Because the debate on antisemitism is entering the critical stage, it has become imperative to define with a high level of certainty what is meant by—not just the word—but the very idea of “conflation”.
In a new article that came under the title: “Antisemitism
Once Again Rears Its Ugly Head on Campus,”
Bobby Miller seems to say he made that clarification the previous week.
He said so in a new article he published on September 30, 2022 in National
Review Online.
As to the previous week’s article, it had come under the
title: “University
of Vermont Fails to Confront Antisemitism on Campus,” and was printed on September
23, 2022 also in National Review Online. I responded to that article in a piece
that came under the title: “The sort of wise failure that will save America,”
published on September 26, 2022 on this blog.
When you read the September 23 Miller article and my response to it,
you’ll know there was no real attempt by either of us to clarify with any level
of certainty the meaning of the word “conflation.” In fact, what Miller is
demonstrating in his new article, is that his logic is so mangled, he shot
himself in the foot trying to build on what he wrote the previous week. Here is
how he started the new article:
“Last week, I wrote about how the conflation of anti-Zionism
and antisemitism is real and troubling, but that there are times, such as at
the University of Vermont, when the delineation between valid critiques and
genuine bigotry is laid bare”.
Do you see what that says implicitly, my friend? It says – or if
you wish, it implies – that in Miller’s view, anti-Zionism is valid criticism
whereas antisemitism is genuine bigotry. As can be seen, Bobby Miller neglected
to define “conflation,” but did something else. He torpedoed the idea that to
attack Zionism is to deny Jews the exercise of self-determination in their own
homeland. When you recall that this had been the mantra which the Jews had been
using to accuse anyone who differentiated between anti-Zionism and antisemitism
of being a Jew hating bigot, you’ll know how much Bobby Miller has hurt the
causes he says he is defending.
Having committed that gaffe, Bobby Miller proceeded to
tell what his new complaint is about. Here is how he introduced the subject:
“Another example has occurred at the University of California at
Berkeley where nine groups in the law school have
amended their bylaws, in coordination with Berkley Law Students for
Justice in Palestine (BLSJP), to ensure that no pro-Israel speaker will ever be
allowed to address their respective groups”.
To respond to this development, Bobby Miller first quoted
Kenneth Marcus who stated that this is “not just a political stunt. It is tinged with antisemitism
and anti-Israel national origin discrimination.” Miller agreed, saying that
Marcus was “spot-on.” And then Miller did what you would expect from a Jew.
Having agreed that this was not a political stunt, he instinctively turned the
supposed debate on Jewish Rights into a political football. Here is how he did
that:
“Left-wing hypocrisy abounds. If progressives are serious about
upholding civil-rights law, they wouldn’t be engaging in these blatant acts of
discrimination. Everyone is free to denounce the Jewish State for any of its
supposed sins. But once a public university permits student organizations to
bar speakers of certain ethnicities and national origin, the threshold of
illegality has been crossed”.
In fact, not only did Bobby Miller turn the debate into a
political football, he used the trick to pull yet another typically Jewish stunt.
It is one that’s close to Jewish hearts, generated by the fantasy to monopolize
the making of laws they would impose on humanity. To satisfy the fantasy, the
Jews think up laws that do not exist, and talk about them as if they did. In
fact, this is what prompted Bobby Miller to speak of “upholding civil-rights
law,” and of “the threshold of illegality being crossed”.
Apparently speaking about the student groups—or maybe
speaking directly to them—who amended their bylaws in coordination with Berkley
Law Students for Justice in Palestine, Bobby Miller did something that shows
how muddy Jewish moral clarity can get. He wrote the following to end his
article: “Apparently,
self-awareness is not a prerequisite for joining organizations toeing the BLSJP
line. There is no logic to illiberalism of this sort — only prejudice and
intimidation”.
What on Earth is that? Which of the student groups are
supposed to be self-aware but are not? Why would self-awareness be or not be a
prerequisite for toeing the BLSJP line? What sort of illiberalism is Miller
talking about? How did logic get lost in all of this to yield only prejudice
and intimidation?