There's nothing more Jewish than a tender-hearted Jewish writer defending the rights of people who explicitly hate Jews and want to murder all of them—it's why I love you people!
I understand all the legal issues here etc and of course there's something disturbing about people getting picked up off the streets and whisked to a cell, and yet I need to say, just in the interests of clarity and context:
All of these "pro-Palestinian" protesters care absolutely nothing about actual Palestinians (notice their total silence now that Gazans are protesting Hamas and notice none of them have ever protested to "Free Palestine" from the murderous kleptocracy of Hamas), they were out protesting Israel before the IDF even moved into Gaza, they applauded the 10/7 massacre even before the bodies were cold, and they have never turned their intense moral gaze on any other country or people—it's only the Jewish state that needs to be erased, and Zionism (the desire of history's most despised minority to return to their ancient homeland) is the most evil -ISM of all, worse than Communism, Islamism etc. "From the River to the Sea" clearly means that Israel should be destroyed and "Globalize the Intifada" means to attack as many Jews as poss until this goal is met. Once again, as with the Soviets, Leftism has devolved into a program of brazen Jew hate (Jews are always the scapegoats when utopia fails to arrive).
Jesse, all of these "pro-Palestinians" would murder you and your family while weeping tears of joy and calling it Justice. They see kind, educated Jews who would give their lives for their ideals of universal humanitiarism and gladly accept your terms.
No sane country would give visas to these people. If Never Again doesn't mean zero tolerance for Jew hate, then why did I have to sit through all those lectures?
The probability that a woman getting a PhD in child development at Tufts University "explicitly hates Jews and wants to murder all of them" is very, very low, and nothing she has written comes close to warranting an accusaiton like that.
Even if she does hate us and wants us dead, unless she is actively planning an act of violence, she is entitled to her (shitty) opinion. The entire problem with the last 8 years is thinking we can use institutional and government power to make people not racist. People can be racist! They have been racist for millennia and they will continue to be racist. They just can’t be violent, which this woman obviously wasn’t.
You really think this is about using "government power to make people not racist"? Is this the official position of the American Jewish Committee?
I thought this was about the part of a visa application that makes all foreigners swear to not support a designated terror org? Meaning of course Hamas, who have murdered and kidnapped multiple American citizens.
U.S. law — 8 U.S.C. § 1182 and § 1227 — makes it clear: Non-citizens who endorse or promote terrorist organizations are eligible for deportation.
The Supreme Court reinforced this in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), ruling that even well-meaning “nonviolent support” for terrorist groups can aid their legitimacy and operations.
The law isn't "They just can’t be violent", it's that as guests, their visas can be revoked for providing any support, which includes pamphleteering.
You seem to be ignoring the content of the speech here (River to the Sea, Globalize the Intifada etc), and wanting to extend rights to someone who would not be so generous or tolerant toward you and yours.
I explained in my prior comment what the legal issue is here. Being a "Hamas supporter", under law and based on who is eligible for deportation, could mean anything from pampleteering, donating, contact with orgs that fund or support Hamas, or even explicitly repeating their eliminationist rhetoric.
The govt will make its case in court and present its evidence, she will have her chance to defend herself, a decision will be made.
As I've made it clear in prior comments ad nauseam, I don't think it's either a stretch or a grave injustice if the govt decides it wants to revoke the visas of guests who undermine our national interest or who join the hate campaign against the Jewish state.
You're just describing legal processes. You're not offering any normative defence for deporting people for speech, nor any response to Allie's argument that, regardless of what you think of the speech, it's still speech.
Unsurprisingly, this is all I've seen from supporters of this obvious atrocity. Because deporting people for speech simply cannot be defended in a way that any reasonable person with normal democratic values will find compelling, so you have to just extensively repeat the (questionable) legal basis, and hope no-one will notice you've not actually made any argument for why it is *morally defensible*. Because, of course, it simply isn't.
> You really think this is about using "government power to make people not racist"? Is this the official position of the American Jewish Committee?
I think the point was, quite clearly, to compare this to the censorship tactics of the left in recent years, and how the left wanted to punish people (within the law, by using measures other than criminal punishment) for views they saw as racist. You all rightly hated that. Now the Trump is weaponising a civil procedure to (de facto if not de jure) punish people for their speech, but now it's speech you don't like, so there's this complete 180 where actually this speech is SO bad and SO racist that suddenly we should have "zero tolerance" and punish the expression of views because technically the government has the authority to do so.
For those of us on the left who are and have been committed advocates of free speech protections- who have consistently denounced censorious overreach, and extra-judicial, procedurally unfair punishment of conservative or moderate views deemed racist or otherwise abhorrent by the mob- it's frustrating to see conservatives whose freedom of expression we have spent the last decade arguing in defence of (lighting social credit on fire in the process), turn around and cheer on speech punishment by the government itself when it's leftist speech being censured.
It's maddening to see you use the same bullshit tactics we've endlessly argued against from our own side: overdramatic, dishonest characterisations of how bad the speech is, unwavering focus on the absolute worst elements, guilt by association, endless repetition that it's technically legal.
Allie was trying to point out to you that in this case, as in those others, it doesn't matter that the views are terrible; it's still expression of speech, that should be protected from government censure, not least because government censure simply doesn't work. It can't make people not racist, or not support Hamas, or whatever view it is that people want to eliminate by government intervention. It's not possible, and we sort of collectively decided long ago that it's fundamentally anti-democratic for a government to try. We should remain focused on that principle, no matter how odious we find the views in question in any particular case. I think Allie was trying to pump that intuition with reference to recent events where you presumably took the other side and supported freedom of expression from government interference.
To take that very reasonable point and interpret it in such an obviously absurd way, questioning in mock incredulity whether it was the "official position of the American Jewish Committee", is incredibly unhelpful and counter-productive. I really wish supporters of the administration's tactics would cut it out, and instead address the central issue of whether and why the government *should* be punishing people for protesting (whether or not it legally can).
Precisely. And name-dropping my employer was a nice touch. Brought me right back to 2020! And don’t worry big guy, the American Jewish Committee would not care that I said that you can’t break the law to deport possible antisemites. Because, ya know, we have principles and stuff.
I very much respect you for sticking up for this person and for their rights etc, and admit that you're most likely right, yet at the same time in all prior eruptions of Jew hate not every supporter swept up in the mania was an explicit eliminationist, some just didn't like Jews because they were too rich or too too smart, too pushy or manipulative etc etc, and all contributed to an ecosystem of dehumanization that ultimately meant they turned a blind eye (at the least) when the violence started.
Also, while she in particular most likely doesn't "explicitly hate Jews and want to murder all of them" she is regurgitating Hamas propaganda, which means she has sat down at the restaurant, ordered some soup, but hasn't quite picked an entree yet. I realize this is a belabored analogy, but how much ingesting of hateful propaganda should we ignore? Where do we draw a line around the bacillus?
I guess my main point is: we would never tolerate this level of hatred for black people or gay people or any other minority group, why do we have to tolerate it when it's aimed at Jews? Why are Jews always the exception and always the people who must risk their necks for other people's ideals?
I am not Jewish (nor a Trumpist), but my wife and in-laws are (Jewish), and I have to support any and all efforts to keep them safe. I prioritize their civil rights over the rights of a student on a visa to come here and contribute to the supposed Palestinian cause, which has never been the construction of their own state, but the erasure of the Jewish state via bloodshed. Americans owe these people nothing.
“We’d never tolerate this behavior we would never tolerate this level of hatred for black people or gay people or any other minority group, why do we have to tolerate it when it's aimed at Jews?”
You’re right, but we’d also never deport someone for being anti-Palestinian. We would for being anti-Jew. So how does that figure into the tolerance paradigm?
I think the crux here is that Hamas, the governing body of Gaza, is a designated terror org that has killed and kidnapped multiple Americans, and that states very plainly both its desire to do so again and also that their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel, our ally.
So the issue's not so much with Palestinians per se, but with their current govt and its deeds, intentions, crimes, alliances etc. (Also, I think the Biden Admin did deport or maybe just not renew the visas of certain West Bank Israelis they considered suspicious and/or unsavory.)
These cases hinge on the section of a visa application that makes all foreigners swear to not support a designated terror org.
U.S. law — 8 U.S.C. § 1182 and § 1227: Non-citizens who endorse or promote terrorist organizations are eligible for deportation.
The Supreme Court reinforced this in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), ruling that even well-meaning “nonviolent support” for terrorist groups can aid their legitimacy and operations.
Also, separate of the legal issues, there is no mass protest movement against Palestinians or Arabs, if anything quite the opposite, these people can live their lives and attend class etc without any chance of harassment. If there were a foreigner here menacing or threatening Palestinians and interfering with their civil rights, I don't see any problem with them being deported also, though I've yet to see anyone doing this.
There is no current or historical record in America of anti-Palestinian hatred or any kind of discrimination against them; Jews on the other hand are not only history's most despised minority, but have been on the receiving end of pogroms for centuries, and have been menaced by campus mobs chanting in support of Hamas' genocidal fantasies.
I agree with the govt that steps should be taken to protect them and their civil rights and that it is in America's national interest to not extend visas to Hamas supporters.
"we would never tolerate this level of hatred for black people or gay people or any other minority group, why do we have to tolerate it when it's aimed at Jews? Why are Jews always the exception and always the people who must risk their necks for other people's ideals?"
This. A thousand dang times this, and honestly I'm sorry if this is coming off as impolite, but this is the thing that drives more worried and upset Jews crazy about the kind of positioning that Jesse among many others seems to be engaging in.
What do you mean a thousand times this? The quoted paragraph is just completely unrelated to reality. Who tolerates hatred of Jews? Where? It's at least as socially unacceptable as hatred of gay people, and it seems to me anecdotally considerably moreso.
Criticism of Israel, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing, and people tolerate it because... gestures at Enlightenment.
It's genuinely hard to parse what you mean by "the kind of positioning Jesse seems to be engaging in". Objecting to extrajudicial punishment of protestors is nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and *everyone* can see through this dishonest tactic by now. Give it up.
I replied to your other comment. Based on previous conversations with people with the pattern of rhetoric you are showing in this one, the possibility for a good faith discussion with you is something like 1% at best. So have a good day.
Is weird how so few people see it, or even admit it needs to be a major consideration.
Lately I've been wondering how modern liberals would have responded to Kristallnacht—I concede they most likely would have opposed and denounced the more violent events, but for things like menacing and destruction of property, you know they would insist upon providing "context" and making sure the arrested rioters had proper ACLU representation. Especially if they claimed they weren't "anti-Semitic" but only "anti-Zionist" (their get-out-of-jail-free card).
Modern Western liberals have damaged their moral compasses by an obsessive concern with proceduralism, by their weird victim fetish where no issue can be decided until everyone involved provides a positionality statement so they can be properly placed on the victim hierarchy, and by a refusal to admit that many of the people we invite here have vastly different values and aren't playing by our rules but instead are taking advantage of our humanitarian hospitality. (WEIRD people, in the Joseph Henrich sense, have no ability to conceive of others who would spill or shed blood for faith and country, it is too foreign to them.)
