Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Can you post this response?

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post this response?

Anonymous wrote:The professors are more concerned about the students being “doxxed” (an inaccurate term here) than those being targeted by antisemitism.

+1 They want to sign a letter? Fine - that's their name for the world to see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an academic who works on the Middle East. I'm not super lefty but I believe the current Israeli military response is extremely counterproductive. I also think the doxxing of 18-22 year olds is obnoxious and threatening. Still, I was shocked by that Columbia faculty letter - it goes way too far in excusing the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas. If the OP is still reading, I can totally understand why your DH is disillusioned with your friend. I have a few acquaintences who've become extremely strident in one direction or the other and I've lost respect for them. I certainly wouldn't go on vacation with someone who believes that terrorist attacks are legitimate military operations.

The letter doesn't say that. In fact, it says the opposite.

No it doesn’t.

From the letter:

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.

Because the Hamas attack intentionally targeted civilians, the attack was not legitimate.

+1, and I'll also note the student statement said the same. Neither document refers to the Hamas attack as legitimate or justified. Both documents express grief over the loss of life. The main point of the student statement is that the Hamas attacks should be viewed in context, and not in a vacuum. You can be horrified by the attacks and the loss of life while acknowledging and understanding that these were not terror attacks that emerged out of the ether. They are part of an ongoing conflict. Again, that doesn't justify them. But to express grief and horror over the 10/7 attacks, without even acknowledging the fact that hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military forces this year alone (well before the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks) is hurtful to Palestinian students. It doesn't mean they are glad Israelis died or don't care about those deaths. But obviously they care about the ongoing conflict and the loss of Palestinian lives, and they were bothered by responses to the 10/7 attacks that simply ignored that context, and that loss of life.

That's not anti-semitic. It's pro-Palestinian.

And yeah, the pro-Palestine student groups don't like Israel. Is anyone actually surprised by that? Would you expect an Israeli student group to endorse the government of Iran?

I know people are upset about the students' choice to frame the Hamas attacks as a military action rather than a terror attack. I personally do not agree with that statement. But I read their statement and I understand why they are framing it that way. I did not find their statement anti-semitic. I do not equate Israel with Jews and I personally find the current Israeli government to be abhorrent, and Netanyahu to be on par with Putin as a foreign leader. The didn't say it was a legitimate military action, I don't get why that word keeps being thrown around. It wasn't legitimate -- it targeted innocent civilians and is abhorrent.

But there are many examples of the Israeli military targeting civilians in Gaza. Those are military actions, no? Are they legitimate? It's complicate, isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:PP academic here: I would not have signed the Columbia letter because in my view, it seeks to justify the student letter, which was awful. Responding to an unprecedented terrorist attack that touched almost every Israeli household in some way by calling for Columbia to cut its ties with "apartheid Israel" including various dual degree programs?? Cmon kids, read the room, don't be such jacka@@es at a moment of profound fear and grief.

If the faculty letter was simply a protest against doxxing and threatening young people for expressing their views, I would have signed.

I'm very careful about the language I use around such sensitive conflicts. Hope that makes sense.

This is what I’ve been trying to say on this thread but you articulated it better. Agree. Thank you.

PP academic here: I would not have signed the Columbia letter because in my view, it seeks to justify the student letter, which was awful. Responding to an unprecedented terrorist attack that touched almost every Israeli household in some way by calling for Columbia to cut its ties with "apartheid Israel" including various dual degree programs?? Cmon kids, read the room, don't be such jacka@@es at a moment of profound fear and grief.

If the faculty letter was simply a protest against doxxing and threatening young people for expressing their views, I would have signed.

I'm very careful about the language I use around such sensitive conflicts. Hope that makes sense.

OP, I'd just let it go. Many friendships didn't survive Trump/Clinton, covid, etc. And this is a far more divisive issue. Mentally thank them for the joy they brought into your life, and let them go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh man. This is happening to me too. I’m totally fine with people wanting a ceasefire and being mad at Netanyahu - who sucks and I agree about ceasefire - but the folks who are insinuating that there’s any justification for killing civilians (on either side) or throwing around terms like ‘open air prison’ and suggesting the Israelis are white occupiers (they are the same color as Palestinians) I’m kind of done with. I would not be having a conversation. I just unfollowed and it’s done.

