The Student Room Group

Why are so many lies being made about Malia Bouattia?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Implication
I haven't seen a copy of the new motion so can't confirm that. Do you have a link?

I don't think that's completely on-point though. If this is all I'm missing, why are none of the media outlets saying this? Why are they simply saying things like 'she refused to condemn ISIS' or 'she blocked a motion to condemn ISIS'? However we look at it, it is incredibly misleading.


I've already linked it in another thread: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4031289&page=8&highlight=&p=64348669#post64348669
Original post by Implication
Did she really say the emboldened? I can't find it.

I think she makes a valid point that Muslims feel they need to try really hard to convince the world that they aren't all ISIS-style nutters. And that makes them outwardly less supportive of violent intervention than they would otherwise be.


Hamas and Hizbollah ARE Islamic State style nutters. What is the moral difference?

And she supports their cause. (Well, maybe being a Sunni she doesn't back Hizbollah's wider aims, but she supports their attacks on Israel).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke


'Within Britain the government is fanning a reactionary Islamophobic agenda which falsely equates Muslim communities with support for terrorism, and that this is latched onto by the far right and encourages attacks on Muslims. '

:eek3::eek4:
Original post by JezWeCan!
Hamas and Hizbollah ARE Islamic State style nutters. What is the moral difference?

And she supports their cause. (Well, maybe being a Sunni she doesn't back Hizbollah's wider aims, but she supports their attacks on Israel).


Supporting someone's cause is very different to supporting their means. And does she really support all of their causes? I'm not convinced.

So far as I can see, all she's committed to is the possibility that violent resistance of some form may be needed.
Original post by Good bloke


What exactly is Islamophobic about the failed motion? And it's interesting that they removed the boycott proposal from the second, approved one :s-smilie:
Original post by Carnes
Smear means to damage a reputation.

All the media has done is report on what she has said. The NUS is politics for poundland sociopath left wingers. Do you really think major news organisations care about this girls non-existent reputation? Sexbox got 1 star reviews from the same media outlets, is there a conspiracy to smear its reputation? No because it's inherently ****. Like Malia. I bet she doesn't even give good head. Useless.


I don't care how much you criticise her as a person but there was no need for the last bit. It's sexist and in poor taste,
Original post by WBZ144
What exactly is Islamophobic about the failed motion? And it's interesting that they removed the boycott proposal from the second, approved one :s-smilie:


You'd have to plumb the depths of Bouattia's strange mind to understand that.
Original post by Carnes
Smear means to damage a reputation.

All the media has done is report on what she has said. The NUS is politics for poundland sociopath left wingers. Do you really think major news organisations care about this girls non-existent reputation? Sexbox got 1 star reviews from the same media outlets, is there a conspiracy to smear its reputation? No because it's inherently ****. Like Malia. I bet she doesn't even give good head. Useless.


excuse me... Poundland is an excellent emporium. why should people who waste money by buying the same stuff at Look At Me shops be respected ?
Original post by WBZ144
What exactly is Islamophobic about the failed motion? And it's interesting that they removed the boycott proposal from the second, approved one :s-smilie:


Original post by Good bloke
You'd have to plumb the depths of Bouattia's strange mind to understand that.


The only thing that I can possibly think of is that it implicitly blamed the 'Sunni-Shia divide'. :dontknow:
Original post by Implication
Her views aren't supposed to represent those of all students though. That would be ridiculous, since students have completely conflicting and contradictory views on everything.


That's not the point.

NUS Website
These are the people who are elected to lead NUS for a 12 month term and represent all students across the UK both in higher and further education.


As such, the President of the NUS is responsible for representation of a diverse demography. Her opinion and bias puts her ability to fairly execute her role into question.

Original post by Implication
The accusations of anti-Semitism don't seem to be based on anything except an irrational ability to distinguish between criticism of ideas and prejudice towards people. I legitimately haven't heard a single attempt to justify claims that she is anti-Semitic beyond 'but she criticised Zionism!!!'.


A core principle of Zionism is the right of Israel to exist, and many Jews associate themselves with this idea, even if they do not necessarily identify themselves with the tag. Suggesting that she has issues with this very doctrine along with "mainstream Zionist-led media outlets", which stems from baseless stereotypes, is indeed grounds for concern and for accusations of antisemitism.