But as Jews are always the canary in the coalmine signalling that ugly social strife is up ahead, no one will learn any of these lessons until real violence breaks out and the smoke clears.
I agree with pretty much all of this, and at the same time I hate that the Trump administration is exploiting this to be as trollishly authoritarian as it feels it can get away with, and do fear the erosion of democracy as a result. It's become very hard for everybody (including myself to some extent I'll admit) to walk and chew gum at the same time on this.
Trump is a malignant suppurating hemorrhoid of a man, absolutely loathsome in all regards, yet the backlash he represents most esp in re immigration was pretty predictable after the Biden people distorted and abused the entire concept of asylum and foreign guests. (And at least Trump has been clear and upfront about his goals and policies (however hateful), whereas the Biden people lied and gaslit the entire time, relying on their MSM wing to deny that millions of "migrants" were being imported and to slander anyone who mentioned it as a bigot.)
Various people on all sides of the aisle have been saying for years, more or less: If liberals won’t enforce borders, authoritarians will, with "enforce borders" also meaning prioritize and protect our own citizens. Thus here we are, our orange authoritarian is using a very expansive conception of executive power to remove illegals and any other foreigners he deems unsavory, like Hamas supporters.
I'm with you, this both feels very right and somewhat gross at the same time, maybe like doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or in the wrong way. But I won't be crying any tears for the supposed rights of Hamasniks, as I never grant anyone anything where they would never reciprocate. They can get sent back home, it's much gentler than what would happen to any of us protesting in their home countries.
Oh no, providing context and wanting to ensure civil rights protections!
> Lately I've been wondering how modern liberals would have responded to Kristallnacht—I concede they most likely would have opposed and denounced the more violent events, but for things like menacing and destruction of property, you know they would insist upon providing "context" and making sure the arrested rioters had proper ACLU representation.
This is so, so illuminating.
Of course I would want to consider context, and ensure civil rights protections, even in the case of literal Nazis. The fact you seem to think this is some kind of reductio that should embarrass "modern liberals" tells us much about your worldview. It suggests that on some level, you not only believe that inviolable democratic principles only apply until you *really* hate the person or the views expressed or the crime accused, you consider it perfectly obvious. As if the very thought of wanting to ensure due process, presumption of innocence and so on apply even to Nazis and violent criminals is so ludicrous that it exposes the folly of an entire worldview.
You even seem to make this more explicit, when you contrast hypothetical liberal reaction to the "violent events", which you "concede" that "they would most likely oppose and denounce", with the non-violent cases in which you suggest, with apparent contempt, liberals would want to ensure the accused received proper civil rights protections.
Do you really think that those are two mutually exclusive options? Oppose and denounce, or ensure civil rights?
Due process isn't something to be discarded when you "oppose and denounce" the charged crime; its most important function is precisely to protect those accused of the most emotive and heinous crimes, because that is when we are most tempted to dispense with procedural fairness and risk the most terrible moral atrocities. That's why it must be inviolable, and why we must oppose attempts to circumvent it (like by weaponising immigration law to punish extra-judicially).
This revealed relativism about fundamental democratic principles helps explain why your reaction, to a post about the authoritarian overreach of deporting people for speech, has been multiple lengthy comments about how terrible the "pro-Palestinian" cause is (based on a deeply unfair characterisation that is almost entirely composed of straw and weak men and generalisations from a small minority of idiotic and hateful people, but my whole point is that it's irrelevant so I won't dwell on that). It's as if you think Jesse will say 'you know what, I hadn't realised their views were that bad- in that case, round em up and ship em out, those terrorist-supporting scum!'
The point is that it doesn't matter. The government simply should not be levying severe punishments for attending or organising protests, writing op-eds, etc., no matter how misguided the cause.
I'm sure you didn't notice this, but after I repeated myself for the tenth time, you said I only gave an argument "describing legal processes" and then responded with a stirring tribute to due process! After I'd just described how due process will play out here!
I've had this discussion multiple times with multiple people, and what seems to get lost is the fact that: these people are NOT American citizens. They are guests who do NOT have the same rights. And they are not being threatened with gulag or guillotine, just with being sent back home. This is not a "severe punishment".
And none of this is unprecedented, they will not be the first people deported for supporting a terrorist group, even if the support is just pampleteering or donating or being in touch with their representatives.
Revoking a visa to protect your own citizens from guests who support terror orgs is in line with "fundamental democratic principles", is consistent w established legal precedent, and at the end of the day everyone involved will have their day in court.
This is my "normative defence", take it or leave it.
Nothing she has written: agreed. But after the number of incidents of muslim doctors in Western countries caught on video and email since Oct 7th being horrifically and totalistically antisemitic, I'd remove at least one of those "very"'s before "low" and possibly both. Antisemitism in Muslim communities is simply very high, including in the West and even the US, though less so.
So you're explicitly just suggesting she's quite likely to be anti-Semitic because she's Muslim? And therefore it's more justifiable to deport her?
In the very same thread you're lamenting how it's "acceptable to hate Jews", as if any of this would ever happen to a pro-Israel protestor- let alone people openly saying 'well she probably wants to kill Muslims because she's Jewish".
"SO YOU'RE SAYING" - no, I did *not* say it's more justifiable to deport her. Definitely not "explicitly" as you put it. I think that the probability of her being antisemitic is low, but not "very very low" as Jesse put it. But that's a separate thing.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your cognition was affected by outrage and that you weren't deliberately or at least consciously engaging in weaselly tactics.
Ironic. Perhaps your cognition was affected by outrage, but what I accused you of suggesting was that she was more likely to be anti-Semitic because she's Muslim. You deny suggesting that, then *in the next sentence* repeat the suggestion, saying "the probability is low but not very very low". And in your original comment, you *explicitly* said this was because of "the number of incidents of Muslim doctors ... being horrifically and totalistically antisemitic" (or, precisely, "after", which technically is not semantically equivalent to 'because', but can hardly be interpreted any other way here- if you disagree please explain how) and that "antisemitism in Muslim countries is simply very high".
So yes, you absolutely did suggest that she was somewhat likely to be anti-Semitic, because other people of her religion are. Whether you are deliberately lying because you know you've been caught out in blatant hateful bigotry and hypocrisy, or you just aren't a careful or rigorous enough thinker to be able to keep track of your own arguments, such as they are, your denials are plainly false. Please don't accuse me of 'weaselly behaviour' for putting your own words back to you, completely straightforwardly.
You're right on the other hand that you didn't *explicitly* suggest it was more justifiable to deport her. But in the context you made your comment, it's the only reasonable inference- or else what is the relevance of it? Why did you say it in this thread? Please explain what you meant and why you brought it up here, other than in defence of her deportation, or else I'd appreciate an apology.
You can’t conceive of the fact that I believe two things at once:
1) I *****don’t***** think she should be deported.
2) On the other hand, I do think she is more likely to be antisemitic because she’s a Muslim. Not that she definitely is, ***nor that that is enough to deport her!***
The second point is not enough for me to support the first.
Kapiche???
I get that this is really really hard for you to process.
I was a member of the ACLU for a long time and see your point, I would just point to a few differences:
The Skokie Nazis, losers all, just wanted to have a single march, not a permanent encampment that menaced every passing Jew and that took over multiple campuses to spread Jew hate;
The Skokie Nazis, as far as I recall, were all American citizens, not here on visas. That is a big difference, as we've all learned in the past month that applying for (or maintaining a visa) means no explicit support for designated terror orgs;
and lastly, Hamas and their fellow travelers are menacing and attacking Jews in 2025 not 1945, the Skokie Nazis were harmless buffoons in comparison, and all these "pro-Palestinian" orgs are on record as supporting the 10/7 massacre and calling for multiple repeats.
The Hamasniks are a clear and present danger to American Jews in ways that the Skokie Nazis weren't.
If it were Biden doing this to Israel supporters how hard would you clutching your pearls right now? You're really twisting yourself into a pretzel to justify ignoring principles like free speech for people you don't like... Just like you do in most of the comments of yours I read.
I am happy to confess to hypocrisy, it's a universal condition.
Also, i don't wear pearls, too gauche.
But srsly, if Biden had deported visitors and showed 1) that the law states visas can be revoked for support of designated terorr orgs, and 2) that the person in question did so, I would have to say, well, them's the rules.
I've traveled all over the world and never once did it occur to me to protest the govt or country that had me as a guest, certainly not while chanting for the odious theocratic terrorists of Hamas.
I've had this discussion multiple times w multiple people, and as far as I can tell the Secy of State has wide latitude to deport people they view as a danger to American interests, and also that visas can be revoked if the holder supports designated terror orgs.
Hamas fits the bill, and I've yet to see a "pro-Palestinian" protester say a single bad word about them. If you come here as a visitor and support this movement, you're aligning yourself with a very ugly cause and putting yourself in jeopardy.
Those are all salient points but still aren't based in law, which is Jesse's point. If the government wants to do this, great, do it right. I'm actually struggling to comprehend how there is a debate about whether the government should be able to arrest people without making it clear what laws they're accused of having broken first. Anything can be spun into hate, harassment, enticement, etc., and I don't want the government to have free reign to decide where the line is according to whatever ends they're trying to get to.
I absolutely understand your point, but sometimes we have competing values.
My paramount value is the prevention of pogroms, which is a global sickness that seems to arise every few generations, and which every "pro-Palestinian" is lusting for in their heart of hearts, which is obvious if you just listen to them and read their words. They hate Jews and the Jewish state and want it erased by any means necessary.
I understand that due process is also an important value, but in the case of foreigners here on visas campaigning to "Globalize the Intifada" etc, which clearly means attack and denounce every Jew you can get your hands on, I think they've made their choices and have to face the consequences of those choices.
They're not being imprisoned or executed, they're just being sent home. This strikes me as sane and just.
The United States government's paramount value is not preventing pogroms, it is the United States' constitution, and we already have laws that deal with perpetrators of violence and even incitement to violence. These protestors are not being sent home, they're being sent to detention centers without consistent access to their lawyers.
I can only explain and defend my own values and beliefs, and sometimes they align w the US Govt's and sometimes they don't.
Also, if you've ever been to jail, you kind of exist in a no-man's land for a few hrs or sometimes longer, esp if you're being transported (unless you already have a lawyer on call), until you get processed and get to the phone.
I would guess all the Hamasniks in DHS lockup are in touch with their armies of pro bono attys within a day or 2.
I wish them no harm at all, being sent back home isn't the worst punishment.
I think you're too quick to attribute this to a difference in values. I suspect it is largely a difference in beliefs about the values of the people being deported, their current and likely future behavior, and which actions or policies are necessary to address those things.
In *this particular instance*, I have not seen concrete evidence that Ozturk did anything except write an op-ed expressing dissatisfaction with how her university leadership responded to a resolution by the student senate. If you haven't read it yet, you should. I disagree with it, and maybe I mistakenly glossed over something more concerning, but I think it reflects the kind of approach we want people to take *as an alternative* to calling for the extermination of Jews, violent protests, vandalism, taking over buildings, etc.
