Adam Larson
September 18, 2024
Note: as usual, this post is too long for most people to just read. Skimming is fine. For those familiar with the subject looking for new info and not just commentary, see the section "checking on Powell library claims."
"A Gut Punch" to Anti-Genocide Protest
The spring of 2024 was tumultuous on University of California campuses, with protests for and against Israel's UC-funded genocide in Gaza sometimes turning violent. After all this, and some more alleged antisemitism, a legal injunction was issued On August 13 by the US District Court of Central California, ordering UC to never block, or allow third parties to block, Jewish students from any part of campus that's ordinarily open to students, as happened at UCLA.
The case of Yitzchok Frankel et al., v. Regents of the University of California et al. was brought on June 5 by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (aka Becket Law), a non-profit firm dedicated to "Religious liberty for all." The resulting injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, a Federalist Society member and Trump appointee, and formerly a "software engineer for GE Aviation and Lockheed Martin, designing and developing detection and signal processing computer systems for U.S. defense applications." (Wikipedia). The related case documents can be found here: Frankel v. Regents of the University of California - (becketlaw.org)
Opening his injunction, judge Scarsi pontificated: “In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.” Then he repeated that all for dramatic emphasis. Judge Scarsi acts as if he's striking down a grave transgression one would expect during the Holocaust, or in medieval times. That it's happening here now should serve as a wake-up call for all Americans as to how Hamas-loving Liberal Jew-hate has grown to where it threatens a new genocide. First, they block the Jews' favorite shortcut to the coffee shop, and next thing you know, they're putting them on trains. In California, 2024.
Or something. I don't know what he was thinking.
Scarsi's opening passage resonated with some people. Gabby Deutch at Jewish Insider called it "a gut-punch to UCLA" and "clear-eyed truth-telling about the challenges facing Jewish students after the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks." The same article cites James Pasch, senior director of national litigation at the Anti-Defamation League, saying “It is crucial for every university to know that their students cannot be banned from areas of campus or from organizations on campus for who they are, full stop." After Jewish students and no others were reportedly blocked from class at UCLA, surrounded, harassed, even beaten up just for their religious beliefs, this injunction was widely hailed as a victory for human rights and religious freedom. However, as this article explains, these claims were always dubious and are partially debunked below, and this is a racist ruling with no factual justification, after nothing was blocked but some shortcuts, and it serves primarily to shut down opposition to Israel's ongoing genocide in Palestine.
We'll consider the exact cases a bit below. First ...
A Racist Ruling in Support of Genocide
The basic gist of Scarsi's ruling is that "Jewish students" - and no other specified group - must never be excluded from any area or activity on a UC campus. But his actual definition was a bit narrower; "For purposes of this order, all references to the exclusion of Jewish students shall include exclusion of Jewish students based on religious beliefs concerning the Jewish state of Israel." Christians, Muslims, atheists, Jews with non-religious opinions about Israel, or anyone else could still be excluded if that makes sense. But it seems religiously-motivated Jews now enjoy a special right to be involved in everything that happens on any UC campus.
By this wording, any anti-Zionist Jew with religious reasons for rejecting Israel and its crimes must be allowed to enter and potentially disrupt any demonstration in support of Israel. But the most likely and potentially effective actions are occupy-style protests in opposition to Israel, and it's pretty clear the ruling was meant to empower Jewish Zionists with an effective veto right over such protests. Thus, on the political stage, this ruling serves to protect Israel's genocide* from protests, and to stave off UC severing its financial support to Israel. And I suspect that was exactly judge Scarsi's conscious but unspoken reason; he might be yearning for that third temple to be built so Jesus can come back. We can only speculate at this point.
* Anyone who thinks this is the wrong term can see here. I'll keep using it.
Becket Law's complaint acknowledges "Jew exclusion" wasn't literally what the UCLA camp did; its exclusion rules "permitted access for a Jewish person willing to comply with the enforcers’ demands" and conversely "may have prevented a pro-Israel Christian from entering the Zone." The issue they had was that "given the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish faith, the practical effect was to deny the overwhelming majority of Jews access to the heart of the campus." Exact proportions aside, they seem to feel that if most Jewish students are Zionists, that's like a vote among the Jews that anti-Zionist protests cannot be allowed to exclude anyone (or simply cannot be allowed), and that this presumed majority opinion among Jews is binding on every student. Does that really seem like even-handed justice or some odious ideological activism?
