Stanford student leader threatens to punch Zionists

July 24, 2018 • 9:15 am

According to The College Fix and its source, the student newspaper the Stanford Daily, a Resident Assistant at Stanford who used to be a member of student government has posted on Facebook a threat to punch Jews for being Zionists. Here’s the post of Hamzeh Daoud (click on screenshot to go to the post), which he later altered in light of widespread outrage.

Let’s be clear: Palestine isn’t a democracy, and is far, far more oppressive and exclusionary than Israel. They oppress gays and women, won’t allow Jews to live there (talk about an apartheid state), and in fact give the death sentence to any resident who sells land to Jews. Daoud can’t see the beam in his own blinkered eye.

Apparently Daoud was set off by a new Israeli law affirming Israel as a Jewish state (see the explication of that law in the Wall Street Journal before you start railing about it). But leaving the law aside, note that Daoud’s real desire is to see Israel wiped off the map. That belies the claim of people like him who say “I’m anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic”. Daoud is a member of the university’s Students for Justice in Palestine, an odious anti-Semitic organization one step more odious than CAIR and about as odious as the BDS movement, whose real motivation is also to wipe out the state of Israel.

From the Stanford Daily:

In his original post, Daoud wrote, “I’m gonna physically fight Zionists on campus next year if someone comes at me with their ‘Israel is a democracy’ bullshit. And after I abolish your ass I’ll go ahead and work every day for the rest of my life to abolish your petty ass ethno-supremacist, settler-colonial state.” In the same post, Daoud shared a link leading to a opinions piece on an Israeli news website that states “Jewish Nation-state Law Makes Discrimination in Israel Constitutional.” [JAC: It does not.]

Daoud edited the post at 2:21 p.m. Friday, nearly four hours after originally posting it. He changed the word “physically” to “intellectually,” and added, “I edited this post because I realize intellectually beating zionists is the only way to go. Physical fighting is never an answer to when trying to prove people wrong.”

On Saturday, the Stanford College Republicans (SCR) suggested that the University fire Daoud, who is a member of Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), from his RA position due to his post physically threatening Zionist students at Stanford. Although Daoud edited his original post, which was made at 10:40 a.m. Friday, SCR posted a screenshot of the original to its Facebook page.

“SCR is disgusted by a threat of violence issued by Hamzeh Daoud, a rising junior at Stanford University, toward pro-Israel students,” the organization wrote. “Threatening to assault other students who hold a different point of view is anathema to a free society and any kind of education, let alone the operation of the premier research university in the world.”

Daoud, who will be a Residential Assistant in Norcliffe in the fall and who previously served on the Undergraduate Senate, wrote in an email to The Daily that his post was a “spur-of-the-moment emotional reaction” to the law.

“[The law] effectively made [Israel] an apartheid state and deemed Palestinian citizens of Israel second-class citizens,” Daoud wrote. “As a third-generation Palestinian refugee, I was appalled and took to Facebook to share my pain.”

First, there is no such thing as a “third-generation Palestinian refugee”: what he means is that he’s the grandson of Palestinian refugees. And that means he’s trying to claim victim identity by proxy. But never mind about that, either. Imagine if Daoud had threatened to punch members of other minority groups, like Catholics, women, or members of Black Lives Matter. He’d probably be expelled, but certainly removed from his position as Resident Assistant.

I don’t think Daoud should be officially punished for what he said, Even though it’s a threat, it’s not an imminent threat, and thus not a violation of the First Amendment. Taking away his RA-ship might be appropriate, but nothing should go on his Stanford record. But that doesn’t limit my ability to call him an anti-Semitic goon: the Palestinian equivalent of Dan Arel.

And if Stanford treats Daoud more gently than others who do the same thing, but to other minority groups, then they’re guilty of hyprocrisy.

In the end, Daoud’s rancor, and that of the SJP, just demonstrates the pervasiveness and viciousness of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and the fact that “anti-Zionist” is almost always a code word for “anti-Semite.” But people swallow “anti-Zionism” like a cat swallows cream. This reminds me of a joke that is ringing increasingly true:

A guy walks into a bar and notices a man talking to the bartender down at the other end. The guy does a doubletake because the man talking to the bartender really resembles Hitler. So the guy goes up to the man and says “Excuse me, but did anybody ever tell you that you look like Hitler?” The man says “Oh, but I am  Hitler. I have been reincarnated and I am back on Earth to kill 10 million Jews and 33 geese!” “Oh, my God! That’s terrible! But why 33 geese?” Hitler then turns to the bartender and says “See? I told you nobody cares about the Jews.”

