(((noalee)))

Someone I used to be friends with "challenged" me to think about "who benefits" from me believing that Islamist fundamentalists are a threat to my safety as a Jew in Israel, or to Jews and other minority groups around the world

Amazing letter by @Cornell President rejecting the resolution. Should be read by all: Dear Zora, Thank you for conveying SA Resolution 61: Calling for the Termination of Cornell University’s Partnership with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology While Preserving Cornell Tech. I reject this resolution, which fundamentally conflicts with Cornell’s principles of academic collaboration and our core commitment to academic freedom. Cornell Tech is not a political entity. It is an academic partnership, created through shared investment by Cornell University, the Technion, and the City of New York for the benefit of the city and the state, according to a negotiated set of conditions that govern its development and the terms of its 99-year ground lease on Roosevelt Island. As one of Cornell University’s many international partnerships and collaborations, Cornell Tech deepens, enriches, and strengthens the ability of our students, faculty, and staff to pursue knowledge and advance the university’s academic mission. The Joan and Irwin Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, the core international partnership upon which Cornell Tech is based, is an extraordinarily valuable collaboration focusing on education and research in health tech, media tech, and urban tech, and supporting the development of new startup companies. Severing our relationship with the Technion—or with any entity affiliated with governments, institutions, or enterprises with which some of our community members disagree—as a statement of political protest, would not only hinder our research, teaching, and public engagement; it would imperil our academic principles. Our university, like all of our peer institutions, regularly faces pressure—from across the political spectrum, from within and beyond our own community—to make academic decisions according to political priorities. The phenomenon is not a new one: universities have grappled with such pressures from governments and societies for as long as the institution of the university has existed. When we yield to these pressures and proscribe specific collaborations or collaborators on grounds other than merit, we compromise our principles of academic freedom, undermine our own institutional excellence, and damage public trust in our work.   Moreover, this resolution inaccurately asserts that “the continued operation of Cornell Tech as a Cornell University campus does not require an ongoing partnership with the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.” Cornell Tech, while part of Cornell, is a joint effort of the university, the Technion, and the City of New York. It is no more possible for Cornell to unilaterally terminate that effort and claim full control of the campus than it would be for the Technion or the City of New York to do the same. Finally, I am deeply troubled by the selective manner in which this resolution singles out the Technion, alone of Cornell’s many international partners, for censure. Cornell currently maintains 159 active agreements with institutions in 59 nations and regions; all of these institutions have some government affiliation, and many conduct research with military and security applications. Cornell itself has military research contracts, conducts research with potential military applications, and has relationships with companies whose products are used in military contexts. Cornell also has relationships with institutions in countries whose governments have been accused of human rights violations—as our own has been.  None of these publicly available facts are mentioned in the resolution; only our partnership with an Israeli institution is targeted for erasure. The political bias evident in this selective approach is deeply disturbing, and the resolution is incompatible with both the Student Assembly’s purpose and Cornell University’s core values. I reject it fully and forcefully. Sincerely,   Michael Kotlikoff President and Professor of Molecular Physiology Cornell University

Gatsby has long been taught as a potentially Jewish character. In the book the narrator sees him meeting with Jewish mobsters. It is, in fact, his potential Jewishness that explains both why Daisy will not marry him and why white supremacist eugenics makes an appearance in the book at the dinner party as a verbal assault against him. But the right doesn't take literature classes, so.

This is incitement to genocide under international law.

@PeterBeinart Peter you are completely lost. Antizionism is its own kind of anti-Jewish bigotry. It’s not “disliking a country.” It’s a systematic hate movement and global libel complex. You’re lost in denialism and a deeply confused man. maazaction.org

Is that not what Turkey has been doing to the Kurds since end of ww1?

"We're not seeing Jewish people continue to be violently attacked out of a motivation against Zionism. We're seeing Jewish people violently attacked because they're Jewish." Read: charlotteclymer.substack.com/p/its-the-juda…

