When prompted by public comment or by the City Council, the Davis Human Relations Commission (HRC) assigns subcommittees to collect Davis residents’ feedback on what residents are experiencing, to get direct feedback about Davis residents’ experiences, with conflict, discrimination or other relations.
Not surprisingly, the Commission has heard much in the way of incidences of Islamic/Palestinian/Arab discrimination and Antisemitism (discrimination against Jews) in the last year and a half. Two subcommittees were formed in late 2024 and remain in place today: the Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians and their Allies (MAPA) subcommittee and the Antisemitism subcommittee. The MAPA report was completed and presented on April 2 and recommendations from the report were refined and voted on by the commission on April 24.
The Muslim Arab Palestinians and their allies (MAPA) Human Relations Commission Report is a compilation of “100s of conversations, and review of 100s of videos, photos, and screenshots from social media stories and posts, surveyed residents, DJUSD parents and staff, UCD faculty, staff and students of a relatively even mix of Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians and Ally respondents.”
The report is a 91-page representative sample of all the Davis sources and some data from external sources.
All the answers to the questionnaire regarding the discriminatory experiences of Muslim Arab Palestinians and their allies (MAPA) in Davis had to be collected by the end of February 2025, three months ago, and it seems like a different reality entirely. The report and the recommendations for sensible inclusive action by the City are doable and reasonable.
The MAPA report is essential in giving space to marginalized voices, but the report continues to draw controversial criticism as was evident at this most recent June 3 City Council meeting. Most all of those speaking against the report are asking the City Council to disband the Human Relations Commission and to denounce the report.
Listening to the public comments on June 3, you would have heard approximately 18 in-person and eight recorded messages, deeply troubled by the HRC MAPA report. Months earlier, you would have heard the emotions of near disbelief from the dozens of Davis Muslim, Arab, and/or Palestinian individuals who shared with the HRC about their fear of speaking publicly and about the relief they felt in being heard for the first time through the MAPA report.
In an encouraging sign of community, just this past Saturday May 31 more than a hundred people showed up for the peaceful and silent “Let Gaza Live” vigil procession that circled the Davis Farmers Market. Although there is no US policy change to go with this show of solidarity and while the focus of the vigil was on delivering food to Gaza, the event had its detractors and these are mostly the same detractors that do not approve of the HRC Subcommittee Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians and Ally respondents report.
We recognize that there are truths from our pro-Israel friends in Davis and truths from our MAPA community. The truth experienced by those in the Jewish community who interpret criticism of Israel as incitement is exacerbated by the times we live in. Additionally, Palestinian family members in the U.S. are in turmoil, as we witness the annihilation of their homes and loved ones in their country of origin. In the US, Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians have also faced a rise in violence that is institutionally sanctioned and encouraged by persistent tropes and historical inaccuracies, just as Jews are.
Davis’s pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, Arab, Jewish anti-Zionist, Muslim, and allied voices have been heard, thanks to the work of the HRC. Having these voices acknowledged does not necessarily resolve the issues raised—that responsibility falls to all of us within the Davis community. During the report evaluation on April 2 and at every subsequent HRC meeting and most every City Council meeting public comment period, every perspective has been given time to be heard.
On April 2, after hours of deliberation, the Human Resources Commission voted 7 to 1 in favor of moving the MAPA report recommendations to the City Council (refined and approved on April 24).
In the middle of the June 3 Davis City Council, over hour long public comment period, Amir Kohl, in relating his disappointment to the City Council that he could not deliver his full dissent of the MAPA report, as member of the Human Relations Commission, said, “So that when you review that report, you also have a diversity of opinions.” This appeal for diversity should apply to the report itself, which, as noted in the same June 3 public comment period to the City Council, “represents the only occasion when Davis Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian voices have been asked about their experiences with discrimination.” Surely, this is a diverse perspective that is needed.
The Davis Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and allies report is based on what respondents shared, not what the HRC commissioners formulated. Some portions of the 91 pages are uncomfortable and require context, yet they are not lies. As time passes, these truths need to be increasingly understood, not denounced.
Before we delve into the report’s recommendations—its most significant part—we must acknowledge the increased dangers we all face three months after the MAPA report’s responses were gathered.
