DAVIS, Calif. — An opinion piece published Thursday in the New York Post by Rabbi Pini Dunner fuels an already heated debate in Davis over antisemitism, the Israel-Gaza war, campus climate and the city’s response to discrimination complaints from multiple communities.
In the May 7 column titled “How antisemitism is sweeping California — disguised as ‘social justice,’” Dunner argued that antisemitism has become normalized in progressive spaces and pointed specifically to Davis and UC Davis as examples.
“The Jewish students I met spoke in hushed tones about how they were afraid to be openly Jewish on campus,” Dunner wrote. “Faculty members confided that they were reluctant to speak out. And members of the local Jewish community made it clear that they feel abandoned by the very institutions that are supposed to protect them.”
Dunner’s article also sharply criticized the City of Davis Human Relations Commission’s MAPA report, a months-long community process focused on the experiences of Muslim, Arab, Palestinian and allied residents in Davis.
“The City of Davis Human Relations Commission produced what it calls the ‘MAPA Report’ earlier this year,” Dunner wrote. “The report focuses on the local experiences of Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, and their ‘allies’ (hence the acronym).”
“On the surface, it sounds reasonable enough. After all, every community deserves to feel safe, respected, and heard,” he continued. “But if you read the report, a chilling pattern begins to emerge. This is not a document about protecting a vulnerable community. It is a document that singles out another, far more vulnerable one.”
The op-ed coincidentally (or possibly not) arrived on the same day city officials publicly condemned messaging displayed during a May Day gathering in Central Park.
The timing was somewhat odd anyway, coming nearly a week after incident last Friday.
According to a statement issued by city officials, individuals gathered in Central Park on May 1 to recognize International Workers’ Day, and during the event “a group displayed a banner with a phrase and related messaging appearing to support or celebrate the horrific violence that occurred on October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked and killed more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals in Gaza and Israel.”
The sign in question reportedly included the phrase “Long Live Al-Aqsa Flood!” — a reference to the Hamas operation launched on Oct. 7, 2023.
In their statement, city officials wrote, “We write today to unequivocally condemn speech, rhetoric, or symbolism that promotes hatred, violence, or intimidation against any group of people.”
At the same time, the statement acknowledged constitutional protections for political speech and warned against conflating all criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
The timing of the two developments — the publication of Dunner’s op-ed and the city’s condemnation of the May Day sign — adds fuel to an already polarized debate within Davis.
But whether Dunner’s depiction fairly captures the broader climate in Davis remains deeply contested.
The city has spent months attempting to navigate rising tensions tied to the Israel-Gaza war while balancing concerns from Jewish, Muslim, Arab and Palestinian residents.
Last month, the Davis City Council unanimously adopted three sets of actions responding to recommendations that emerged from the Human Relations Commission’s MAPA process.
According to reporting by the Vanguard, the council formally acknowledged discrimination against Muslim, Arab, Palestinian and allied residents, reaffirmed protections against antisemitism and all forms of harassment, and approved additional anti-bias education efforts for the broader community.
The council also adopted separate language specifically addressing concerns raised by Jewish residents.
That action acknowledged “concerns raised by Jewish residents regarding antisemitism, hostility and community safety” while reaffirming that “antisemitism and anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian harassment are unacceptable in Davis.”
The dual resolutions reflected an effort by the council to balance competing concerns rather than elevate one group’s experiences over another’s.
Critics of Dunner’s characterization argue that the MAPA process was not designed to marginalize Jewish residents, but rather to document concerns raised by Muslim, Arab and Palestinian residents who reported discrimination, harassment and fear connected to the broader political climate surrounding the Gaza war.
Others, however, contend that some rhetoric surrounding the MAPA process minimized or dismissed Jewish concerns about antisemitism and hostility following Oct. 7.
A statement from Yolo DSA co-chairs Dillan Horton and Skyler Blakeslee said the organization had collaborated “with a number of labor organizations in the community” to hold “a May Day Rally & March advocating for the right to organize and bargain collectively.”
The organization said labor rights and union solidarity were the focus of its event.
According to the statement, “Another May Day event was held at a different area of Central Park organized by another group. We had no part in the organizing of that event.”
The statement added, “‘Labor rights are under attack across this country, that was the focus of the event we organized, (and) we will always stand in solidarity with organized labor.’”
