How to handle this difficult situation with a friend

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

I don't hold those views and would allow the kids to be friends. I posted already. They are innocent. My own parents hold all sorts of right wing extreme views and would be heartbroken if I had lost friends because of my nutty parents. I would not go above and beyond for the friendship, but sure I'd let them play. If the kids started spewing the parent's politics, I'd give my kid suggestions for how to handle it, but I doubt that would happen. They are kids. Let them play! I still hold out hope one of these future generations will get things right with peace!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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them individually as “Columbia’s Leading Anti-Semites”, and that some students have had offers of employment withdrawn by employers that sought to punish them for signing the student statement, or for being merely affiliated with student groups associated with the statement.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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

The faculty letter does not state that 10/7 was a "legitimate military action." Here's what it actually says:

"In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in the Second Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians."

The faculty letter does not endorse the views in the students statement, that 10/7 was a military response. Nor does it further editorialize that it was a legitimate military response. It's just describing what the student statement says. It then further contextualizes this by noting that even if you view the acts on 10/7 as a military action by an occupied people, that would make it an act of war, and any such act of war would have to conform to Geneva conventions, which do not permit the targeting or intentional killing of civilians.

Sure, it's written with a level of academic remove that intentionally obscures what the signatories actually think about the conflict. But the letter isn't actually about what they think of the conflict. It's about whether the students who wrote and signed the student statement should be targeted and doxxed as they have been, and whether their actions can be considered anti-semitic. The letter makes the argument that you cannot view the statement as de facto anti-semitic because the context of the conflict in Israel make the students' position on these events at least arguably true.

It doesn't endorse their statement. It says they should be allowed to make it, and attempt to contextualize their statement.

I understand why it would upset people. I'm not even saying OP shouldn't end her friendship with this professor over it if she feels she needs to. But the letter does not call 10/7 a legitimate military action or anything close to that.

The quote you include actually states it “can be seen” as a legitimate military action. You really think that hiding behind “can be seen” excuses it? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

The faculty letter does not state that 10/7 was a "legitimate military action." Here's what it actually says:

"In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in the Second Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians."

The faculty letter does not endorse the views in the students statement, that 10/7 was a military response. Nor does it further editorialize that it was a legitimate military response. It's just describing what the student statement says. It then further contextualizes this by noting that even if you view the acts on 10/7 as a military action by an occupied people, that would make it an act of war, and any such act of war would have to conform to Geneva conventions, which do not permit the targeting or intentional killing of civilians.

Sure, it's written with a level of academic remove that intentionally obscures what the signatories actually think about the conflict. But the letter isn't actually about what they think of the conflict. It's about whether the students who wrote and signed the student statement should be targeted and doxxed as they have been, and whether their actions can be considered anti-semitic. The letter makes the argument that you cannot view the statement as de facto anti-semitic because the context of the conflict in Israel make the students' position on these events at least arguably true.

It doesn't endorse their statement. It says they should be allowed to make it, and attempt to contextualize their statement.

I understand why it would upset people. I'm not even saying OP shouldn't end her friendship with this professor over it if she feels she needs to. But the letter does not call 10/7 a legitimate military action or anything close to that.

The quote you include actually states it “can be seen” as a legitimate military action. You really think that hiding behind “can be seen” excuses it? Wow.

To be clear, not in those exact words. So not a quote.

[Anonymous]

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?

PP here. My thinking is that the children are innocent and I wouldn't want to disrupt their friendship. I commented earlier in the thread, however, that I would find an excuse to cancel the vacation. I'd be civil going forward for the sake of the kids but that's it.

[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.

Plus one

I was at a party this evening with several Jewish friends who have similar views .i don’t think the view that Israel is using excessive and disproportionate force is anti semitic either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

The faculty letter does not state that 10/7 was a "legitimate military action." Here's what it actually says:

"In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in the Second Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians."

The faculty letter does not endorse the views in the students statement, that 10/7 was a military response. Nor does it further editorialize that it was a legitimate military response. It's just describing what the student statement says. It then further contextualizes this by noting that even if you view the acts on 10/7 as a military action by an occupied people, that would make it an act of war, and any such act of war would have to conform to Geneva conventions, which do not permit the targeting or intentional killing of civilians.

Sure, it's written with a level of academic remove that intentionally obscures what the signatories actually think about the conflict. But the letter isn't actually about what they think of the conflict. It's about whether the students who wrote and signed the student statement should be targeted and doxxed as they have been, and whether their actions can be considered anti-semitic. The letter makes the argument that you cannot view the statement as de facto anti-semitic because the context of the conflict in Israel make the students' position on these events at least arguably true.

It doesn't endorse their statement. It says they should be allowed to make it, and attempt to contextualize their statement.