> every "pro-Palestinian" is lusting for in their heart of hearts, which is obvious if you just listen to them and read their words. They hate Jews and the Jewish state and want it erased by any means necessary.
I don't see anything in the op-ed that can directly be interpreted as supporting views like this. For example:
> Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.
This is soft language, which focuses on harms to Palestinian people (as opposed to, e.g. a perceived injustice of the mere existence of Israel) and the authors went out of their way to leave their claims open to debate.
To be clear, I realize we may not have all the information here and I would not be surprised if we eventually learn that Ozturk did do some of those more concerning things I mentioned. But, and this is where due process comes in, that evidence really needs to be made public. Or the administration at least needs to behave in a way that makes it clear they believe they are accountable to such evidence.
I very much appreciate your wise and measured response.
I personally would flunk them for not knowing the meaning of "genocide", as "deliberate starvation, indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide" are all demonstrable lies if not evil slanders, but then again I'm hopelessly biased.
Ozturk is a Turkish name, right? I find it hilarious that in Turkey it's illegal to mention the well-documented Armenian genocide, but it's fine to come to America to campaign against a fictional genocide committed by the Jewish state.
It makes me feel better knowing I'm not the only brazen hypocrite.
I share your values. I don’t trust the reporting on this. I am sure there is more to it than that this woman said one thing, or went to one march. And the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is important. Is the ability of foreign nationals to disseminate propaganda in the United States on behalf of a recognized terror organization really the “free speech” hill you want to die on? Seems like for many in the media, the answer is “yes.”
> My paramount value is the prevention of pogroms, which is a global sickness that seems to arise every few generations, and which every "pro-Palestinian" is lusting for in their heart of hearts, which is obvious if you just listen to them and read their words. They hate Jews and the Jewish state and want it erased by any means necessary.
Surely, on some level, you know that you're embarrassing youself with this?
I seriously doubt you would ever say it in real life- even in the company of (normal, intelligent) Israel supporters- because you must know deep down that anyone that hears you say it will instantly think less of you.
Why say obviously false stuff? Are you just trolling? Elsewhere you at least seem to sincerely believe in this stuff, but you can't sincerely believe the above.
I was just having lunch with my Israeli friends yesterday, over in Beverlywood, which is the West Bank of LA.
I cannot tell you how much they appreciate me, as a non-Jew, supporting them and trying to help protect them and their children from the public hatred they face. In fact one of them had a son harrassed in Europe for being an Israeli, another had a brother harrassed in Turkey for being an Israeli, they now have to attend synagogue with armed guards at the doors, and of course there were "pro-Palestinian" protests here in LA, even one where a Jew was killed:
And as far as what I said about the Palestinians, I get much (but not all of it) from them: they all know someone who was killed or lost a family member on 10/7, they all lived through various peace offers (all rejected), and they all just want to live normal lives and wish their deranged neighbors wouldn't keep insisting they go back to war. I will be seeing them soon for Passover, and the only thing I'll be embarrassed about is not knowing the words and rituals.
I encourage you to stick to the issues and not worry about my psychology or if people think instantly less or more of me. You don't know anything about me!
If the law provides that her lawyers are to be informed of why she has been detained, and the government did not do that, then the lawyers can seek redress. I am certain that her lawyers know what she was told. It is possible that at the time of arrest, the government has no obligation to inform her as to exactly what activities they have concluded make her no longer eligible to stay here, only that she is no longer eligible. She is entitled to due process, there will be a legal proceeding, and at that time the government will present its evidence. I’m content that justice will prevail either way.
You have offered zero support for any of your statements concerning the motivations of the Palestinian supporters. We could speculate endlessly about motivations and hidden agendas. How do we know that you are not the one having a base, hateful motivation. Perhaps you want to muder all of the Palestinians in the world. Let us assess what we can and leave the hidden contents of the hearts and minds of others out of it. We cannot know.
"You have offered zero support for any of your statements concerning the motivations of the Palestinian supporters."
I have simply read their writings, listened to their speeches and chants, and made my assessment—while also noticing that (suspiciously) no other country receives this level of passionate hatred and vilification, it is the Jewish state that is denounced daily whereas the crimes of every country or tribe are either ignored or quickly forgotten. And I'm far from the only person who's come to the same conclusion. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
"Perhaps you want to mu[r]der all of the Palestinians in the world."
Perhaps, yes, but then again, I've never said, written, or chanted any such things, everything we're discussing is based on factual records of words and deeds.
"We cannot know."
But we can, it's wise to heed people when they tell you who they are aka their goals and motivations. Also, all we need to know is the law: people on visas are guests who can be deported if found to have offered support for designated terror orgs.
We can disagree here, and we can certainly disagree on the methods used to pursue this, but this is the root of the dispute.
David Bernstein (who is definitely to your right on this issue wrote in a tweetstorm:
I haven't seen any evidence yet that would justify the revocation of Ozturk's visa, much less take her violently from the street. But that said, it's pretty clear the foreign students are being targeted specifically for "pro-Hamas activism", not for being critical of American foreign policy per se. And the ones that are in fact supporting Hamas are also violating the terms of their visas.
If this article is all there is, though, it doesn't meet the legal criteria for being an inadmissible alien by supported terrorism. And that said, she's not a "legal resident". She is here on a temporary student visa that could be revoked or not renewed at any time.
Either there is a significantly more to the story, or else a big overreach by ICE. She doesn't seem to be a danger to anyone, so just sending her a revocation letter would be sufficient, assuming revocation is justified by something beyond the op-ed."
So... does anyone have any ideas about what anyone can do to try to push back against this kind of thing? I agree that it's disturbing and distressing, and I feel pretty helpless to do anything about it.
As a single person, engaging with small mutual-aid style groups can be helpful. It might not be with immigrants, who are main targets right now, but people down the theoretical line "first they came for the socialists" style. For me, im working with housing unstable populations and getting involved with that mutual aid network. You might have skills or local orgs that *do* work with immigrants or refugees and are interested in working with them.
This is not an issue a single person can address. This is something groups of people can fight against in small ways. Its paralyzing, but thats the point of what they're doing. They want people unable to think of where to put their energies. Pick something you have the skills to work on and just *do it*. Small things or otherwise. A lot of people doing something small can add up to something really big.
In order to actually follow through on my stated intention, rather than just stating it, I signed up to find out about some local volunteer opportunities, and I was presented with an amusing, wholesome double entendre (I don't think I can post the screenshot here, so linking to a note with the image):
"Housing unstable populations"? So that's what we're calling the homeless, er, houseless now, is it? If they can't put a roof over their heads, how are they possibly going to put up a meaningful resistance to Trump's secret police?
Broski, these are people who are sometimes housed or people who are potentially staying with family for large portions of time. Under definitions regarding housing assistance in my area, they are not homeless. They also, generally, just aren't homeless. Some people in this population are, but many are not. They may have issues getting money together for rent or may have recently been housed, making them more likely to fall back into homelessness. Instead of being reactionarily not PC, I'm attempting to use more accurate language for the population i work with. But go off, I guess.
Clearly and compellingly written. As some of the comments below show, many people have difficulty condemning violations of the rule of law if the victims of the violations hold opinions they don't like.
It would be horrible enough if this. police state. shit was being used against people who criticize this country. But for criticizing a foreign country? Have we gone completely insane?
It's the devil's bargain the likes of AIPAC/Ben Shapiro /possibly Bari Weiss/etc... made with him; we'll hire actual antisemites but also we'll squash all criticism of Israel. Also the state of Israel and the Orbanesque Netanyahu to do whatever they want without even the mildest verbal rebuke.
The understanding is even if they start going after Americans of some Jewish ethnicity or other they can freely self-deport to Israel.
Noah Smith did a. piece on the New Right yesterday, and I commented that they see no contradiction between being nostalgic for a "Christendom" where Jews were treated as outsiders and admiring Israel for being such an unapologetic ethnic-dominance state.
“To say that this makes defenders of Israel look like pathetic babies would be phrasing it too kindly.”
The Trump administration’s supposed justification for deporting Ozturk makes **defenders of Israel** look bad? All of us? Even me? Why? How?
This is a baffling non sequitur. I can hazard a guess as to what you meant, but it really isn’t clear, and it comes across as undeserved Israel-defender-bashing.
On the off chance you’re looking for a copy editor, I’ll do it cheap. (I’ve found one typo so far too.)
As a Jewish American who's been more sympathetic to the Israeli point-of-view in the past than I am now, Jesse's comment makes perfect sense to me.
Gaza is rubble and any previously respected norms around proportionality have been completely thrown out the window, and Israeli leaders themselves are saying it. You can argue all you want about who bears the blame or whether it's justified, but it's just reality that a lot of people are going to look at that and not like what they see. So when right-wing Zionist groups play dumb about that reality and act like it's so inconceivable that anyone could even mutter a criticism of Israel, as if any opinion other than "flatten all of Gaza" is impossible to fathom, as if anyone not sharing that opinion should suffer the most extreme social censure and even legal consequences (while the brazen endorsement of proposals for ethnic cleansing continues)... yeah, it's pathetic. I have felt second-hand embarrassment for a lot of the tone-deaf messaging I've seen from Zionist orgs in the US.
No one is preventing anyone from "defending Israel" while also standing up against things like what happened to Ozturk. I'd love to see it happen more.
Gaza is a heap of rubble and you’ll find people here talking about their poor Jewish cousin at Columbia and how that’s the situation that demanded action. Disgusting.
You are crazy!! Religious and ethnic harassment??! Sorry but a Jewish kid getting their feelings hurt is not equivalent to people getting disappeared for co-signing an op-ed!! Get a grip!! (Shouldn’t have to say it but I am also a Jew!! And I am put off by the protestors! But for the love of god have some perspective!!)
This particular commenter asked me how my family members at Columbia University have been treated over the past 18 months and I told him. What they have experienced absolutely amounts to harassment as observant Jews. See other comments in this thread. It’s not about their feelings - their religious items have been defaced and they have been personally affected in a major way.
It’s genuinely hard for me to muster up significant pity for the Goliath in this situation. Obviously it sucks so bad to be a Jewish kid on campus right now, but it sucks immeasurably more to be 1) a kid in gaza, 2) an innocent person being disappeared. I’m not doubting the lack of tact of the protestors, but i would wager that it’s less dyed in the wool antisemitism and more college kids are dumb and dramatic. I would bet that some of the kids who did the harassment were Jewish themselves.
I'm not Jewish and every Jewish person I know IRL is also horrified by this! My mind is fully boggled by some comments here. I'm not sure it's a great idea for long term antisemitism management to support this type of stuff *on behalf of* Jewish people. Aren't people worried about a backlash Jewish people might face in response? I certainly am!
