How to handle this difficult situation with a friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other Columbia faculty wrote and signed a response letter to this one.

Also, it is amazing to me that people cannot see that the tone and perspective of the first letter has bias. Its main point isn’t about that, but its examples and support are presented as unbiased when they are, in fact, disputed by many.

I’m sorry so many are gaslighting OP and her husband. The signers of the letter have a particular view, which they take great pains not to say explicitly, but which they show through their sourcing.

As for how to proceed, I echo others and say pull back and do not engage right now.

exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other Columbia faculty wrote and signed a response letter to this one.

Also, it is amazing to me that people cannot see that the tone and perspective of the first letter has bias. Its main point isn’t about that, but its examples and support are presented as unbiased when they are, in fact, disputed by many.

I’m sorry so many are gaslighting OP and her husband. The signers of the letter have a particular view, which they take great pains not to say explicitly, but which they show through their sourcing.

As for how to proceed, I echo others and say pull back and do not engage right now.

Can you post this response?

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRYUSR01Cb6zV50rDtm88q0ppSz-bn40oJ28YTG5cYJGpAjNF4hkiCAwQKya2iI5h--cb633CbeAtL6/pub?urp=gmail_link

I read both statements. In my opinion, both statements are highly biased and emotional, and I wouldn’t have signed either one. There is implicit but not directly stated support of hamas in the first letter, and implicit but not directly stated dismissal of the history of military occupation and blockade of Gaza in the second one. Neither is a full throated endorsement of free speech and condemnation of hate speech and hate crimes.

I agree with pp - pull back and do not engage right now.

[Anonymous]

My husband works in environmental policy. The parent of our son’s good friend is a lobbyist for the chemical industry and represents companies my husband’s office has publicly fined and sued. None of that has anything to do with our kids.

We just don’t talk about work or politics with that family. That is part of the deal of living in the DMV - not only will people have different political and religious views, they may be powerful people whose livelihood is publicly advocating for policy and laws that are the opposite of your beliefs. As an adult I can choose where I spend my money and who I spend time with - but kids don’t pick their parents and I would never punish or shame a kid for their parents’ beliefs. I would hold a firm boundary if the child was trying to influence my children’s beliefs.

[Anonymous]

There is a lot to unpack here. Whether you agree with it or not, your husband does not want to be friends with this person any more. Does he intend to be civil when the kids get together? If so, why can't you just let that go?
Second, what benefit do you see to discussing this with her? She has expressed her views by signing. You find them offensive. That is ok. This is the parent of your daughter's friend. As long as she is not discussing this with your daughter, which I think you can reasonably ask her not to, if you have concerns, keep it polite and pleasant but distant. Tell her you decided to do something else with your vacation time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other Columbia faculty wrote and signed a response letter to this one.

Also, it is amazing to me that people cannot see that the tone and perspective of the first letter has bias. Its main point isn’t about that, but its examples and support are presented as unbiased when they are, in fact, disputed by many.

I’m sorry so many are gaslighting OP and her husband. The signers of the letter have a particular view, which they take great pains not to say explicitly, but which they show through their sourcing.

As for how to proceed, I echo others and say pull back and do not engage right now.

Can you post this response?

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRYUSR01Cb6zV50rDtm88q0ppSz-bn40oJ28YTG5cYJGpAjNF4hkiCAwQKya2iI5h--cb633CbeAtL6/pub?urp=gmail_link

I read both statements. In my opinion, both statements are highly biased and emotional, and I wouldn’t have signed either one. There is implicit but not directly stated support of hamas in the first letter, and implicit but not directly stated dismissal of the history of military occupation and blockade of Gaza in the second one. Neither is a full throated endorsement of free speech and condemnation of hate speech and hate crimes.

I agree with pp - pull back and do not engage right now.

This. Nothing good will come of engaging at this point.

[Anonymous]

You had hoped to deepen the family friendships, even vacationing together. Now, will become polite acquaintances. Nothing good will come of the discussion, never mind trying to force your husband to participate. It is what it is, OP. It happens. Politely distance, and make an excuse re: the trip. You won't be the only one doing so, promise. Make other plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No advice but I’m in the same boat. My SO’s best friend keeps posting telling Jews to “stop centering your trauma” and calling the victims of the Nova music festival legitimate targets because they are “settlers”. Sharing disinformation saying Hamas didn’t kill babies. I never want to speak to this person again but my SO wants to remain friends. Ugh.

Why does your SO want to stay friends with a person who openly supports terror? That is nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, here is the letter that they signed:

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSxEIf0j1H6v3R4549yxfetSBy1ioc6VHyJa3vKfvgyVFX9TAluk_1laTuSBKAyzqjF3hJT9EVw0P7a/pub

Why is DH not equally concerned about the students being attacked for supporting Palestinian human rights?

