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

-5

u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 1d ago

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?

7

u/justafutz 1d ago

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!"

0

u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 1d ago

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.

1

u/justafutz 1d ago

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.

Excluding Jews unless they call to deny Jews the right to self-determination and agree with calls for violence against Jews and the expulsion of Jews from Israel, as happened on UCLA's campus, is antisemitism. It was absolutely a Jewish exclusion zone. A federal judge said so, and so did multiple students on campus who were excluded, and so did the UCLA Antisemitism Task Force. As the task force explained, any Jewish wearing visibly Jewish symbols like a kippah (yarmulke) or a Jewish star necklace was not allowed to attend their campus.

That's a Jewish exclusion zone.

Blaming Jews and the Jewish state for antisemitism is not only irrelevant, it shows a serious problem. No one here conflated Israel's actions with antisemitism. What they did is point out that Jews were excluded from campus because they are Jewish and believe in central tenets of the Jewish faith, and wore symbols that mark them as observant and proud Jews.

Excluding them for that is bigotry. It's a hate movement, full stop.

1

u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 1d ago

I believe that Jewish self-determination is not intrinsically linked to the state of Israel and its specific actions over the last few decades. Israel has done a poor job of preventing the worst actions of their settlers, committed numerous crimes against prisoners, funded Hamas, and otherwise done their best to degrade the conditions for peace in the region.

Conflating the actions of Israel with any specific ethnic group would be bigoted. The jewish community is more than just Israel and its actions. Their association is and always has been anti-semitic, and is often used as a thought-terminating cliche to shut down any legitimate critique of the Israeli government. And by linking the two, as the world's view on Israel becomes more negative, continuing to insist that Israel acts on behalf of all jews will only serve to increase anti-semitism.

And yeah, those things all sound horrible. Seems like the case should be a slam dunk then, and not just a settlement claiming no wrongdoing like the last on (interesting it would be only a settlement if the claims of the judge were as strong as you claim). Somehow, I'm not holding my breath on the accuracy of any claims affiliated with the cases put forth by this DOJ.

1

u/justafutz 1d ago

I believe that Jewish self-determination is not intrinsically linked to the state of Israel and its specific actions over the last few decades.

Stop conflating actions with the existence of Israel. This is about one, not the other.

Israel has done a poor job of preventing the worst actions of their settlers, committed numerous crimes against prisoners, funded Hamas, and otherwise done their best to degrade the conditions for peace in the region.

I'm going to ignore your conspiracy theories and focus on the point. The point is not this. I explained that above. The point is that these Jewish students were excluded for central tenets of their faith, and were targeted by the encampment if they were wearing anything identifying them as Jewish, like a Star of David or a yarmulke. That is antisemitism.

Conflating the actions of Israel with any specific ethnic group would be bigoted

You appear to be trying to argue that Jews are antisemitic by ignoring what I said. I said:

Blaming Jews and the Jewish state for antisemitism is not only irrelevant, it shows a serious problem. No one here conflated Israel's actions with antisemitism. What they did is point out that Jews were excluded from campus because they are Jewish and believe in central tenets of the Jewish faith, and wore symbols that mark them as observant and proud Jews.

You seem to be missing that. Try reading it again.

Seems like the case should be a slam dunk then, and not just a settlement claiming no wrongdoing like the last on (interesting it would be only a settlement if the claims of the judge were as strong as you claim).

Uh, I think you misunderstood the settlement. The settlement was saying UCLA doesn't admit that UCLA did something wrong, because it disputed that it was responsible for the protestors.

UCLA did not deny that there was antisemitism on campus, and that the encampment excluded Jews. In fact, the judge noted that in his opinion directly, saying:

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.

UCLA doesn't dispute that there was a Jew-free zone on campus. They only disputed that they were responsible.

Please try not to misstate that as well.

Somehow, I'm not holding my breath on the accuracy of any claims affiliated with the cases put forth by this DOJ.

Then feel free to read the report of the UCLA Antisemitism Task Force.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/knign 1d ago

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.

-1

u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 1d ago

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.

1

u/knign 1d ago

You can find similar instances of discimination in every country.

1

u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 1d ago

What you can’t find in every country is hundreds of millions of gifted arms from the United States and an active settler project who is allowed to hold settler recruitment sessions in our country. Which is why people care about it; our money funds it.

Also I would challenge you to find another Western Country with someone like Ben Gvir’s history of flagrant discrimination and hatred, I don’t think I agree that those levels of discrimination are common. Maybe somewhere in the Balkans.

1

u/knign 1d ago

to find another Western Country with someone like Ben Gvir’s history of flagrant discrimination and hatred

Trump?

1

u/20000RadsUnderTheSea 1d ago

Lmao okay, that’s close. He still doesn’t quite fall to the level of “openly venerating mass murders,” though. At least not yet, I’m sure he’ll cross that line someday.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/MinaZata 2d ago

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

-5

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 2d ago

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.

