ACLU sues Jackson-Reed

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

Exactly.

None of the activities of AIPAC, and other lobbying organizations are hidden and the film never said they were. It merely pointed out the existence, reach and success of the influence campaign.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is, indeed, the complexity and sensitivities around this issue/film that is why the school and principal were justified in wanting to be thoughtful and deliberate before letting the students show the film. In fact, it would be totally irresponsible for a school to rubberstamp any film on this topic without viewing it and considering how it would impact the student body and figuring out how the group could go forward to stage a viewing in a safe way.

How long do you believe this process should take? Approximately to the end of the school year? The video is 50 minutes long. The school could deliberate over the course of an afternoon.

Maus is a graphic comic book and it took the better part of a semester for the administration to figure out how to deal with it and Night (which I think is a little over 100 pages)...I suppose in theory they could have deliberated over the course of the afternoon over those too....but: 1) administrations are busy and student groups should not get to dictate that things happen on their timetables; and 2) sometimes carefully considering how to proceed involves getting input from interested parties beyond the loudest voices on either side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is, indeed, the complexity and sensitivities around this issue/film that is why the school and principal were justified in wanting to be thoughtful and deliberate before letting the students show the film. In fact, it would be totally irresponsible for a school to rubberstamp any film on this topic without viewing it and considering how it would impact the student body and figuring out how the group could go forward to stage a viewing in a safe way.

How long do you believe this process should take? Approximately to the end of the school year? The video is 50 minutes long. The school could deliberate over the course of an afternoon.

Maus is a graphic comic book and it took the better part of a semester for the administration to figure out how to deal with it and Night (which I think is a little over 100 pages)...I suppose in theory they could have deliberated over the course of the afternoon over those too....but: 1) administrations are busy and student groups should not get to dictate that things happen on their timetables; and 2) sometimes carefully considering how to proceed involves getting input from interested parties beyond the loudest voices on either side.

Maus and Night are mandatory for ALL students. I don’t see the comparison to a short film that is being shown after hours by a club and is obviously optional. I’m guessing 50 students would be a fantastic attendance for the movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

+1

Whether this was a time-place-manner or a content restriction seems based on facts I don't have about the school's policies and how they enforce them. If it was a content restriction, that seems potentially hard to defend legally.

But the comments about how the film is reasonable, or we should just let people talk -- I know what that is. I've had conversations like this before. It's not good faith. "No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives" is textbook "I'm just asking questions."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is, indeed, the complexity and sensitivities around this issue/film that is why the school and principal were justified in wanting to be thoughtful and deliberate before letting the students show the film. In fact, it would be totally irresponsible for a school to rubberstamp any film on this topic without viewing it and considering how it would impact the student body and figuring out how the group could go forward to stage a viewing in a safe way.

How long do you believe this process should take? Approximately to the end of the school year? The video is 50 minutes long. The school could deliberate over the course of an afternoon.

Maus is a graphic comic book and it took the better part of a semester for the administration to figure out how to deal with it and Night (which I think is a little over 100 pages)...I suppose in theory they could have deliberated over the course of the afternoon over those too....but: 1) administrations are busy and student groups should not get to dictate that things happen on their timetables; and 2) sometimes carefully considering how to proceed involves getting input from interested parties beyond the loudest voices on either side.

Well, since this has been going on since December I would think the administration has had time for a review. Clearly they are trying to run the clock out now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

"Supporters of Israel" is not a monolithic group. Not in policy positions, not in rhetoric, not in approach, not in activism. You can criticize individuals or organizations for making bad-faith arguments without generalizing to anyone who believes Israel should continue to exist.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

"Supporters of Israel" is not a monolithic group. Not in policy positions, not in rhetoric, not in approach, not in activism. You can criticize individuals or organizations for making bad-faith arguments without generalizing to anyone who believes Israel should continue to exist.

I don't know the name of the parent who started this controversy by tearing down a poster and I wouldn't use it if I did. The many groups involved in suppressing points of view that are not supportive of Israel are too numerous to list. What term do you propose that I use to describe those who protect Israel's interests by suppressing views with which they don't agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

+1

Whether this was a time-place-manner or a content restriction seems based on facts I don't have about the school's policies and how they enforce them. If it was a content restriction, that seems potentially hard to defend legally.