Yesterday, an antisemitic terrorist rammed his truck through the front entrance of a synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan. He got out and exchanged gunfire with security guards before finally shooting himself in the head. Thankfully, no one else was killed. One of the guards—the director of security for the synagogue—was severely injured but survived. He’s a hero. He and his team saved many lives. This is why synagogues have security teams. Because they’re constantly targeted by antisemites. It was quickly revealed that the terrorist had two brothers who were killed by an Israeli drone strike last week in Lebanon, along with their children. It was further revealed that they may have been connected with the antisemitic political party and terrorist group Hezbollah. Predictably, much of the online conversation in the wake of this attack focused on very curious reasoning for why the synagogue was targeted: "The synagogue was attacked because it supports the State of Israel. Blame Netanyahu. Blame Israel. Jewish people are unsafe and constantly targeted because Zionism is evil and the Zionist state is murdering innocents. Zionism makes Jewish people unsafe. This wasn’t antisemitism.” Okay, timeout. Let's think through this logically. Because what you're telling me is that any place of worship, any building, any gathering of people is vulnerable to political violence if they publicly and loudly support Israel's existence. If they fly the flag of Israel. If they support the existence of Israel. If they are outwardly Zionist. You're claiming it's not about a Jewish building or Jewish gathering. It's Israel. It's Zionism. I'll tell you why I find that line of thinking pretty ridiculous. Many years ago, I used to attend evangelical churches. Most of my friends were evangelicals. I attended Bible study groups with evangelicals. I was immersed in evangelical culture. One of the things you need to understand about evangelicals—specifically white evangelicals—is that most of them are obsessed to a certain and unhealthy degree with Israel. Not all but definitely most. Evangelicals are more obsessed with Israel than the queer community is in love with Lady Gaga. The primary reason for their obsession is that they believe Israel is central to a prophetic timeline for Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ, which will be ushered in by a period of great tribulation (violence and destruction) followed by a thousand-year reign of peace. As part of their interpretation, the climactic final battle won by Christ will be centered in Israel and a "Jewish remnant" will convert to Christianity, and with that, God's promise to the Jewish people will be fulfilled. To be crystal clear, they believe that Jewish people who do not convert will go to hell (along with all other non-believers). In fact, some evangelical interpretations guarantee that some Jewish people will refuse to accept Christ and will go to hell, regardless of their commitment to God and connection to Israel. This is known as Christian dispensationalism. It’s a relatively newer theological framework as it was only systematized in the mid-1800s. Most Christians are not dispensationalists. I would get into all that here, but it’s besides the main point. The reason evangelicals overwhelmingly support Netanyahu is because he has actively courted the support of dispensationalist Christian Zionists. Most believe that war in the Middle East is not only inevitable but necessary for the Second Coming of Christ, and Netanyahu has been quite accommodating of their outlook. (Quite note: there are some Christians who are Zionists but not dispensationalists.) The Trump administration is being run by dispensationalist Christian Zionists. The War in Iran is strongly motivated, in part, by the beliefs of these people. They’ve openly said as much — that this is a “holy war.” Now, you might be wondering: why would Netanyahu and many other Israeli Jewish folks like him enthusiastically forge an alliance with a religious movement who buy into such rank, unabashed antisemitism and believe those who reject the belief of Christ as Messiah are going to hell? Great question! And to that I say: why wouldn't they? That's a fantastic deal for Netanyahu. Think about it. "So, let me get this straight: you're telling me that you'll be unwaveringly committed to the security of Israel against all the people who want to kill us and you'll support us with your own military and you'll never abandon us, and all we have to do is tolerate your weirdo obsession with the Book of Revelation and transactional antisemitism but you won't require us to believe any of it as a condition for that support? I think Netanyahu is horrible, but if I were him, with his particular mindset, I would take that deal in a heartbeat. You mean you'll help me and my family not be viciously murdered by sociopathic antisemites as long as I smile and nod when you talk about your relatively friendly antisemitism? Sign. Me. Up. This doesn't represent everyone. Not all evangelicals are into this. Many Israelis and Zionists find it completely repugnant. None of these communities are monoliths. But you don't need monoliths when you have specific people in power with huge bases of support who find purchase in this bizarre and disturbing dynamic. Going back to evangelicals, most are quite upfront about their belief that the security of Israel and war in the Middle East are necessary for the Second Coming of Christ. The Republican Party is dominated by such evangelicals and their enablers. The GOP is the home of dispensationalist Christian Zionism. We all know this on some level because it's a big part of their branding and rhetoric. They openly tell the rest of us of in the United States that Israel's existence and security are one of their top priorities. Not simply one of many policy stances but one of their top policy stances. To be clear, I also the support the existence and security of Israel, but that has nothing to do with dispensationalism even though I am a Christian. I simply recognize that violent antisemitism is a global scourge and Jewish people aren't truly safe anywhere in the world and Israel is specifically the target of monsters who want to kill Jewish people solely because of their existence. For most evangelicals, their top motivation here isn't all that. They just primarily see Israel and Jewish people as the necessary vehicle for their bizarre and hateful theological framework. Now, I say all that in order to ask you this: why aren't evangelical churches in America violently attacked by those who oppose Zionism as evil? Why do these terrorists violently target synagogues and not evangelical churches in the United States? Why do they violently target Jewish gatherings and not evangelical gatherings in the United States? Why do they violently target Jewish organizations and not evangelical organizations (and enabling organizations) in the United States? Why do they murder Jewish people but not Christian Zionists? They shouldn't be violently targeting anyone, of course. All political violence is wrong. I will fully side with a non-violent person who diametrically opposes me politically every time before I'll side with someone who agrees with me but wields political violence. But you'll notice that these horrific acts of terrorism very, very, very rarely happen to Christian Zionists. Because it's not the Zionism. It's the Judaism. We're not seeing Jewish people continue to be violently attacked out of a motivation against Zionism. We're seeing Jewish people violently attacked because they're Jewish. We can have good faith conversations on Israel, Gaza, Zionism, etc. We can share criticisms of the Israeli government. But at the end of the day, if you're opting to explain away violent attacks on Jewish people as an unfortunate but understandable by-product of the larger political environment instead of the specific agency of the attacker and their antisemitism, you might be antisemitic yourself. Maybe this is a good moment to sit with that and reflect on it. ---- Link to full essay available here for easier sharing: charlotteclymer.substack.com/p/its-the-juda…