-7

u/jabberwockxeno 1d ago

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

9

u/justafutz 1d ago edited 1d ago

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?

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

10

u/justafutz 1d ago

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.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

11

u/justafutz 1d ago

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.

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

6

u/justafutz 1d ago

The guide literally agrees with my definition of Zionism... It defines it as the belief that the Jewish people are a nation and have the right to establish a state on their homeland (Israel.)

You may notice the difference between "colonizing" and the belief that Jews deserve the right to self-determination in their historical homeland.

I certainly do.

There was a long existing desire by many Jews to return to the land of Israel, but it didn't become a political movement to establish a state there until the 19th century.

The fact that Jews finally got organized in the 19th century doesn't change that it is a fundamental part of the Jewish faith and was before the 19th century.

Again, if you have read the guide, it's quite helpful:

Pivoting around this old-new homeland, Zionism is more than a political movement: it's a spiritual and ideological journey, rooted in Judaism, Jewish history, Jewish values, and the Jewish people. Especially since the Holocaust ended in 1945 and Israel emerged in 1948, Zionism is foundational to Jewish identity.

And:

Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, "simply put, the manifestation of that belief."

Please don't skip over those portions of the guide. They're very informative.

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

6

u/justafutz 1d ago

Oh, so earlier the guide was agreeing with you, now that you've realized it proves you wrong, you've decided to say what Jews believe to Jews. That's cool.

Zionism seeks to establish a Jewish state in their homeland. That necessarily implies colonization since there were a great deal of non-Jews living there already.

It doesn't "necessarily imply" anything. That's false.

There is a difference between the desire/longing to return and the desire to establish a state. Zionism is the latter, not merely the former. The "spiritual and ideological journey, rooted in Judaism" existed before Zionism. It may have been a foundation of Zionism, but it is not in and of itself Zionism.

They're also ahistorical and misleading. Zionism is not merely the spiritual desire to return to the Jewish homeland, it is the desire to establish a Jewish state in that homeland.

It's funny how you agreed with the guide when you thought it supported your point, but now it's "ahistorical and misleading". Sure, you know better than virtually all Jews, and the Jewish People Policy Institute too. Whatever you say.

-1

u/SmoothAnus 1d ago

It doesn't "necessarily imply" anything. That's false.

They wanted to establish a state on land that was already inhabited.

It's funny how you agreed with the guide when you thought it supported your point, but now it's "ahistorical and misleading". Sure, you know better than virtually all Jews, and the Jewish People Policy Institute too. Whatever you say.

The guide says Zionism is the belief that "the Jewish people have rights to establish a state on their homeland"

I agree with this.

The guide then tries to hem and haw and slightly contradict itself because it doesn't want to acknowledge that definition it just gave.

Zionism is not some abstract spiritual belief about Jewish self-determination, it is specifically the belief that Jews have a right to establish a nation state on their ancestral homeland of Israel. Zionism is a political movement to establish the nation state of Israel. Denying this is ahistorical and silly.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/knign 1d ago

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

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

5

u/knign 1d ago

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.

0

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

3

u/knign 1d ago

When this “political belief” is “condemn Israel”, for all practical purposes it’s not.

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

3

u/knign 1d ago

As I said, I have no idea why you keep bringing up Zionist movement.

Thing is, the Jewish state is intrinsically connected to Jewish identity. Trying to deny this and pretend that “condemning Israel” has nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish identity is absurd.

0

u/VultureSausage 1d ago

Thing is, the Jewish state is intrinsically connected to Jewish identity. Trying to deny this and pretend that “condemning Israel” has nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish identity is absurd.

Israel claims that, but Israel has no authority to speak on the behalf of anyone who isn't Israeli.

Zionism is relevant because Israel is claiming authority to speak on behalf of people based on the ethnicity of those people for political reasons. That there is an intrinsic part of Judaism that desires a Jewish state in modern-day Israel does not mean that support for the actions of the modern state of Israel is intrinsic to Judaism. Support for "Israel" in the sense of an ideal Jewish homeland in the Levant is not the same as support for "Israel" in the sense of the modern-day state of that name. The latter is trying to achieve (a version of) the former, but they are not the same. Israel the state is conflating itself with Israel the ideal for entirely political reasons.

In other words, you do not have to be a Zionist (supporter of the modern-day state of Israel) to because Jew (supporter of the idea of Israel).

0

u/SmoothAnus 1d ago

I am bringing up the Zionist movement because that is the movement for a Jewish state.

The idea that a Jewish state is intrinsically tied to Jewish identity is false. It's not true historically, and it's not true even today. Zionists want it to be so that they can claim religious persecution any time someone objects to Israel's actions, but it isn't.

→ More replies (0)