Yes, we are very worried! Lots of Jewish people and groups are speaking up, but I do think there are others who are so exhausted after the past 18 months that they’re glad that someone is doing something, even if they are uncomfortable with what the “something” is. It’s a sad but understandable reaction.
This entire issue reminds me of the David Frum quote that is something like “if liberals won’t enforce immigration laws, fascists will”. In my opinion, many of these institutions utterly failed Jewish kids in the wake of 10/7, but this is definitely not the appropriate corrective. I have younger cousins at Columbia who are very visibly Jewish and their lives have been very unpleasant. But they don’t support deporting Khalil, et al. It makes the situation far worse.
Their mezuzahs were ripped from their doors multiple times, “Free Palestine” written on their whiteboards (presumably because of their mezuzot - no other reason why they would be targeted), my cousin was spit on once, and a general sense that because they wear kippahs that they are shunned and asked questions about Israel that no other students are asked. How’s that? Good enough?
The Hillel where they literally have to go to consume kosher food and pray in a minyan (a religious obligation of any observant Jew) has been threatened an unknown number of times and CUAD (Khalil’s group) has specifically demanded that the university sever ties with Hillel.
You can also read the Columbia Antisemitisk Taskforce report at any time where, for instance, Israeli students were denied care at the health center, Jewish students were bullied by professors, and at least one on campus assault occurred.
"In my opinion, many of these institutions utterly failed Jewish kids in the wake of 10/7, but this is definitely not the appropriate corrective."
Literally exactly it. Obviously, I understand a Jewish person's reaction being kinda sheepishly happy about it or even frankly not that sheepishly happy about it. If I were one of those students I'd probably be very pleased with what's happening. As I'm not Jewish, I tried to think of a parallel situation for myself and I thought, okay, what if they started rounding up the most egregious "gender medicine" practitioners who have SERIOUSLY harmed people. I'd probably be at least a little happy at first! That's the messy stuff of life at work! But my god it's not actually defensible! How would I then feel if a bunch of people who aren't personally affected started saying "haha yeah! fuck yeah! this is all for autistic lesbians and their bodily integrity and safety!" I'd be terrified! Don't put that on me and my understandable emotional reaction!
Exactly. I am actually not totally opposed to some of what the Trump admin is trying make institutions do (like mask bans - you can’t just have maurauding bands of masked people screaming and interrupting academic life all the time). But pressuring institutions to protect civil rights and enforce their own rules is a lot different than going after 25 year olds.
“If, for example, it conditions funding on adopting overly broad definitions of anti-Semitism that conflate it with criticism of Israel, mission accomplished.”
This is a gross mischaracterization of the IHRA definition, so I hope that’s not what you’re talking about. No matter what you think of it, IHRA does not conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel per se. This is not a minor distinction—anti-Zionists routinely try to discredit IHRA by falsely claiming that it says all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. It says nothing of the kind, but you’re coming pretty close to suggesting it does.
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
These are examples of anti-Semitism that the IHRA cites in its definition as paradigmatic.
So no, it's not a "gross mischaracterisation" to suggest that the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism "conflates it with criticism of Israel". It's straightforwardly true that it does conflate it with at least certain criticisms of Israel.
If you want to object that you included the qualification 'per se': Singal didn't, so you're straightforwardly refuting a straw man if you're simply arguing that the IHRA doesn't conflate any and all criticism, just certain kinds.
I think Clever Pseudonym's response further down is the sort of person Jesse is referring to when he says "defender of Israel". Unfortunately there aren't too many "perverts for nuance" around and broad strokes are too often used.
We need a specific term to refer to the sort of person that is pro-Israel/pro-Netanyahu to the point of stamping out all sorts of speech, up to and including genuine antisemitism by all means necessary.
It’s not even about Netanyahu. There are small L liberal supporters and fascist supporters of every cause under the sun. There are deeply authoritarian environmentalists! We need to differentiate between people who are fine ignoring the law and people who aren’t - no matter the issue.
"Can we just be honest about this for a fucking second: the current government of the US is using the protection of Jews to disappear people from our streets for their political speech. On your behalf. You got what you wanted. They're the nazis. You're a collaborator." https://x.com/SamAdlerBell/status/1905398305997423093
He clarifies later that "you" is Sheryl Sandberg, who is speaking out about antisemitism, so I guess now objecting to antisemitism means that you support disappearing grad students.
To think that this is what Jews want is to ignore the fact that 73% of Jews voted for Harris. Only 21% of Muslims did the same, but I don't hear anyone arguing that this is what they wanted when they threw away their votes on Jill Stein.
Can’t people be fucking normal? Antisemitism is bad. Scooping up people on the streets for speech is bad. Why can’t there be a middle ground between fascist Republicans and mealy-mouthed Democrats? Wouldn’t those people get like 60% of the vote?!
I think "Can't people be fucking normal?" is the question of the decade. Any political party that could manage to seem vaguely normal could govern for generations.
If you think the only problem with the Dems is that they're mealy-mouthed, you're missing a lot. Reductive takes like this are not helping the them or anyone else.
The first people out nascent police state is going after out critics of Israel. The very obvious reason is that the large and powerful pro Israel lobby has infiltrated the state and is using it as its muscle. So yes, defenders of Israel deserve all the bashing they get and more.
This has nothing to do with the very narrow point I was making about one sentence in Jesse’s piece, but thanks for letting me know that you’re not a person I should take seriously.
Thank you for writing this because I'm sick of trying to explain it and having people be like no surely she did something...okay where? What did she do other than co-author a pretty tame, relatively speaking, op-ed?
I'm living back in Canada now, having moved up in January because I knew where this was going. (Not a single moment of it has surprised me.) Canadian MP Charlie Angus -- who is one of the most ferocious anti-Trump voices in Canada -- has warned American dual citizens (and presumably, legal expats like me as well) not to attend the growing pro-democracy rallies/protests that are convening coast to coast now at US Consulates and Tesla dealerships.
There's just no telling what ICE might try to pull on us if/when we attempt to return to the US. But it's not a risk worth taking. It's weird to be this silenced and vulnerable, even when I'm not even on US soil, in another country with free speech guarantees.
wild how many people are trying to excuse this. it literally does not matter what the topic is...they disappeared her without due process because of what they think she thinks. and anyone who imagines this won't happen to citizens is willfully ignorant, because they have already shown that they don't care about people's rights.
It’s sickening. At least I strongly suspect it’s sickening. Five years ago I would have been 100% sure about it. But when you have a political party and media that you explicitly trusted start telling you that males are females if they truly believe it and that you sure as hell better believe it, too, that it’s okay to sterilize autistic boys with blockers followed by feminizing hormones or to cut the breasts off of pubescent girls because gender religion, that if you keep female sports for females every girl will be subject to an institutionally approved pervert inspecting her genitals, and that violent men should be caged with incarcerated women because of… violent men, how could anyone be sure?
If you’re not getting the horrified response this likely deserves, it might be because no one knows what to believe anymore.
These strong armed tactics are not gonna be good for American Jews or American support for Israel in the long run. At least that’s my immediate reaction. One possible positive outcome would be if room in the discourse was made for different pro-Palestinian voices. Check out Realign for Palestine.
Thanks for everything you write and I’m so disappointed to see how retarded so much of your readership is lol. Never good to see one’s strange bedfellows!!!!!!!!
Seeing people who have spent the last five years calling themselves free speech advocates and lamenting the demise of the ACLU, going "Well, actually..." about someone being disappeared off the street for writing in a student newspaper about a foreign country.
I don't know who said the following but it's true:
Human rights are for everyone, even people you don't like or they would be called human favours.
I agree with @Clever Pseudonym. Jesse, I think you don’t see that the antizionist movement, as it is currently being expressed, is a hate movement. It uses conspiracy theories, libel (“genocidaire”, “coloniser”, “whites supremacist”), minimizes violence against Jews/Israelis, denies violence against Jews/Israelis, and/or justifies violence against Jews and Israelis. This is pure hatred. It is the same hatred that has led to immense suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians. While I understand the utility in arguing whether detention and deportation are justified in this case, I think you need to check your blind spot when it comes to identifying hatred. It baffles me that libels and conspiracies are acceptable and justified when their target is Israelis. We have clearly learned nothing about the cycle of violence throughout Jewish history: libel/conspiracy —> rationale for violence —> violence —> minimising / denying violence —> libel conspiracy. Please do not make excuses for hatred.
Even if we granted this entire premise, that activism and protest against Israel's actions in Palestine, and Western complicity in them, constitute a "hate movement" (a proposition which seems, to me, almost disturbingly detached from reality, and contradicted by mountains of evidence in the form of polling, voting patterns etc.), it's still very easy to respond that extremely heavy-handed, extrajudicial punishment of speech is wildly at odds with fundamental democratic principles, even were the speech indeed hateful.
Your characterisation of pro-Palestinian protest and activism (which, to disclose my biases, I support) strikes me as transparently absurd, and egregiously dishonest. But the beauty of these principles is that they allow for such strident disagreement on the object-level empirical and normative questions, while preserving the epistemic health of our society, our ability to reason, seek truth, and improve our beliefs and norms, by maintaining bright lines about government punishment of political or philosophical speech *regardless of the strength of our disagreement with that speech*.
Whether "antizionist", pro-Palestinian, or whatever you want to call my position and those of the millions who have demonstrated, it is very clearly a political and/or moral belief, and should be protected from government censure. It's very disappointing that so many "conservatives" suddenly hesitate to unambiguously affirm that very simple, very foundational principle, now that it's their enemies being oppressed.
Thanks for this essay. I was glad you researched Ozturk's entry on the Canary site and included that long Rubio quote. It is indeed frightening, especially the lack of due process.
There's nothing more Jewish than a tender-hearted Jewish writer defending the rights of people who explicitly hate Jews and want to murder all of them—it's why I love you people!
I understand all the legal issues here etc and of course there's something disturbing about people getting picked up off the streets and whisked to a cell, and yet I need to say, just in the interests of clarity and context:
All of these "pro-Palestinian" protesters care absolutely nothing about actual Palestinians (notice their total silence now that Gazans are protesting Hamas and notice none of them have ever protested to "Free Palestine" from the murderous kleptocracy of Hamas), they were out protesting Israel before the IDF even moved into Gaza, they applauded the 10/7 massacre even before the bodies were cold, and they have never turned their intense moral gaze on any other country or people—it's only the Jewish state that needs to be erased, and Zionism (the desire of history's most despised minority to return to their ancient homeland) is the most evil -ISM of all, worse than Communism, Islamism etc. "From the River to the Sea" clearly means that Israel should be destroyed and "Globalize the Intifada" means to attack as many Jews as poss until this goal is met. Once again, as with the Soviets, Leftism has devolved into a program of brazen Jew hate (Jews are always the scapegoats when utopia fails to arrive).
Jesse, all of these "pro-Palestinians" would murder you and your family while weeping tears of joy and calling it Justice. They see kind, educated Jews who would give their lives for their ideals of universal humanitiarism and gladly accept your terms.
No sane country would give visas to these people. If Never Again doesn't mean zero tolerance for Jew hate, then why did I have to sit through all those lectures?