The organization also stated, “While Yolo DSA, like many leftist organizations, is critical of the Israeli government and supportive of Palestinian rights, we are opposed to all forms of racism including antisemitism.”
The debate reflects broader national tensions playing out on university campuses and in progressive communities across the country.
Dunner’s article appeared amid heightened national scrutiny over antisemitism in California and on college campuses generally. The UC system has faced federal investigations and public criticism over allegations involving campus climate and antisemitism following pro-Palestinian protests.
At the same time, many Jewish residents and students in Davis and elsewhere have also publicly criticized Israeli government policies in Gaza and Iran, highlighting the complexity of attempting to separate criticism of Israeli state actions from antisemitism itself.
The issue has become particularly fraught in progressive communities like Davis, where strong traditions of activism, free expression and social justice politics often intersect — and sometimes collide — with concerns about hate speech, intimidation and community safety.
Davis officials themselves have repeatedly attempted to frame the issue in broader terms of protecting all vulnerable communities.
In the city’s May Day statement, officials wrote that antisemitism, anti-Muslim hate, racism and other forms of bigotry undermine the values of the community.
The controversy also highlights the increasingly nationalized nature of local political conflicts.
What began as a local Human Relations Commission process and a city debate over community safety has now become the subject of national opinion coverage in one of the country’s largest conservative tabloids.
The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, is closely associated with conservative media outlets includingFox News.
Dunner’s framing of Davis as emblematic of a broader collapse of tolerance toward Jewish residents in progressive California communities places the local dispute squarely into national ideological battles over antisemitism, free speech and identity politics.
At the same time, many Davis residents argue that reducing the city to a caricature of antisemitism ignores the nuanced and often difficult conversations taking place locally about war, human rights, discrimination and community coexistence.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“According to reporting by the Vanguard, the council formally acknowledged discrimination against Muslim, Arab, Palestinian and allied residents, reaffirmed protections against antisemitism and all forms of harassment, and approved additional anti-bias education efforts for the broader community.”
This is incomplete and inaccurate. While the City Council additionally, in separate votes, reaffirmed protections against antisemitism the second recommendation the CC adopted from the MAPA report affirmed MAPA first amendment rights. Three days later a group celebrating October 7 expressed those reaffirmed rights in the center of Davis.
Anti-semitism isn’t just a current issue at UCD, it has been a problem for many years.
Top 5 nationwide, something to be ashamed of. If only UCD’s football team ranked that high?
“5 UC SCHOOLS IN TOP 10 FOR WORST ANTI-SEMITISM RECORD IN 2015, NEW STUDY REVEALS”
https://amchainitiative.org/UC-worst-antisemitism-record-in-2015/
If you go behind headline and read the methodology on this.” Davis is the worst” you see that it’s all bogus.
That is why the Davis Enterprise didn’t cover it…
There are a group of people in Davis who want to create a moral panic that it’s even dangerous to walk down the street with a Jewish star.
Fear is a political tool.
Don’t know why the NY Post is writing an article regarding Davis, but I flat-out don’t believe that Jewish people (on campus, or off) are actually “afraid”.
From what I’ve seen, they’re pissed-off, not afraid.
If you want to actually be afraid (based on your skin color/ethnicity), try walking around parts of Oakland, for example. And you don’t need to be Jewish to experience that reality-based fear.
How many Jewish people have been physically attacked in Davis or on campus, based on their ethnicity? How many have even gotten into arguments, unless they themselves were willing participants?
And I’d ask the same thing regarding those who identify as Palestinians.
The NY Post isn’t, the Rabbi from LA is.
Thank you for sharing your fears about walking around Oakland. Its sad that you seem to presuppose what other people fear.
Give it a try, and report back.
But again, I don’t believe Jewish people (or Palestinians) are being attacked in Davis or on campus on the basis of ethnicity. It would be in the news, if that was occurring.
What we have are people engaging in proxy wars – picking a side.
No one is walking around Davis (or on campus) looking to engage in physical confrontations based on skin color/ethnicity.
Some are looking to argue with others and put forth inflammatory rhetoric. So when someone puts up a sign implying support for what occurred in Israel a couple of years ago, they are only engaging in offensive speech (with most people not even knowing what it meant).