The injunction rules UC and UCLA must prevent such "exclusionary encampments" returning, if they block anything or, it seems, even if they don't. "Ordinarily available programs, activities, or campus areas" must be "fully and equally accessible to Jewish students," period. There's no clause about these activities blocking access to anything. Even if it impinges on no one, not even a broom closet can be given for activities regarding Israel that any religious Jewish student find at odds with their "faith," and is blocked or even self-blocked from participating in.
Exclusion of Jewish students is disallowed even "as a result of a de-escalation strategy," the injunction says. If Zionist Jews want to escalate things, Scarsi rules, then maybe things should be escalated. By this, Jewish students can enter a protest area in whatever number they like, as organized and as armed and hostile as they like - I suppose up until a specific law is broken - to disrupt and intimidate their opponents as much as they like. According to judge Scarsi, this is what modern people do here in the year 2024, in response to this Hamas-led resurgent antisemitism.
A Mythical Reading of Protest Motives
Occasional references to Palestinians and a place called Gaza come up in the complaint, as the protesters' words or organizational names are occasionally cited. But per Becket, protests were apparently inspired by Hamas' attack on Israeli Jews and nothing else, and apparently dedicated to the same genocidal aims:
"This rampant anti-Jewish environment burst into view on October 8, 2023, the day after Hamas terrorists attacked Israel in a harrowing rampage that saw over one thousand innocent Jews, including infants and the elderly, murdered, raped, and mutilated."
Of course, protesters mainly spoke of mass killings and genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza, which was already happening by October 8. On day 2 of Israel's ignored military response to that attack, 413 Palestinians, including 78 children, were reportedly killed in Gaza (Reuters). and it was intensifying. By the next day it was 704, including 143 children and 105 women (Al Jazeera). (This number includes Hamas and other fighters, but probably more than half of these are civilians.) Several chillingly open statements of genocidal intent, including by member of Israel's war cabinet, were already published by then, along with genocidal acts of collective punishment like cutting water and electricity to Gaza. All this provided plenty of reason for the protests' stated concerns even by day 2.
And of course the violence would escalate further in the following days and months. A reported 2,913 Palestinian children were killed in the first 18 days (average: 162 per day). As of April 29, the toll was 34,488 Palestinians killed, including 14,500 children and 9,500 women. (OHCHR), and by May 2 "a quarter of Gaza’s residents are now starving and 85% of the population has been driven from their homes" as the AP would report. It was just before this point that UCLA students erected their protest encampment hoping, as they said, to stop that bloodshed.
But the religious liberty heroes at Becket Law saw through those words. All that matters is Hamas killed Jews on October 7, and 7 months later, these protesters were pushing even harder to do more of the same. And to that end, horrifically, they had already blocked some Jews' shortcuts across campus with a “Jew Exclusion Zone.” What comes next was chillingly obvious to some.
Also consider the legal standard applied, as put in the injunction: "In determining standing to pursue injunctive relief, courts “presume the truth of [plaintiffs’] allegations” and “construe all of the allegations in [plaintiffs’] favor.” That is, they believe the plaintiff's allegations, then repurpose that as legally binding fact. This could cause distortions at times and, as I show below, this case is a great example.
Real Issues with the Protests vs. Real Motives to Quash Them
I should note for what it's worth that I don't agree with every stance taken by the protest organizers, nor certainly by every person running the camp. For best reach and minimized friction, the message should be "let Gaza live" not "death to Israel," even if you find the two things synonymous. For my part, it doesn't seem the protest organizers or participants prioritized their messages quite right, and they can be faulted for that. And quite likely some participants were overly antizionist or even antisemitic in their actions, giving at least kernels of truth to the overblown allegations.
And there are always issues with occupy-style protests disrupting activities; that's both the problem and the point. By inconveniencing whoever is in the wrong place, making them a proxy for reminding everyone, the effect is arbitrary - a mild "collective punishment" that serves as a reminder of the brutal, even sadistic collective punishment the people of Gaza are being put through. As UCLA student Aiden noted of the UCLA protest camp in question: "even if it did disrupt some people, that might be kind of the point. So if you feel disrupted, maybe it allows you to think a little more about what's happening." https://youtu.be/K2oo6idd3lE?t=316
And one might ask just why are some people so loath to be reminded of the terrible reality?
