Shutting down the comments today. Some of the comments have devolved into arguments between a small handful of people. Comments and replies are fine. Running arguments belong on Twitter. I will have to figure this out. Apologies to everyone who wanted to post today.
I got the perception gap comparison to Europe perception discussion no problem.
I wonder if Americans are generally more pessimistic and angry these days than our European counterparts. As for the economy, I too feel the effects of inflation. As I have done multiple times in the past. Still, I don’t think the president and his administration can do much about these economic cycles, so I generally don’t blame them. The exceptions are those who choose to give big tax cuts to the wealthy. I didn’t believe the whole trickle down delusion in 1980 and I certainly don’t believe it now. Biden’s idea to grow the economy from the ground up and the middle out is just what we need. We do not need more Musks, Bezos, Koch’s, etc. There is too much wealth and power concentrated in too few people. As for those who say Musk and his ilk earned their billions, I say, yeah, on the backs of their workers.
That's an interesting point about Americans being more pessimistic than Europeans. Perhaps it's because, besides having to deal with inflation, too many Americans have to worry about paying medical bills, with the knowledge always hanging over them that a medical crisis could bankrupt them.
Sorry to be harsh, but that's a band-aid on a gaping scar. People are still at risk of losing their life savings because they get sick, and until that problem is resolved, people will be rightly pessimistic.
What you write may be true. But that problem is NOT Joe Biden's fault!
In case you haven't read or heard about it, Trump has already said that "Obamacare sucks", and, if re- elected , he will again try to eliminate it.
What Robert wrote is true: Republicans always try to take benefits away from Americans, & Democrats always try to protect these benefits & expand on them.
I agree - it's Joe Lieberman's fault. He was the 60th vote to approve Obamacare, but wouldn't support the public option (also, thank filibuster rules!), and so that first step to a national health care more along the lines of Medicare didn't happen. Biden has been great at addressing structural issues, and I see this and next on the list once he gets reelected.
Now that I’ve lived, worked and created in France for over 40 years, it’s very hard to imagine a society that couldn’t care less about their children, elderly, mothers and fathers, students .... carpenters...etc. My American son in law who’s been here since 2018, is enjoying 28 days of full pay for paternity leave, I had unemployment insurance paid to me as a performance artist since the ‘80’s... I love Margaret Meads story of what the first evidence of civilization was... a mended tibia 🦴 !!! Someone stayed and watched over that person till the bone healed and they were able to get up and take care of themself. Societies who are civilized care.
In 2017 my husband and I happened to be at a Democrat Labor Day picnic in Illinois and met then-candidate for Governor JB Pritzker and his minions. Someone who was running for local office told me that working class people in her county had voted for Trump because of the economy. She said that they had heard President Obama and Hilary Clinton say that the economy was doing well, but those workers weren't doing well so words about a robust economy made them feel left out.
I just ranted about that last night. The rich would be nothing without the people working for them. They have more than they can ever use in a lifetime and yet they want more AND it's at the expense of the people working for them. Our society doesn't tax the rich enough and so there isn't "enough money" to pay for what the employer should be paying for. I don't understand why people are so selfish... I wish I was more articulate, but I hope you get what I am trying to say.
Honestly, lately I've avoided reading anything with the word "T***p" in it - my head wants to explode whenever I do happen to read about the latest outrageous statements he spews out. This is also partly because I have had an overwhelming amount of real life bad news to deal with since Nov. 5, and need to start looking for a new job soon, among other things. It's been an unfortunately "interesting" 4th quarter of 2023 and I don't want to jinx myself by hoping that Q1 2024 will be better.
So mostly I read yours and Joyce Vance's essays and feel immense gratitude for the existence of the two of you (among many other notables here on Substack) and hope you stay healthy and safe through the holiday season, as there's a noticeable uptick in respiratory illnesses in recent weeks globally and most likely soon here in the U.S.
Janice, I am so sorry for your life’s challenges. Sometimes it just rains, then pours until sunlight hits us. I wish you the very best during these difficult times. May a new job bring relief and peace. 🕊️
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful. This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes." Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it. Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?" First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians. Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate. Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct. Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes." Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean. For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means. Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?" That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech. In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it calls for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurrate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness. She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that she had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada." Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here. Frankly, this carelessness led to Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people. That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses made clear. With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for themurder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared. Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates. It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most longstanding and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
Hi, Gary. You make many good points. You should make it easier for people to follow your argument by using paragraph breaks. You can still edit your comment by clicking on the three dots to the bottom right of your comment.
Here is what Claudine Gay told The Crimson today:
"I am sorry. Words matter. I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures. What I should have had the presence of mind to do in that moment was return to my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community . . . have no place at Harvard . . .
That is a very kind observation, PS, and I appreciate it. Writing about this subject is very challenging, since it can be expected that most readers, to be frank, lack the depth of knowledge of the full history of Palestine to have a clear understanding of current events. It is a very complicated history that, to be understood, in my opinion, requires dedication of a lot time, and willingness to read multiple books. My experience of having been on the receiving end of aggressive questioning was also very helpful to me in assessing the nature of the congressional hearing and the questioning by Ms. Stefanik. That is experience that is limited to those who have decades of experience in that unique "hot seat" being questioned by someone who is skillfully attempting to discredit what you have to say, independent of how valid it might be.
Erica: I agree that Ms. Stefanik did make political points by taking advantage of the lack of experience of the witnesses in responding to the methods and phrasing she used in her questioning. Being a university president does not confer upon a person the ability t be a skilled witness facing aggressive cross-examination.
