Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their jobs, which includes facing tough questions at times. Also “arrogance” isn’t an excuse for other people being grilled by Congress who fail badly.

You can prepare to go before Congress. These presidents, likely because of their arrogance, did not.

Some profound incompetence on display at these Congressional hearings. That alone should be cause for moving on.

But what the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT expressed is reflective of where academia is at these days. There are some groups that are untouchable, and there are others that are in the crosshairs.

My kids are in college in somewhat similar schools. Not Jewish. They've decided to keep quiet on this issue. It can be very oppressive to express any kind of sympathy to the victims of the Hamas massacres.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

PP here. Okay, again, some sugar-coating would have helped, but fundamentally they were right.

https://www.thefire.org/news/why-most-calls-genocide-are-protected-speech

If these schools had a history of standing up for free speech, sure. But they don’t. They in fact have a history of actively suppressing it. FIRE identified Harvard as the worst offender prior to all of this.

In any event it’s not unreasonable to expect university presidents at their level to engage in even the most basic of prep when going before Congress. They clearly did not prepare at all. They should have expected that line of questioning, yet were entirely unprepared. That alone is reason to fire them: they couldn’t do their jobs.

You’re right that they are hypocrites. And unfortunately they’re not drawing the right lessons from the backlash to this testimony. What they should do is plead mea culpa and stop with their ridiculous policing of the cis-heterosexist speech (not conduct!) the same way they refused to police the anti-Semitic conduct. But they’re not going to fire their DEI army or admit they’ve taken ridiculous disciplinary actions against people for speech that was not in line with their own preferences. They’re not going to tell everyone to grow up and tolerate offensive speech even though they should. Instead they’ll just put pressure on pro-Palestinian activities to prove that they’re even-handed censors and call it a day. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their jobs, which includes facing tough questions at times. Also “arrogance” isn’t an excuse for other people being grilled by Congress who fail badly.

You can prepare to go before Congress. These presidents, likely because of their arrogance, did not.

Some profound incompetence on display at these Congressional hearings. That alone should be cause for moving on.

But what the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT expressed is reflective of where academia is at these days. There are some groups that are untouchable, and there are others that are in the crosshairs.

My kids are in college in somewhat similar schools. Not Jewish. They've decided to keep quiet on this issue. It can be very oppressive to express any kind of sympathy to the victims of the Hamas massacres.

It is very oppressive to exercise freedom of expression on most college campuses in 2023, the continuing era of speech codes and campus cancel culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their jobs, which includes facing tough questions at times. Also “arrogance” isn’t an excuse for other people being grilled by Congress who fail badly.

You can prepare to go before Congress. These presidents, likely because of their arrogance, did not.

Some profound incompetence on display at these Congressional hearings. That alone should be cause for moving on.

But what the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT expressed is reflective of where academia is at these days. There are some groups that are untouchable, and there are others that are in the crosshairs.

My kids are in college in somewhat similar schools. Not Jewish. They've decided to keep quiet on this issue. It can be very oppressive to express any kind of sympathy to the victims of the Hamas massacres.

It is very oppressive to exercise freedom of expression on most college campuses in 2023, the continuing era of speech codes and campus cancel culture.

How ironic this is, given “universities” centuries-old tradition as safe-havens for the free exchange of ideas.

Universities today are not safe-havens for expression of a diversity of ideas. They only tolerate a very narrow range of beliefs.

[Anonymous]

I like one of the Jewish protester's signs: The Poison Ivy League. Very true. There is a pervasive sickness running through these schools, exemplified by the pro-Palestinian protesters who refuse to even condemn Hamas.

Glad to see there is starting to be a reckoning as more people on the left are speaking out about this disgusting behavior from their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their jobs, which includes facing tough questions at times. Also “arrogance” isn’t an excuse for other people being grilled by Congress who fail badly.

You can prepare to go before Congress. These presidents, likely because of their arrogance, did not.

Some profound incompetence on display at these Congressional hearings. That alone should be cause for moving on.

But what the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT expressed is reflective of where academia is at these days. There are some groups that are untouchable, and there are others that are in the crosshairs.

My kids are in college in somewhat similar schools. Not Jewish. They've decided to keep quiet on this issue. It can be very oppressive to express any kind of sympathy to the victims of the Hamas massacres.

It is very oppressive to exercise freedom of expression on most college campuses in 2023, the continuing era of speech codes and campus cancel culture.

How ironic this is, given “universities” centuries-old tradition as safe-havens for the free exchange of ideas.

Universities today are not safe-havens for expression of a diversity of ideas. They only tolerate a very narrow range of beliefs.

I kind of think universities are regressing to an even older tradition of basically being seminaries indoctrinating people in a particular religion… Harvard originally trained clergy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elise Stefanik writes an excellent piece in today's WSJ. Gifted link.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-bans-cisheterosexism-but-shrugs-at-antisemitism-95a2c5d7?st=v14yishmp5mvppu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

What is this world coming to that I can read an op-ed by Stefanik and agree with it? That is excellent. The world had gone topsy-turvy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their jobs, which includes facing tough questions at times. Also “arrogance” isn’t an excuse for other people being grilled by Congress who fail badly.

You can prepare to go before Congress. These presidents, likely because of their arrogance, did not.

Some profound incompetence on display at these Congressional hearings. That alone should be cause for moving on.