But the comments about how the film is reasonable, or we should just let people talk -- I know what that is. I've had conversations like this before. It's not good faith. "No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives" is textbook "I'm just asking questions."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

+1

Whether this was a time-place-manner or a content restriction seems based on facts I don't have about the school's policies and how they enforce them. If it was a content restriction, that seems potentially hard to defend legally.

But the comments about how the film is reasonable, or we should just let people talk -- I know what that is. I've had conversations like this before. It's not good faith. "No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives" is textbook "I'm just asking questions."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

You are right that there is no consensus which is why we should not suppress alternative viewpoints. There is a well funded pro-Israel lobby in the US. It is legal and not breaking any laws as far as I know but why pretend it does not exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

+1

Whether this was a time-place-manner or a content restriction seems based on facts I don't have about the school's policies and how they enforce them. If it was a content restriction, that seems potentially hard to defend legally.

But the comments about how the film is reasonable, or we should just let people talk -- I know what that is. I've had conversations like this before. It's not good faith. "No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives" is textbook "I'm just asking questions."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

You want people to polarize to extreme positions without engaging in nuance? That sounds like a bad path to take.

If someone were dropped into the world on Oct. 7, without knowledge of the history of Israel and of the terrorism and persecution the Jews have suffered throughout history and especially WWII, they would be unlikely to have a nuanced view.

Empathy is your friend, and forcing people to take sides is part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

+1

Whether this was a time-place-manner or a content restriction seems based on facts I don't have about the school's policies and how they enforce them. If it was a content restriction, that seems potentially hard to defend legally.

But the comments about how the film is reasonable, or we should just let people talk -- I know what that is. I've had conversations like this before. It's not good faith. "No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives" is textbook "I'm just asking questions."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

You want people to polarize to extreme positions without engaging in nuance? That sounds like a bad path to take.

If someone were dropped into the world on Oct. 7, without knowledge of the history of Israel and of the terrorism and persecution the Jews have suffered throughout history and especially WWII, they would be unlikely to have a nuanced view.

Empathy is your friend, and forcing people to take sides is part of the problem.

different poster just above, btw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

+1

Whether this was a time-place-manner or a content restriction seems based on facts I don't have about the school's policies and how they enforce them. If it was a content restriction, that seems potentially hard to defend legally.

But the comments about how the film is reasonable, or we should just let people talk -- I know what that is. I've had conversations like this before. It's not good faith. "No group should try to 100% control the narrative. Complex issues have multiple perspectives" is textbook "I'm just asking questions."

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to say it is a complex issue and there are multiple perspectives. There is absolutely a Palestinian perspective whether you like it or not. And perspectives from Israel’s neighbors and from Europe and the US, etc. Most people agree that the discussion has been one sided for far too long

I'm saying it's a way to avoid saying what you actually believe by hiding behind these kinds of vapid attempts to make yourself reasonable and also like you have some kind of consensus.

You want people to polarize to extreme positions without engaging in nuance? That sounds like a bad path to take.

If someone were dropped into the world on Oct. 7, without knowledge of the history of Israel and of the terrorism and persecution the Jews have suffered throughout history and especially WWII, they would be unlikely to have a nuanced view.

Empathy is your friend, and forcing people to take sides is part of the problem.

I'm not forcing anyone to take any position. But I have a position. And I believe you and everyone else who is just asking questions about the Israel lobby and just the Israel lobby also has a position that's not just "gosh darn it, we should talk about this."

Also, maybe you meant October 10th or perhaps October 15th.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

I don't want to steer this thread too far away from topic, but I'll just note that AIPAC and its lobbying are hardly the only reasons the U.S. supports Israel, even if I disagree with (a) a lot of AIPAC's arguments and (b) many of the other organizations who have also influenced U.S. policy in the Middle East. It's disingenuous to blame all the policies the filmmakers are obviously welcome to criticize on Jewish organizations or actors. The movie also seems to render American-Jewish opinion on Israel as essentially monolithic, which it isn't; if anything, polls found that Jews at least before Oct. 7 were often more supportive of two independent states, Israeli and Palestinian, than Americans overall. Even the title ("The Occupation of the American Mind") plays on the idea that a foreign force has taken over American opinion.