All true perhaps, except the three in preparation for their appearance should have been able to be clear about their opposition to calls for Jewish Genocide however the question was posed. M
Ilene: I agree that the three university presidents should have been, and could have been, clear in their personal condemnation of calls for Jewish Genocide. Their replies could have made very clear exactly what they were saying, and they could have done so in a way that did not allow Ms. Stefanik to channel their remarks into a black-white fallacy where Ms. Stefanik is the one defining what is black and what is white.
Yes, and I would add that simplifying the question and the response as most media reports have done gives credence and support to the bullying questioning of Republicans like Stefanik and so many others. They repeatedly call witnesses before their committee to sandbag them and misrepresent the reality, or context, if you will, of their statements or actions.
Thank you for clarifying the actual exchange between Stefanik and the three presidents. The media has once again failed to do the in depth reporting needed and relied again on sound bites instead.
Oh my...I was hunting in Eastern Montana 2 years ago. I told him before we go over I'm not discussing politics or religion in the small town. His wife is from Africa. His children, to use a term I hate are "biracial."
While eating at the local watering hole, a couple of locals join our table to engage or check us out. It was not too long before one of them starts talking about "ni**ers." I was appalled and would have been even I had been alone. I don't think my buddy knew how to respond. I tried to change the subject as did he. One of the guys says "you know there's good ni**ers and bad ni**ers." I basically responded that I didn't know what he was talking about. There's more. Hopefully you get the gist of my story.
Anyway, I equate your term "Like in every group there are wonderful people as well as some that are not so nice" with my experience in that small Eastern Montana town.
Actually your example proves my point. There are good white people & bad white people, and calling those local Montanans racist doesn't mean that all white people, or even all Montanans are racist.
But it IS antisemitism and your post is highly, highly offensive.
You are denying the right of the Jewish people to a homeland.
And why is it when any other groups says "We find this offensive!" the Progressive Left bends over backwards so as not to offend them, but when Jews say "we find this offensive" you (a) tell us we're nuts and (b) tell us that "when you say this, you just make people hate you more."
I am NOT ok with Israel's current fascist government, but that doesn't mean I am anti-semitic. stop equating the two. I am not denying Jews a homeland, but I do not agree with Israel's current apartheid policies and treatment of Palestinians. I duo not agree with their continued settlements in the West Bank. Too many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda movie Exodus they saw in their youth. There are MANY Jews that agree with me on this. The attempt to equate anti-Israeli government speech with anti-semitism is an attempt to quash discussion of the issue.
Just the other day a friend said the same thing about the movie Exodus. What I am having trouble understanding is that we are witnessing a real live genocide in Gaza and Congress is ignoring it.
You demonstrate ghat you have a problem by using “apartheid” and “fascist” to characterize Israel’s policies. Israel mag be unfair in some or even many respects, but slinging “apartheid” and “fascist” is simply a propagandistic slur.
No, I think you have a problem recognizing apartheid when it's staring you in the face. Did you know also that Israel helped South Africa set up its apartheid regime? I didn't, but I read it in Eric Alterman's book "We Are Not One" (Eric is Jewish, & a well regarded scholar)
And you are denying the Palestinian people the right to a homeland. So say my Israeli Jewish cousins, who absolutely reject your definition of antisemitism.
Almost no one is denying Palestinians the right to a homeland. They are denying Palestinians the “right” to destroy the Jewish homeland (Israel) as part of establishing a Palestinian homeland.
Disagree. Most Gazans, of whatever political stripe, are refugees themselves or descended from refugees of the "Nakba" of 1948. Every time Israeli settlers occupy new land in the West Bank they are depriving some Palestinians of their homes, and since they have no control over the government there, of their homeland, too. The areas near Gaza that were attacked by Hamas on October 7 were left undefended by Netanyahu, who deployed the troops that had been protecting them to the West Bank to aid in settlement activities.
I am for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, one in which homelands for both peoples can be established and stabilized, not destroyed. The present Israeli government will not even agree to halt West Bank settlement activity. The slogan "Eretz Israel" is the Israeli equivalent of "From the river to the sea". It seeks the transfer of Palestinian Arabs to some other country. It inherently is aimed at denying any Palestinian homeland within the borders of what Israel now claims.
I agree with Alan. Trying to find ways to be okay with antisemitic speech simply encourages it. To be anti-Zionist today is to be antisemitic. Hamaa seeks to annihilate the Jews and doesn't care if they destroy Palestinians to do so. Hate crimes in America have spiked since October 7. The notion that anti-Zionism is significantly different than antisemitism is the kind of thinking that keeps antisemitic speech flowing and hate crimes against Jews happening everywhere.
Janet: In my view, your observation that "trying to find ways to be okay with antisemitic speech simply encourages it" conflates recognition of free speech rights with endorsement of that speech. In addition, my previous post provides an explanation of why I do not equate the use of the word "Intifada" with genocidal intention or belief. It is evident that you are of the opinion that anti-Zionist views are synonymous with antisemitic views,. I consider that opinion historically and logically incorrect. To be accurate, the commonality of belief of anti-Zionists is that the process by which a Jewish state was created in Palestine, and the movement to carry out that project, was flawed or unjust in some way. Such opinion emerged alongside of Zionism in the late 19th century, as the goal of the project and how it would be carried out were intensely debated for decades, even within the Zionist community. Anti-Zionistm is not an antisemitic belief, although certainly some anti-Zionists were antisemitic. Being anti-Zionist is not defined by a belief that genocide of all Jews globally is justified and desirable. These distinctions are important, and to conflate two different ideas as identical is not helpful to an effort to come to shared conclusions that withstand careful scrutiny.