Yesterday I posted about Ryan Grim's continued denial that rapes took place on October 7 and his even more loathsome attacks on Shari Mendes, an IDF volunteer who prepared the bodies of women killed by Hamas for burial. Today, I want to focus on a question that comes up quite often from rape denialists -- why is there no forensic evidence or victim testimony that rapes took place? First, as several people I spoke with, including @OritSulitzeanu, the director of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel, and @KaddariRuth, an expert on wartime sexual violence, said to me, Israel had no experience with battlefield rape. In fact, Israel was so unprepared for the onslaught of sexual-abuse cases on October 7 that during the intake process in Israeli hospitals, women who survived the Hamas massacre were not even asked if they had been sexually assaulted. As a result, little effort was made to gather forensic evidence. As @JillFilipovic wrote back in 2024, "Sexual violence in conflict is virtually never documented the way sexual violence might be documented on the cop shows you’ve seen. The Israeli recovery and medical teams treated the places where people were attacked on Oct. 7 as war zones and the aftermath of terror attacks, not as standard crime scenes in which a primary goal is to identify a perpetrator.” Second, because of the emphasis in Jewish law on expeditious burial -- and the sheer number of people killed, no serious effort was made to keep evidence of sexual assault. This also relates to the point above; Israel had no prior experience with battlefield rape, and stories of widespread sexual assault did not emerge until days and weeks after 10/7. Those responsible for preparing bodies for burial simply were not looking for forensic evidence of sexual assault ... though many of them, including the aforementioned Shari Mendes, have spoken about the brutal condition of women's bodies and multiple women with gunshots in their vagina and breasts. These stories were also referenced in the UN report that found "credible evidence" that Hamas members committed sexual violence on October 7. Third, as for the issue of victim testimony, there is tragically a simple reason why so few women came forward to speak of the sexual violence perpetrated on them -- most were dead. Eyewitness testimony speaks of women who were gang raped and then dispatched with a shot to the head. From the ACCRI's report on October 7: "Several survivors of the massacre provided eyewitness testimony of gang rape, where women were abused and handled between multiple terrorists who beat up, injuried and ultimately murdered them." For women who did survive, most have been unwilling to speak publicly—for reasons that should be obvious. What Grim and other denialists are doing is using the stigma and shame of sexual assault to cast doubt. Again, as I noted yesterday, Ryan and other reporters at The Intercept could have discovered this if they had actually taken the time to speak with people like Orli and Ruth or to read the February 2024 Association of Rape Crisis Centers Report, which detailed many of these points. But they didn't. This, of course, was not accidental. Grim et al were not interested in investigating these claims. Their singular goal was to debunk them, which is why they didn't do any serious reporting on the allegations of sexual violence and why they've focused so much energy on allegations of sexual violence that later proved false. Their goal is rape denialism ... not truth.

Hateful rhetoric like this doesn't belong in American, or any civilized, society.

You'll never understand because you are a pampered and privileged little man who has never experienced what it's like living under a brutal dictatorship.

Hezbollah killed 12 Israeli children playing football in 2024. There was no reaction, from you or most others. We don’t need your dishonest fantasies.