As just as its cause is, this protest was always against university rules, just like blocking traffic, even to protest genocide, is against the law. At risk of arrest but with a good cause, people might do it anyway. As the organizers and many participants would realize, UCLA had a right to shut the camp down immediately. But they didn't. The fact that it was allowed for five days probably reflects the massive awareness of Israel's crimes and the overwhelming sense - now among the UC administration - that this was a special cause and a historic moment, as with the anti-Apartheid protests of the 1980s.
At UC Berkeley in 1985, the plaza at Sproul Hall was renamed “Biko Plaza" in honor of a slain South African activist, and it hosted an enduring "sit-in" (as it was then called) with hundreds camping out and thousands joining each day. (UC News) At UCLA, "around 2,000 protesters rallied together for the cause, and nearly 750 students set up encampments and chanted in Murphy Hall." to protest UC investment in South Africa. ‘Raising important questions’: UCLA’s long history of student activism, protests - Daily Bruin
The camps were variously threatened and allowed, on an improvised special principle, as public views continued to shift. Eventually an agreement was reached and, in 1986 the UC regents agreed to divest $3.1 billion "from companies doing business with the apartheid government. It was the largest university divestment in the country," according to UC News, and it helped to finally have Nelson Mandela released from prison and then to end the unjust apartheid regime in 1990.
It's easy to see the protests against the Gaza genocide as far more urgent, as Gazans are not just denied rights but slaughtered on a grand scale, with between 2% and 10% of them already killed. But reactionary forces enjoy far greater pull, with wealthy donors threatening to "divest" from UC, school administrators would eventually cave to pressure and close the camps, with UCLA chancellor Gene Block declaring the encampment there illegal on April 30.
But again, this came some five days after it was set up. I suspect this delay reflects that sense of a historical event, and this itself a major reason for the pressure - Israel boosters don't like feeling like South African pariahs supporting a doomed cause, and they have their ways of changing things so they don't have to. They hail judge Scarsi's ruling because it seeks to prevent this kind of embarrassment from ever recurring on a UC campus, and they hope the same can be done across the nation.
Access Blocked for "Pragmatic" Security Concerns
Becket Law's complaint refers over and over to the UCLA encampment as a "Jew Exclusion Zone," put in capitals as if it was the official name and not a made-up phrase. But quite a few Jewish students were in the area and passionately involved in the protest, and organizers give different reasons why they excluded some students from the encampment.
Members of Jewish Voice for Peace at UCLA spoke to reporters at the LA Times: "The camp and its checkpoints, they said, were not hostile to Jews. Restricting fellow students from entering was just a pragmatic move to protect protesters inside from physical, verbal or emotional abuse." Organizer Sabrina Ellis said “Our top priority isn't people's freedom of movement." Rather, "the goal was to exclude and physically block "agitators" — anyone who might be violent, record students or disagree with the cause," to keep protesters "physically and emotionally safe.” (LA Times - Yahoo News)
Likewise, an organizer named Marie told a CBS reporter: "for security purposes, we cannot let in agitators. We have gone through an immense amount of harassment," which she took as an extension - "just a glimpse" - of the same hatred directed at Palestinians, and thus a reminder why they were protesting.
The entrance procedure, as Ellis told the LA Times, was to read out "the demands of the encampment," including divestment from Israel and its universities, a permanent cease-fire in Gaza, and severing ties with the LAPD. "Then, activists ran through their safety guidelines: Ask before taking a photo or video; wear a mask to limit the spread of COVID; do not post identifying information or photos; and no engagement with counterprotesters." (noting the masking also serves the stated interest in avoiding identification). If a student didn't agree, Ellis said, “we would just kindly tell them that they're not allowed to come in.”
JVP member Agnes Lin told the Times anyone who agreed with the camp's purpose and methods was welcome, but “what is not welcome is Zionism.” And thus, the article notes, "students who supported the existence of Israel were kept out — even if they opposed Israel’s right-wing government and its bombardment of Gaza." It seems to me any basic-principle Zionist who can agree to the protest goals, even divestments that could harm Israel at large, should be allowed, and probably was. It's made to sound like they demanded people go even further than this and reject the whole notion of Israel or even agree to call for its destruction. I doubt this was so, but it might depend on who was handling a certain encounter. Either way, banning "Zionists" could serve to keep out likely disruptors; it makes basic sense.