Alan: Is the Jewish right to a homeland unique in the world, or do adherents of other religions or sects share such a right? If the right you are asserting is religious in nature, that is, based upon the religious tenet that the ownership of land in Palestine (the boundaries of which would inescapably be controversial) by Jews was established by an act of God, that is not an arguable point, and is outside secular law. Such a claim also contributes to bone fide antisemitism because one of the arguments of antisemites is that jews are inherently an outsider group that in some way shares a commonality that is not shared by any other people. Any assertions that posit unique properties to Jews, as against any other group of people, are seen by antisemites as indication that their bigotry has a valid basis. This effect of the Zionist project is explored at great length int Hannah Arendt's highly-praised analysis, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", which I highly recommend.
You attempt to force discussion into a straitjacket of your own making. One doesn’t have to invoke religion (although many do) to assert that Israel is a Jewish homeland. Israel is a nation of predominantly Jewish character, on land that Jews have inhabited since Biblical times. That suffices for Jews, worldwide, to look to Israel as a special place.
Don’t try to trap people by rhetorical questions about homelands. You surely know that peoples other than Jews look to places of origin as special, as “homelands”, e.g., Lebanon to Lebanese, Persia to Persians. Why should Jews’ view of Israel be different *and suspect*?
HulitC: The serious effort to legitimize and establish as policy that the terms anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are synonymous represents, in my view, an effort to suppress criticism of any actions taken by the Israeli government that are interpreted as consistent with the Zionist enterprise, as devised in the late 19th century and given political support by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It is illogical to equate a belief system that has existed since the writings of Manetho in the 3rd century BDE (according to the Holocaust Museum) with the opinion that the Zionist project is unjustified and highly problematic, which could only arise after Zionism was formulated and advocated in the late 19th century.
Sorry, Gary, but I think your arguments are sterile.
Sure, some treads of Zionism are rooted in *some threads* of Jewish historical thought. But the entire Zionist enterprise is broader.
Iraqi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc., regard Israel as a homeland in no small part because Israel took them in when they were dispossessed and expelled by their former “home countries”. Does that not make Israel – the only country that took them in, no questions asked – their *homeland*?
I understand Judge Chutkan has to let these things play out to avoid the risk of the whole case getting tossed on a technicality, but are Trump’s attorneys intentionally trying to send their own careers and reputations down the crapper by pulling this kind of junk? Have they no dignity, or are they taking legal advice from the firm of Guiliani, Powell & Eastman? And Hunter Biden? And abundance of caution has given the special prosecutor too much leash and now the whole thing is an abundance of embarrassment that sounds like a Trump play for what he plans to do to ordinary private citizens.
Lawrence O’Donnell’s opening monologue tonight was an attack on the appeals court, which has yet to rule after many weeks about reinstating the gag rule. He’s arguing that Trump is a judicial terrorist, who is now succeeding in bullying the courts – although so far not judge Tanya. The three judge panel of appeals court judges must back her up. All pressure must be directed toward them, for not understanding the extraordinary threat that we face by allowing Trump to defy judicial authority. And garland is beneath contempt.
Lauren, I was going to highlight Lawrence's monologue as well, since it reinforced a point I made to Robert several days ago. Like the media, the federal judges seem to be viewing the situation we face as a country as just another variation of the usual political season battles. There have been many plaudits offered about how our judges are, at least in some cases, standing up as a bulwark against MAGAism, but are they? Chutkan keeps getting saluted as a no-nonsense judge who is exactly the jurist to oversee the DC trial but it seems to me that she continues to offer Trump incredible deference? To what end? I really don't think his supporters are going to care, or even understand, about the details of what is happening in the judicial proceedings. What should be happening is fines and even jail for Trump, and sanctions against the lawyers who, if they raised some of the arguments they have in recent motions (like double jeopardy due to the impeachment proceedings) in cases not involving Trump and his minions would have already been sanctioned. I see little that is being done that will deter future bad behavior by bad-faith attorneys guided by either money considerations, ideological ones, or a desire for publicity.
Robert, thank you for continuing to write, despite not feeling 100% well.
When a good chunk of your informed and motivated pro-democracy readers misread or misinterpret your columns, it's not surprising that less informed and motivated Americans are confused or uninformed about Biden's accomplishments, the complexity of border reforms, the implications of the wars against Putin's and Hamas's terrorism; the idiocy, ignorance, and traitorous intentions of many Congressional Republicans; etc., etc. I wish there were a cure so every American would pay attention and keep themselves informed and engaged. It's a complex world that demands our attention, and it can feel overwhelming. So much depends on each voter.
Yesterday, I read that WaPo article about the judge granting the pregnant woman leave to have an abortion. I gotta say, it felt like I was living in the Twilight Zone reading about this woman being treated like property, her fate in the hands of "those who know better."
Since R's are so obsessed with property rights over and above civil rights, her husband should countersue the State of Texas for tampering with his "property." Which leads me to the idea that maybe it should be up to the men who donated their sperm to decide whether a woman should have an abortion, and not the state. Rant over.
If, God forbid, something horrible happens to that woman in Texas trying to save her own life, I hope there are teams of lawyers lining up to charge Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott with murder. On the optimistic end - I hope she travels to a rational state with no Texas style interference. And I hope high school graduates previously focusing on attending UT, Rice, Texas Tech, etc, shift their goals in their very own interests of safety and apply to colleges in states where they can be safer.
Women have already been harmed in those states. Moreover, she’s only able to do what she did because she’s white. Black, brown, poor people will never have their stories heard or the ability to sue the state / AG.