And here’s an appropriate tweet:

h/t: Grania

56 thoughts on “Stanford student leader threatens to punch Zionists

  1. Yep, what Daoud said is reprehensible. Expect more.

    Not the topic, but Israel certainly isn’t making it easy for itself. I am profoundly disappointed to see the direction it has gone. I’ve read the explication and plenty of other ink on it. I am hoping to see it discussed here.

    1. The USA, too. But what are you hoping to see discussed here? The recent law that states Israel has a “state religion” like, what…. about half of Europe? Or its disturbing Trumpian responses lately to issues?

      1. I’ve read the whole text of this new law. Not a word about “state religion”. Where did you find it?

        1. That’s why I put it in quotes. My understanding of what happened is that this not unlike how England has an “official” church – it has no bearing on any citizen’s rights, so all the teeth gnashing and snarling we’re hearing from antisemities is misplaced.

          1. Israel’s new nation-state basic law is short and can be found here. It does not establish a state religion, although it gives official recognition to the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish holidays.

            The linked WSJ editorial by Eugene Kontorovich does not make the case that the new basic law is wise or just; it merely flyspecks the constitutions of other democratic states (and of the region’s prior British and League-of-Nations Mandates) to show that some of them contain similar provisions. The new nation-state law by no means establishes Israel as an apartheid state. I fear, however, that it lays some incremental groundwork toward that end, should Israel one day become an apartheid state — which it will ineluctably do if it does not separate itself from the Palestinian people through a two-state solution.

            1. Thanks Ken. It’s always good to get a lawyer’s perspective on these things.

              BTW, I heard a great lawyer joke last night (though it’s probably old);

              What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

              A good start. 🙂

              1. Yeah, I’ve heard that one, Mikey. Most lawyers I associate with accept lawyer jokes with magnanimity — hell, many of us tell ’em ourselves. 🙂

  2. Let’s also be clear that Israel, even if increasingly right-wing, is still a democracy (again, unlike Palestine). You do not have to be Jewish to be a citizen and have full rights, including voting, representation, and equal protection under the law.

  3. Daoud is naive. I suspect his words mean more harm than his actions will. Nevertheless, he praises hostility before looking into a mirror. For all I know I’ve got Crusader ancestors who did much worse than anyone in present day Palestine/Israel.

    It is sad to see students from my alma mater who appear to be prisoners of their own contempt.

  4. The guy is an obvious twat. But I’m curious about the zionist thing.

    1. Is it an actual thing? Does it even exist?
    2. If it is, are there jews against zionism?
    3. Are there fair, sensible critiques of it anywhere?

    1. Q1. Of course Zionism/Zionists [it’s capitalised BTW] exist – according to a writer over at HAARETZ

      “A Zionist is a person who desires or supports the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, which in the future will become the state of the Jewish people”

      You should read the link though for the history of the terms, because the meaning shifts a little & there’s lots of angles to it e.g. what constitutes “Israel”. Note that you don’t have to be a Jew to be Zionist

      Q2. Yes there are anti-Zionist Jews & the reasons for this point of view are many & varied over time & space. Read THIS on anti-Zionism – there’s a section on Jewish anti-Zionists

      Q3. I have no answer!

    2. 1. Yes, in many forms.

      2. Yes, depending on the form you get oppositions to nationalisms in all its forms for each one. There are even religious objections.

      3. Yes, in some of its forms. The most important one is simply this: the state was created without consent of the people on the territory it was to be created on. Consequently, the project of at least *creating* that state is illegitimate. Subsequently, if Zionism is taken to mean narrowly the principles and advocation of the *creation* of said state, it is thereby immoral to whatever degree. This is a pretty minimal Zionism and a minimal critique.

      Note that it entails almost nothing about what to do about the fact of the matter which exists now. My own country (Canada) also suffers from much of the same problem, so this is nothing unique by any means to Israel. What is unique is that the dispossessed are largely still around, whereas the native population of Canada is, horribly, largely extinct and also does not have the same sort of political demands (generally), for better or for worse.

      1. Palestinian Arabs were divided. There was a big part of them who thought that the idea of having the this very, very poor and neglected province of the Ottoman Empire developed by Jews was very good. Unfortunately, there was another party, lead by Hajj Amin Al-Huseini,, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who of religious reasons, hated the idea of Jewish independence. Husseini was very much influenced by Hitler’s Germany and got a huge support (financial and in weapon) from Germans. BTW he spent war years in Berlin as Hitler’s guest and broadcasted incendary programs by radio into the Arab world. But before the war he managed to kill of all leaders of the Arab people who wanted co-existence with Jews.

