How to handle this difficult situation with a friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree

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them individually as “Columbia’s Leading Anti-Semites”, and that some students have had offers of employment withdrawn by employers that sought to punish them for signing the student statement, or for being merely affiliated with student groups associated with the statement.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

I can tell you, OP, that if you think you are going to have the satisfaction of catching a signer of this letter on a moral back foot in the discussion you are imagining, prepare to be surprised.

If the view that students should not be doxxed is anathema to your husband, the friendship is done and there is no discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agreed..I have friends and a few family members with very different views than me. We just do not discuss...ever.

[Anonymous]

Maybe when this woman finds out your awful views, she will want nothing to do with either of you. The narcissism to think that YOU are the ones who decide on this friendship is off the charts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear you, OP. Honestly, I would ask for an explanation from the friend. “Hey, I was surprised to see your name on a letter that containing views about X I frankly find upsetting. Do you really hold those views?”

So OP, I think you are in the wrong. And if you want to keep the lines of communication open, I'd ask the above but swap the last line for "would you be willing to share your views? I'd like to learn more." But you need to be open to the fact that multiple things can be correct. Israeli suffering and Palestinian suffering are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Emotions are too right now. Don't push people so they say stuff they don't really mean. Just give your husband time. Renew your friendship.

[Anonymous]

Super strange that you want to have the convo with your friend only if your husband is there to hear and witness. And the hubris of thinking that your opinion is the only correct one. Approach her about this and she'll decide the friendship is over too. So maybe that's the best outcome since your husband has already made his decision. Your friend will find another family to vacation with as your family becomes more isolated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Super strange that you want to have the convo with your friend only if your husband is there to hear and witness. And the hubris of thinking that your opinion is the only correct one. Approach her about this and she'll decide the friendship is over too. So maybe that's the best outcome since your husband has already made his decision. Your friend will find another family to vacation with as your family becomes more isolated.

+1,000,000. The hubris is astounding. Who would want to be friends with this couple?

[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.

+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.

You are cherry picking (and frankly i dont see what is factually wrong in the statement you cite). It also says that under the geneva convention the resistance must be proportional and that there is a prohibition of targeting civilians (as Hamas did) and that the students’ letter reflect this framework and condemns the killing of civilians. I have not read the students’ letter but the signed by OP’s friend seems ok to ke and not antisemitic at all . The main concern seems to defend the right if students to peacefully express their opinions without fear of violent reprisals or economic ruin. One thing is defending the dignity if Palestinians and onether thing is idolizing Hamas. Doxxing students parading around trucks with their names and photos as “leading anti-semites” is beyond the pale and is done to convey the message that in the US if you say anything that is not in full support of Israel and it’s policies toward the Palestinians you are going to be shamed as an antisemite, your friends will drop you, your employer will fire you and nobody else will hire you again. Israel does whatever it wants in the occupied territories because it has the US’ support so there is an interest especially among groups supporting israeli settlers to go against anybody criticizing Israeli’s policies to cancel thise voices and this is not American. I was OP o would definitely talk to her friend. She should also leave her DH alone as he has the right to have is own opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Super strange that you want to have the convo with your friend only if your husband is there to hear and witness. And the hubris of thinking that your opinion is the only correct one. Approach her about this and she'll decide the friendship is over too. So maybe that's the best outcome since your husband has already made his decision. Your friend will find another family to vacation with as your family becomes more isolated.

+1, I wouldn't want to vacation with people who intentionally misread a very carefully considered statement as anti-semitic simply because it doesn't toe a part line about supporting Israel.

[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”.

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

I wouldn't be able to resist asking that friend about any other instances in the last three years where she publicly voiced her free speech concerns regarding doxxing, employment terminations, etc., especially for people whose views she does not agree with. If she is an equal opportunity free speech absolutust (and I know some), I would be able to continue the friendship, but I think I know the answer to that question.

[Anonymous]

The student statement that the faculty letter “paraphrases” was written long before any Israeli response to Oct 7 and endorses the terrorists as legitimate actors. That is equivalent to saying that 9/11 was a legitimate response to decades of the US interfering in mid-east politics. No, it was terrorism. This isn’t about being Islamophobic, that is a canard.
I have zero issues with anyone saying that people should be allowed to say what they want. But they also have to understand that actions and words have consequences and no one who publicly signed a letter is being “doxxed”, they already did that to themselves.

[Anonymous]

why do you need to "speak" to her for having the courage of her convictions? Leave her alone

[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

Words matter - which is why the letter sounds like academic gobbledygook, and any accurate paraphrasing will also sound the same.

In any context “military” does not mean justified or legitimate - it means heavily armed and organized.

You might disagree with the students premise that there is an “ongoing war” that pre-dates October 7, 2023. The faculty letter doesn’t agree or disagree agree with that premise. It just restates that some students believe there has been an ongoing conflict.

The faculty letter then goes on to state that even if one held the belief that the events were the response of an occupied people resisting violent and illegal occupation, and even though such occupied people have the right to resist occupation, the actions on 10/7 did NOT conform to the Geneva conventions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear you, OP. Honestly, I would ask for an explanation from the friend. “Hey, I was surprised to see your name on a letter that containing views about X I frankly find upsetting. Do you really hold those views?”

Op - thanks, that is what I want to do. Dh agrees that I “should” do it but he doesn’t want to be there. My concern is even if she does give a reasonable explanation (the only 2 I can come up with are either she was concerned about her job in which case she’s a coward but I guess I can sort of forgive it more, or that she stupidly didn’t actually read the letter or understand it, but I know she isn’t stupid…), Dh won’t be able to move on/forward at all because he won’t have heard from her, just from my version of what she said.

Didn't she convey what she really believed by signing her name to the document? Why do you need to verify that? again, leave her alone.