The doctors should honor the court order. Then let the corrupt AG and Governor themselves be taken to court if they prosecute them. Someone has to stand up to these terrorists against women.
We have an American health care system that, as Walter Cronkite reportedly observed, is neither healthy, caring, nor a system. As a clinician I follow this women's health topic avidly. I’m not sure my state can wait until a high level politician is affected by a relative dying of a "late to treatment" ectopic [pregnancy in a 1/2 inch diameter fallopian tube]; having cancer with no chemotherapy while pregnant; having one's fertility/health affected, life threatened or taken by a septic abortion; having to undergo a full term pregnancy with its attendant possible complications for a fetus that will be non viable; having a “back alley” abortion that goes wrong; and many other scenarios. My state is in for tough times if its one OB/GYN residency program is affected negatively by the current trigger law; and if the result is a dearth of OB/GYN providers in the state. As one OB/GYN said “I’ve never seen somebody die from an ectopic pregnancy until this year." "We’ve seen people who have had dramatic and unfortunate outcomes earlier in pregnancy due to lack of access locally and in surrounding states. So this is a major connector and driver for our ability to recruit and retain workforce for the future, and we’ve already seen it in applications locally and nationally for medical training, especially for OB-GYNs.” A sad time indeed with women unable to be treated and access to care impeded by lack of trainees who chose elsewhere to learn and practice.
More women governors would help. More women leading legislatures would help. And fewer politicians like Mike Johnson or Ken Paxton who are so sure they know what’s best for the rest of us since God told them so.
The US Holocaust museum and almost everyone else defines genocide as: "an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Advocating genocide is less like free speech and more like a threat to the people who are the object of the proposed genocide. The three college presidents and the university trustees who are their bosses, should recognize that and act appropriately.
Erroneously describing an act as genocide is another matter. The Israeli response to the October 7th atrocities was particularly furious because they saw the violence as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the people of Israel. There is justification in seeing the atrocities in that way. The acts of the Israeli settlers on the West Bank, not nearly as well publicized, but murderous, nonetheless, could also be seen as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the Palestinians living in Palestine. That the government of Israel is arming and supporting and protecting those settlers is disgraceful.
The Israelis, however, have made clear the purpose of the bombing in Gaza -- initially, primarily, in the north and now primarily in Khan Yunis. The Israelis are attempting to destroy the tunnels deep underneath, tunnels that are the site of government and military organization, tunnels that are the haven of Hamas -- the imposed leaders of Gaza. The Israelis urged the people of northern Gaza to move south. Now they urge the people of specific areas within Khan Yunis to move. This is an imperfect way to protect civilians, but the bombing is not an act of genocide. It is not part of a plan or a promise to destroy Palestinians.
Until a few days ago, I could say the above with assurance. Then, Netanyahu announced a plan to occupy Gaza and remove many Palestinians, a plan, in effect, to make them no longer Palestinians. In making that proposal, in combination with the support for the settlers, Netanyahu makes his country more legitimately subject to charges of genocide, to charges that his bombing campaign are not really targeting Hamas, but are intended to destroy Gaza's Palestinians.
'
We can be grateful for Joe Biden's leadership. He has already denounced any plan for Israel to occupy Gaza. He is committed to creating a Palestinian state. Joe Biden has not achieved every single goal of his presidency, but he has achieved a lot. He may be able to achieve this goal, to create a Palestinian nation that, with the support of the international community, thrives and does not have genocidal intentions toward Israelis and Jews.
Joe Biden may be able to make Netanyahu and/or his supporters accept a Palestinian nation. Some Israelis have criticized Joe Biden for interfering in what are properly Israeli decisions. Netanyahu and his supporters, long ago, lost the right to make that argument. No foreign official has interfered with American politics more than Benjamin Netanyahu.
As you know, I was one of the people who commented on the "perception problem". My point is that Democrats have not learned from the very effective Republican playbook. Most everyone on this forum wants Biden and team to elaborate on the terrific things that the administration has achieved. And they are many and wonderful.
But that is not how elections are won. People need to hear how things will be better if they vote for someone. True. But many people don't vote on an aspirational level. You and I might. Many here might. But most people are focused on their personal travails. Democrats need to clearly explain how so many efforts to improve America have been BLOCKED by Republicans. We need to play the same blame game - with the truth!
Immigration is a big problem. And WE have attempted to fix it. But the Republican Congress won't work with us to get it done. Turn the tables! Videos of families being separated. Videos of hard working folks from around the world building a better America. Videos of Ron DeSantis shooting innocent people at the border - yes, he just said we should do that!!!
Republicans call out their opponents vociferously. We should be doing the same thing! Senator Tuberville could be the poster child for treason! How many voters have a member of the military as friends or family? This is a gift of an ad. Tuberville endangers our troops. Video of Trump fawning over Putin. Audio: "What were these two men talking about in their secret meeting in Helsinki? Why are there no transcripts? No notes. What is this man hiding?" "Why are Republicans helping the enemy?"
What are we waiting for?
Most do want to know how the next administration will help with the list. Childcare, healthcare, homecare, eldercare...housing, clean water and food security. But they should know how the MAGA white supremacists are blocking progress on those issues.
Call them out! Videos of Clarence Thomas and Leonard Leo on vacation. Audio: "How was your vacation this year, did you enjoy that yacht and the fancy dinners aboard?" Video of Republican Oligarchs at a party. Audio: "This guy paid no taxes last year. What did you pay? Thanks Republicans!"
We are playing softball. MAGA is playing hardball. Time to change the game. And spend twice as much putting these attack ads on TicTok as we do MSM. It's where young people live and it's young people who will determine whether we fall into fascism or not.