        Please, don’t forget that most of today’s Palestinians are descendants of people from surrounding Arab countries who came to this area after economic revival created by Zionists. During the British Mandate of Palestine more Arabs immigrated to the area than Jews – the British put restriction on Jewish immigration and no restrictions at all at the Arab immigration.

        Don’t forget either that 1947 Jews agreed to the division of the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state but Arabs refused. When 5 arab armies invaded newly established Israel in 1948 it was they and Palestinian leaders who called on local Arabs to leave the battle field, go to neigbouring countries and let the Arab armies cleanse the whole land from Jews – to the last one.

        1. The people *actually living there* were not consulted. Nor was the actual *idea* even discussed – especially amongst Arab Christians, of which there are many (less proportionally now).

          Appealing to one racist leader does not change the fact that, as is correctly pointed out, the region was and is not very democratic.

          None of the resulting effect of doing the imposition by force affects that it *was done by force*. That’s what the “but they fought the thing” misses, *always*.

          If the political order of any place is changed without the consent of those involved, it is virtually a human universal that you will get opposition. Some of it will be violent, some not.

          1. I’m sorry to say but you seem ill informed. From the beginning of the modern Zionist movement at the end of 19th century Jews tried to discuss the issue with the representatives of the local Arab clans, both Muslims and Christians (not to mention Turkish Sultan as long as he had power over the territory). There are many documents, and many historians wrote about it, for example, Efraim Karsh in „Palestine Betrayed”. The fact (also documented) that the party of Hajj Amin Al-Husseini physically killed off these representatives of Arab people who were willing to co-exist with Jews, is very important for further development of the Arab-Jewish relations.

      2. “…whereas the native population of Canada is, horribly, largely extinct…”

        Yes, it was horrible that the natives of North America where largely but unintentionally wiped out by new communicable diseases. Largely before the Europeans started migrating in any numbers.
        But largely extinct?
        Most native communities in Canada are growing in population at a rate faster than the larger population, and there are no reports of native people going extinct except those that complain of loss of official “status” because of inter-marrying.
        Inter-marrying which appears to be entirely voluntary.

        1. Relative to precontact populations, yes, drastically reduced in numbers. Even on the west coast, numbers for native speakers of relevant languages were showing near extinction level numbers 20 years ago. I do not know the state now – it was expected to be worse.

  5. True, Palestine is not a democracy. But also, Palestine is full of people who were expelled from their homes, and their descendants. It is also under the thumb of an Israeli government which is continually nibbling away at its territory.

    Those to whom evil is done do evil in return.

    1. The history of that region is much more complex than you pretend. Most Palestinians who were expelled were expelled because they sided with the Arabs states when they invaded Israel in 1948. It’s their misfortune they sided with the aggressors.

      1. Yes indeed, mikeyc. The Arabs who stayed put became Israeli citizens and prospered. Golda Meir and David Ben Gurion made a point of asking (even begging!) the Arabs not to flee, but many Arabs were more afraid of other Arabs than hopeful of a future in Israel; they believed the war propaganda and thought that five Arab armies would succeed in wiping out the Jews, many of them still recovering physically from being in concentration camps. Those Arabs didn’t want to be caught apparently siding with the Jews; they could guess what would happen to them.

  6. The guy is a thug and deserves censure for his reprehensible behavior. However, IMO, the bit about the new law is an important topic and we now have a good example of what the conflict over it is. A few days ago we saw a discussion of citizenship in France and the relationships between immigration and that.

    Now, the question is: is Israel now legally a Jewish state in the way that France is the state of the French? Or is it Jewish in the way that the Holy See is Catholic?

    Either alternative is obnoxious to the non-Jewish population, which is a sizable minority to boot. The second alternative is far worse, so I’ll ignore that for the moment and assume that the “political” interpretation of “Jewish” is correct here. Does one become a Jew in this sense by simply being a citizen of Israel? Note that’s how the African-origin immigrants that were on that soccer team (or their parents) became citizens of France (I take it for the children there may be birthright citizenship.) Is Israel prepared to go *that* route? That seems unlikely, to put it mildly.

    Note also that the new legislation is also, at least in English, ambiguous. Is Israel now claiming to be the state of Jews *everywhere* (however understood)? This has always created problems with some – this is where the varying forms of anti-Zionist Jews also talk about the dangers here, for example. (Some of them are fanciful because overtly religious in doctrine, but that’s another story.)