I understand why it would upset people. I'm not even saying OP shouldn't end her friendship with this professor over it if she feels she needs to. But the letter does not call 10/7 a legitimate military action or anything close to that.

Thanks for this summary and the thoughtful response, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

They clearly stated that staff don’t agree with all the student statements but we’re defending their rights to express their opinions …

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

The faculty letter does not state that 10/7 was a "legitimate military action." Here's what it actually says:

"In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in the Second Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians."

The faculty letter does not endorse the views in the students statement, that 10/7 was a military response. Nor does it further editorialize that it was a legitimate military response. It's just describing what the student statement says. It then further contextualizes this by noting that even if you view the acts on 10/7 as a military action by an occupied people, that would make it an act of war, and any such act of war would have to conform to Geneva conventions, which do not permit the targeting or intentional killing of civilians.

Sure, it's written with a level of academic remove that intentionally obscures what the signatories actually think about the conflict. But the letter isn't actually about what they think of the conflict. It's about whether the students who wrote and signed the student statement should be targeted and doxxed as they have been, and whether their actions can be considered anti-semitic. The letter makes the argument that you cannot view the statement as de facto anti-semitic because the context of the conflict in Israel make the students' position on these events at least arguably true.

It doesn't endorse their statement. It says they should be allowed to make it, and attempt to contextualize their statement.

I understand why it would upset people. I'm not even saying OP shouldn't end her friendship with this professor over it if she feels she needs to. But the letter does not call 10/7 a legitimate military action or anything close to that.

The quote you include actually states it “can be seen” as a legitimate military action. You really think that hiding behind “can be seen” excuses it? Wow.

+1

Also: "... military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years."

1. It was no more a "military response " than the attacks of 9/11 was a "military response."

2. It conflates Hamas and the Palestinian people.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

The faculty letter does not state that 10/7 was a "legitimate military action." Here's what it actually says:

"In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in the Second Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians."

The faculty letter does not endorse the views in the students statement, that 10/7 was a military response. Nor does it further editorialize that it was a legitimate military response. It's just describing what the student statement says. It then further contextualizes this by noting that even if you view the acts on 10/7 as a military action by an occupied people, that would make it an act of war, and any such act of war would have to conform to Geneva conventions, which do not permit the targeting or intentional killing of civilians.

Sure, it's written with a level of academic remove that intentionally obscures what the signatories actually think about the conflict. But the letter isn't actually about what they think of the conflict. It's about whether the students who wrote and signed the student statement should be targeted and doxxed as they have been, and whether their actions can be considered anti-semitic. The letter makes the argument that you cannot view the statement as de facto anti-semitic because the context of the conflict in Israel make the students' position on these events at least arguably true.

It doesn't endorse their statement. It says they should be allowed to make it, and attempt to contextualize their statement.

I understand why it would upset people. I'm not even saying OP shouldn't end her friendship with this professor over it if she feels she needs to. But the letter does not call 10/7 a legitimate military action or anything close to that.

The quote you include actually states it “can be seen” as a legitimate military action. You really think that hiding behind “can be seen” excuses it? Wow.

It ACTUALLY does not say that. At no point do they say that 10/7 was "legitimate" -- that word does not appear in that paragraph.

In fact, the opposite, because they say that even if you accept the argument that 10/7 was a "military action" as part of an ongoing war, it would be subject to international law condemning the targeting of civilians. Since 10/7 targeted civilians, it violates international law and is NOT legitimate.

It would be great if the letter said these things more plainly, but they are academics, they don't say anything plainly. But they don't claim 10/7 was a legitimate military action. They simply state that it could be seen as a military action, but if it is, it violates international law. That's not an endorsement of Hamas or the 10/7 attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

The faculty letter does not state that 10/7 was a "legitimate military action." Here's what it actually says:

"In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in the Second Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians."

The faculty letter does not endorse the views in the students statement, that 10/7 was a military response. Nor does it further editorialize that it was a legitimate military response. It's just describing what the student statement says. It then further contextualizes this by noting that even if you view the acts on 10/7 as a military action by an occupied people, that would make it an act of war, and any such act of war would have to conform to Geneva conventions, which do not permit the targeting or intentional killing of civilians.

Sure, it's written with a level of academic remove that intentionally obscures what the signatories actually think about the conflict. But the letter isn't actually about what they think of the conflict. It's about whether the students who wrote and signed the student statement should be targeted and doxxed as they have been, and whether their actions can be considered anti-semitic. The letter makes the argument that you cannot view the statement as de facto anti-semitic because the context of the conflict in Israel make the students' position on these events at least arguably true.

It doesn't endorse their statement. It says they should be allowed to make it, and attempt to contextualize their statement.