I completely agree. I have never understood the Democratic Party’s tepid, sporadic messaging. It’s like a batter taking strikes and then making a checked swing on the final pitch in the strike zone.
Thank you for the link to Michelle Goldberg’s article. I agree. I was horrified by what I saw of the hearings, but not for the reasons that the media is seizing on. The panel felt like a McCarthyist rerun. The presidents failed precisely because instead of actually standing up for different perspectives on Israel and Palestine, they ended up with platitudes which were unconvincing. They could have given a clear answer about the horrors of genocide AND highlighted that being anti the state of Israel is in fact not antisemitism. That Jews around the world have different perspectives on Zionism and to demand allegiance with one view on campus is to limit every one’s freedom of speech and to undermine the very point of a university. In refusing to explicitly defend diverse ideas, they came across as beholden to donors and insincere.
Thank you for these (yet again) - even more so knowing you have been feeling poorly.
I am in full agreement with your take on The Three University Presidents.
A few thoughts on this:
1. It is mind-blowing that they either received no or terrible media training. Did no one think to tell them that "rolling your eyes contemptuously and sneering 'it depends on context' is not a great response."
Or that "when you say 'if it turns into conduct' that 99% of people will not grasp that you are making a subtle legal distinction and instead will hear "When they actually, you know, start killing the Jews, then it becomes an issue." -- that this is a national television audience, not a seminar room.
And that all three took the same miserable tactic... and now Elise Stefanik (of all people!!!) is the Great Defender of the Jews and enjoying, as today;s top NYT headline put it, "a viral moment."
2. This comes on the heels of another tone deaf Dems-in-the-House move where Raskin, Goldman and Nadler got caught up on the fact that the GOP bill denouncing antisemitism had an overly broad definition and so chose to tell their fellow Dems to vote "present" - and all they got for their efforts was a slew of "Dems In Disarray" headlines and an electorate that had little idea why they were doing what they did, giving the House GOP another big win. Too often our candidates get caught up in the fine print when national politics is a game of headlines.
3. If there is a silver lining to all this, it is that the "Woke Left" (for lack of a better term) has been thoroughly discredited over the past two months, especially those in academia. While it is important to note that none of these people are actually elected Democratic officials, Fox and their Friends have been adept at painting them as Democrats and stirring up outrage over the rantings of random adjunct professors.
So their implosion takes a key tool away from the Right Wing Media who can only report on how outraged former Sanders supporters are about his refusal to call for a cease fire for so long.
So yes, we will have moments where Laurence Tribe, Doug Emhoff and Josh Shapiro are praising Elise Stefanik rather than.a House Democrat, but in the long run, the ability to claim the center as Trump veers further and further right and deep into fascism, bringing the GOP along with him, is only going to be a good thing.
Yes, there will be a period of "Dems in Disarray" as all of the Squad and their supporters are being primaried. (Jayapal is allegedly in the crosshairs now too, for her disgraceful dismissal of the rape of Jewsih women on CNN), but once they are out, the Democrats can run as the party of the center and normalcy and common sense-- all the things that worked for Biden in 2020.
Alan: I agree that these three University presidents were ill-prepared to sit before a panel of congressional representatives on such an explosive topic that is very prone to exaggeration and manipulation. There were many ways that they could have responded to even the most aggressive questioning without coming across as tone-deaf. I also agree that even people watching the hearing would likely have been put off by the university presidents' responses, even though close analysis, which I provided, according to my take on it, in another post above, shows that their preparation was largely to blame, allowing them to be sandbagged and made to look foolish and/or insensitive. Ms. Stefanik is a full-throated defender of Israel without qualification. In my view, that was what drove her questioning methods, which was very successful, based upon the headlines that followed. Anyone who watched the entire hearing from start to finish, with any kind of open mind, could not possibly come away with the impression that these witnesses are anti-Semitic or endorse genocide against the Jewish people around the globe, but if they only saw the articles about it, they might. Being questioned in court or in deposition or in a hearing before congress, where those doing the questioning are lawyers or are coached by lawyers, can be very intimidating to the unexperienced.
First of all very few people actually watched the hearing and the media coverages distorted what happened and then the response to the bad coverage made it worst than it was.
In the case before us. it is my view that a student chanting "globalize the Intifada" is not clearly expressing the intention to participate in the killing every Jewish person on Earth, which his what Ms. Stefanik was asserting was the case. Did some students in that protest who hold the view that every Jewish person on earth should be killed? Perhaps. If so, it is no doubt our shared opinion that such a view represents dangerous, appalling extremism that must be fully condemned. Likely the majority of them were calling for the end of the brutal aerial bombardment of Gaza that had brought about thus far, at least 17,177 deaths of Palestinians (Gaza Health Ministry), the great majority of them civilians, and a humanitarian disaster that is quickly reaching epic proportions. A serious effort to understand the viewpoints of the student protesters must acknowledge this disparity in power and the impact of its use, which has already reached a multiple of ~13x, as measured in deaths alone.
As I said about your initial post you make some valid points.
BUT
I think you don’t give enough noteworthiness to the fact that the ATROCITIES of Hamas are overlooked by the protests.
I ache for the loss of life of the innocent Palestinians. Do much waste, but the protesters only put blame on the Jews for these losses, not in Hamas, who stop the citizens from leaving, who imbed themselves amongst them, who position munitions beneath them, who really could care less about their welfare. Instead they turn them into hate filled individuals who beat young children taken hostage.
Mob mentality does strange things to even reasonable people, so yes I think some and maybe many amongst the protesters do want the total annihilation of Jewish people while others know not what they do or say and are caught up in a moment. Sad in a group who should be able to do more critical thinking by virtue of being in institutions of higher learning.