But what the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT expressed is reflective of where academia is at these days. There are some groups that are untouchable, and there are others that are in the crosshairs.

My kids are in college in somewhat similar schools. Not Jewish. They've decided to keep quiet on this issue. It can be very oppressive to express any kind of sympathy to the victims of the Hamas massacres.

It is very oppressive to exercise freedom of expression on most college campuses in 2023, the continuing era of speech codes and campus cancel culture.

How ironic this is, given “universities” centuries-old tradition as safe-havens for the free exchange of ideas.

Universities today are not safe-havens for expression of a diversity of ideas. They only tolerate a very narrow range of beliefs.

I kind of think universities are regressing to an even older tradition of basically being seminaries indoctrinating people in a particular religion… Harvard originally trained clergy.

It does feel that there is an insistence on a faith-based belief system at these schools, complete with religious euphoria, rejection of heretics, ceremonies and rituals, flags, and in-group faith markers. It definitely feels religious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

The fact you started with is wrong. From the river to the sea does not mean annihilating Israel. It just means the Palestinians want to return to their ancestral homes that were stolen from them.

Do you even know what gaslighting means? Seems like you are really struggling with its definition.

We all know this we all know that. What DO you know other than claiming that anyone speaking up for the humanity of Palestinians is an anti Semite. You know nothing Jon Snow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elise Stefanik writes an excellent piece in today's WSJ. Gifted link.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-bans-cisheterosexism-but-shrugs-at-antisemitism-95a2c5d7?st=v14yishmp5mvppu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

What is this world coming to that I can read an op-ed by Stefanik and agree with it? That is excellent. The world had gone topsy-turvy.

Consider that Stefanik has not changed. But you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elise Stefanik writes an excellent piece in today's WSJ. Gifted link.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-bans-cisheterosexism-but-shrugs-at-antisemitism-95a2c5d7?st=v14yishmp5mvppu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

What is this world coming to that I can read an op-ed by Stefanik and agree with it? That is excellent. The world had gone topsy-turvy.

Consider that Stefanik has not changed. But you have.

No way. She is an election denier who licks Trump’s filthy boots. But, apparently right on random occasions, which is a genuine surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

The fact you started with is wrong. From the river to the sea does not mean annihilating Israel. It just means the Palestinians want to return to their ancestral homes that were stolen from them.

Do you even know what gaslighting means? Seems like you are really struggling with its definition.

We all know this we all know that. What DO you know other than claiming that anyone speaking up for the humanity of Palestinians is an anti Semite. You know nothing Jon Snow.

Aren’t we all living on ancestral land that was stolen from Native Americans?

[Anonymous]

yes- and as late as the 1970's and 1980's our government was bombing, executing (without trial) , imprisoning Native American leaders who wanted a return of those lands. Since then, native Americans have turned to our courts to get justice and have had brand new reservations established- in Maine and in New Jersey most notably.
In Isreal, this won't work b/c the right wing government has passed a law saying that not only is it a jewish nation but the rights & INTERESTS of jewish citizens are held above all else so the judiciary will not be able to actually grant stolen Palestinian homes to them when they can prove ownership- this was at the heart of what the left was actually protesting about for a full year before those absolute cretins, Hamas, decided to resort to savagery and barbarism on 10/7.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was a coordinated effort on the part of Bibi and Hamas. he's the one who begged for Hamas funding from Qatar and removed the military so they could steal land on the West Bank.bibi is delighted that these peaceniks on teh kibbutz's here were brutally attacked, its like a special political gift to him. He doesnt care that little girls who were taken hostage are terrified for their father- getting the hostages back ASAP should be the first item on the agenda, not defeating Hamas, islamist terrorists arent going away, even if you nuke them. It's the 2nd largest/powerful religious group in the world and its evangelical, a perfect hydra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

The fact you started with is wrong. From the river to the sea does not mean annihilating Israel. It just means the Palestinians want to return to their ancestral homes that were stolen from them.

Do you even know what gaslighting means? Seems like you are really struggling with its definition.

We all know this we all know that. What DO you know other than claiming that anyone speaking up for the humanity of Palestinians is an anti Semite. You know nothing Jon Snow.

Yes. You are gaslighting. River to the sea is about eradicating Israel. Stop deflecting, stop pretending, just stop.

The same people who were silent or even openly joyous at the devastation of 10/7, who couldn’t even bring themselves to express concern or condemn Hamas, who held up swastikas and and called Jews colonizers, who openly delighted in Hamas’ “resistance” and who defend those tearing down hostage posters, want us to think that there’s no anti semitism and river to the sea is just some ordinary tune. We know what it means.

So stop gaslighting and stop defending / denying antisemitism. Those of us who’ve experienced it, know what antisemitism is. Always ridiculous telling people who experience bigotry because of their religion or color that they don’t know what that bigotry is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

The fact you started with is wrong. From the river to the sea does not mean annihilating Israel. It just means the Palestinians want to return to their ancestral homes that were stolen from them.

Do you even know what gaslighting means? Seems like you are really struggling with its definition.

We all know this we all know that. What DO you know other than claiming that anyone speaking up for the humanity of Palestinians is an anti Semite. You know nothing Jon Snow.

Aren’t we all living on ancestral land that was stolen from Native Americans?

And Jews are indigenous to that region, so there’s that.