    1. Under the post about 7-year old banned because of her nationality I wrote about semantic problem with “nation” between non-English speaking Europe and English-speaking countries. Instead of writing it again I’m just copying it here:
      There is a quite profound semantic problem. The concept of “nation” is different in Europe and in Great Britain, U.S. or Canada. The European meaning of the word is seen sometimes even “over there”, like in Canadian “First Nation”. Literature about the differences is huge. Of what you wrote I can conclude that you use the word “nation” in European meaning of “society”: Polish society consists of Polish citizens of all etnicities, religions and creeds, Israeli society encompasses all Israeli citizens: Jews, Arabs, Druze etc., Canadian First Nation is a part of Canadian society. But nation in the European (non-English) meaning is closer to „people” (though there is a difference there as well) – English people, Scottish, people, Welsh people. Israelis are using the world „nation” in the European meaning: a group of people mainly of the common etnicity, language, culture, history. Jews, because of their peculiar history – the only ancient people (or nation in European meaning), expelled from their homeland 2000 years ago which didn’t dissolve among other peoples/nations but retained the basic common culture and language and the feeling of peoplehood/nationhood (well, the other one is Roma people, but they don’t know where their original homeland was) – and the centuries long rejection and persecution by their host nations have a great need to be open to the members of their nation which can need a safe haven any time (like French Jews just now and possibly British Jews if Jeremy Corbyn moves into Downing Street).

      1. Then *add* the other “nations”, particularly the large minorities, which just *lost* recognition. The de-officialization of Arabic: even non-Quebec nationalists would be outraged if Canada were to drop French as an official language. (Even I would be, as an Anglophone.)

        1. Here is the text of the relevant Articles of the law:
          B. The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.
          C. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.

          In what way Arabic language lost recognition?

  7. Speaking as a third generation refugee from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I hereby vow to punch in the nose any member of the Democratic Party of the USA. This is because it was a Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, and his Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, who doomed the possibility of our beloved Empire continuing in the form of a liberal, constitutional, multi-ethnic confederation (see Wikipedia).

    In the alternate reality category, by the way, imagine European history if Emperor Karl 1 (reigned 1916-18) had been able to reform the Hapsburg Empire as outlined above. Maybe the toxic strain of nationalism later led by an Austrian monomaniac with a funny little mustache might not have gathered the momentum it did in nearby Germany.

    1. My granddad was kicked out of Ireland for his part in the Easter Rebellion. I’m coming for you, ya limeys!

      1. And I am partly descended from refugees from the revocation of the Edict of Nantes! I’m a 10th generation refugee! Those rotten French!
        (At the rate things are going, would you bet against some Palestinian in the future saying something similar?)

    2. Yes, he’s a third-generation “refugee” attending Stanford. I’m underwhelmed by his “pain”.

    3. Speaking as a third-generation refugee from what are now parts of Poland and being married to a third-generation refugee from what is know the Czech Republic I am very glad I have no wishes to punch anyone whatsoever.

      That is mainly due to the fact that
      a, even my grandparents generation realized that Germans had brought this forced migration upon themselves.
      b, they were integrated into society instead of staying in refugee camps for decades. And they prospered.
      c, Europeans really strove to build a lasting peace, which included accepting the forced migrations of earlier decades.

      Thus I was able to go on a student exchange to Poland instead of hating the people who now lived on my great-grandparents former farm (who had very likely themselves been expelled from their former home further east). I never thought my home was anywhere else than in Bavaria. My daughters go to kindergarden with children whose parents came from Poland, Romania, Albania, Croatia, Turkey, Greece, Vietnam, Nigeria and Egypt. Her kindergarden teachers are from Poland, Spain and Egypt, and many have Turkish backgrounds. They do not even realize that her great-grandparents could not have imagined this in their wildest dreams.

      Even if one takes the recent return of nationalism into account, Europeans achieved this after centuries of bitter hatred and two brutal wars which left millions of civilians dead and displaced. Why is the same seemingly impossible in the Middle East?

  8. I’m unclear on something:

    Can one say, coherently, “I am not anti-Semitic, I’m only anti-Zionist?” If yes, can one follow that with “Israel should be destroyed” without crossing the line into anti-Semitism?

    1. You can in much the same way that you can say I’m not racist, I just wish black people would go back to Africa.

  9. Students can be real jerks, and most of this kind of talk is just bluster. The administration might put this in his file and contact police, but so far he’s just being a jerk. Nobody should be allowed to use twitter before the age of 30 or 35.

  10. You write, “Palestine is not a democracy.” Just curious: when did it become a state??

    1. As far as I know there hasn’t been an autonomous Palestine since the 13th century but you’re not supposed to ask that question.