My issue with the NUS and its current leadership is that they have not fully understood the demographics that make up the membership base. You cannot stand up for the rights of one by targeting another. For example, she wants to defend the right of Palestine to exist while criticising the idea that is behind the foundation of Israel. She should have the full right to criticise Israel's foreign policy, but to do so whilst putting into question the right of Israel to exist is unacceptable.
Original post by Implication
The only thing that I can possibly think of is that it implicitly blamed the 'Sunni-Shia divide'. :dontknow:


Commonsense would dictate I ask how that would be Islamophobic as it doesn't criticise Islam, and merely names the split between the two groups that Moslems themselves undoubtedly formed. By the same token, even calling a person white or black, or male or female, would be racist or sexist.
Original post by Good bloke
Commonsense would dictate I ask how that would be Islamophobic as it doesn't criticise Islam, and merely names the split between the two groups that Moslems themselves undoubtedly formed. By the same token, even calling a person white or black, or male or female, would be racist or sexist.


I don't think it's Islamophobic, but I can see how someone of similar political ideology to Bouattia might think it were so.
Original post by Aceadria
That's not the point.



As such, the President of the NUS is responsible for representation of a diverse demography.


Right, but her own views don't have to reflect those of the students. That's not what representation means in this context - it would indeed be absurd if it did.


Her opinion and bias puts her ability to fairly execute her role into question.


More so than the strong political views of most other previous (and indeed potential) NUS Presidents? I'm not convinced.


A core principle of Zionism is the right of Israel to exist


Well, Zionism is very ambiguously defined. Many definitions are far, far stronger than this, and some don't even include it.


and many Jews associate themselves with this idea, even if they do not necessarily identify themselves with the tag.


But many Jews don't associate themselves with the the idea (some explicitly dissociate themselves from it), and many non-Jews do. I contend it really is a mistake to conflate Judaism (or being Jewish, religious or otherwise) with Zionism.


Suggesting that she has issues with this very doctrine along with "mainstream Zionist-led media outlets", which stems from baseless stereotypes, is indeed grounds for concern and for accusations of antisemitism.


Again, I don't see how criticism of Zionism is anti-Semitism. It's straight up false that failing to support Zionism entails being hostile or prejudiced towards Jews.

I don't think whether referencing 'Zioniest-led media outlets' stems from a baseless stereotype is at all obvious. Is she referring to the anti-Semitic conspiracy where Jews own everything and manipulate the media? Or is she referring to a view that the mainstream media has historically 'taken Israel's side' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or something else entirely? It really takes speculation to draw this kind of conclusion, I think.


My issue with the NUS and its current leadership is that they have not fully understood the demographics that make up the membership base. You cannot stand up for the rights of one by targeting another. For example, she wants to defend the right of Palestine to exist while criticising the idea that is behind the foundation of Israel. She should have the full right to criticise Israel's foreign policy, but to do so whilst putting into question the right of Israel to exist is unacceptable.


Well, does she definitely think that Israel shouldn't exist?

And if so, does it definitely follow that she is therefore unsuitable to lead a Union of students, many of whom are Israeli? I'll stick with Israeli rather than Jewish for now to avoid muddying the waters.
Original post by Carnes
The NUS should be disbanded. The people who attend their are literally the biggest gimps. Wannabe politicians who feel entitled because they get free cake and get to play model UN for the weekend.

My view is- let the UK's top 10 Universities (max) control it.


top 10 by which rankings? some of the universities that are in the domestic top 10 for example are among the least influential and pretty crap, with literally just a guardian ranking to shout about. Why would a postgrad/post doc student want these inferior universities representing them?

Some of the universities with the greatest research profiles and largest global influence are middling in domestic tables, why would a 6th former accept a middling university to represent the NUS?

Maybe we could go by "top 10" entry standards, that is at the very least consistent year in year out. Just writing this comment to point out how retarded going by top 10 is.

There are literally only 2 universities in the UK that can be considered elite. And then we have 2 highly specialized universities and a multi-faculty. These universities, while great when compared to other universities will forever be in the shadows of the 2 elites. The NUS should be run by 2 universities, 4 if being generous, 5 just to be inclusive.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 34
Avatar for Omen96
Omen96
1
Original post by Dinasaurus
Like the fact she's black when she's clearly not.


Haha you people are desperate to protect her image. Unfortunately for you, there is no protecting her from the countless pro terrorism, pro extremism, anti-White, anti-male and pro Islam statements/views
Original post by Implication
Right, but her own views don't have to reflect those of the students. That's not what representation means in this context - it would indeed be absurd if it did.


Voicing opinions in a position of leadership has consequences; that's exactly what's happening now.

Original post by Implication
More so than the strong political views of most other previous (and indeed potential) NUS Presidents? I'm not convinced.