Violence against Jews, whether Zionist or otherwise, is unacceptable. A central problem for all of us is that it is exceedingly difficult to argue that violence against Palestinians in Palestine is not tolerated. It is tolerated, and it should not be. Our intolerance for violence must apply universally. Moreover, for our HRC and Council, acknowledging the existence of violence and responding to criticisms of that acknowledgment creates a significant challenge in maintaining civility: our priority must be to recognize and protect one another from harm.
Let’s observe an important truth. When it comes to access in Davis, our Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish community appears to have reasonable access to school administrators, city and county representatives, and city officials. Sometimes those personages don’t agree with the group that presents its request for a particular policy to be adopted and this experience of not getting just what you ask for is true for any group in Davis.
Antisemitism is a problem, and more than 50 Davis residents, including some of our elected officials, Jewish, Islamic, Baptist, and School community members, attended the Davis Jews for Justice PARCEO workshop “Curriculum on Antisemitism from a Framework of Collective Liberation” held at the Veterans Memorial building to address that exact problem just before the June 3 City Council meeting.
The Human Relations Commission has completed assembling and discussing the contents of the MAPA report and the Commission has approved recommendations to improve human relations for the City Council to consider for implementation. These recommendations include:
1. Acknowledgement of anti-Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and allied discrimination in Davis.
2. Commitment to free speech, including speech advocating for justice for Palestine and the Palestinian people.
3. The City Manager or appropriate city staff will reach out to arrange meeting(s) to review the report and discuss appropriate next steps with DJUSD and UCD administrators.
4. City commitment to anti-Palestinian racism and anti-Muslim bias training for staff and council.
5. A request from the City for the DJUSD Superintendent to acknowledge and release a statement on MAPA discrimination in Davis.
6. A request from the city for the UCD Administration to acknowledge and release a statement on MAPA discrimination in Davis.
The recommendations for combating anti-Semitism could adopt a similar format as we strive to end oppression in all its forms. Rather than framing the Muslim Arab Palestinians and their allies (MAPA) report in an “us or them” framework, we need to take in what other human beings are experiencing, all of us, or we perpetuate what we are seeing unfold internationally and at home, “again” instead of “never again.”
” These recommendations include:”
What about the rest of the recommendations were they deleted before final passage or did you not include them? Did you not include them by omission or commission?
This is the final form of the recommendations that I found as of April 24th.
“2. Commitment to free speech, including speech advocating for justice for Palestine and the Palestinian people.”
Free speech like chanting “From the river to the sea Palestine must be free.”
Speech that is protected that calls for the extermination of Israel doesn’t help engender good will in this community.
Old trope. Others can comment; the list is long. This slogan has been consistently explained as freedom in terms of equality for all people from the river to the sea. Here again, your not believing me, that is your right, but I will not accept the political or rhetorical prison you seem to want to put me or people striving to live as equals.
I love how you appropriate the lexicon used to depict antisemitism while denying the interpretation of many in the local Jewish community of what from the river to the sea means. Maybe you think we don’t understand. I wonder why you persist in defending the chanting of slogans that people like myself interpret as non-starters if you want to engage in civil discourse?
RG say: ” Free speech like chanting “From the river to the sea Palestine must be free.”
Speech that is protected that calls for the extermination of Israel doesn’t help engender good will in this community.”
SS say: ” Old trope. Others can comment; the list is long. This slogan has been consistently explained as freedom in terms of equality for all people from the river to the sea. ”
ACM responds:
SS, yes, the slogan has been consistently explained by antizionsts as meaning what You say it means. I’ve seen the explanations online. I sat through a lecture by UC Davis professor Stacy Fahrenthold on the subject. One can claim whatever one wants the slogan to mean because as worded, it’s a vague slogan. SF isn’t ‘wrong’, and neither are you, in that it can mean just freedom, not genocide. And yet, you are both dead wrong.
Because many antizionists are also chanting it to mean the elimination of Israel. To ignore that is wilfull deception. And if you are an antizionist, what better way to get people with peaceful aspirations on your side than to convince them to chant your slogan by convincing them it is peaceful. As a side benefit, when those so taught see people who do want to eliminate Israel chanting the slogan, they may think those people are also chanting it to mean freedom, which also then implies that those are also peaceful people. The ones who want to wipe Israel off the map.