Again, I want this war to end immediately (though I want the hostages returned as part of that), I loathe the leaders of the Israeli government, I haven't personally been to Israel in nearly 30 years, I would love U.S. policy on Israel to be more elastic (which would obviously be better for Palestinians, but I think would be good both for the U.S. and Israel and would tamp down some of the most toxic elements of Israeli politics) and I think the movie ought to be permitted as a legal matter. I'm trying to explain why even Jews like me react badly to the film.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on my scan of the transcript of the shorter, 45-minute version of the film, it doesn't say anything that's explicitly antisemitic. But the idea that there's this ONE THING that nefarious hidden forces working to control the media won't let you criticize definitely does seem to echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories. Especially when the one thing is the Jewish state, maybe you can see why some Jews find it problematic?

I'm anti-occupation, pro-Israeli left, and wouldn't mind seeing Netanyahu hauled off to The Hague, but I don't think the movie is quite as straight-ahead/just-the-facts as its defenders want to suggest sometimes.

That said, hard to see where DCPS is on firm legal ground barring it. The First Amendment protects stupid and/or racist speech at least as much as it protects speech no one objects to. The better response here would have been to allow the club to screen it and also make sure there was a similar venue for anyone who wanted to air some response film. (Though I guess the footage from the Oct. 7 attacks themselves would probably be inappropriate for school-age viewers...)

Thank you for so clearly articulating where I'm at with this too. (I would argue this is a more "typical" reflection of Israel supporters than what Jeff suggested up thread.) Based on what's been shared, I don't see why the school interfered. But I also don't understand why people are so forcefully defending the content of this film either.

If you read my posts, I have been clear that the film is one-sided and not balanced. That does not make it inaccurate and now even critics agree that it should be allowed to be shown. My objections have been in response to misrepresentations of the video.

Apparently suggesting that supporters of Israel try to stifle criticism of Israel is considered to "echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories". Ironically, this is said in a thread discussing how supporters of Israel have successfully prevented a video critical of Israel from being shown. Of course, the actual video doesn't allege that "nefarious hidden forces" are working to protect Israel's interests. Rather, the video shows that this is done quite openly using traditional public relations, lobbying, and political activities. Nothing nefarious about it.

I don't want to steer this thread too far away from topic, but I'll just note that AIPAC and its lobbying are hardly the only reasons the U.S. supports Israel, even if I disagree with (a) a lot of AIPAC's arguments and (b) many of the other organizations who have also influenced U.S. policy in the Middle East. It's disingenuous to blame all the policies the filmmakers are obviously welcome to criticize on Jewish organizations or actors. The movie also seems to render American-Jewish opinion on Israel as essentially monolithic, which it isn't; if anything, polls found that Jews at least before Oct. 7 were often more supportive of two independent states, Israeli and Palestinian, than Americans overall. Even the title ("The Occupation of the American Mind") plays on the idea that a foreign force has taken over American opinion.

Again, I want this war to end immediately (though I want the hostages returned as part of that), I loathe the leaders of the Israeli government, I haven't personally been to Israel in nearly 30 years, I would love U.S. policy on Israel to be more elastic (which would obviously be better for Palestinians, but I think would be good both for the U.S. and Israel and would tamp down some of the most toxic elements of Israeli politics) and I think the movie ought to be permitted as a legal matter. I'm trying to explain why even Jews like me react badly to the film.

The movie does not simply blame AIPAC and its lobbying. The video shows a range of influences that impact the perception of Americans. The video explicitly says that the views of most American Jews don't align with the hardline Israeli positions. It also describes Christian support for Israel. I think that it is perfectly understandable that many would have objections to this movie. In my opinion, there are several perfectly valid criticisms that could be made. My objections have been to the outright falsehoods that have been posted here as well, of course, the efforts to prevent the movie from being shown.

It doesn't appear that you have actually watched the video. I would urge you to do so because I think it would increase your comfort level.