We're discussing the current NUS President; not in the past nor the future.

Original post by Implication
Well, Zionism is very ambiguously defined. Many definitions are far, far stronger than this, and some don't even include it.


The driving force behind political Zionism is Theodor Herzl and the definition I gave you is very similar to the one he defines in 'The Jewish State'. He was, by and large, the leading figure on the ideology.

Original post by Implication
But many Jews don't associate themselves with the the idea (some explicitly dissociate themselves from it), and many non-Jews do. I contend it really is a mistake to conflate Judaism (or being Jewish, religious or otherwise) with Zionism.


Whether Jews associate themselves with Zionism or not is irrelevant. The shared ideal of the 'right of Israel to exist' is the topic of discussion.

Original post by Implication
Again, I don't see how criticism of Zionism is anti-Semitism. It's straight up false that failing to support Zionism entails being hostile or prejudiced towards Jews.


Supporting Zionism is not necessary. But baseless stereotypes, founded during an age of widespread antisemitism, is.

Original post by Implication
I don't think whether referencing 'Zioniest-led media outlets' stems from a baseless stereotype is at all obvious. Is she referring to the anti-Semitic conspiracy where Jews own everything and manipulate the media? Or is she referring to a view that the mainstream media has historically 'taken Israel's side' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or something else entirely? It really takes speculation to draw this kind of conclusion, I think.


There is no ambiguity in the statement 'Zionist-led media outlets'. There are clear similarities between this phrase and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which makes ludicrous stereotypes about Jews and their desire to 'overtake the world'. Even if her intentions were genuine, a person in her position should indeed be more weary of using such language.

Original post by Implication
Well, does she definitely think that Israel shouldn't exist?

And if so, does it definitely follow that she is therefore unsuitable to lead a Union of students, many of whom are Israeli? I'll stick with Israeli rather than Jewish for now to avoid muddying the waters.


Yes, it does indeed follow. Jewish identity is related with the idea of Israel, and making statements such as 'non-violent resistance being insufficient' will make many Jewish students feel uncomfortable. How can we be certain that she is able to fulfil her core role of 'representing everyone', when she is unable to appreciate the sensitivity of a segment of the members?
Original post by WBZ144
I don't care how much you criticise her as a person but there was no need for the last bit. It's sexist and in poor taste,


Oh come on you have to admit he has a point.

In fact I would go as far as to say she looks as though she would bite... :biggrin:
Original post by Aceadria

The driving force behind political Zionism is Theodor Herzl and the definition I gave you is very similar to the one he defines in 'The Jewish State'. He was, by and large, the leading figure on the ideology.


That doesn't make the word any less ambiguous, though. Do you know what Bouattia means when she talks about Zionism or not? It would be a gross leap of reasoning (or lack thereof) to pluck one particular definition out of thin air and just decide that's what she means.

Besides, it completely skips over and disguises some of the more subtle elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, somebody who favours a one-state or binationalist solution could conceivably be understood to be questioning the right of Israel to exist. But it would be ludicrous to assume immedately that they are therefore anti-Semitic. It just does not follow!


Whether Jews associate themselves with Zionism or not is irrelevant. The shared ideal of the 'right of Israel to exist' is the topic of discussion.


You brought it up? :confused:



Supporting Zionism is not necessary. But baseless stereotypes, founded during an age of widespread antisemitism, is.


Baseless stereotypes that we don't know she has anything to do with...


There is no ambiguity in the statement 'Zionist-led media outlets'. There are clear similarities between this phrase and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which makes ludicrous stereotypes about Jews and their desire to 'overtake the world'.



Clear similarities? That's not really very conclusive in showing what she meant, and I'm not sure why you think that it is. My point is that we don't really know what she meant and you are having to speculate to fill in the gaps.


Even if her intentions were genuine, a person in her position should indeed be more weary of using such language.


Perhaps.


Yes, it does indeed follow. Jewish identity is related with the idea of Israel, and making statements such as 'non-violent resistance being insufficient' will make many Jewish students feel uncomfortable. How can we be certain that she is able to fulfil her core role of 'representing everyone', when she is unable to appreciate the sensitivity of a segment of the members?


I can understand the difficulty for Jewish (and other) students who feel strongly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, however, doesn't an NUS President risk making some group of students feel uncomfortable or unrepresented whenever they express any political view at all? Do we suppose that they should therefore never express a political view? I'm not saying it should be okay for them to say whatever the hell they like, but clearly there needs to be some kind of middle ground.