The probability that a woman getting a PhD in child development at Tufts University "explicitly hates Jews and wants to murder all of them" is very, very low, and nothing she has written comes close to warranting an accusaiton like that.
Even if she does hate us and wants us dead, unless she is actively planning an act of violence, she is entitled to her (shitty) opinion. The entire problem with the last 8 years is thinking we can use institutional and government power to make people not racist. People can be racist! They have been racist for millennia and they will continue to be racist. They just can’t be violent, which this woman obviously wasn’t.
You really think this is about using "government power to make people not racist"? Is this the official position of the American Jewish Committee?
I thought this was about the part of a visa application that makes all foreigners swear to not support a designated terror org? Meaning of course Hamas, who have murdered and kidnapped multiple American citizens.
U.S. law — 8 U.S.C. § 1182 and § 1227 — makes it clear: Non-citizens who endorse or promote terrorist organizations are eligible for deportation.
The Supreme Court reinforced this in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), ruling that even well-meaning “nonviolent support” for terrorist groups can aid their legitimacy and operations.
The law isn't "They just can’t be violent", it's that as guests, their visas can be revoked for providing any support, which includes pamphleteering.
You seem to be ignoring the content of the speech here (River to the Sea, Globalize the Intifada etc), and wanting to extend rights to someone who would not be so generous or tolerant toward you and yours.
There has been no evidence presented that this woman is a Hamas supporter. Without that, your entire argument fails.
I explained in my prior comment what the legal issue is here. Being a "Hamas supporter", under law and based on who is eligible for deportation, could mean anything from pampleteering, donating, contact with orgs that fund or support Hamas, or even explicitly repeating their eliminationist rhetoric.
The govt will make its case in court and present its evidence, she will have her chance to defend herself, a decision will be made.
As I've made it clear in prior comments ad nauseam, I don't think it's either a stretch or a grave injustice if the govt decides it wants to revoke the visas of guests who undermine our national interest or who join the hate campaign against the Jewish state.
Feel free to disagree.
You're just describing legal processes. You're not offering any normative defence for deporting people for speech, nor any response to Allie's argument that, regardless of what you think of the speech, it's still speech.
Unsurprisingly, this is all I've seen from supporters of this obvious atrocity. Because deporting people for speech simply cannot be defended in a way that any reasonable person with normal democratic values will find compelling, so you have to just extensively repeat the (questionable) legal basis, and hope no-one will notice you've not actually made any argument for why it is *morally defensible*. Because, of course, it simply isn't.
> You really think this is about using "government power to make people not racist"? Is this the official position of the American Jewish Committee?
I think the point was, quite clearly, to compare this to the censorship tactics of the left in recent years, and how the left wanted to punish people (within the law, by using measures other than criminal punishment) for views they saw as racist. You all rightly hated that. Now the Trump is weaponising a civil procedure to (de facto if not de jure) punish people for their speech, but now it's speech you don't like, so there's this complete 180 where actually this speech is SO bad and SO racist that suddenly we should have "zero tolerance" and punish the expression of views because technically the government has the authority to do so.
For those of us on the left who are and have been committed advocates of free speech protections- who have consistently denounced censorious overreach, and extra-judicial, procedurally unfair punishment of conservative or moderate views deemed racist or otherwise abhorrent by the mob- it's frustrating to see conservatives whose freedom of expression we have spent the last decade arguing in defence of (lighting social credit on fire in the process), turn around and cheer on speech punishment by the government itself when it's leftist speech being censured.
It's maddening to see you use the same bullshit tactics we've endlessly argued against from our own side: overdramatic, dishonest characterisations of how bad the speech is, unwavering focus on the absolute worst elements, guilt by association, endless repetition that it's technically legal.
Allie was trying to point out to you that in this case, as in those others, it doesn't matter that the views are terrible; it's still expression of speech, that should be protected from government censure, not least because government censure simply doesn't work. It can't make people not racist, or not support Hamas, or whatever view it is that people want to eliminate by government intervention. It's not possible, and we sort of collectively decided long ago that it's fundamentally anti-democratic for a government to try. We should remain focused on that principle, no matter how odious we find the views in question in any particular case. I think Allie was trying to pump that intuition with reference to recent events where you presumably took the other side and supported freedom of expression from government interference.
To take that very reasonable point and interpret it in such an obviously absurd way, questioning in mock incredulity whether it was the "official position of the American Jewish Committee", is incredibly unhelpful and counter-productive. I really wish supporters of the administration's tactics would cut it out, and instead address the central issue of whether and why the government *should* be punishing people for protesting (whether or not it legally can).
Precisely. And name-dropping my employer was a nice touch. Brought me right back to 2020! And don’t worry big guy, the American Jewish Committee would not care that I said that you can’t break the law to deport possible antisemites. Because, ya know, we have principles and stuff.
Where was this energy against supporting foreign terrorism when NORAID was a thing?
This is an admirable comment (no irony).
I very much respect you for sticking up for this person and for their rights etc, and admit that you're most likely right, yet at the same time in all prior eruptions of Jew hate not every supporter swept up in the mania was an explicit eliminationist, some just didn't like Jews because they were too rich or too too smart, too pushy or manipulative etc etc, and all contributed to an ecosystem of dehumanization that ultimately meant they turned a blind eye (at the least) when the violence started.
Also, while she in particular most likely doesn't "explicitly hate Jews and want to murder all of them" she is regurgitating Hamas propaganda, which means she has sat down at the restaurant, ordered some soup, but hasn't quite picked an entree yet. I realize this is a belabored analogy, but how much ingesting of hateful propaganda should we ignore? Where do we draw a line around the bacillus?
I guess my main point is: we would never tolerate this level of hatred for black people or gay people or any other minority group, why do we have to tolerate it when it's aimed at Jews? Why are Jews always the exception and always the people who must risk their necks for other people's ideals?
I am not Jewish (nor a Trumpist), but my wife and in-laws are (Jewish), and I have to support any and all efforts to keep them safe. I prioritize their civil rights over the rights of a student on a visa to come here and contribute to the supposed Palestinian cause, which has never been the construction of their own state, but the erasure of the Jewish state via bloodshed. Americans owe these people nothing.
Thanks
“We’d never tolerate this behavior we would never tolerate this level of hatred for black people or gay people or any other minority group, why do we have to tolerate it when it's aimed at Jews?”
You’re right, but we’d also never deport someone for being anti-Palestinian. We would for being anti-Jew. So how does that figure into the tolerance paradigm?
I think the crux here is that Hamas, the governing body of Gaza, is a designated terror org that has killed and kidnapped multiple Americans, and that states very plainly both its desire to do so again and also that their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel, our ally.
So the issue's not so much with Palestinians per se, but with their current govt and its deeds, intentions, crimes, alliances etc. (Also, I think the Biden Admin did deport or maybe just not renew the visas of certain West Bank Israelis they considered suspicious and/or unsavory.)
These cases hinge on the section of a visa application that makes all foreigners swear to not support a designated terror org.
U.S. law — 8 U.S.C. § 1182 and § 1227: Non-citizens who endorse or promote terrorist organizations are eligible for deportation.
The Supreme Court reinforced this in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), ruling that even well-meaning “nonviolent support” for terrorist groups can aid their legitimacy and operations.
Also, separate of the legal issues, there is no mass protest movement against Palestinians or Arabs, if anything quite the opposite, these people can live their lives and attend class etc without any chance of harassment. If there were a foreigner here menacing or threatening Palestinians and interfering with their civil rights, I don't see any problem with them being deported also, though I've yet to see anyone doing this.
There is no current or historical record in America of anti-Palestinian hatred or any kind of discrimination against them; Jews on the other hand are not only history's most despised minority, but have been on the receiving end of pogroms for centuries, and have been menaced by campus mobs chanting in support of Hamas' genocidal fantasies.
I agree with the govt that steps should be taken to protect them and their civil rights and that it is in America's national interest to not extend visas to Hamas supporters.
"we would never tolerate this level of hatred for black people or gay people or any other minority group, why do we have to tolerate it when it's aimed at Jews? Why are Jews always the exception and always the people who must risk their necks for other people's ideals?"
This. A thousand dang times this, and honestly I'm sorry if this is coming off as impolite, but this is the thing that drives more worried and upset Jews crazy about the kind of positioning that Jesse among many others seems to be engaging in.
What do you mean a thousand times this? The quoted paragraph is just completely unrelated to reality. Who tolerates hatred of Jews? Where? It's at least as socially unacceptable as hatred of gay people, and it seems to me anecdotally considerably moreso.
Criticism of Israel, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing, and people tolerate it because... gestures at Enlightenment.
It's genuinely hard to parse what you mean by "the kind of positioning Jesse seems to be engaging in". Objecting to extrajudicial punishment of protestors is nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and *everyone* can see through this dishonest tactic by now. Give it up.
I replied to your other comment. Based on previous conversations with people with the pattern of rhetoric you are showing in this one, the possibility for a good faith discussion with you is something like 1% at best. So have a good day.
I am quite obviously engaging in good faith discussion here. But if you don't want to respond to the challenges posed, I can hardly blame you.
Is weird how so few people see it, or even admit it needs to be a major consideration.
Lately I've been wondering how modern liberals would have responded to Kristallnacht—I concede they most likely would have opposed and denounced the more violent events, but for things like menacing and destruction of property, you know they would insist upon providing "context" and making sure the arrested rioters had proper ACLU representation. Especially if they claimed they weren't "anti-Semitic" but only "anti-Zionist" (their get-out-of-jail-free card).
Modern Western liberals have damaged their moral compasses by an obsessive concern with proceduralism, by their weird victim fetish where no issue can be decided until everyone involved provides a positionality statement so they can be properly placed on the victim hierarchy, and by a refusal to admit that many of the people we invite here have vastly different values and aren't playing by our rules but instead are taking advantage of our humanitarian hospitality. (WEIRD people, in the Joseph Henrich sense, have no ability to conceive of others who would spill or shed blood for faith and country, it is too foreign to them.)
But as Jews are always the canary in the coalmine signalling that ugly social strife is up ahead, no one will learn any of these lessons until real violence breaks out and the smoke clears.
I agree with pretty much all of this, and at the same time I hate that the Trump administration is exploiting this to be as trollishly authoritarian as it feels it can get away with, and do fear the erosion of democracy as a result. It's become very hard for everybody (including myself to some extent I'll admit) to walk and chew gum at the same time on this.
Trump is a malignant suppurating hemorrhoid of a man, absolutely loathsome in all regards, yet the backlash he represents most esp in re immigration was pretty predictable after the Biden people distorted and abused the entire concept of asylum and foreign guests. (And at least Trump has been clear and upfront about his goals and policies (however hateful), whereas the Biden people lied and gaslit the entire time, relying on their MSM wing to deny that millions of "migrants" were being imported and to slander anyone who mentioned it as a bigot.)
