[Marxism] The LIES about Stanford SJP

Jeff meisner at xs4all.nl
Sat Apr 30 08:27:03 MDT 2016


I wanted to address what appear to be slanders made against the Stanford
SJP chapter, and the misleading narrative regarding the conflict that arose
at the speaking event. As I said in my last post, this is only tangentially
related to Alison Weir:

At 16:23 30-04-16 +0200, Jeff wrote:
>...
>The reason Alison Weir was important in relation to the Stanford incident,
>is that her surprise appearance alerted the SJP members who invited the
>Palestinian speakers on tour to some irregularities, if you will, with the
>intentions of those hosting the tour. It might have just been a
>misunderstanding, but appears not to be, given the immediate hostile
>response by tour organizer Paul Larudee, as well as by Amith -- who wasn't
>even there! -- who jumped on it to prove some supposed political difference
>that he is trying to create. Obviously the Palestinian speakers didn't
>believe in the "legitimacy of Israel" (have you ever heard a Palestinian
>who does, excepting ones on the payroll of the PA?), and this has never
>been an issue before. I assume Stanford SJP has presented Palestinian
>speakers before, none of whom had any such belief, without problems
>arising. For a problem to arise at this incident didn't have to do with the
>Palestinian speaker and her views (who may well have been manipulated into
>a confrontation), but very well may be related to Alison Weir and the tour
>organizers. 

It appears that the conflict at the event played into, if not engineered to
bring out, existing disagreements that Amith and others have with the
mainstream Palestine solidarity movement including BDS which Amith has gone
out of his way to criticize in the past (without proposing any
alternative!). Specifically, and quoting directly, Amith claims:

>some SJPs are not anti-Zionist. Stanford SJP, for example, reaffirmed the 
>right of Israelis to self-determination and tried to distance itself from 
>the BDS movement in their divestment resolution.

So we have the following charges:

1) "Some" (e.g. Stanford) chapters of SJP are not even anti-zionist.
2) Stanford SJP support the "right of Israelis to self-determination".
3) Stanford SJP " tried to distance itself from the BDS movement" 


Alison Weir herself (see
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2016/04/16/palestinian-refugee-denied-free-speech-at
-stanford/) made an additional (though similar) statement from which I
obtain the following excerpts:

> students told her they objected to my views on “Israel’s right to exist”

>Amena questioned the Stanford students, who told her she could not give her 
> views on “Israel’s right to exist.”
 
>(By the way, it’s probably relevant to note that a committed Palestine 
>activist has written to me that this Stanford behavior seems to be part of a 
>problematic pattern with the current group, whose version of the divestment 
>resolution takes a liberal Zionist position: ignores refugees, dates the 
>injustice only from 1967, disavows BDS, and endorses Israeli 
>self-determination at the expense of Palestinians.) 

So from her we have the following additional charges:

4) "Students", presumably from the SJP, objected to the Palestinian
speaker's views (against) “Israel’s right to exist”.
 
5) Those students told the speaker she COULD NOT present those views.

6) The Stanford SJP (in their divestment resolution) "takes a liberal
Zionist position".

7) The Stanford SJP "ignores refugees".

8) The Stanford SJP "dates the injustice only from 1967".

And it "disavows BDS," similar to (3).

And it "endorses Israeli self-determination," as stated in (2)


I believe that all of these charges are LIES or extremely misleading
half-truths. I will deal with them one by one to the best of my knowledge,
but will not have time to go through all in this email.

LIE #1: The Stanford chapter of the SJP is not even anti-zionist.

That charge seems incredible. What else are they protesting when they speak
in the interests of Palestine, if not Zionism? If they weren't anti-zionist
they wouldn't have anything to do!. In their post about the event on
facebook, the Stanford SJP's statement mentions the University's
anti-semitism resolution, opposing "some other portions of the bill that
also conflate anti-Zionism and 
anti-Semitism." Now, if they were NOT anti-zionist, would they be going out
of their way to oppose the identification of anti-zionism with
anti-semitism? This charge is beyond credibility and without evidence.

LIE # 2: Stanford SJP supports the "right of Israelis to self-determination".

Again, saying that they support such a thing requires evidence. It
obviously isn't the point of the group which has to do with the
Palestinian's right to self-determination. So is such a position stated
somewhere, and did people join the group knowing that they were signing on
to such a "right"? This has not been presented, and a statement of that
sort would have been such a juicy find for Amith that I'm sure he would
have quoted it. 

LIE #3:  Stanford SJP " tried to distance itself from the BDS movement" 

A strange charge from Amith who has gone out of his way to cast BDS as
wholly insufficient. But again it is a lie. In fact, just yesterday
Stanford SJP hosted a video presentation/conference with Omar Barghouti,
the leader of BDS: https://www.facebook.com/events/1718487525087566/

I have 5 LIES to go, which I will address in a follow-up post. 

- Jeff



More information about the Marxism mailing list