As to the leaders who were called before Congress, how do you think they would be graded for their preparedness and performance if they were in class?
Sorry, Robert, but Michelle Goldberg is right and you are wrong. And I'm particularly surprised that you, a trial lawyer, did not see it. The hearing with the college presidents was a set up from the beginning,. First, Stefanik defined "intifada" to mean genocide. In Arabic it has come to mean an uprising or rebellion, but not genocide. (As the first modern use was against the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq in the 1950s, it cannot have included genocide.) The presidents should have objected to the definition, but--having been poorly advised by their lawyers--they did not. Then, later, Stefanik's question about student conduct and genocide built on her original, maliciously wrong, definition. What the presidents should have done was to question the question, to say, "Excuse me, Congresswoman, but I am not aware that any of our students called for genocide." Which, as far as I know, is the truth. And there are a couple of other factors here. First, college codes for behavior are not self-enforcing, and a single instance even of "hate speech" would not be likely to earn more than an admonition. And second, college kids say stupid things. As I've noted out here, in 1935, the Oxford Union declared that its members would not die for king and country, but many of them did a few years later. I'm going on too long, so I'll conclude that the presidents did not acquit themselves very well, but they were poorly advised. They need to think more about public appearances like the one this week. And fire the lawyers who "advised" them.
I worry that justice will not prevail, that the courts are too courteous to Trump's continued delays. Lawrence O'Donnell said the courts are too slow and could go much faster.
I feel that we are being barraged with obstruction (the House Republicans) and the media continues to tout negative polls.
I wonder, too, about the perception of the economy and blaming Biden. The families who lost their child tax credit are indeed suffering but who are the Americans who are out there spending for the holidays, traveling with lower gas prices and lower airfares but also complaining about inflation?
I guess we hang tight and vote Blue in 2024.
It is hard to be patient while Trump's supporters cheer him on.
Shutting down the comments today. Some of the comments have devolved into arguments between a small handful of people. Comments and replies are fine. Running arguments belong on Twitter. I will have to figure this out. Apologies to everyone who wanted to post today.
I got the perception gap comparison to Europe perception discussion no problem.
I wonder if Americans are generally more pessimistic and angry these days than our European counterparts. As for the economy, I too feel the effects of inflation. As I have done multiple times in the past. Still, I don’t think the president and his administration can do much about these economic cycles, so I generally don’t blame them. The exceptions are those who choose to give big tax cuts to the wealthy. I didn’t believe the whole trickle down delusion in 1980 and I certainly don’t believe it now. Biden’s idea to grow the economy from the ground up and the middle out is just what we need. We do not need more Musks, Bezos, Koch’s, etc. There is too much wealth and power concentrated in too few people. As for those who say Musk and his ilk earned their billions, I say, yeah, on the backs of their workers.
That's an interesting point about Americans being more pessimistic than Europeans. Perhaps it's because, besides having to deal with inflation, too many Americans have to worry about paying medical bills, with the knowledge always hanging over them that a medical crisis could bankrupt them.
📣 Biden administration to ban medical debt from Americans' credit scores📣
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-administration-to-ban-medical-debt-credit-scores/
Wow! God bless him!
Kat ?
This is a huge start.
Reelect Biden/Harris, get decent majorities of like minded dems/independents in Congress and we can make some real differences in people’s lives.
Sorry to be harsh, but that's a band-aid on a gaping scar. People are still at risk of losing their life savings because they get sick, and until that problem is resolved, people will be rightly pessimistic.
What you write may be true. But that problem is NOT Joe Biden's fault!
In case you haven't read or heard about it, Trump has already said that "Obamacare sucks", and, if re- elected , he will again try to eliminate it.
What Robert wrote is true: Republicans always try to take benefits away from Americans, & Democrats always try to protect these benefits & expand on them.
I agree - it's Joe Lieberman's fault. He was the 60th vote to approve Obamacare, but wouldn't support the public option (also, thank filibuster rules!), and so that first step to a national health care more along the lines of Medicare didn't happen. Biden has been great at addressing structural issues, and I see this and next on the list once he gets reelected.
yes...
I’ll take a band-aid🩹over a bulldozer 🚜to ACA !
Damn straight!
Now that I’ve lived, worked and created in France for over 40 years, it’s very hard to imagine a society that couldn’t care less about their children, elderly, mothers and fathers, students .... carpenters...etc. My American son in law who’s been here since 2018, is enjoying 28 days of full pay for paternity leave, I had unemployment insurance paid to me as a performance artist since the ‘80’s... I love Margaret Meads story of what the first evidence of civilization was... a mended tibia 🦴 !!! Someone stayed and watched over that person till the bone healed and they were able to get up and take care of themself. Societies who are civilized care.
In 2017 my husband and I happened to be at a Democrat Labor Day picnic in Illinois and met then-candidate for Governor JB Pritzker and his minions. Someone who was running for local office told me that working class people in her county had voted for Trump because of the economy. She said that they had heard President Obama and Hilary Clinton say that the economy was doing well, but those workers weren't doing well so words about a robust economy made them feel left out.
Yes. And no child care. And stagnant wages. And little affordable housing. Too much wealth in only a few people hands.
Guess which party is working to address these issues. Guess which one is working to continue/worsen the issues.
I just ranted about that last night. The rich would be nothing without the people working for them. They have more than they can ever use in a lifetime and yet they want more AND it's at the expense of the people working for them. Our society doesn't tax the rich enough and so there isn't "enough money" to pay for what the employer should be paying for. I don't understand why people are so selfish... I wish I was more articulate, but I hope you get what I am trying to say.
a good reason to honor the WaPo strike.