I understand why it would upset people. I'm not even saying OP shouldn't end her friendship with this professor over it if she feels she needs to. But the letter does not call 10/7 a legitimate military action or anything close to that.

The quote you include actually states it “can be seen” as a legitimate military action. You really think that hiding behind “can be seen” excuses it? Wow.

It ACTUALLY does not say that. At no point do they say that 10/7 was "legitimate" -- that word does not appear in that paragraph.

In fact, the opposite, because they say that even if you accept the argument that 10/7 was a "military action" as part of an ongoing war, it would be subject to international law condemning the targeting of civilians. Since 10/7 targeted civilians, it violates international law and is NOT legitimate.

It would be great if the letter said these things more plainly, but they are academics, they don't say anything plainly. But they don't claim 10/7 was a legitimate military action. They simply state that it could be seen as a military action, but if it is, it violates international law. That's not an endorsement of Hamas or the 10/7 attacks.

+1. I am not in academia and had to read carefully and thoroughly, but this is pretty clear. I actually don’t see anything anti-Semitic in this letter and I am Jewish. In fact, I agree with the PPs who said it’s worded in such a way that it’s actually a non-view.

[Anonymous]

I hate that our nation has become so divisive we can’t entertain the thought of being friends with someone whose views differ from our own. Who says we’re right and they’re wrong? Why are we so stubborn about it and refusing to look at issues from another viewpoint? Where this pigheaded attitude is dragging our country is both sad and horrifying. Smart people surround themselves with all sorts of people, not just yes men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

NP - So free speech is ok for some but not all and there should be no consequences for behavior? The student letter and the faculty letter both state that the actions of Hamas on October 7 were a legitimate military action. They were not and to say that is to condone terrorism and yes it is antisemitic.

Imagine if this was white students who said something similar about what happened during the BLM protests in 2020? Every one of those students would’ve been facing worse consequences than a “doxxing truck”.

The faculty letter does not state that 10/7 was a "legitimate military action." Here's what it actually says:

"In our view, the student statement aims to recontextualize the events of October 7, 2023, pointing out that military operations and state violence did not begin that day, but rather it represented a military response by a people who had endured crushing and unrelenting state violence from an occupying power over many years. One could regard the events of October 7th as just one salvo in an ongoing war between an occupying state and the people it occupies, or as an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation, something anticipated by international humanitarian law in the Second Geneva Protocol. In either case armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war, which include a prohibition against the intentional targeting of civilians. The statement reflects and endorses this legal framework, including a condemnation of the killing of civilians."

The faculty letter does not endorse the views in the students statement, that 10/7 was a military response. Nor does it further editorialize that it was a legitimate military response. It's just describing what the student statement says. It then further contextualizes this by noting that even if you view the acts on 10/7 as a military action by an occupied people, that would make it an act of war, and any such act of war would have to conform to Geneva conventions, which do not permit the targeting or intentional killing of civilians.

Sure, it's written with a level of academic remove that intentionally obscures what the signatories actually think about the conflict. But the letter isn't actually about what they think of the conflict. It's about whether the students who wrote and signed the student statement should be targeted and doxxed as they have been, and whether their actions can be considered anti-semitic. The letter makes the argument that you cannot view the statement as de facto anti-semitic because the context of the conflict in Israel make the students' position on these events at least arguably true.

It doesn't endorse their statement. It says they should be allowed to make it, and attempt to contextualize their statement.

I understand why it would upset people. I'm not even saying OP shouldn't end her friendship with this professor over it if she feels she needs to. But the letter does not call 10/7 a legitimate military action or anything close to that.

The quote you include actually states it “can be seen” as a legitimate military action. You really think that hiding behind “can be seen” excuses it? Wow.

It ACTUALLY does not say that. At no point do they say that 10/7 was "legitimate" -- that word does not appear in that paragraph.

In fact, the opposite, because they say that even if you accept the argument that 10/7 was a "military action" as part of an ongoing war, it would be subject to international law condemning the targeting of civilians. Since 10/7 targeted civilians, it violates international law and is NOT legitimate.

It would be great if the letter said these things more plainly, but they are academics, they don't say anything plainly. But they don't claim 10/7 was a legitimate military action. They simply state that it could be seen as a military action, but if it is, it violates international law. That's not an endorsement of Hamas or the 10/7 attacks.

+1. I am not in academia and had to read carefully and thoroughly, but this is pretty clear. I actually don’t see anything anti-Semitic in this letter and I am Jewish. In fact, I agree with the PPs who said it’s worded in such a way that it’s actually a non-view.

Yes and they say the staff don’t always agree with the students statement but support their right to express their opinion on this complicated conflict …