Various people on all sides of the aisle have been saying for years, more or less: If liberals won’t enforce borders, authoritarians will, with "enforce borders" also meaning prioritize and protect our own citizens. Thus here we are, our orange authoritarian is using a very expansive conception of executive power to remove illegals and any other foreigners he deems unsavory, like Hamas supporters.
I'm with you, this both feels very right and somewhat gross at the same time, maybe like doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or in the wrong way. But I won't be crying any tears for the supposed rights of Hamasniks, as I never grant anyone anything where they would never reciprocate. They can get sent back home, it's much gentler than what would happen to any of us protesting in their home countries.
Cheers
Oh no, providing context and wanting to ensure civil rights protections!
> Lately I've been wondering how modern liberals would have responded to Kristallnacht—I concede they most likely would have opposed and denounced the more violent events, but for things like menacing and destruction of property, you know they would insist upon providing "context" and making sure the arrested rioters had proper ACLU representation.
This is so, so illuminating.
Of course I would want to consider context, and ensure civil rights protections, even in the case of literal Nazis. The fact you seem to think this is some kind of reductio that should embarrass "modern liberals" tells us much about your worldview. It suggests that on some level, you not only believe that inviolable democratic principles only apply until you *really* hate the person or the views expressed or the crime accused, you consider it perfectly obvious. As if the very thought of wanting to ensure due process, presumption of innocence and so on apply even to Nazis and violent criminals is so ludicrous that it exposes the folly of an entire worldview.
You even seem to make this more explicit, when you contrast hypothetical liberal reaction to the "violent events", which you "concede" that "they would most likely oppose and denounce", with the non-violent cases in which you suggest, with apparent contempt, liberals would want to ensure the accused received proper civil rights protections.
Do you really think that those are two mutually exclusive options? Oppose and denounce, or ensure civil rights?
Due process isn't something to be discarded when you "oppose and denounce" the charged crime; its most important function is precisely to protect those accused of the most emotive and heinous crimes, because that is when we are most tempted to dispense with procedural fairness and risk the most terrible moral atrocities. That's why it must be inviolable, and why we must oppose attempts to circumvent it (like by weaponising immigration law to punish extra-judicially).
This revealed relativism about fundamental democratic principles helps explain why your reaction, to a post about the authoritarian overreach of deporting people for speech, has been multiple lengthy comments about how terrible the "pro-Palestinian" cause is (based on a deeply unfair characterisation that is almost entirely composed of straw and weak men and generalisations from a small minority of idiotic and hateful people, but my whole point is that it's irrelevant so I won't dwell on that). It's as if you think Jesse will say 'you know what, I hadn't realised their views were that bad- in that case, round em up and ship em out, those terrorist-supporting scum!'
The point is that it doesn't matter. The government simply should not be levying severe punishments for attending or organising protests, writing op-eds, etc., no matter how misguided the cause.
I'm sure you didn't notice this, but after I repeated myself for the tenth time, you said I only gave an argument "describing legal processes" and then responded with a stirring tribute to due process! After I'd just described how due process will play out here!
I've had this discussion multiple times with multiple people, and what seems to get lost is the fact that: these people are NOT American citizens. They are guests who do NOT have the same rights. And they are not being threatened with gulag or guillotine, just with being sent back home. This is not a "severe punishment".
And none of this is unprecedented, they will not be the first people deported for supporting a terrorist group, even if the support is just pampleteering or donating or being in touch with their representatives.
Revoking a visa to protect your own citizens from guests who support terror orgs is in line with "fundamental democratic principles", is consistent w established legal precedent, and at the end of the day everyone involved will have their day in court.
This is my "normative defence", take it or leave it.
I think this person is just full of shit, tbh.
Nothing she has written: agreed. But after the number of incidents of muslim doctors in Western countries caught on video and email since Oct 7th being horrifically and totalistically antisemitic, I'd remove at least one of those "very"'s before "low" and possibly both. Antisemitism in Muslim communities is simply very high, including in the West and even the US, though less so.
So you're explicitly just suggesting she's quite likely to be anti-Semitic because she's Muslim? And therefore it's more justifiable to deport her?
In the very same thread you're lamenting how it's "acceptable to hate Jews", as if any of this would ever happen to a pro-Israel protestor- let alone people openly saying 'well she probably wants to kill Muslims because she's Jewish".
Astonishing.
"SO YOU'RE SAYING" - no, I did *not* say it's more justifiable to deport her. Definitely not "explicitly" as you put it. I think that the probability of her being antisemitic is low, but not "very very low" as Jesse put it. But that's a separate thing.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your cognition was affected by outrage and that you weren't deliberately or at least consciously engaging in weaselly tactics.
Ironic. Perhaps your cognition was affected by outrage, but what I accused you of suggesting was that she was more likely to be anti-Semitic because she's Muslim. You deny suggesting that, then *in the next sentence* repeat the suggestion, saying "the probability is low but not very very low". And in your original comment, you *explicitly* said this was because of "the number of incidents of Muslim doctors ... being horrifically and totalistically antisemitic" (or, precisely, "after", which technically is not semantically equivalent to 'because', but can hardly be interpreted any other way here- if you disagree please explain how) and that "antisemitism in Muslim countries is simply very high".
So yes, you absolutely did suggest that she was somewhat likely to be anti-Semitic, because other people of her religion are. Whether you are deliberately lying because you know you've been caught out in blatant hateful bigotry and hypocrisy, or you just aren't a careful or rigorous enough thinker to be able to keep track of your own arguments, such as they are, your denials are plainly false. Please don't accuse me of 'weaselly behaviour' for putting your own words back to you, completely straightforwardly.
You're right on the other hand that you didn't *explicitly* suggest it was more justifiable to deport her. But in the context you made your comment, it's the only reasonable inference- or else what is the relevance of it? Why did you say it in this thread? Please explain what you meant and why you brought it up here, other than in defence of her deportation, or else I'd appreciate an apology.
You can’t conceive of the fact that I believe two things at once:
1) I *****don’t***** think she should be deported.
2) On the other hand, I do think she is more likely to be antisemitic because she’s a Muslim. Not that she definitely is, ***nor that that is enough to deport her!***
The second point is not enough for me to support the first.
Kapiche???
I get that this is really really hard for you to process.
Why did the ACLU defend Nazis in Skokie? You think they didn't want to murder all Jews? The content of the protests is not the point here.
I was a member of the ACLU for a long time and see your point, I would just point to a few differences:
The Skokie Nazis, losers all, just wanted to have a single march, not a permanent encampment that menaced every passing Jew and that took over multiple campuses to spread Jew hate;
The Skokie Nazis, as far as I recall, were all American citizens, not here on visas. That is a big difference, as we've all learned in the past month that applying for (or maintaining a visa) means no explicit support for designated terror orgs;
and lastly, Hamas and their fellow travelers are menacing and attacking Jews in 2025 not 1945, the Skokie Nazis were harmless buffoons in comparison, and all these "pro-Palestinian" orgs are on record as supporting the 10/7 massacre and calling for multiple repeats.
The Hamasniks are a clear and present danger to American Jews in ways that the Skokie Nazis weren't.
Hope that's clear.
If it were Biden doing this to Israel supporters how hard would you clutching your pearls right now? You're really twisting yourself into a pretzel to justify ignoring principles like free speech for people you don't like... Just like you do in most of the comments of yours I read.
hey thanks for reading my comments!
I am happy to confess to hypocrisy, it's a universal condition.
Also, i don't wear pearls, too gauche.
But srsly, if Biden had deported visitors and showed 1) that the law states visas can be revoked for support of designated terorr orgs, and 2) that the person in question did so, I would have to say, well, them's the rules.
I've traveled all over the world and never once did it occur to me to protest the govt or country that had me as a guest, certainly not while chanting for the odious theocratic terrorists of Hamas.
Cheers
What rule did the subject of this article break? That is the question we are asking here. Not whether the most gonzo protestors are good people.
I've had this discussion multiple times w multiple people, and as far as I can tell the Secy of State has wide latitude to deport people they view as a danger to American interests, and also that visas can be revoked if the holder supports designated terror orgs.
Hamas fits the bill, and I've yet to see a "pro-Palestinian" protester say a single bad word about them. If you come here as a visitor and support this movement, you're aligning yourself with a very ugly cause and putting yourself in jeopardy.
Actions have consequences.
Those are all salient points but still aren't based in law, which is Jesse's point. If the government wants to do this, great, do it right. I'm actually struggling to comprehend how there is a debate about whether the government should be able to arrest people without making it clear what laws they're accused of having broken first. Anything can be spun into hate, harassment, enticement, etc., and I don't want the government to have free reign to decide where the line is according to whatever ends they're trying to get to.
I absolutely understand your point, but sometimes we have competing values.
My paramount value is the prevention of pogroms, which is a global sickness that seems to arise every few generations, and which every "pro-Palestinian" is lusting for in their heart of hearts, which is obvious if you just listen to them and read their words. They hate Jews and the Jewish state and want it erased by any means necessary.
I understand that due process is also an important value, but in the case of foreigners here on visas campaigning to "Globalize the Intifada" etc, which clearly means attack and denounce every Jew you can get your hands on, I think they've made their choices and have to face the consequences of those choices.
They're not being imprisoned or executed, they're just being sent home. This strikes me as sane and just.
Jewish lives matter!
The United States government's paramount value is not preventing pogroms, it is the United States' constitution, and we already have laws that deal with perpetrators of violence and even incitement to violence. These protestors are not being sent home, they're being sent to detention centers without consistent access to their lawyers.
I can only explain and defend my own values and beliefs, and sometimes they align w the US Govt's and sometimes they don't.
Also, if you've ever been to jail, you kind of exist in a no-man's land for a few hrs or sometimes longer, esp if you're being transported (unless you already have a lawyer on call), until you get processed and get to the phone.
I would guess all the Hamasniks in DHS lockup are in touch with their armies of pro bono attys within a day or 2.
I wish them no harm at all, being sent back home isn't the worst punishment.
I think you're too quick to attribute this to a difference in values. I suspect it is largely a difference in beliefs about the values of the people being deported, their current and likely future behavior, and which actions or policies are necessary to address those things.
In *this particular instance*, I have not seen concrete evidence that Ozturk did anything except write an op-ed expressing dissatisfaction with how her university leadership responded to a resolution by the student senate. If you haven't read it yet, you should. I disagree with it, and maybe I mistakenly glossed over something more concerning, but I think it reflects the kind of approach we want people to take *as an alternative* to calling for the extermination of Jews, violent protests, vandalism, taking over buildings, etc.
> every "pro-Palestinian" is lusting for in their heart of hearts, which is obvious if you just listen to them and read their words. They hate Jews and the Jewish state and want it erased by any means necessary.
I don't see anything in the op-ed that can directly be interpreted as supporting views like this. For example:
> Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.
This is soft language, which focuses on harms to Palestinian people (as opposed to, e.g. a perceived injustice of the mere existence of Israel) and the authors went out of their way to leave their claims open to debate.
