It was exactly one month ago, but it seems much longer. Nationally known anti-Israel activists cleverly disguised their continued efforts to undermine the relationship between Israel and the United States, in a conference sold as an effort to defend their rights of free speech.
A major goal of the organization behind this event is the BDS movement, or the effort to damage the state of Israel through boycott, divestment and sanctioning. This conference was held at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and was sponsored by the university’s Department of Communication and the Department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.
A lawsuit on the part of three Jewish UMass students sought to move the conference away from this taxpayer-supported institution, arguing that its content was anti-Semitic and posed a danger to the safety of Jewish students on campus. They had some reason to be concerned.
There have been of late shootings at synagogues in San Diego and Pittsburgh. An article in this newspaper just days before the conference started reported an increasing level of anti-Semitic assaults in the United States.
The New England regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, in the organization’s annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents, observed “after years of hate becoming normalized, bigots are turning their anti-Semitism into action through violence.”
The UMass Amherst chancellor defended the decision to allow the conference on campus by citing the university’s dedication to free speech. He tried to distance himself from this decision with the qualification that the content of the conference did not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the university.
The Massachusetts judge presiding over this case denied the request for an injunction, allowing the conference to go on. He argued that an injunction would deny First Amendment free speech rights to the conference organizers.
A guest column 10 days ago on these very same pages celebrated the judge’s decision: “censorship by any arm of the state must be stopped if we are to preserve a democratic society.”
I believe in forceful defense of the First Amendment right of free speech as well, no matter how repugnant the content of speech may be. It is clear that the content of this conference conformed to the definition of anti-Semitism as formulated by the U.S. Department of State at the website. That definition states, “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
And yet, I agree that free speech protections did require that this event be allowed to proceed.
Though it could be argued that free speech protections did not require that this conference occur at a taxpayer-supported venue and could have been moved elsewhere, the real problem with events as they transpired was the deep hypocrisy on the part of the UMass administration.
Over the last several years, the news has been replete with incidents of American universities restricting speech opportunities for Republican and conservative speakers. Often these are portrayed as restrictions on hate speech or as efforts to protect university students from potential violence.
UMass itself ran into trouble in 2018 by trying to impose restrictions on The Young Americans for Liberty and in 2016 by allowing a panel of conservative speakers to be shouted down and off the stage. It will be interesting to see in the future whether the UMass administration allows and protects the freedom of non-favored political presentations.
Another interesting aspect of the anti-Israel symposium at UMass was the complete silence on this issue by the offices of the local and regional politicians that I contacted to seek their intervention. I am unaware of any public comments relative to the issues surrounding this conference by state Reps. Lindsay Sabadosa or Mind y Domb, state Sen. Jo Comerford, U.S. Congressman James McGovern, and U.S. Sens. Edward Markey or Elizabeth Warren.
The voters whom these Democratic politicians represent should know where they stand: Do they support the vilification of the state of Israel as purported by this conference? Are they supporters of the BDS movement as demanded by the progressive wing of their party? Do they support the right of the state of Israel to defend itself? Are they supporters of free speech, and will they stand by the right of conservatives to speak on regional campuses?
Lastly, I would like to address my fellow Jewish members of the community. Jews have traditionally been strong supporters of the Democratic Party, and the most recent statistics from Gallup indicate that 52 percent of Jews identified as Democrats versus 16 percent identifying as Republicans.
Yet Jews are supporting and financing a political party that shields and excuses away anti-Semitic comments by some of its prominent members, such as congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. If similar co mments had been made by Republicans, we all know that fierce condemnation would be unleashed by the left. It looks as if the Jewish community is being moved to the wrong side of the Democrat’s identity politics.
Anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sentiment is becoming mainstream th roughout the Democratic Party. Every candidate for the Democratic nomination for president avoided attendance at the recent annual meeting of American Israel Public Affairs Committee in order to curry favor with the progressive wing of the party.
Even right now, the state Democratic Convention for California is considering resolutions condemning Israel, including an accusation that Israel has willfully aligned with American white supremacists groups to sponsor “virulent Islamophobia.”
Attached to the Democrats are the likes of Antifa, a left-wing group that resorts to violence against political opponents while wearing black masks and bandannas to hide their identity. The likeness of Antifa should be burned into the collective DNA of the Jewish community as a reminiscence of Germany in the 1930s.
Voices in the African-American community are questioning their ongoing loyalty to the Democratic Party. I would ask my own community the same question: Why does the Democratic Party as it is currently comprised continue to warrant the support of Jews?
Jay Fleitman, MD, of Northampton writes a monthly column. He can be reach ed at opinion@gazettenet.com.