Thank you!
Chris Hayes' important view on the perception gap starts at 2:33
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkc3I63GkH0
And of course that helpful handmaiden “the free market”
Honestly, lately I've avoided reading anything with the word "T***p" in it - my head wants to explode whenever I do happen to read about the latest outrageous statements he spews out. This is also partly because I have had an overwhelming amount of real life bad news to deal with since Nov. 5, and need to start looking for a new job soon, among other things. It's been an unfortunately "interesting" 4th quarter of 2023 and I don't want to jinx myself by hoping that Q1 2024 will be better.
So mostly I read yours and Joyce Vance's essays and feel immense gratitude for the existence of the two of you (among many other notables here on Substack) and hope you stay healthy and safe through the holiday season, as there's a noticeable uptick in respiratory illnesses in recent weeks globally and most likely soon here in the U.S.
Thank you.
I'm so sorry you have had so much bad news. I hope the new year brings better things.
Janice, I am so sorry for your life’s challenges. Sometimes it just rains, then pours until sunlight hits us. I wish you the very best during these difficult times. May a new job bring relief and peace. 🕊️
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful. This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes." Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it. Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?" First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians. Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate. Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct. Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes." Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean. For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means. Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?" That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech. In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it calls for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurrate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness. She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that she had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada." Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here. Frankly, this carelessness led to Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people. That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses made clear. With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for themurder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared. Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates. It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most longstanding and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
Hi, Gary. You make many good points. You should make it easier for people to follow your argument by using paragraph breaks. You can still edit your comment by clicking on the three dots to the bottom right of your comment.
Here is what Claudine Gay told The Crimson today:
"I am sorry. Words matter. I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures. What I should have had the presence of mind to do in that moment was return to my guiding truth, which is that calls for violence against our Jewish community . . . have no place at Harvard . . .
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4349512-harvard-president-apologizes-after-backlash-over-remarks-at-antisemitism-hearing/
Thank you so much for writing this. I hope you will send this to the NYT as an OpEd. It deserves wide readership.
That is a very kind observation, PS, and I appreciate it. Writing about this subject is very challenging, since it can be expected that most readers, to be frank, lack the depth of knowledge of the full history of Palestine to have a clear understanding of current events. It is a very complicated history that, to be understood, in my opinion, requires dedication of a lot time, and willingness to read multiple books. My experience of having been on the receiving end of aggressive questioning was also very helpful to me in assessing the nature of the congressional hearing and the questioning by Ms. Stefanik. That is experience that is limited to those who have decades of experience in that unique "hot seat" being questioned by someone who is skillfully attempting to discredit what you have to say, independent of how valid it might be.
Having worked in Communications for 30 years, my job is to distill information for the public. I can boil your post down to one simplified sentence.
She used my people for political folly.
Erica: I agree that Ms. Stefanik did make political points by taking advantage of the lack of experience of the witnesses in responding to the methods and phrasing she used in her questioning. Being a university president does not confer upon a person the ability t be a skilled witness facing aggressive cross-examination.
All true perhaps, except the three in preparation for their appearance should have been able to be clear about their opposition to calls for Jewish Genocide however the question was posed. M
Ilene: I agree that the three university presidents should have been, and could have been, clear in their personal condemnation of calls for Jewish Genocide. Their replies could have made very clear exactly what they were saying, and they could have done so in a way that did not allow Ms. Stefanik to channel their remarks into a black-white fallacy where Ms. Stefanik is the one defining what is black and what is white.
Yes, and I would add that simplifying the question and the response as most media reports have done gives credence and support to the bullying questioning of Republicans like Stefanik and so many others. They repeatedly call witnesses before their committee to sandbag them and misrepresent the reality, or context, if you will, of their statements or actions.
Thank you for clarifying the actual exchange between Stefanik and the three presidents. The media has once again failed to do the in depth reporting needed and relied again on sound bites instead.
Thank you for this clarification.
excellent analysis, thank you.
Stefanik did not ask the presidents about Zionism or settlements. She asked about genocide.
I find your comments morally offensive.
Oh my...I was hunting in Eastern Montana 2 years ago. I told him before we go over I'm not discussing politics or religion in the small town. His wife is from Africa. His children, to use a term I hate are "biracial."
While eating at the local watering hole, a couple of locals join our table to engage or check us out. It was not too long before one of them starts talking about "ni**ers." I was appalled and would have been even I had been alone. I don't think my buddy knew how to respond. I tried to change the subject as did he. One of the guys says "you know there's good ni**ers and bad ni**ers." I basically responded that I didn't know what he was talking about. There's more. Hopefully you get the gist of my story.
Anyway, I equate your term "Like in every group there are wonderful people as well as some that are not so nice" with my experience in that small Eastern Montana town.
Actually your example proves my point. There are good white people & bad white people, and calling those local Montanans racist doesn't mean that all white people, or even all Montanans are racist.
Again, I find your comments offensive.
You need to check out Christian Picciolini and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to learn how to embrace people from all walks of life no matter what their opinion.
People have a great capacity to grow and change. Time for self examination
But we've been brainswashed by a movie that came out before I was born, Ed.
But it IS antisemitism and your post is highly, highly offensive.
You are denying the right of the Jewish people to a homeland.
And why is it when any other groups says "We find this offensive!" the Progressive Left bends over backwards so as not to offend them, but when Jews say "we find this offensive" you (a) tell us we're nuts and (b) tell us that "when you say this, you just make people hate you more."