Becket Law's complaint heard it differently but reported similarly: "to enter the Jew Exclusion Zone, a person had to make a statement pledging their allegiance to the activists’ views and have someone within the encampment “vouch” for the individual’s fidelity to the activists’ cause." In other words, to enter that space meant to enter the protest and be agree to its goals, reportedly including the denunciation of Israel. Some people wouldn't want to do this, especially just to pass through on their way to class or to get coffee. But there was never a need for this grand initiation, when walking around the site remained a viable option.
Consider that police put barricades between opposing groups at protests for a reason - to allow both sides space to air their views, and to limit the chances of that turning to physical violence. But judge Scarsi rejects that commonsense approach, ruling that no Jew with religious feelings about Israel can ever be kept behind a barricade over that. Other students of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, other or no faith can be kept out. But for this special class of people, special rights are granted to enter and potentially disrupt any protest they disagree with.
Agitating and Attacking Jews Were Excluded
So let's have a look at what Jewish Zionist students and some outside allies were doing back when they didn't have this new veto right over campus protests. (this long section is optional reading. Summary: they often disrupted the camp and some of them participated in a violent mob attack on it. It was right to keep them out.)
On April 30, pro-Israel student activist Eli Tsives, a freshman at UCLA, made a "SHOCK VIRAL VIDEO" of his denied entrance to the protest encampment (article). A security guard in blue tells him he has to go around the area to get to his class, which is made to sound reasonable. But Tsives was insistent he didn't want to go around - he wanted to take the shorter route indicated, north-NE through the camp and, as he reminds his viewers, he is a Jewish student. This is supposed to be terrifying. The extra walk, on top of the time he spent on the stunt behind this video, might make him late for class - if he actually had a class that way (he seems more interested in making a scene for political reasons than in actually getting somewhere).
Tsives would be seen shaking hands with an LASD officer ahead of their May 1 raid to close the camp, perhaps coordinating or just thanking him. Then and other times, he's been seen openly sporting pepper gel that, as I hear, is illegal in California. (CL4Syr on X) But I don't see any sign of his being involved in any violence.
Some other Jewish students (presumably) who were "excluded" from the camp got in anyway, like one of the plaintiffs (Joshua Ghayoum, see below) and like Nouri Mehdizadeh & (his brother?) Matin Mehdizadeh. On the first day, April 25, the pair snuck or barged into the camp, on their way to right there, with a sign reading: "Israel is not apartheid - come talk." That sounds reasonable enough. But when a woman in the camp tried to snatch the sign from Nouri, he pushed her to the ground, and then lunged at her with a raised fist before others intervened (video). Nouri & Matin then refused to leave the camp, going limp as people tried to push them out, smirking in disdain and successfully stealing the spotlight for this Fox News report. Nouri was seen violently trying to snatch someone's keffiyeh. They were clearly there to disrupt and provoke, not to "talk." This was reportedly on the first day, April 25, and might actually help explain the following "Jew exclusion" whined about so much on the 29th and 30th.
On the 26th, Nouri changed his Facebook profile image: before, barring a mix-up, he's the pudgy one pre-beard, with similar photos around. After, a man in a suit with a Star of David necklace and an assault rifle (And this still shows now, on an otherwise blank profile). Nouri was seen on the 28th helping set up the giant video screen, almost next to the protest camp, that would be used to show "footage of the October 7 Massacre on loop," to re-explain Israel's genocide (I'm not sure if this was funded by Seinfeld and Ackman or just by Nathan Moghavem on GoFundMe). See also: The Mehdizadeh bros in another confrontation (daylight) - Nouri vs. security guard barely keeping him out (night time, app. 4/29) - Nouri, dressed same as in the last video, & 2 others (including Matin?) messing with a side barricade before security intervenes, posted late on 4/29. In fact, Nouri keeps messing with the barricade, ignoring the guards for whole seconds.
.png)
.png)
The terrorist mob repeatedly launched heavy fireworks into the camp, perhaps hoping to set tents on fire. As noted above, Matin Mehdizadeh seems to have launched at least 2 of these. Matin also seems to be the main DJ leading a psychological attack with hostile noises and music relating to Israeli crimes in Gaza, which the attackers celebrate. They deny supporting any genocide, but between their vile insults the attackers shouted things like "second Nakba!" (another ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, as in 1948) as their goal for the Palestine and/or this protest camp. #UCLAMaroonHoodie was filmed boasting of the Gaza death toll, shouting “The Score is 30,000, motherfuckers. 30,000 and counting, bitch.” as if to demoralize the protesters; (like "we hope that death toll climbs, you cannot stop it from climbing, and maybe you'll be added to the toll.")