To be clear, I realize we may not have all the information here and I would not be surprised if we eventually learn that Ozturk did do some of those more concerning things I mentioned. But, and this is where due process comes in, that evidence really needs to be made public. Or the administration at least needs to behave in a way that makes it clear they believe they are accountable to such evidence.
I very much appreciate your wise and measured response.
I personally would flunk them for not knowing the meaning of "genocide", as "deliberate starvation, indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide" are all demonstrable lies if not evil slanders, but then again I'm hopelessly biased.
Ozturk is a Turkish name, right? I find it hilarious that in Turkey it's illegal to mention the well-documented Armenian genocide, but it's fine to come to America to campaign against a fictional genocide committed by the Jewish state.
It makes me feel better knowing I'm not the only brazen hypocrite.
I share your values. I don’t trust the reporting on this. I am sure there is more to it than that this woman said one thing, or went to one march. And the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is important. Is the ability of foreign nationals to disseminate propaganda in the United States on behalf of a recognized terror organization really the “free speech” hill you want to die on? Seems like for many in the media, the answer is “yes.”
Thanks
Cheers
> My paramount value is the prevention of pogroms, which is a global sickness that seems to arise every few generations, and which every "pro-Palestinian" is lusting for in their heart of hearts, which is obvious if you just listen to them and read their words. They hate Jews and the Jewish state and want it erased by any means necessary.
Surely, on some level, you know that you're embarrassing youself with this?
I seriously doubt you would ever say it in real life- even in the company of (normal, intelligent) Israel supporters- because you must know deep down that anyone that hears you say it will instantly think less of you.
Why say obviously false stuff? Are you just trolling? Elsewhere you at least seem to sincerely believe in this stuff, but you can't sincerely believe the above.
I do very much appreciate your fixation with me.
I was just having lunch with my Israeli friends yesterday, over in Beverlywood, which is the West Bank of LA.
I cannot tell you how much they appreciate me, as a non-Jew, supporting them and trying to help protect them and their children from the public hatred they face. In fact one of them had a son harrassed in Europe for being an Israeli, another had a brother harrassed in Turkey for being an Israeli, they now have to attend synagogue with armed guards at the doors, and of course there were "pro-Palestinian" protests here in LA, even one where a Jew was killed:
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/16/1213515513/suspect-arrested-in-death-of-jewish-protestor-in-southern-california
And as far as what I said about the Palestinians, I get much (but not all of it) from them: they all know someone who was killed or lost a family member on 10/7, they all lived through various peace offers (all rejected), and they all just want to live normal lives and wish their deranged neighbors wouldn't keep insisting they go back to war. I will be seeing them soon for Passover, and the only thing I'll be embarrassed about is not knowing the words and rituals.
I encourage you to stick to the issues and not worry about my psychology or if people think instantly less or more of me. You don't know anything about me!
They don’t have to tell us, or the media, what laws they believe she has broken. What makes you think she’s done nothing to merit arrest?
Her lawyers saying they don’t know why she was arrested
If the law provides that her lawyers are to be informed of why she has been detained, and the government did not do that, then the lawyers can seek redress. I am certain that her lawyers know what she was told. It is possible that at the time of arrest, the government has no obligation to inform her as to exactly what activities they have concluded make her no longer eligible to stay here, only that she is no longer eligible. She is entitled to due process, there will be a legal proceeding, and at that time the government will present its evidence. I’m content that justice will prevail either way.
This.
You have offered zero support for any of your statements concerning the motivations of the Palestinian supporters. We could speculate endlessly about motivations and hidden agendas. How do we know that you are not the one having a base, hateful motivation. Perhaps you want to muder all of the Palestinians in the world. Let us assess what we can and leave the hidden contents of the hearts and minds of others out of it. We cannot know.
"You have offered zero support for any of your statements concerning the motivations of the Palestinian supporters."
I have simply read their writings, listened to their speeches and chants, and made my assessment—while also noticing that (suspiciously) no other country receives this level of passionate hatred and vilification, it is the Jewish state that is denounced daily whereas the crimes of every country or tribe are either ignored or quickly forgotten. And I'm far from the only person who's come to the same conclusion. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
"Perhaps you want to mu[r]der all of the Palestinians in the world."
Perhaps, yes, but then again, I've never said, written, or chanted any such things, everything we're discussing is based on factual records of words and deeds.
"We cannot know."
But we can, it's wise to heed people when they tell you who they are aka their goals and motivations. Also, all we need to know is the law: people on visas are guests who can be deported if found to have offered support for designated terror orgs.
We can disagree here, and we can certainly disagree on the methods used to pursue this, but this is the root of the dispute.
All my other points have been made already.
Amen!
David Bernstein (who is definitely to your right on this issue wrote in a tweetstorm:
I haven't seen any evidence yet that would justify the revocation of Ozturk's visa, much less take her violently from the street. But that said, it's pretty clear the foreign students are being targeted specifically for "pro-Hamas activism", not for being critical of American foreign policy per se. And the ones that are in fact supporting Hamas are also violating the terms of their visas.
If this article is all there is, though, it doesn't meet the legal criteria for being an inadmissible alien by supported terrorism. And that said, she's not a "legal resident". She is here on a temporary student visa that could be revoked or not renewed at any time.
Either there is a significantly more to the story, or else a big overreach by ICE. She doesn't seem to be a danger to anyone, so just sending her a revocation letter would be sufficient, assuming revocation is justified by something beyond the op-ed."
https://x.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1905594892266463240
So... does anyone have any ideas about what anyone can do to try to push back against this kind of thing? I agree that it's disturbing and distressing, and I feel pretty helpless to do anything about it.
Donate to FIRE (always the right answer to everything)
As a single person, engaging with small mutual-aid style groups can be helpful. It might not be with immigrants, who are main targets right now, but people down the theoretical line "first they came for the socialists" style. For me, im working with housing unstable populations and getting involved with that mutual aid network. You might have skills or local orgs that *do* work with immigrants or refugees and are interested in working with them.
This is not an issue a single person can address. This is something groups of people can fight against in small ways. Its paralyzing, but thats the point of what they're doing. They want people unable to think of where to put their energies. Pick something you have the skills to work on and just *do it*. Small things or otherwise. A lot of people doing something small can add up to something really big.
In order to actually follow through on my stated intention, rather than just stating it, I signed up to find out about some local volunteer opportunities, and I was presented with an amusing, wholesome double entendre (I don't think I can post the screenshot here, so linking to a note with the image):
https://substack.com/profile/1429363-noah-haskell/note/c-104164002
This is awesome! Glad you were able to find somewhere to point you to opprotunitues, and have a bit of amusement in this situation
"Housing unstable populations"? So that's what we're calling the homeless, er, houseless now, is it? If they can't put a roof over their heads, how are they possibly going to put up a meaningful resistance to Trump's secret police?
Broski, these are people who are sometimes housed or people who are potentially staying with family for large portions of time. Under definitions regarding housing assistance in my area, they are not homeless. They also, generally, just aren't homeless. Some people in this population are, but many are not. They may have issues getting money together for rent or may have recently been housed, making them more likely to fall back into homelessness. Instead of being reactionarily not PC, I'm attempting to use more accurate language for the population i work with. But go off, I guess.
Thank you for that comment.
Thanks for this response. I like this idea a lot. I will see what I can find to contribute to where I live.
Clearly and compellingly written. As some of the comments below show, many people have difficulty condemning violations of the rule of law if the victims of the violations hold opinions they don't like.
I'm frightened as well.
It would be horrible enough if this. police state. shit was being used against people who criticize this country. But for criticizing a foreign country? Have we gone completely insane?
It's the devil's bargain the likes of AIPAC/Ben Shapiro /possibly Bari Weiss/etc... made with him; we'll hire actual antisemites but also we'll squash all criticism of Israel. Also the state of Israel and the Orbanesque Netanyahu to do whatever they want without even the mildest verbal rebuke.
The understanding is even if they start going after Americans of some Jewish ethnicity or other they can freely self-deport to Israel.
Noah Smith did a. piece on the New Right yesterday, and I commented that they see no contradiction between being nostalgic for a "Christendom" where Jews were treated as outsiders and admiring Israel for being such an unapologetic ethnic-dominance state.
“To say that this makes defenders of Israel look like pathetic babies would be phrasing it too kindly.”
The Trump administration’s supposed justification for deporting Ozturk makes **defenders of Israel** look bad? All of us? Even me? Why? How?
This is a baffling non sequitur. I can hazard a guess as to what you meant, but it really isn’t clear, and it comes across as undeserved Israel-defender-bashing.
On the off chance you’re looking for a copy editor, I’ll do it cheap. (I’ve found one typo so far too.)
As a Jewish American who's been more sympathetic to the Israeli point-of-view in the past than I am now, Jesse's comment makes perfect sense to me.
Gaza is rubble and any previously respected norms around proportionality have been completely thrown out the window, and Israeli leaders themselves are saying it. You can argue all you want about who bears the blame or whether it's justified, but it's just reality that a lot of people are going to look at that and not like what they see. So when right-wing Zionist groups play dumb about that reality and act like it's so inconceivable that anyone could even mutter a criticism of Israel, as if any opinion other than "flatten all of Gaza" is impossible to fathom, as if anyone not sharing that opinion should suffer the most extreme social censure and even legal consequences (while the brazen endorsement of proposals for ethnic cleansing continues)... yeah, it's pathetic. I have felt second-hand embarrassment for a lot of the tone-deaf messaging I've seen from Zionist orgs in the US.
No one is preventing anyone from "defending Israel" while also standing up against things like what happened to Ozturk. I'd love to see it happen more.
Gaza is a heap of rubble and you’ll find people here talking about their poor Jewish cousin at Columbia and how that’s the situation that demanded action. Disgusting.
You’re just willing to justify religious and ethnic harassment and I’m not. That’s the difference between us.
You are crazy!! Religious and ethnic harassment??! Sorry but a Jewish kid getting their feelings hurt is not equivalent to people getting disappeared for co-signing an op-ed!! Get a grip!! (Shouldn’t have to say it but I am also a Jew!! And I am put off by the protestors! But for the love of god have some perspective!!)
This particular commenter asked me how my family members at Columbia University have been treated over the past 18 months and I told him. What they have experienced absolutely amounts to harassment as observant Jews. See other comments in this thread. It’s not about their feelings - their religious items have been defaced and they have been personally affected in a major way.
It’s genuinely hard for me to muster up significant pity for the Goliath in this situation. Obviously it sucks so bad to be a Jewish kid on campus right now, but it sucks immeasurably more to be 1) a kid in gaza, 2) an innocent person being disappeared. I’m not doubting the lack of tact of the protestors, but i would wager that it’s less dyed in the wool antisemitism and more college kids are dumb and dramatic. I would bet that some of the kids who did the harassment were Jewish themselves.
So chill, Duane.
Every single Jew I know is against this. Every single one. This shit is not for the Jewish community, though. It’s for the evangelical community.