I’m not saying the chant should be banned or protest should be banned; I’m all in for free speech. Such as what I just said in response to what you said.
But no matter what you may think of “From the River to the Sea”, the chant by the fully-masked group that stormed the UC Davis Coffeehouse three weeks ago was “We don’t want no two state, we want all 48”. That is a call for the elimination of Israel, full stop. There is no way Stacy Fahrenthold could spin that chant as a call for freedom. And by the way, that is a genocidal call.
I don’t know who that group was, as their faces were 100% covered. Did that group also chant “From the the River to the Sea” another day, at another rally? Did they mean for one chant as a call for freedom, and the other chant as a call to eliminate Israel? Curious your thoughts on the “We don’t want no two state” chant, SS. Does that chant align with your politics of peace and freedom? Will you, SS, disavow the actions and statements by the group that stormed the UC Davis Coffehouse?
UC Davis must immediately end its lack of enforcement of time, manner and place enforcement of protests, and immediately end the benign tolerance of masking at protests by doing nothing about it. People can chant whatever they want — outside, and without masks — that is their right. Masking is not their right. And if you want to complain that you are afraid of repercussions, that is part of protest — there might be repercussions. That is why peaceful protest is done by the courageous — willing to show who they are and willing to take the consequences of their actions.
UC Davis allowing a group of fully-masked individuals to make a genocidal call with a bullhorn indoors defies all norms of protest and violates multiple UCD protest norms. Masked persons chanting a statement calling for the killing of Jews is to me is no different than if we had persons storm the Coffeehouse covering their faces with pointy white hoods calling for the elimination of black people. The issue isn’t even if Jews or black persons are in immediate danger or not from a threatening protest of anonymous persons, it is the dehumanization that UC Davis is allowing against a group of people, and the lack of outrage, or even awareness, by the community.
You may think it’s different for Jewish or black people because maybe you have the idea the Jews are ‘white’ or ‘successful’ or ‘oppressors’ in your world view. Back when I was growing up, actual white supremacists primarily wanted two groups dead: blacks and Jews. So we have, or had, that in common. But no matter how much one group may be perceived or on-average more monetarily successful, dead is dead, and dehumanized is dehumanized. That Gary May didn’t condemn this protest outright is a shame and a stain on his presence. The Jewish Community needs to call for his immediate removal.
And again, kudos to those who conducted the pro-Palestine ‘mostly unmasked’ protest in Central Park. That is how peaceful protest is done.
What I worry about with the rhetoric I hear from groups like the Party For Socialism and Liberation that, and please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m told the author of this article supports, is radicalizing people who then commit acts of violence like the murder of the two young people in D.C. The perp in that case also identified with PSL.
My biggest concern about the encampment at UCD and all that has been going on at campuses around the country is that people were going to become radicalized and now it has come to fruition so I don’t think your rhetoric is as benign as you claim.
“What I worry about with the rhetoric I hear from groups like the Party For Socialism and Liberation that, and please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m told the author of this article supports, is radicalizing people who then commit acts of violence like the murder of the two young people in D.C. The perp in that case also identified with PSL.”
I am not impressed with the affiliation cross-pollination of Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Anti-Police-ists, Islamismists, and antizionists. Once all us Jews are dead, they can fight it out for supremacy :-|
However, the “the Perp identified with . . .” argument can go both ways. I agree with the part that mentally-unstable attention seekers can be easily radicalized and motivated to act by their own anti-civil narcissism. But to be fair, no group can really control who affiliates with them, even if indirectly responsible for their radicalization.
“My biggest concern about the encampment at UCD and all that has been going on at campuses around the country is that people were going to become radicalized”
I think it’s more subtle, though those who have acted are examples of radicalization. The encampments aren’t to me as concerning as the subtle teachings. Such as ‘from the river to the sea’ doesn’t mean what it can mean. Also, I’ve come to realize that the far left did with the word ‘Zionism’ what it did to so many words — it changed the meaning. For those not aware, Zionism has been changed to mean ‘Israeli Nationalist Extremism’. Members of the Jewish Community not familiar with this defend Zionism, and then fall into the trap that those who had the word re-defined in their brains by the far-left and antizionists now think they are ‘evil Zionists’.