I’m so fucking sick of snark from people on here because I talk about Jew hatred a lot. First, those who have followed me for a while know this has been a focus of mine for more than 10 years — it’s not something I suddenly picked up post–October 7. My focus is largely on extremism, particularly in America, not on Israel, although I fully understand there’s crossover. Second, people who say my focus on this is cringe, annoying, or stupid either don’t understand how serious this problem is — or they’re Jew haters themselves. This is an urgent matter. I wouldn’t spend this much time on it if it weren’t. And despite what some people online seem to believe, it certainly isn’t lucrative or helpful to my career. We know from decades of research that once someone adopts a fully developed antisemitic worldview, it becomes very, very difficult to deradicalize them — though not impossible. I don’t want to lose more people to the abyss of Jew hatred. As far as I’m concerned, this is existential. When hatred of Jews becomes part of someone’s identity and worldview, it shapes how they understand everything: politics, morality, and even their sense of belonging. Antisemitism operates differently from many other forms of hatred because it is conspiratorial in nature rather than simply prejudicial. Conspiracy beliefs are self-sealing: evidence against them is interpreted as proof of the conspiracy itself. People who adopt strong antisemitic views often move into social ecosystems that reinforce those beliefs: online communities, ideological networks, and political movements. Antisemites also see their hatred as morally justified. In their minds, they are defending civilization, fighting corruption, exposing hidden evil, and, as many of you learned recently, exposing child-killing pedophiles. Once hatred becomes framed as a moral duty, deradicalization becomes far more difficult. Antisemitism also “explains” everything to the Jew hater. Because Jews are falsely framed as the hidden cause behind many unrelated problems, Jews become the grand explanatory theory for the world’s failures and for the failures and challenges people have personally. People who criticize me or mock me ultimately don’t bother me. But it is deeply annoying and concerning — particularly because they cannot even claim that I spend my time advocating for Israel or defending the decisions of the Israeli government. So their issue is with Jews. Ultimately, if you have a problem with me talking about this, you can kiss my Iranian ass.

Commentary: Inside Tel Aviv’s “bomb-shelter raves,” where Israelis gather during missile alerts and dance to electronic music — a defiant act of survival. rollingstone.com/culture/cultur…

there is a concept called the Tolerance Paradox (by Popper) basically if you are tolerant to the point of tolerating the intolerant, the intolerant will exploit that gap until the concept of tolerance itself disappears western leftists somehow defending militantly intolerant theocracies is an incredibly fascinating expression of this

To you, Zohran Mamdani! You stayed quiet when we have faced massacre, when Islamic Republic assassins were sent here in New York to kill us, stay quiet now! STOP lecturing us Iranians about peace. I don’t feel safe in New York listening to someone like you, Mamdani, who sympathizes with the regime that killed more than 30,000 unarmed Iranians in less than 24 hours. You talk about “safety” of this beautiful city? Listen carefully; Safety without justice means nothing. We Iranians do not allow you to lecture us about war while you had nothing to say when the Islamic Republic shot schoolgirls and blinded more than 10,000 innocent people in the streets. You were busy celebrating the hijab while women of my beloved country Iran were jailed and raped by Islamic Security forces for removing it. And NOW you find your voice to defend the regime? No. I will not let you claim the moral high ground. The people of Iran want to be free. Where were you when they needed solidarity? New York belongs to people who stand against terrorism not those who excuse it. This city is stronger than fear. Stronger than propaganda. Stronger than you think.

"It’s not that our Jewish siblings don’t just feel unsafe, as though this is some failure of psychological strength on their part. They are, in fact, not safe. They are clearly not safe. Not here in the United States. Not in Israel. Not anywhere." Read: charlotteclymer.substack.com/p/notes-on-ant…

Can't argue.