“(with most people not even knowing what it meant)”
I admit I had to look it up. But the group that put that sign up knew what it meant and probably got the response they were looking for.
Very disgusting and abhorrent especially in light of the recent debate over the MAPA Report.
Agreed.
But I don’t believe Jewish or Palestinian people are walking around in fear in Davis or on campus. Or at least, not a reasonable/realistic fear.
They’re angry when they see signs like that.
Some may get into a verbal or physical confrontation as a result of that anger (and vice-versa).
Beth manages to rile up people herself – probably more so than anyone else. And has probably experienced more verbal and physical attacks as a result, compared to anyone else. (I also don’t see the council speaking up regarding those assaults.)
What exactly is hate speech? I can define it in terms of seeing something that offends me because I have a fixed way of thinking. Freedom of speech also means I might be offended by banners but the right to display that banner cannot be denied. Hatred much be carefully taught, undoing that is a challenge. A resolution by the City Council won’t change that, it will require work by us all. Freedom of speech must not be denied even when it is hurtful. This article was from the New York Post, they have freedom of the press, but consider the source before accepting its message.
I appreciate the reporting by the Vanguard in pointing out some of the facts of the May Day events.
May Day is also an event that is bigger than Davis. Social Justice, which is being denied to a large part of the US population and to the Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, Filipino, Iranian, and other populations. This trend toward tyranny is not being helped at all by Rabbi Dunner’s op-ed.
The news cycle may move past the division that Rabbi Dunner is trying to incite. A growing coalition is forming. Labor groups representing nurses, teachers, baristas, and local grassroots electoral activists support human rights, specifically Palestinian human rights. The Rabbi’s accusation is a blatant attempt at divisiveness.
The actions of a single student group, separate from the main May Day event in Davis’ Central Park, were not vetted by the organizers of the May Day march or by the coalition for that day, nor did the student group participate in the march to G Street and back.
Instead, would the Rabbi want us to support spending $70 billion we don’t have on the war against Iran, a war entered on the absurd assurance by Israel that the Iranian resistance would be minimal? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/06/trump-iran-war-netanyahu-israel. Families across this country don’t feel at all good about their own prospects, and the forever war cannot be stopped. Instead, they grow and for what?
For our local community, I would encourage expressing gratitude to the City Council for voting unanimously for Human Relations Commission recommendations to:
1. Acknowledgment of anti-Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and Allies discrimination in Davis.
2. Commitment to free speech, including speech advocating for justice for Palestine and the Palestinian people.
3. City commitment to Anti-Palestinian Racism and Anti-Muslim Bias Training for staff and council.
The council also voted unanimously for:
1. A commitment to combat antisemitism and all other forms of discrimination.
As one of our community put it: “I am proud of the Davis City Council, which acted with transparency and concern for the entire community through acknowledging that discrimination against Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and allied people, such as myself, exists in Davis and that it is a real and present issue requiring direction by civic leaders”.
“As many public comments made clear, far from being an issue removed from our city, the events of Oct. 7 and Israel’s response have forced a reckoning about our responsibility for and complicity in attitudes and acts which have caused deep division. The council’s decision, made in this fraught local, national and international context, was brave, and its clear-eyed, compassionate and inclusive response to the recommendations of the MAPA report will help us along the road to healing.” (Davis Enterprise May 1st).
SS starts by thanking the Vanguard for “pointing out facts,” then immediately discards facts himself and drifts into abstraction and moral theater. Instead of dealing with the actual concern about the venomous hate displayed and tolerated around the May Day events, SS zooms outward to tyranny, global suffering, labor solidarity, and American foreign policy. That is a way of avoiding the local issue while still claiming moral authority over it.
SS also tries to build a giant coalition shield around the conduct being criticized. Nurses, teachers, baristas, activists, Palestinians, Iranians, Syrians, Filipinos, and labor groups are all rhetorically stacked together so that criticism of a slogan or event atmosphere suddenly feels like criticism of human rights itself. SS is trying to make disagreement socially radioactive. If someone objects to extremism or intimidation, SS implies they are opposing “justice.” This is just antizionist rhetorical wordplay, not unlike 1930’s Germany, just from the far-left instead of the far right. When people are celebrating the death of my People, I don’t care which political extreme from which they hail, or should I say “heil”.