It wasn’t until someone forwarded me a conversation from social media where a hater explained what he believes about Zionism that I understood what is going on. And it all makes sense — same thing happened with ‘white supremicist’, with people of different generations would talking around each other in the sludge of word-definition pudding.
“and now it has come to fruition so I don’t think your rhetoric is as benign as you claim.”
Um, I’m confused . . . who’s rhetoric? I’m not saying this rhetoric (not mine) is benign. I am defending people’s right to say whatever they want. But not outside the time, place and manner norms, and definitely not cowardly-anonymously.
“We recognize that there are truths from our pro-Israel friends in Davis …”
When I was young my father told me the three biggest lies in the world. One of them was some of my best friends are Jewish.
An impossible accusation to defend. I say, “I like you even though we disagree,” and you say you don’t like me and you lie. It’s up to me up to me to like you and to be friendly. Don’t gaslight.
The existentialist origin of the ongoing trauma, the teaching of “everyone wants to kill us,” is tragic and needs to stop. We are all in an existential struggle to get along by recognizing the sanctity of inherent worth and the dignity of all people.
SO I wonder who leaders/organizers of this non-spontaneous demonstration at council Tuesday were — they did not self-identify. The item was not on the agenda so this was clearly not a spontaneous gathering.
As an sometimes organizer myself, it was an impressive showing.
===== But, could the leaders have been the same “small number” of passionate people – per unvetted allegations quoted in MAPA — that makes others in Davis feel intimidated by their legal but provocative actions?
1. I hope David Greenwald when he does a followup, sheds some light on this.
2. Or leaders/organizers could come forward.
AH say: “SO I wonder who leaders/organizers of this non-spontaneous demonstration at council Tuesday were”
Speaking for myself, I went down there on my own and spoke. I was motivated by having gone to the Human Relations Commission meeting and being appalled by the clown show masquerading as a city advisory committee. I heard about the HRC goings on via an article in the Davis Enterprise.
AH say: “— they did not self-identify.”
I believe everyone – at least most people – said their names. What more are you demanding of those of us who spoke? What groups are they a member of? (a bit invasive) How many people did they call to come here tonight? (not anyone’s business) No one has ever been required during public comment to say anything but their names. The idea that people did not ‘self-identify’ is ludicrous.
Would you also ask that anti-Israel speakers ‘self-identify’ ? Whatever the h*ll that means in your world. If not, why not?
AH say: “The item was not on the agenda so this was clearly not a spontaneous gathering.”
No, it wasn’t on the agenda. There were a bunch of people speaking who showed up on a timely topic because of incidents in our community, in this case the actions of the Human Relations Commission. It is common for large groups of people to show up in Davis when motivated by recent events.
And speaking for myself, as I said above, I did show up ‘spontaneously’. As for the assertation that others were not ‘spontaneous’, that may be true. Yeah, I’ll bet that members of a group of people, targeted people, may have each other’s phone numbers and emails, and may talk to each other; that is kinda the definition of a ‘group’ of people. And I’ll bet that some people called others when they heard about the last HRC meeting. And some of those people may have called or texted other people to let them know, and suggest going to the City Council meeting. It wouldn’t shock me.
And those people may be these ‘leaders’ in your statement. And they should identify themselves, why? Has anyone ever been asked to ‘self-identify’ in this way when speaking at Council? On what planet would anyone? Did you also call for those ‘leaders’ who organized the encampment on campus to ‘self-identify’ ? Did you call for those who organized others to come down to Council on the 6-hour ‘ceasefire’ resolution language meeting to ‘self-identify’ ? On either side? If not, why not?
AH say: “As an sometimes organizer myself, it was an impressive showing. ===== But, could the leaders have been the same “small number” of passionate people”
Or could those who showed up actually be speaking for hundreds of others who didn’t come to the meeting, or are too concerned to publicly, politically identify in today’s Davis political and social atmosphere? Also possible, and also impossible to quantify.