I'm not Jewish and every Jewish person I know IRL is also horrified by this! My mind is fully boggled by some comments here. I'm not sure it's a great idea for long term antisemitism management to support this type of stuff *on behalf of* Jewish people. Aren't people worried about a backlash Jewish people might face in response? I certainly am!
Yes, we are very worried! Lots of Jewish people and groups are speaking up, but I do think there are others who are so exhausted after the past 18 months that they’re glad that someone is doing something, even if they are uncomfortable with what the “something” is. It’s a sad but understandable reaction.
This entire issue reminds me of the David Frum quote that is something like “if liberals won’t enforce immigration laws, fascists will”. In my opinion, many of these institutions utterly failed Jewish kids in the wake of 10/7, but this is definitely not the appropriate corrective. I have younger cousins at Columbia who are very visibly Jewish and their lives have been very unpleasant. But they don’t support deporting Khalil, et al. It makes the situation far worse.
I’m sorry how? A huge fraction of the protestors were Jewish. Can you give any specific ways in which their lives were made unpleasant?
Their mezuzahs were ripped from their doors multiple times, “Free Palestine” written on their whiteboards (presumably because of their mezuzot - no other reason why they would be targeted), my cousin was spit on once, and a general sense that because they wear kippahs that they are shunned and asked questions about Israel that no other students are asked. How’s that? Good enough?
The Hillel where they literally have to go to consume kosher food and pray in a minyan (a religious obligation of any observant Jew) has been threatened an unknown number of times and CUAD (Khalil’s group) has specifically demanded that the university sever ties with Hillel.
You can also read the Columbia Antisemitisk Taskforce report at any time where, for instance, Israeli students were denied care at the health center, Jewish students were bullied by professors, and at least one on campus assault occurred.
"In my opinion, many of these institutions utterly failed Jewish kids in the wake of 10/7, but this is definitely not the appropriate corrective."
Literally exactly it. Obviously, I understand a Jewish person's reaction being kinda sheepishly happy about it or even frankly not that sheepishly happy about it. If I were one of those students I'd probably be very pleased with what's happening. As I'm not Jewish, I tried to think of a parallel situation for myself and I thought, okay, what if they started rounding up the most egregious "gender medicine" practitioners who have SERIOUSLY harmed people. I'd probably be at least a little happy at first! That's the messy stuff of life at work! But my god it's not actually defensible! How would I then feel if a bunch of people who aren't personally affected started saying "haha yeah! fuck yeah! this is all for autistic lesbians and their bodily integrity and safety!" I'd be terrified! Don't put that on me and my understandable emotional reaction!
Exactly. I am actually not totally opposed to some of what the Trump admin is trying make institutions do (like mask bans - you can’t just have maurauding bands of masked people screaming and interrupting academic life all the time). But pressuring institutions to protect civil rights and enforce their own rules is a lot different than going after 25 year olds.
“If, for example, it conditions funding on adopting overly broad definitions of anti-Semitism that conflate it with criticism of Israel, mission accomplished.”
This is a gross mischaracterization of the IHRA definition, so I hope that’s not what you’re talking about. No matter what you think of it, IHRA does not conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel per se. This is not a minor distinction—anti-Zionists routinely try to discredit IHRA by falsely claiming that it says all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. It says nothing of the kind, but you’re coming pretty close to suggesting it does.
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
These are examples of anti-Semitism that the IHRA cites in its definition as paradigmatic.
So no, it's not a "gross mischaracterisation" to suggest that the IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism "conflates it with criticism of Israel". It's straightforwardly true that it does conflate it with at least certain criticisms of Israel.
If you want to object that you included the qualification 'per se': Singal didn't, so you're straightforwardly refuting a straw man if you're simply arguing that the IHRA doesn't conflate any and all criticism, just certain kinds.
I think Clever Pseudonym's response further down is the sort of person Jesse is referring to when he says "defender of Israel". Unfortunately there aren't too many "perverts for nuance" around and broad strokes are too often used.
We need a specific term to refer to the sort of person that is pro-Israel/pro-Netanyahu to the point of stamping out all sorts of speech, up to and including genuine antisemitism by all means necessary.
It’s not even about Netanyahu. There are small L liberal supporters and fascist supporters of every cause under the sun. There are deeply authoritarian environmentalists! We need to differentiate between people who are fine ignoring the law and people who aren’t - no matter the issue.
Law and order enjoyers vs Sopranos enjoyers
Wow, that’s good!
100% agreed.
Sam Adler-Bell posted the following on Twitter:
"Can we just be honest about this for a fucking second: the current government of the US is using the protection of Jews to disappear people from our streets for their political speech. On your behalf. You got what you wanted. They're the nazis. You're a collaborator." https://x.com/SamAdlerBell/status/1905398305997423093
He clarifies later that "you" is Sheryl Sandberg, who is speaking out about antisemitism, so I guess now objecting to antisemitism means that you support disappearing grad students.
To think that this is what Jews want is to ignore the fact that 73% of Jews voted for Harris. Only 21% of Muslims did the same, but I don't hear anyone arguing that this is what they wanted when they threw away their votes on Jill Stein.
Can’t people be fucking normal? Antisemitism is bad. Scooping up people on the streets for speech is bad. Why can’t there be a middle ground between fascist Republicans and mealy-mouthed Democrats? Wouldn’t those people get like 60% of the vote?!
I think "Can't people be fucking normal?" is the question of the decade. Any political party that could manage to seem vaguely normal could govern for generations.
If you think the only problem with the Dems is that they're mealy-mouthed, you're missing a lot. Reductive takes like this are not helping the them or anyone else.
Oh trust me, that’s not the only thing that’s wrong with them.
Also I’m like 99% sure Sheryl Sandberg voted for Kamala Harris bffr
The first people out nascent police state is going after out critics of Israel. The very obvious reason is that the large and powerful pro Israel lobby has infiltrated the state and is using it as its muscle. So yes, defenders of Israel deserve all the bashing they get and more.
This has nothing to do with the very narrow point I was making about one sentence in Jesse’s piece, but thanks for letting me know that you’re not a person I should take seriously.
It’s ok. Murat thinks Jewish Americans are fair game. Proceed accordingly!
Thank you for writing this because I'm sick of trying to explain it and having people be like no surely she did something...okay where? What did she do other than co-author a pretty tame, relatively speaking, op-ed?
Well. Where are her crimes? https://youtu.be/lLtAn9nXgVI?si=uXupBHQEsB-YL_f0&t=235
I'm with you, we're in uncharted waters now and I'm sickened and scared. Great NYT piece btw.
I'm living back in Canada now, having moved up in January because I knew where this was going. (Not a single moment of it has surprised me.) Canadian MP Charlie Angus -- who is one of the most ferocious anti-Trump voices in Canada -- has warned American dual citizens (and presumably, legal expats like me as well) not to attend the growing pro-democracy rallies/protests that are convening coast to coast now at US Consulates and Tesla dealerships.
There's just no telling what ICE might try to pull on us if/when we attempt to return to the US. But it's not a risk worth taking. It's weird to be this silenced and vulnerable, even when I'm not even on US soil, in another country with free speech guarantees.
wild how many people are trying to excuse this. it literally does not matter what the topic is...they disappeared her without due process because of what they think she thinks. and anyone who imagines this won't happen to citizens is willfully ignorant, because they have already shown that they don't care about people's rights.
It’s sickening. At least I strongly suspect it’s sickening. Five years ago I would have been 100% sure about it. But when you have a political party and media that you explicitly trusted start telling you that males are females if they truly believe it and that you sure as hell better believe it, too, that it’s okay to sterilize autistic boys with blockers followed by feminizing hormones or to cut the breasts off of pubescent girls because gender religion, that if you keep female sports for females every girl will be subject to an institutionally approved pervert inspecting her genitals, and that violent men should be caged with incarcerated women because of… violent men, how could anyone be sure?
If you’re not getting the horrified response this likely deserves, it might be because no one knows what to believe anymore.
Jesus Christ dude.. give it a break. Not everything comes back to gender or democrats being retarded.
The point is not about gender. The point is about outrageous lies. "Retarded" is funny, but staggeringly flippant.
What got me more convinced were the reasons given.
These strong armed tactics are not gonna be good for American Jews or American support for Israel in the long run. At least that’s my immediate reaction. One possible positive outcome would be if room in the discourse was made for different pro-Palestinian voices. Check out Realign for Palestine.
Ahmed is amazing!
Thanks for everything you write and I’m so disappointed to see how retarded so much of your readership is lol. Never good to see one’s strange bedfellows!!!!!!!!
Seeing people who have spent the last five years calling themselves free speech advocates and lamenting the demise of the ACLU, going "Well, actually..." about someone being disappeared off the street for writing in a student newspaper about a foreign country.
I don't know who said the following but it's true:
Human rights are for everyone, even people you don't like or they would be called human favours.
Fuck, *especially* for the people you don't like.
Or, as I like to call this: hypocrisy.
I agree with @Clever Pseudonym. Jesse, I think you don’t see that the antizionist movement, as it is currently being expressed, is a hate movement. It uses conspiracy theories, libel (“genocidaire”, “coloniser”, “whites supremacist”), minimizes violence against Jews/Israelis, denies violence against Jews/Israelis, and/or justifies violence against Jews and Israelis. This is pure hatred. It is the same hatred that has led to immense suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians. While I understand the utility in arguing whether detention and deportation are justified in this case, I think you need to check your blind spot when it comes to identifying hatred. It baffles me that libels and conspiracies are acceptable and justified when their target is Israelis. We have clearly learned nothing about the cycle of violence throughout Jewish history: libel/conspiracy —> rationale for violence —> violence —> minimising / denying violence —> libel conspiracy. Please do not make excuses for hatred.
Even if we granted this entire premise, that activism and protest against Israel's actions in Palestine, and Western complicity in them, constitute a "hate movement" (a proposition which seems, to me, almost disturbingly detached from reality, and contradicted by mountains of evidence in the form of polling, voting patterns etc.), it's still very easy to respond that extremely heavy-handed, extrajudicial punishment of speech is wildly at odds with fundamental democratic principles, even were the speech indeed hateful.
Your characterisation of pro-Palestinian protest and activism (which, to disclose my biases, I support) strikes me as transparently absurd, and egregiously dishonest. But the beauty of these principles is that they allow for such strident disagreement on the object-level empirical and normative questions, while preserving the epistemic health of our society, our ability to reason, seek truth, and improve our beliefs and norms, by maintaining bright lines about government punishment of political or philosophical speech *regardless of the strength of our disagreement with that speech*.
Whether "antizionist", pro-Palestinian, or whatever you want to call my position and those of the millions who have demonstrated, it is very clearly a political and/or moral belief, and should be protected from government censure. It's very disappointing that so many "conservatives" suddenly hesitate to unambiguously affirm that very simple, very foundational principle, now that it's their enemies being oppressed.
I was sickened watching that video. Not very different than what the Gestapo used to do.
Thanks for this essay. I was glad you researched Ozturk's entry on the Canary site and included that long Rubio quote. It is indeed frightening, especially the lack of due process.