The Gray Zone's report suggests Jewish private security firm Magen Am policed the attackers, perhaps to keep them within certain bounds and avoid killings. If so, it seems everything that happened was within their bounds. The violence ran for some three hours as police stood by, actually seeming to come behind the attackers and push them forward into the attack, as Zionist supporters cheered them on from the sides, chanting "USA! USA!" They finally ordered the state-aligned terrorists to disperse around 2am, almost like they were barkeepers closing it down for the night, making zero arrests. CNN reported at least 25 protesters were sent to emergency rooms "to receive treatment for injuries including fractures, severe lacerations and chemical-induced injuries."
Aaron Cohen, an IDF vet and US police trainer, coordinating with the LA Sherrif's Department and Dr. Phil McGraw, would claim that he infiltrated the protest camp just by wearing a keffiyeh scarf, seemingly on the following night (May 1). He says the protesters were "a very aggressive crowd, got that glazed look over their eyes, no concept what they're doing," but serving someone's "calculated agenda." Cohen really acts like he's at war with Hamas itself here, just a branch that's too "dumb" to be armed at all. But he said "the dumber they are the more dangerous they are, and that's the way Hamas works with recruiting," and that's why, he says, all the protests with their "pro-terror antisemitic chants" must be shut down immediately, before his home nation(s) are harmed by divestments or the like. https://x.com/CL4Syr/status/1787824231004381588
Cohen says he reported his findings to the LASD, perhaps to assist police in their coming assault. The night of May 1, armored California Highway Patrol police moved in and violently cleared the camp, arresting some 200 protesters, and injuring quite a few with their batons and rubber-coated bullets.
Graeme Blair, a member of Faculty for Justice in Palestine at UCLA, said “the university failed to protect students from outside agitators who attacked with fireworks and bear spray, and then called in the California Highway Patrol to beat up their own students and shoot them with rubber bullets, sending dozens to the hospital,” Blair said in the statement. “These policies have one simple goal: stop dissent on campus about UC’s complicity in the war on Gaza.” (Daily Bruin)
A statement from Students for Justice in Palestine said in part "The university would rather see us dead than divest." Hypothetically. But in the future, that could be far more likely; a court has ruled that violently-opposed students of the Jewish faith cannot be excluded from anything, even as "a de-escalation strategy." In other words, anti-genocide protests that need to exclude Zionist Jews for security reasons simply cannot have that need recognized. By law.
"Jew Exclusion" in Detail (The "Injuries")
Some protesters speak of fears that someone would be killed in the mob attack of the 30th ("I thought I was going to die" - the Daily Bruin), and of ongoing trauma from that and/or the following night's police raid. But on the other hand, as the LA Times reported, "Some Jewish students were shaken by the experience" of being denied brief entry to the encampment, "arriving at Hillel [a campus support group for Jewish students] upset and even crying." And this, not the sanctioned terrorism against genocide opponents, is what sparked a big lawsuit to force the University to enact new rules that wind up protecting the genocide from some too-effective forms of protest.
Of course, it's explained it differently by those bringing the lawsuit. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Becket Law), a non-profit firm dedicated to "Religious liberty for all," filed a complaint with US district court on June 5. The complaint and the resultant injunction can both be found here: Frankel v. Regents of the University of California (becketlaw.org)
The complaint and the injunction ignore all of the violence described above, and any valid reason for protesters to limit access, pretending the only issue was antisemites blocking Jewish students from some shortcuts and perhaps from one specified locale, Powell library.
No one argued that Jewish supporters of Israel should be allowed into an opposing protest to join it, or disrupt it, or to aimlessly linger there. As spoken, it was all about the legitimate right to pass through, to access crucial sites for their education, or to do so by a shorter route. "Ensuring that Jewish students could pass safely through the areas to access Royce Quad, Powell Library, Royce Hall, and other locations on campus" was the key thing the university failed to do.
The complaint cited three plaintiffs. Each one gets a long section explaining how super-religiously Jewish they are and how crucial Israel and Jerusalem are to them, explaining why they cannot denounce Israel to meet the protest camp's demands. Each includes a relation of antisemitic things they claim to have seen or heard around, and then a relation of how they were "personally impacted by UCLA’s Jew Exclusion Zone," the key issue in the case. These summaries just address the specific "injuries."