Basically, your argument comes down to: ‘it may have been a lot of people, but they are passionate, so they are probably really are only a small number of people’. Yeah, good luck with that logic serving you in life.
AH say: “– per unvetted allegations quoted in MAPA — that makes others in Davis feel intimidated by their legal but provocative actions?”
Thanks for making that statement clear as mud as to what you are actually talking about. I’m going to infer, having gone to the meetings, that this is in reference to members of the Jewish community capturing vid of anti-Israel protests (many of them masked, indoors, amplified — all actually not legal). While I can not speak for every person with a camera, I know that some members of the community are documenting actions by anti-Israel protestors, both legal and illegal. While some may be annoyed by it and consider it ‘provocative’, that is a judgement or a feeling about being videotaped — and it’s all legal. I can understand why members of the Jewish community want receipts, especially if S goes down in Davis.
AH say: “I hope David Greenwald when he does a followup, sheds some light on this.”
Yeah, hey DG . . . how about figuring out who sent texts to other people asking them to go to the CC meeting and comment. And be sure to get the exact number of people who were texted by each ‘leader’. It could be a ‘conspiracy’ and might be connected to the Jewish Space Laser. Who knows what you might uncover?
AH say: “Or leaders/organizers could come forward.”
I’ll tell you what, AH, you get the organizers of the UC Davis encampment and the organizers of the ‘getting people to the Council meeting to speak for ‘ceasefire’ language’ to ‘come forward’ — OH! OH! and those organized the ‘we don’t want no two state’ amplified masked genocidal chant at the UCD Coffeehouse. You get those, and I’ll see what I can do to find out who sent texts to people to get other people to come to last weeks Council meeting.
You first :-|
“Israel” Is more than one thing.
Plenty of Israeli Jews say ” from the river to the Sea”, intending freedom for all.
The end of Israel does not mean the end of Jews living in the Levant.
And now a commercial break for general processes that facilitate democracy and transparency at City Council meetings:
+ Increase comment max to 3 minutes again;
+ Encourage commenters to share more useful information about their identity than only their name (and e.g. “speaking as” or how long they have have lived in Davis);
*
+ Acknowledge that, practically speaking, people give up anonymity when they speak.
Financial affiliations? Like the rest, explicitly optional. Nevertheless, it’s ugly if people publicly declare support for a regime’s military actions without mentioning if they directly profit from it.
TE say: ” “Israel” Is more than one thing. ”
The U.S.A. is more than one thing. Yeah, so?
TE say: ” Plenty of Israeli Jews say ” from the river to the Sea”, intending freedom for all. ”
Ok, so what? As I explained above, it is a vague statement as worded, and it is also chanted to mean the elimination of Israel.
TE say: “The end of Israel does not mean the end of Jews living in the Levant.”
That is quite a statement, with zero support or evidence. The end of Israel could also mean another genocide.
TE say: “And now a commercial break for general processes that facilitate democracy and transparency at City Council meetings: + Increase comment max to 3 minutes again;”
I agree, but what does that have to do with the subject?
“+ Encourage commenters to share more useful information about their identity than only their name (and e.g. “speaking as” or how long they have have lived in Davis);”
There is no requirement to do so, and for what purpose?
TE say: “+ Acknowledge that, practically speaking, people give up anonymity when they speak.”
On what planet is that not acknowledged now?
TE say: “Financial affiliations? Like the rest, explicitly optional.”
Why would anyone list their financial affiliations while speaking at a City Council meeting?
TE say: “Nevertheless, it’s ugly if people publicly declare support for a regime’s military actions without mentioning if they directly profit from it.”
You know what else is ugly?
Delusionally claiming that the end of Israel won’t end up with untold masses of dead Jews.
You know what else is ugly?
Implying that people who speak at council meeting about their concerns about hatred towards Jews in Davis and the structural bias of a city commission — are actually speaking to defend financial investments that support a foreign military and thus personally profit from war. Your statement, ” . . . it’s ugly if people publicly declare support for a regime’s military actions without mentioning if they directly profit from it” implicitly implies that a specific group of public commenters do profit from it.
Explain how you came to believe this and what evidence you have to back this up.
If you cannot, I declare your comment as among the ugliest outbursts of Jew hatred.