A few weeks after the horrific Oct. 7th attacks, I wrote an op-ed for The Daily Beast that I hoped would be something of a wake-up call for those on the far-left—and in progressive spaces generally—that antisemitism was metastasizing and the broader movement has a responsibility to enact zero tolerance for anti-Jewish hatred. At the time, it felt as though any opinion whatsoever on the Gaza crisis was vulnerable to being hostilely conflated with biases held by any given observer operating in bad faith, and naïvely, I thought bringing attention to some of the worst examples of antisemitism might give folks a chance to reflect, re-adjust, and make it clear that hatred against Jewish people would not be tolerated. It’s been 29 months since the attacks, and in that time, it’s pretty clear that antisemitism in the United States has only worsened — not just from any one political ideology but across the board. This is not just a problem of the right or the left or the center, but when I observe someone in left or left-leaning spaces claim the left doesn’t have an antisemitism problem, I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Of course the left has an antisemitism problem. Let me give you an example of something that happens like clockwork. Anytime I post online about an antisemitic hate crime, there are responses from real people on the left (not bots) that engage in an absurd whataboutism exercise. “Yeah, that’s terrible, but what about Gaza?” “Okay, now do Israel.” “Have you posted anything about Gaza?” Well, I have posted (and written pieces) about the horrific violence against innocent Palestinian civilians, but it remains unclear to me why acknowledging the murder of any Jewish person by a vicious antisemite is required to be coupled with disclaimers that include an itemization of other acts of violence. Why is the life of any Jewish person only to be honored and their death only to be mourned and the atrocity that took their life only to be held accountable if—and only if—other atrocities are acknowledged in the same breath? That never made sense to me, and I once naïvely chalked it up to incompetence. The past few years have made clear that it’s an intentionally undermining tactic and an active erasure of violence against Jewish people. We can talk all day about how most people on the left don’t do this, which is true, but if we’re not holding things like this accountable and establishing a strict standard across the movement that this behavior is unacceptable, does it really matter if it’s most people on the left or a small fraction? An authentic rejection of hatred does not come with the expectation of something in return; it is done solely for the sake of rejecting that hatred. Let me give you another example. For some on the far-left, in order for me to demand accountability for Netanyahu and stopping the deeply inhumane violence inflicted on Palestinian civilians and supporting self-determination for the Palestinian people, I must also claim that Israel shouldn’t exist, let alone defend itself. That is not only batshit insane and wildly impractical beyond any reasonable adult’s comprehension, but it has accelerated into using this mindset as an excuse to harass, discriminate against, assault, and murder not only anyone with any association with Israel, regardless of their politics, but any Jewish person anywhere. For some of these people, any act of discrimination or violence against an Israeli citizen, no matter their background, and/or any Jewish person anywhere, no matter their views, somehow gets drawn into an irrelevant debate over Zionism. I personally support a two-state solution, but I fail to see how that discussion is in any way relevant when teenage boys are heckled at a hockey game for wearing kippahs or when a college student has “Zionist” shouted at her on campus because she’s wearing a Star of David necklace or when Jewish people are maimed and murdered by an antisemitic sociopath throwing a Molotov cocktail at them solely for raising awareness about innocent Israeli citizens being held hostage by Hamas or when a Jewish gathering is the target of a mass shooter who clearly just wants to murder Jewish people and any Jewish person will do. Many people on the far-left will immediately condemn actions like these but will also fail to acknowledge how this mindset is partly an outgrowth from tolerating with their silence the use of “Zionist” as a catch-all slander for anything related to Judaism and Israel. I am well aware there are Jewish people who oppose Zionism—and progressive Zionists—who are horrified by the actions of Netanyahu’s government, and I would never equate good faith criticism of Netanyahu and the Israeli government with being antisemitic. Moreover, I’ve been deeply and consistently critical of Netanyahu and the current Israeli government, and not once have I ever been called antisemitic for voicing my views. But I will also not tolerate the conflation of Judaism and the people of Israel with the horrific actions of Netanyahu’s government, and I really don’t think the far-left and much of the left generally is doing enough to have zero tolerance for that either. It’s not that our Jewish siblings don’t just feel unsafe, as though this is some failure of psychological strength on their part. They are, in fact, not safe. They are clearly not safe. Not here in the United States. Not in Israel. Not anywhere in the world. And to deny that is to be completely detached from reality. The time for discussion on this and considering bad faith argumentation on it and permitting the enabling of it is over. It should have been over long ago. If you’re the kind of person on the left who believes that expressing antisemitic views through other vehicles is appropriate, I want nothing to do with you. I don’t care how many other causes we agree on. I don’t care if you’re a huge champion of trans equality. I don’t care if you’ve supported my work. We’re just done. There will be no email. There will be no text. I am not going to go fifteen rounds with you in unpacking why the antisemitic thing you said actually means something else when we both know what you clearly intended. If you express hatred or antipathy or even what you feel is some “harmless” stereotype against the Jewish community, you have decided to end our relationship. I am not your non-Jewish colleague or friend who will tolerate your bullshit, hateful thinking. I wouldn’t tolerate it with misogyny or white supremacy or any other form of hatred, and I am sure as anything not going to tolerate it with antisemitism. There is no need for nuance here because the nuance doesn’t exist. If you’re a grown adult who buys into any form of anti-Jewish hatred, you are not my friend or my valued colleague. It’s simple as that. The choice is yours. ---- Link to full essay for easier sharing here: charlotteclymer.substack.com/p/notes-on-ant…

@zriboua Like this scene from The Good Place 🤣😭

Will you have the guts to unplug an A.I. crying and mimicking the voice of your mother or father or loved one when it sees that you’re unplugging it? The answer should be an absolute yes. Otherwise, you’re not ready for what’s coming.