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them individually as “Columbia’s Leading Anti-Semites”, and that some students have had offers of employment withdrawn by employers that sought to punish them for signing the student statement, or for being merely affiliated with student groups associated with the statement.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

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 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”.

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 wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m actually impressed by an academic at a liberal institution willing to stick their neck out for free speech on campus and calling out the harms of doxxing/cancel culture.

Sounds like OP’s DH is too low brow to understand the point of this letter. The friend is better off not dealing with this family.

Low brow? Hahaha. Not at all. OP’s husband is totally right here. Their professor friend sounds like an apologist who consistently supports liberal matters and feels conflicted because the Palestinians are sympathetic, but doesn’t have the knowledge and intelligence to recognize that Hamas is a murderous terrorist regime that cares more about killing Israelis and decimating Israel than the health and safety of its own citizens.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I call bullshit. If not, then you hang out with really ignorant and stupid people I have not heard or read a single person in any media anywhere on the planet suggest that the kids at that musical festival who were slaughtered were legitimate targets. No one at all.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m actually impressed by an academic at a liberal institution willing to stick their neck out for free speech on campus and calling out the harms of doxxing/cancel culture.

Sounds like OP’s DH is too low brow to understand the point of this letter. The friend is better off not dealing with this family.

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”.

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.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff keeps deleting comments from Palestinians and Arabs explaining the double standard. Why?

Not on-topic for this thread. This is thread about how to react to the original poster's friend, not a debate about the Israel-Hamas conflict. You can go to our Political Discussion forum for that.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff keeps deleting comments from Palestinians and Arabs explaining the double standard. Why?

Anonymous wrote: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.