Then SS performs a careful distancing maneuver with the student group supposedly solely responsibe. SS says the group was “separate,” “not vetted,” and not part of the official march. Then why spend the entire piece politically defending the atmosphere and ideology surrounding it? SS wants separation only at the exact moment accountability appears. The rest of the time, everybody marches under the same emotional banner.
SS’s pivot to Iran is especially revealing. Somebody raises concerns about rhetoric and hostility surrounding a Davis event, and suddenly SS is talking about Netanyahu, Trump, endless war, and billions of dollars. SS is trying to force people into a binary choice: either accept radicalized anti-Israel activism locally, or you surely must support catastrophic war abroad. Many people reject both or have nuanced views. SS’s argument leaves no room for that because it depends on his own self-creation of a moral binary that does no exist in the real world. This illustrates yet another rhetorical trick of the antizionist: paint every Jew who won’t call the dismantling (destruction) of the Jewish state as a “far right Zionist”.
The fact is, the majority of Jews, especially in places like Davis, are progressives, many of whom were pushed out of their progressive spaces after 10/7/23 if they wouldn’t also denounce Israel. This was done by the ‘tolerance’ crowd. Painting us all with the hateful and incorrect pejorative ‘far-right Zionists’ — when many antizionists consider a person holding such a label worse than a Nazi — is the equivalent of painting targets on the Jewish Community. Because while most antizionists are not violent, it only takes one narcissistic, attention-seeking, life-marginalizing, mentally borderline individual to twist off to show their fellow antizionists that they are willing to be jailed or even die for the ’cause’. As we have seen in New York City, Washington, Boulder, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne, London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam . . . the list goes on, and the trend-line steepening.
But antizionists need not be concerned about such violence — you get a (temporary) pass while useful.
SS also praises the MAPA recommendations and City Council vote as if the matter is settled and virtuous by definition. But SS glides past why so many Jews in Davis objected in the first place. SS never seriously engages the criticism that the process became ideologically tilted, selectively non-empathetic, and openly dismissive of Jewish concerns — except for those few who self-remove themselves from the wider Jewish Community and conform to the ‘preferred’ political narrative. SS presents the council’s action as “healing” and “inclusive” while a substantial portion of the Jewish Community experienced the process as exclusion wrapped in psedo-therapeutic language.
The quoted statement about “the entire community” captures the problem perfectly. SS is declaring unity from the side that already won the vote, controlled the framing, and received institutional validation. SS is asking Jews who felt marginalized by the process to celebrate the process anyway because the language sounded compassionate. While the Jewish Community appreciates the box of party blowers, SS, you can have them back and blow them in the city park by yourself.
Throughout the piece, SS repeatedly redefines criticism as “divisiveness.” That rhetorical move does almost all the work here. If Rabbi Dunner objects to hostility toward Jews or to extremist slogans celebrating the mass death of Jews that are orbiting these events, SS characterizes him as “inciting conflict”. The effect is to place responsibility for social tension on the people objecting to the hostility rather than on the hostility itself. More antizionist trickery.
SS is asking people to ignore what they saw, ignore what they heard, ignore why the Jewish Commumity in Davis increasingly distrust these political spaces, and instead accept a carefully packaged story about healing, justice, and coalition. That story collapses the moment anyone asks whether the same empathy being demanded for every other group is consistently extended to Jews when Jewish concerns, such as people in Davis city park celebrating the mass death of our People, become politically inconvenient.
“2. Commitment to free speech, including speech advocating for justice for Palestine and the Palestinian people”
Three days after the city council took that action the photo above was taken in Davis of people celebrating October 7. Yet Scott Stewart, who I think I saw in the park that day, can’t bring himself to denounce the violence they praise.
Simple question does Scott Stewart support that celebration of violence, murder, kidnapping, rape and torture?
I know a well know UCD law professor, who hosts a fundraiser where people come together, drink beer beer and sing songs, that celebrate terrorist violence to civilians and police-dings of a people fighting off British colonial power to govern their own homeland for their religious -ethnic group.
It was Guinness beer
It was IRA and others
Protestants were asked to leave Catholic country
And money raised in Davis went to the local synagogue.
Victors write the history and decide who are the irrational terrorists and who are martyrs that uses violence legitimately.
I condemn the provocative banner as unhelpful.