      1. There was never an autonomous Palestine. The notion of a “Palestinian people” really originated in the 1960s as a way to undermine the state of Israel.

    2. “Democracy” can used to describe any group that has leaders. The company you work for is probably not a democracy, the Chess Club at your school probably is.

  11. The student comments should have some consequences. Perhaps an anger management course?

    Regarding the new law, as I wrote yesterday, it’s a de-facto Apartheid law. Rather than having as a source th a WSJ, you should look at the comments of Israeli legislators and citizens decrying the law. Daniel Baremboin wrote an article “Today I’m ashame of been an Israeli “, he’s a better source.

    1. Daniel Barenboim is an exceptional musician. Of course, he can have an opinion about the law as much as an expert in international law, Professor Kontorovich can have an opinion about music. The problem is that Professor Kontorovich knows laws and constitutions of other countries which Daniel Barenboim most probably does not. But you don’t have to rely on experts. Just compare constitutions of many countries with this new Israeli law. It’s in no way exceptional except for the fact that there are those pesky words, so difficult to swallow by many: not “Spanish/Slovakian/Polish/French (or any other) nation/language/hymn/etc. but JEWISH! After 2000 years of despising and persecuting the Jews and only 70 years of Jewish independence it’s still very difficult for some (Jews included) to adjust to this strange situation.

      1. It seems to me that the Kurds should have been granted autonomy when the British and French Mandates were allocating states to indigenous people of the old Ottoman Empire. The Kurds, like the Jews, were a minority people who were second-class citizens, I believe. But now commentators are much more objective about the possibility of a free Kurdistan than about the actual existence of the state of Israel. That is my impression, anyway, and it seems illogical. But then, logic has never been a strong point among detractors of Israel.

      2. You might be write, as I don’t know DB knowledge on constitutional law. However, possesing legal expertise doesn’t mean that the person’s analysis is right, as Scalia history , a brilliant Jurist, can show. It depends where in the political spectrum the person falls. An article in the WSJ, shows clearly where the expert is.

        Regarding other European countries NCs, well they seems to go the route of confusing state and nacion, that leads to nationalism and finishing in facism. Take Spain, the state, build on several “identities” (nations) coming together, to form a State, under diverse languages (Castllian being the common denominator) and cultures. there are still mulritude of issues, but nobody wouod claim that only ” the pure Spanish blood”(?) has the right to auto-determination . Well, at least is how I see it.

        1. Sorry, I prefer to judge people by their reasoning and if I find that the author presents facts (as they really are) and draws conclusions to which these facts logically lead, I really don’t care what their political opinions are.

          About self-determination: this is a legal term and it definitely doesn’t mean that individual people or groups of people are denied the right to decide about themselves. There is a good entry in Wikipedia about it, which is worth reading. Here I will just quote two fragments (please, remember, as I tried to explain in previous comments, that the concepts of nation differes between Anglo-Saxon and European usage. Israeli use it in European meaning which is closer to „a people” as in this Wikipedia’s entry:

          „The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that a people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereigntyand international political status with no interference”

          „Present international law does not recognize ethnic and other minorities as separate peoples, with the notable exception of cases in which such groups are systematically disenfranchised by the government of the state they live in.[34]”

          Arab minority in Israel has exactly the same rights as all other citizens of the country. In no way are they “systematically disenfranchised by the government”.

          1. Let say that we’ve fundamental disagreements regarding State & Nation and the ” Legal Rationaluzation” of the argument. I still think Europe, as well as Israel, is marching towards Nationalism/Populism, and from there to Fascism. There is no right reasoning that justify that, even though the WSJ promotes that.

            BTW, I’ve never suggested in my email chain that before this law, Israli minorities, muslin or Xtian, didn’t have same legal rights than jews.

  12. Told you so.

    When the likes of Dan Arel and other antisemitic thugs started promoting their “punch a Nazi” shtick, many pointed out how their definition of “Nazi” extended far beyond actual Nazis, and of course, usually included Zionists, Jews, those feared “centrists”, or anybody to the right of Marx.

    Again. TOLD. YOU. SO.

  13. I am, as of this writing, a three-day short of eighty years of age Jew, 100 percent disabled US veteran, and suffer from glaucoma. Although not a student, I accept Mr. Daoud’s challenge. If he ever grows enough courage, he may find me at his convenience.

    1. You sounds like the kind of guy I’d like to have a beer with. A young Jew and an old Jew kvetching over a beverage 🙂

Leave a Reply