Yitzchok Frankel is a 2nd year law student who "frequently traverses Royce Quad to get from the law school to other locations on campus, including Kerckhoff Coffeehouse and other food establishments, and to purchase items from the campus store," and he "frequently walks around Royce Quad in between classes, sometimes to take breaks, other times while engaged in long telephone conversations or when meeting with his law school mentee" and "has also brought his young children to Royce Quad on numerous occasions to socialize as a family."
"Because of the establishment of the Jew Exclusion Zone and his knowledge that he could not go through the encampment without violating his faith by disavowing Israel, Frankel ceased all of these activities." He either stopped going to these places or took alternate routes, and had to do his strolling somewhere else. Either way, he also set to planning his legal revenge over these vague, seemingly mild inconveniences.
Eden Shemuelian is also a 2nd year law student who "frequently ... walks through Royce Quad to access other parts of campus, including to get food and coffee at other campus locations" or just to walk around and get fresh air, because it's central and she has an "affinity" for it. "Because of the encampment and her knowledge that Jewish students were being denied access to Royce Quad and academic buildings, Shemuelian ceased all of this activity, opting instead to stay home or to not leave the law school at all."
In fact, Shemuelian "ceased attending any of her classes in person because of the fear and intimidation caused by hearing antisemitic chants every time she entered the school" at all, not just passing by the encampment. This left her no choice but to stay at home and pout, working on her legal revenge in between virtual classes.
On April 26, Shemuelian got close to the camp and joined some counter-protesters just outside the barricade, where she witnessed security "acting to stop individuals from passing through." She tried to read all the signs for long enough that "the CSC staff member told her that she either needed to come into the encampment and participate or leave the area." He said he had “been asked to keep this area clear” he was “not the problem, you guys are.” And they probably were the problem, but then again ... they were Jewish Zionists.
Joshua Ghayoum is "a UCLA sophomore studying history and pre-law. Ghayoum is Jewish and the child of Persian immigrants who came to the United States fleeing antisemitism in Iran" who "was stopped twice at encampment checkpoints while attempting to enter Powell Library and to access Ackerman Union."
"On the first occasion, while attempting to get to Powell Library to study for his midterms, Ghayoum encountered a massive barricade flanked by security. A security guard informed Ghayoum that he could not proceed past the barricade. Ghayoum walked to the other end of the barricade, only to be confronted by a second security guard who gave the same instruction. Both security guards wore yellow vests reading “CSC.”"
"Based on knowledge of the encampment’s lawlessness, Ghayoum knew that if he jumped the barricade, he risked facing violence. So he abandoned his plans to study in the library altogether." He went home and started planning his punitive lawsuit instead. I'll consider this a bit more below. First ...
The other incident came after he jumped right in despite that scary "lawlesness" and its "law" against his jumping in. He was hoping to meet a friend at Ackerman Union to the southwest and, while other routes were open, they were a bit longer and he preferred the route across the camp. Maybe in the style of Matin and Nouri Mehdizadeh - fellow Persian Jews, for what it's worth - he entered and spent some energy evading camp security to get 2/3 across before he "was approaching Janss Steps, when he was stopped by a male approximately in his early twenties and told he could not proceed without showing a red wristband."
He tried to carry on, but 3 other protesters came and helped block Ghayoum and wound up "forcing him to walk backward away from the Steps" by somehow preventing his turning around to walk back out face-forward. "Occasionally, the activists made physical contact with Ghayoum," but that's the closest thing to violence he encountered - a lucky break given the camp's "lawlessness."
"Ghayoum abandoned his effort and cancelled the meeting with his friend. He also understood that any further attempts to access the Jew Exclusion Zone would be futile." His dreams were crushed. After all the time spent crossing the encampment, then having to walk right back, he had no energy or interest to start again on a different route, and tragically had to cancel his plans. Again, he just went home to pout (or gloat?) and added this story to his lawsuit.
Checking on Powell Library Claims
In a 2011 Google Maps street view that could be dated, Powell Library has a main entrance facing north, a 2-level entrance on the east side, no entry on the west side, and another proper entrance on the back or south side (along with what seem to be a service door and fire escape). These are shown in the map graphic below. The north face - currently under construction scaffolding - was closest to the camp at first, on April 25, but was not at all blocked by it. By the 30th, a massively expanded camp engulfed the main entrance and the sidewalk connecting to it so that passage there required initiation.
Protesters also seem to have occupied the east entrance around the corner. The visual scene there (below) seems a bit complex, but I imagine those clustered outside the fence are mainly Zionists trying to get in or just to shout at the protesters. I see at least one with what seems to be a kippah and Israeli flag over the shoulders.