Either way, I think to call this anti-Semitism is still pretty dishonest. It isn't just Jewish students who feel strongly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not all Jewish students do feel strongly, so why associate the two so completely and treat an attack on the politics as an attack on the people?

By way of analogy (which of course I will concede is not completely representative), consider Islamism and Muslims. We have to be free to criticise Islamism (and indeed Islam), and we have to be able to do so without being branded as 'Islamophonic' or hostile/prejudiced towards Muslims. The ideas are separate from the people, and the same holds for Zionism and Jews. Criticising an ideology or political worldview - no matter how important or common to a group of people - is just not the same as racism or prejudice or discrimination or intolerance or hostility towards that group of people.
Original post by Implication
That doesn't make the word any less ambiguous, though. Do you know what Bouattia means when she talks about Zionism or not? It would be a gross leap of reasoning (or lack thereof) to pluck one particular definition out of thin air and just decide that's what she means.


That is precisely the point I'm trying to make. She, as many others, may want to better understand the concept before making conclusive statements about Zionism.

Original post by Implication
Besides, it completely skips over and disguises some of the more subtle elements of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, somebody who favours a one-state or binationalist solution could conceivably be understood to be questioning the right of Israel to exist. But it would be ludicrous to assume immedately that they are therefore anti-Semitic. It just does not follow!


Again, it's her full right to criticise Israel's policies and its state of affairs. But when one fails to fully understand the intricacies of Zionism, it's reckless, especially for someone in her position, to make comments on it.

Original post by Implication
You brought it up? :confused:


In my previous posts, I stated that a large number of Jews (90% of British Jews, for example) "support its right to exist" (https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/295361/Israel-Report-FINAL.PDF). Accordingly, this concept is at the heart of Zionism. I was drawing on the similarities between the two; not concluding on whether Jews support or disagree with Zionism. I do think that the support for Zionism amongst Jews is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Original post by Implication
Baseless stereotypes that we don't know she has anything to do with...

But we do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyniSax85HQ - 1:12: "With mainstream Zionist-led media outlets".


Original post by Implication
Clear similarities? That's not really very conclusive in showing what she meant, and I'm not sure why you think that it is. My point is that we don't really know what she meant and you are having to speculate to fill in the gaps.

I feel that no matter what evidence I place in front of you, you are going to simply come back with the statement that: 'we can't be certain what she mean't'. I have provided sufficient links and evidence to suggest otherwise. Whether you accept that or not is your call. But I have made my case clear.

Original post by Implication
I can understand the difficulty for Jewish (and other) students who feel strongly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, however, doesn't an NUS President risk making some group of students feel uncomfortable or unrepresented whenever they express any political view at all? Do we suppose that they should therefore never express a political view? I'm not saying it should be okay for them to say whatever the hell they like, but clearly there needs to be some kind of middle ground.


Absolutely, but making unnecessary statements about an ideology she clearly has little knowledge about is unnecessary. There is a clear distinction between finding a middle ground and being ignorant.

Original post by Implication
Either way, I think to call this anti-Semitism is still pretty dishonest. It isn't just Jewish students who feel strongly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not all Jewish students do feel strongly, so why associate the two so completely and treat an attack on the politics as an attack on the people?


Re-read my previous posts as I have already answered this.

Original post by Implication
By way of analogy (which of course I will concede is not completely representative), consider Islamism and Muslims. We have to be free to criticise Islamism (and indeed Islam), and we have to be able to do so without being branded as 'Islamophonic' or hostile/prejudiced towards Muslims. The ideas are separate from the people, and the same holds for Zionism and Jews. Criticising an ideology or political worldview - no matter how important or common to a group of people - is just not the same as racism or prejudice or discrimination or intolerance or hostility towards that group of people.


You're right about your analogy not being representative. You're comparing an ideology that stems from imposing Islamic values on every aspect of life to one that believes in the right for Israel to exist. These are two very different core characteristics.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the point you are trying to make but the backlash against her election is not on her criticising Israel's policies; it's principally against her using stereotypes, which have been used historically to mock Jews.
Original post by Implication


I can understand the difficulty for Jewish (and other) students who feel strongly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, however, doesn't an NUS President risk making some group of students feel uncomfortable or unrepresented whenever they express any political view at all? Do we suppose that they should therefore never express a political view?

Yes.

The NUS are a bunch of teenage Trots and pencil case Pol Pots.

They should restrict their activities to campaigning on issues of import to students.

When they get onto complicated, grown up subjects like the Israel/Palestine problem they just make themselves look like the bunch of childish idiots they are.

And don't get me started on No Platforming... :angry:

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you