“It is worth noting that not all of us agree with every one of the claims made in the students’ statement, but we do agree that making such claims cannot and should not be considered anti-Semitic. Their merits are being debated by governmental and non-governmental agencies at the highest level, and constitute a terrain of completely legitimate political and legal debate.

We are appalled that trucks broadcasting students’ names and images are circling the campus, identifying them individually as “Columbia’s Leading Anti-Semites”, and that some students have had offers of employment withdrawn by employers that sought to punish them for signing the student statement, or for being merely affiliated with student groups associated with the statement. In the absence of university action, students and faculty have undertaken the burden of blocking the images and identifying information broadcast on the doxxing trucks. It is worth noting that most of the students targeted by this doxing campaign are Arab, Muslim, Palestinian, or South Asian.”

They signed a public letter. They are ashamed of themselves so don’t want the public to know they signed what they signed?

[Anonymous]

it’s interesting / disheartening the majority opinion here seems to be that conversation with the friend would change nothing or be counterproductive. I’ve certainly had conversations that have changed the way I think about important / controversial topics. am curious to hear more why people think this is a lost cause

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it’s interesting / disheartening the majority opinion here seems to be that conversation with the friend would change nothing or be counterproductive. I’ve certainly had conversations that have changed the way I think about important / controversial topics. am curious to hear more why people think this is a lost cause

I personally think it's a lost cause because I don't find the letter the friend signed to be pro-Hamas or anti-Semitic in any way, and I'm guessing the friend doesn't either because she signed it, but since OP and for sure her husband DO see it that way, I think the conversation would be really heated from the jump with a lot of unwillingness to resolve or understand their differences.

Also the way OP describes her DH's response to the situation, combined with OP saying repeatedly she'd like her DH to be part of any such conversation, just really speaks to a highly combustible situation that would probably destroy the relationship between the two families, which would really suck for their daughters.

So yes, leave it alone. If OP needs to distance, she should. I do not think they should vacation together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it’s interesting / disheartening the majority opinion here seems to be that conversation with the friend would change nothing or be counterproductive. I’ve certainly had conversations that have changed the way I think about important / controversial topics. am curious to hear more why people think this is a lost cause

I don't think it's a lost cause--but I do think that OP and her husband think they have an impregnable moral high ground and that they are likely to be surprised and displeased by the response they get to them communicating that position.

If they're up for that experience and for working through it toward some actual end other than getting across that they are right and that the letter signer is wrong, then by all means they should pursue the conversation.

It honestly doesn't sound like they are, though--perhaps for reasons of political conviction, perhaps just because it's far too charged a moment for it to be emotionally possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it’s interesting / disheartening the majority opinion here seems to be that conversation with the friend would change nothing or be counterproductive. I’ve certainly had conversations that have changed the way I think about important / controversial topics. am curious to hear more why people think this is a lost cause

I don't think it's a lost cause--but I do think that OP and her husband think they have an impregnable moral high ground and that they are likely to be surprised and displeased by the response they get to them communicating that position.

If they're up for that experience and for working through it toward some actual end other than getting across that they are right and that the letter signer is wrong, then by all means they should pursue the conversation.

It honestly doesn't sound like they are, though--perhaps for reasons of political conviction, perhaps just because it's far too charged a moment for it to be emotionally possible.

+100, this is the crux of it. There is not wiggle room for understanding. OP and her DH want an apology, and I do not think the friend will feel she has anything to apologize for. It will just be a stand off.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think OP or her husband want an apology, nor do I think they feel they are on some moral high ground. Nothing in their post suggests that. They essentially found out their friend has a view that they see as incompatible with theirs. It would be like a pro choice person and a pro life person. They both have potentially strong reasons behind their pov and one conversation isn’t particularly likely to change things for either one. The question is whether they can set aside the big issue and maintain a relationship or whether it’s a dealbreaker. They’re adults. They’re allowed to decide what would be dealbreakers for them in a friend. But making some claim that they expect an apology is ridiculous.

For the record the NYT published an article today where two women acquaintances did meet to talk it out. No minds were changed and it sounded as though they each felt they needed to bite their tongue a lot to even get through the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Telling you right now engaging her will not bring you any satisfaction

I fully agree. Resist the urge, OP. It could get bad and would then interfere with the ability of your kids to be friends.

But do you want your kid to be friends with someone whose parent holds these views?

I would. I share those views. There’s nothing anti-Semitic about them.

+100000
I have quietly stepped back from friends and people I used to follow on social who refuse to acknowledge the Palestinian experience and spread pro Israeli misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP’s position is actually a perfect illustration of what the problem is. She’s confusing another’s position with regard to which she strongly disagrees with anti-Semitism. There’s nothing anti-Semitic in that letter.

Yup! Disagreeing with her view = antisemitism