.png)
.png)
But the Tsives video was taken at the blockade's start, that leaves open a path to the left and up to the library's south entrance (see map below). I see nothing blocking the back entrance, but I've also seen no video of it that day - perhaps because no newsworthy Jew-exclusion occurred there?
CBS reporter Amanada Starrantino was told on the 30th that the library was open, had been open, and would remain open, and that "students can enter on the south side, only with their student ID." And as the one student was blocked from the library's side door, he didn't need to be told about the back door. He told the baffled security guards “I’m just standing here. I am showing you how pointless your blockade is because I got in through the other entrance and now I'm standing here. You guys want to prevent Jewish students from entering, fine." Hands fly up in exasperation as he proves their point: We never blockaded the library. If you want in, use the back door. If you want to just break our lines and our camp, NO.
The 2 entrances within or right next to the encampment were sealed off. My guess as to why: CSC security decided to shut down this area because it had become the scene of too much friction as Zionist students passed, claiming to be on their way to the library. As a deconfliction strategy - a kind now made illegal - any student who was not involved with the protest might be asked to use the back door and leave the camp alone. Security would say it's to keep the area clear, as they reportedly did say to plaintiff Shemuelian - agree and get in the camp, or go somewhere else.
And this kid's video suggests orders were put out to challenge this exclusion, and morons like him often got this memo. He evaded the "blockade" at one door, so he argues "blockaders" may as well give up and let everybody in every door, even or especially the Zionists. But on the way to his pointless point, this kid disproves plaintiff Joshua Ghayoum, who "abandoned his plans to study in the library altogether" after being turned away at the barricades blocking the north and east entrances, and apparently without even trying the open south entrance. After all, it's harder to complain about denied access, in a court case leading to a legally binding ruling, if you could actually gain access with nothing more than a few extra steps. (2 alt. routes shown in green - details depending, it might have required the long route)
So it seems the library was open to plaintiff Ghayoum and to every student, despite his testimony in this court case. There was no "blockade" rendered useless, but there was legal case that's proven to be fallacious & malicious.
As far we've heard, all other relevant destinations were left open, with only some routes between them blocked. None of the plaintiffs reports being "blocked from classes" like so many reported. The purpose of an occupy/sit-in camp is to disrupt spaces and routines, and some students like Aiden didn't mind. But they barely disrupted anything here, and still it was too much for some Zionists. They just had a complication added to their commute, and decided to give up in a pouty huff, stay at home and focus on their punitive lawsuit to shut down future protests.
Finally, consider how the exclusion of "Zionists" was to avoid harassment and disruption. The fact these 3 basically sued this type of protest shows a hostile intent bearing out their exclusion as valid. They're exactly the types who should have to walk around the camp, and then deal with it civilly. But instead, they filed a malicious suit that should have been tossed out but wasn't, and now anything they would have to walk around just cannot be allowed.
The Ruling in Effect & Conclusion
I'm not clear on UC and UCLA's reasons for limited pushback against judge Scarsi's August injunction. Mary Osako, UCLA's vice chancellor of strategic communications, initially told reporters the ruling "would improperly hamstring our ability to respond to events on the ground and to meet the needs of the Bruin community." (LA Times via MSN) It's not clear what that meant, but she added "We’re closely reviewing the judge’s ruling and considering all our options moving forward.” and the university would soon appeal the ruling. This appeal was based, as reported around, on UCLA's claim it "has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters." (Jewish Journal)
But then the chancellors withdrew that appeal and instead ordered their universities to disallow any sort of encampment that might involve exclusion of anyone, regardless of religion. University of California President Michael Drake sent an e-mail on August 19 explaining how overnight encampments will not be allowed, and that "no person shall restrict the movement of another person or persons," with no mention of religion or political beliefs.
The UCLA Daily Bruin reported there was already, since July, pressure from the California State Budget for Drake "to create a “systemwide framework” for free speech guidelines across the UC by Oct. 1, or else would withhold $25 million in funding from the University." They were working on that framework when the injunction added a legal wrinkle. Drake's email added that these new guidelines, as the Daily Bruin put it, "seek to create consistency in campus responses to protests." Is this because Scarsi's ruling, in application, would lead to inconsistencies with totally valid UC policies, or create awkward scenes like pro-Semitic religion checks at the protest barricades? It might seem more "consistent" to prevent such protests and such barricades from ever appearing.
