At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, a student-led movement is underway to urge the university to rename a campus library currently named after Golda Meir, a former Prime Minister of Israel. This demand is part of a broader call by the students for the university to reassess its ties with Israel.
The campaign includes a petition initiated by campus protesters, which not only seeks the renaming of the Golda Meir Library but also calls for the university to cease all investments in Israel. The petition accuses Israel of committing serious human rights violations in Gaza. It states, “In the past few weeks, the settler colonial state of ‘Israel’ has waged a genocide against the people of Gaza by murdering over 20,000+ innocent civilians, displacing over 1,700,000 people, and destroying over 50,000 houses, 266 schools, 26 hospitals, and many more war crimes.”
This petition was formulated by groups including the Wisconsin Coalition for Justice in Palestine, UW Students for a Democratic Society, and the Muslim Students Association, as reported by College Fix.
The demands of the students extend beyond the library’s name change. They are advocating for the university to withdraw from any financial involvement with companies that allegedly support what they term as the ‘Palestinian genocide.’ Moreover, the students are pressing for an end to all study abroad programs and trips to Israel for students.
One of the central figures in this controversy is Golda Meir, an alumnus of the university who later became the Prime Minister of Israel. The petition criticizes Meir, saying, “The library is named after Golda Meir, who not only assisted in the founding of the settler colony, but was also responsible for the displacement, ethnic cleansing, and death of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.”
Golda Meir, who was Prime Minister from 1969 to 1974, graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1917. The library, named in her honor, was established in 1967.
The student body has actively expressed its support for these demands through rallies and prayer vigils held in November and December to honor the “martyrs of Palestine,” as detailed in the College Fix report.
Can you help us out by describing for us which ethnic groups are considered to be Semites? Can you tell us from whence the term “Semite” derives?
Although there are groups around the world who are Semites other than Jews, the term anti-Semitic is reserved for the hatred of the Jewish people only.
It is unfortunate that it is so. Definitions are intended to be precise and this particular definition is, as you illustrate, quite imprecise on various levels. First, as you point out , it is imprecise because a number of ethnic groups, including (but not limited to) Arab Palestinians and Palestinian Christians are also Semitic in origin. Defined accurately the term “antisemitic” would be applied to the modern State of Israel – an absurdity.
It is also imprecise because it lumps various things together. It equates Jews with Zionism which is notoriously incorrect. It is quite possible for any person, even a Jew, to have a respect for Jewish people and a disdain for Zionism at the same time. This does not render these people “antisemites”. It is akin to labeling those who oppose neo-conservatism as “anti-American. We would all be better off if we used terminology more precisely.
THESE ANTI EVERYTHING HAVE GOT TO BE STOPPED IN THEIR TRACKS BY A MASSIVE PUCH BACK BY PEOPLE WHO LOVE BEING AN AMERICAN AND THE LOYALTY TO ISRAEL.
Forgive me. I am trying to figure all of this out. To be a good American is it necessary that one be loyal to Israel? Put differently, is it possible to be a good American yet have no loyalty to Israel? Or phrased yet another way, if a person feels no loyalty to Israel is that person a bad American? This is all very confusing to me.
Did you read the story? And do you know about the antisemitic demonstrations going on around the country? Why should Jews in America be harassed by anyone?
I did indeed. My questions were directed at the comments made just previous to my question. I found them confusing and I was trying to understand the thinking of that person. My comments were not directed at the article, per se.
It is unfortunate that the term “antisemitism” is used as quickly, as freely, and as imprecisely as it is. It adds a difficulty to legitimate discussion. Opposition to Zionism is no more antisemitic than revulsion to BLM destruction and rioting is “racist”. These are terms slung around in lieu of legitimate discussion. There is sizable Jewish opposition to Zionism around the world. How absurd it is to refer to Jews as “antisemitic”.
Let a discussion occur regarding the history and activities of Golda Meir occur in open and public forum. If emotionally-loaded epithets like “anti-semite” are a first response instead of honest and open discussion, that suggests that honest and open discussion is not favorable to the memory of Mrs. Meir. Let her be defended on the basis of historical fact. Whether we “like” or “dislike” the students petition let us freely discuss the truth or falsehood of their assertions free of emotional labelling.
Is there a credible basis to their claims? Let that be discussed, made public and widely disseminated.
Many people regard Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson as great leaders, yet there is little hesitation in destroying monuments to these men. Many people see Christopher Columbus as one of the great men in world history, yet his legacy is under constant attack. Movements seek to erase or re-create the roles of all the men crucial to the founding of the USA. One may agree or disagree with the assignation of “greatness” to these men yet their memories are not somehow immune to scrutiny. If this is the case so universally why should one particular group of people not be subject to scrutiny? I am aware of the history of Golda Meir. Let us make that history clear and available to all people and then address the case on its merits. Can there be an objection to that?