As has been widely debated in the media, Fatima Mousa Mohammed, selected by her classmates at the CUNY law school to speak at their commencement on May12, delivered a vicious, hate-filled speech against Jews, Zionists, the “fascist” military, and the NYPD. Together with her classmates, the dean of the law school, Sudha Setty, applauded her remarks.
Her speech said in part:
Israel continues to indiscriminately rain bullets and bombs on worshippers, murdering the old, the young and even attacking funerals and graveyards, as it encourages lynch mobs to target Palestinians homes and businesses. As it imprisons its children, as it continues its project of settler colonialism, expelling Palestinians from their homes. Silence is no longer acceptable,…
Alumni of the 1986 first CUNY law school’s graduating class wrote to condemn her remarks as did CUNY’s Chancellor and the board of trustees. Meanwhile, a large group of the faculty demanded that the Chancellor apologize for his critical response. Mohammed’s condemnation of Israel was so blatantly anti-Semitic that the text was taken down from the website. Jewish groups including the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York and the ADL publicly condemned the speech.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Representative Ritchie Torres(D-NY), and Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) were among the first political voices condemning her speech. Torres tweeted that she was “…crazed by hatred for Israel as a Jewish State” and that her speech was “…anti-Israel derangement syndrome at work.” Similarly, Representative Gottheimer commented: “This type of vitriolic language is completely unacceptable and is clearly hate speech. Anti-Israel rhetoric incites hatred against Jews and rallies those that seek the destruction of the Jewish State.”
The problem here is not merely the people who did respond or did not respond or even did not yet respond, to this blatantly, anti-Semitic speech. The challenge is that this speech was not directly against Government policies but a vulgar, unnuanced attack against Israel and implicitly its right to exist. It expands the legitimacy of the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanction) argument that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Criticism of a Government’s policy is one thing, but spewing hatred against a people is different; but it is not. In addition, the speech underscored the persistent conundrum as to why anti-Semitism and anti-Israel expression is tolerated and even applauded, while so many other expressed hatreds and biases are immediately widely condemned.
One ought to consider what might have been the response to a commencement speaker expressing patently derogatory about women, LGBTQ people, African Americans, Hispanics, etc. The outcry would have been instant and universal—and rightly so. When it comes to Jews and Israel there is an obvious double standard. Aside from the fact that this attack was totally out of place and out context at a law school commencement, there is no rational explanation as to why this type of address is accepted and tolerated. The only rationalization is that hatred and prejudice against Jews and Israel are permitted forms of speech which can be said in public without criticism.
There is a validity for Jews to demand a universal outcry and condemnation of Fatima Mousa Mohammed’s remarks, not sincere but belated apologies dragged out of public figures. Free speech does not permit hate speech to be expressed uncritically. It would be interesting to consider what a character committee of the bar might argue in considering the admission to it ranks of a person who engaged in this type of poisonous rhetoric. This type of speech represents precisely the opposite of what a potential client would have a right to expect from one’s attorney. In addition, one would hope that a judge, at any level, would dismiss or expel any lawyer using this type of language in a courtroom.
There is a further problem. These anti-Semitic, anti-Israel pronouncements and their lack of immediate condemnation are increasing. They are a part of a conscious, larger effort that seeks to de-legitimize Jews and Israel. The NFL football star DeSean Jackson, or the NBA basketball star Kyrie Irving, or the rapper and fashion designer Ye (Kanye West) are all examples of public incendiary bombs in the public space which test society’s willingness to tolerate anti-Semitic attacks. Criticisms against the State of Israel in this context are anti-Semitic and not a selective critique of a policy of the Israeli Government.
Expressions of hatred and prejudice must not only be condemned selectively or when such speech is expressed against certain groups. Jews have suffered as the victims of the longest hatred in history. No democracy should tolerate anti-Semitism in any guise or cloaked in any façade or from any figure or in any setting.
Comments