From my pov it’s very easy to support a 2 state solution, be anti killing civilians, be anti terrorist. Honestly anyone who has some other hot take pov I just want them to be quiet

1. How is it not an open-air prison?
2. I believe people mean that Israelis have much more power and are much less vulnerable, overall, than Palestinians on averag

I think you need to explain how it IS an open air prison. I mean, is your neighborhood a prison? How is it not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an academic who works on the Middle East. I'm not super lefty but I believe the current Israeli military response is extremely counterproductive. I also think the doxxing of 18-22 year olds is obnoxious and threatening. Still, I was shocked by that Columbia faculty letter - it goes way too far in excusing the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas. If the OP is still reading, I can totally understand why your DH is disillusioned with your friend. I have a few acquaintences who've become extremely strident in one direction or the other and I've lost respect for them. I certainly wouldn't go on vacation with someone who believes that terrorist attacks are legitimate military operations.

The letter doesn't say that. In fact, it says the opposite.

No it doesn’t.

From the letter:

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.

Because the Hamas attack intentionally targeted civilians, the attack was not legitimate.

OP, I’m sorry that you are going through this. I can’t imagine what you’re feeling right now.

Personally, I would ignore it around this woman, unless you continue to see escalating rhetoric from her or the child. Stay alert and never let your adversaries know that you are on to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an academic who works on the Middle East. I'm not super lefty but I believe the current Israeli military response is extremely counterproductive. I also think the doxxing of 18-22 year olds is obnoxious and threatening. Still, I was shocked by that Columbia faculty letter - it goes way too far in excusing the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas. If the OP is still reading, I can totally understand why your DH is disillusioned with your friend. I have a few acquaintences who've become extremely strident in one direction or the other and I've lost respect for them. I certainly wouldn't go on vacation with someone who believes that terrorist attacks are legitimate military operations.

The letter doesn't say that. In fact, it says the opposite.

No it doesn’t.

Anonymous wrote:I'm an academic who works on the Middle East. I'm not super lefty but I believe the current Israeli military response is extremely counterproductive. I also think the doxxing of 18-22 year olds is obnoxious and threatening. Still, I was shocked by that Columbia faculty letter - it goes way too far in excusing the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas. If the OP is still reading, I can totally understand why your DH is disillusioned with your friend. I have a few acquaintences who've become extremely strident in one direction or the other and I've lost respect for them. I certainly wouldn't go on vacation with someone who believes that terrorist attacks are legitimate military operations.

The letter doesn't say that. In fact, it says the opposite.

You are mad that she signed an anti-doxxing letter????

I'm an academic who works on the Middle East. I'm not super lefty but I believe the current Israeli military response is extremely counterproductive. I also think the doxxing of 18-22 year olds is obnoxious and threatening. Still, I was shocked by that Columbia faculty letter - it goes way too far in excusing the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas. If the OP is still reading, I can totally understand why your DH is disillusioned with your friend. I have a few acquaintences who've become extremely strident in one direction or the other and I've lost respect for them. I certainly wouldn't go on vacation with someone who believes that terrorist attacks are legitimate military operations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Of course the letter has bias. So does the response you are describing. Bias existing is not in question. That is actually why campuses being places in which multiple, conflicting, and sometimes upsetting points of view can be explored is so important.

The question is: is this letter itself anti-Semitic or biased in a way that betrays anti-Semitism in all of its signers by definition?

To neither question is the answer “yes.”

I agree with you. I don’t think signers of the letter are all automatically anti-Semitic. I do think it’s possible some are, particularly with unconscious bias. And given the plausibility that the OP’s friend may or may not be in that category, it is reasonable that she and her husband now feel discomfort. At the very least, they feel that by signing this letter, the professor aligns with folks condoning the messages the students put out. Some of those messages were unquestionably anti-Semitic.

This may be. But as faculty, they have an obligation for the protection of robust exchange on controversial issues--an obligation that is uniquely theirs, and that obligation is the reason for this letter. Assuming that the friend is instead engaged in an attempt to communicate or endorse anti-Semitism suggests that the OP and husband might be well-advised to take a deep breath before attempting to further discuss this.

Taking nothing away from the great grief and stress the OP and husband are experiencing, not all discomfort is a sign that others need to explain themselves.

I agree 100 percent as faculty they have an obligation for the robust exchange on controversial issues. However, I feel they have an even greater obligation as faculty to ensure all students feel safe from from hate speech and danger. In their effort to protect the students who were getting doxxed as a result of their inflammatory statements, they made other students and members of the university community feel unsafe and in in danger.

They have as much obligation as anyone else does on that--but it doesn't belong uniquely to faculty; it is shared by all in the campus community. The faculty role with respect to the intellectual life of the university is unique, and when the threat to it is as obvious as students having their faces placed on billboards as an incitement to imminent violence, they don't have the option to be quiet about it.