UC statements don't cite the racism or unfairness of the ruling, but all their enforcements point to it by failing to specify Jewish students as especially protected. They know this is wrong to order and wrong to implement, so they quietly set to finding a replacement. Since "other persons" does include Zionist Jews, it should work to meet judge Scarsi's demands, even though it lacks the full spirit of the ruling. They're probably allowed to treat Zionist Jews the same as other students, giving them no special rights, so long as no one has a right to do anything a Zionist Jew would have to avoid, or would want to disrupt.
No one at UC is allowed to recognize the legitimacy of a cause by permitting such a camp, as it did in 2024, and as it has done in decades past for other winning causes. Basically, they're not allowed to permit any danger to the current Israeli regime and its highly criminal projects. This might injure anyone religiously or morally motivated to oppose Israel's genocide. They can still protest for their cause, they just can't have a camp, and - in line with Scarsi's ruling - they cannot take any measures to avoid harassment or disruption by Zionist Jews.
The UCLA Daily Bruin reported on September 4 on new "Time, Place and Manner (TPM)" regulations for demonstrations at UCLA announced by Administrative Vice Chancellor Michael Beck and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Monroe Gorden Jr.. The rules were effective immediately but open to comment. Undergraduate Students Association Council and United Autoworkers complained about a lack of consultation, and would have some comments.
In consideration of the district court's injunction, the new rules included “Reasonable access to and exit from classrooms, laboratories, parking structures, offices and buildings must be provided at all times,” again regardless of religion or political beliefs. As we've seen, this was already the case - only some preferred shortcuts were blocked.
Otherwise, the details include, per a Daily Bruin article: protesters need to "identify themselves when asked to do so by university officials." Activities like leafleting, picketing, and public speeches are limited to areas around Bruinwalk and outside Murphy Hall, between 6 a.m. and midnight, so long as they "do not otherwise disrupt campus activities." Marches must also move constantly, and can only use amplified sound with special approval. Protests in Bruin Plaza are allowed with permission. In Dickson Plaza (where the 2024 "Jew Exclusion Zone" was) they're not allowed at all. "Protesters hosting public-expression events – such as protests or picketing – will also now be liable for security and crowd control costs associated with those events," something many organizers will be unable to afford.
"Several regulations appear to be aimed at preventing encampments," the article notes, including "a ban on the use of tents and camping equipment, new restrictions limiting the distribution of food and the closure of campus walkways between midnight at 6 a.m." and the use of any paint or even chalk is not allowed on campus property.
Graeme Blair, a spokesperson for Faculty for Justice in Palestine at UCLA, said “College campuses are places for vigorous debate of the biggest issues in our society, past, present and future – and those discussions should not (be) relegated to small pre-approved slices of land.” Blair called the rules “a transparent attempt to silence students speaking out on behalf of Palestinians dying in Gaza and demanding that our campus not be complicit in their deaths.”
The August injunction is the result of some Zionist Jewish students - and powerful outside allies - taking organized action in support Israel's genocide, on the basis of nonexistent "facts" and invented "injuries." These deceptions carry the day with judge Scarsi, allowing them to shape everything beneath this absurd and racist legal ruling, and now others now lobby to expand the absurdity. James Pasch, senior director of national litigation at the Anti-Defamation League, would say “While this decision might only affect UCLA [and the whole UC system], it should reverberate across the country,” and “It is crucial for every university to know that their students cannot be banned from areas of campus or from organizations on campus for who they are, full stop." (Jewish Insider)
Pasch never said the parts after that false "full stop." So I'll say it for him: "... so long as they are a Zionist Jew, demanding access to a protest they're validly barred from for their likely hostile intent. Every university should know that any effective challenge they allow to Israel's ongoing genocide will be met with organized attacks by Jewish students and maybe outsiders, and they cannot allow the protesters to defend themselves from these attacks. These protests simply need to fail, one way or another, and people could die on the present course. Universities need to understand that, and help us repress this danger more smoothly in the future."
Droves of well-paid lawyers, Trump-appointed judges, Israeli-trained police forces, and Zionist thugs with Nakba wishes stand by ready to ensure this. We can likely count on droves of cowardly university chancellors to joint them more fully in the process of suppression. But it's noteworthy how much effort was required to get here. And of course in the eyes of the true protesters, whoever becomes part of the machine of genocide and repression is just another one to keep on resisting.