I am NOT ok with Israel's current fascist government, but that doesn't mean I am anti-semitic. stop equating the two. I am not denying Jews a homeland, but I do not agree with Israel's current apartheid policies and treatment of Palestinians. I duo not agree with their continued settlements in the West Bank. Too many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda movie Exodus they saw in their youth. There are MANY Jews that agree with me on this. The attempt to equate anti-Israeli government speech with anti-semitism is an attempt to quash discussion of the issue.
Just the other day a friend said the same thing about the movie Exodus. What I am having trouble understanding is that we are witnessing a real live genocide in Gaza and Congress is ignoring it.
Too many politicians have been burnt by going against Israeli politics. Some say it was Jimmy Carter's undoing.
You demonstrate ghat you have a problem by using “apartheid” and “fascist” to characterize Israel’s policies. Israel mag be unfair in some or even many respects, but slinging “apartheid” and “fascist” is simply a propagandistic slur.
No, I think you have a problem recognizing apartheid when it's staring you in the face. Did you know also that Israel helped South Africa set up its apartheid regime? I didn't, but I read it in Eric Alterman's book "We Are Not One" (Eric is Jewish, & a well regarded scholar)
Res Ipsa Loquitor
And you are denying the Palestinian people the right to a homeland. So say my Israeli Jewish cousins, who absolutely reject your definition of antisemitism.
Almost no one is denying Palestinians the right to a homeland. They are denying Palestinians the “right” to destroy the Jewish homeland (Israel) as part of establishing a Palestinian homeland.
Disagree. Most Gazans, of whatever political stripe, are refugees themselves or descended from refugees of the "Nakba" of 1948. Every time Israeli settlers occupy new land in the West Bank they are depriving some Palestinians of their homes, and since they have no control over the government there, of their homeland, too. The areas near Gaza that were attacked by Hamas on October 7 were left undefended by Netanyahu, who deployed the troops that had been protecting them to the West Bank to aid in settlement activities.
I am for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, one in which homelands for both peoples can be established and stabilized, not destroyed. The present Israeli government will not even agree to halt West Bank settlement activity. The slogan "Eretz Israel" is the Israeli equivalent of "From the river to the sea". It seeks the transfer of Palestinian Arabs to some other country. It inherently is aimed at denying any Palestinian homeland within the borders of what Israel now claims.
I agree with Alan. Trying to find ways to be okay with antisemitic speech simply encourages it. To be anti-Zionist today is to be antisemitic. Hamaa seeks to annihilate the Jews and doesn't care if they destroy Palestinians to do so. Hate crimes in America have spiked since October 7. The notion that anti-Zionism is significantly different than antisemitism is the kind of thinking that keeps antisemitic speech flowing and hate crimes against Jews happening everywhere.
Janet: In my view, your observation that "trying to find ways to be okay with antisemitic speech simply encourages it" conflates recognition of free speech rights with endorsement of that speech. In addition, my previous post provides an explanation of why I do not equate the use of the word "Intifada" with genocidal intention or belief. It is evident that you are of the opinion that anti-Zionist views are synonymous with antisemitic views,. I consider that opinion historically and logically incorrect. To be accurate, the commonality of belief of anti-Zionists is that the process by which a Jewish state was created in Palestine, and the movement to carry out that project, was flawed or unjust in some way. Such opinion emerged alongside of Zionism in the late 19th century, as the goal of the project and how it would be carried out were intensely debated for decades, even within the Zionist community. Anti-Zionistm is not an antisemitic belief, although certainly some anti-Zionists were antisemitic. Being anti-Zionist is not defined by a belief that genocide of all Jews globally is justified and desirable. These distinctions are important, and to conflate two different ideas as identical is not helpful to an effort to come to shared conclusions that withstand careful scrutiny.
Janet, see my comment to this person.
Alan, see my comment and response above based on real life experience.
And Alan, in a couple of weeks, I'm having rotator cuff surgery. 6 weeks in a sling. No new comments from me...that might make some people very happy.
Happy Holidays...carry the light.
Oh no! Though I may be right behind you on the surgery- the MRI is next week. Though I will be typing one-handed and/or using dictation.
Good luck!
Alan: Is the Jewish right to a homeland unique in the world, or do adherents of other religions or sects share such a right? If the right you are asserting is religious in nature, that is, based upon the religious tenet that the ownership of land in Palestine (the boundaries of which would inescapably be controversial) by Jews was established by an act of God, that is not an arguable point, and is outside secular law. Such a claim also contributes to bone fide antisemitism because one of the arguments of antisemites is that jews are inherently an outsider group that in some way shares a commonality that is not shared by any other people. Any assertions that posit unique properties to Jews, as against any other group of people, are seen by antisemites as indication that their bigotry has a valid basis. This effect of the Zionist project is explored at great length int Hannah Arendt's highly-praised analysis, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", which I highly recommend.
I am not Alan, but I’m compelled to respond.
You attempt to force discussion into a straitjacket of your own making. One doesn’t have to invoke religion (although many do) to assert that Israel is a Jewish homeland. Israel is a nation of predominantly Jewish character, on land that Jews have inhabited since Biblical times. That suffices for Jews, worldwide, to look to Israel as a special place.
Don’t try to trap people by rhetorical questions about homelands. You surely know that peoples other than Jews look to places of origin as special, as “homelands”, e.g., Lebanon to Lebanese, Persia to Persians. Why should Jews’ view of Israel be different *and suspect*?
HulitC: The serious effort to legitimize and establish as policy that the terms anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are synonymous represents, in my view, an effort to suppress criticism of any actions taken by the Israeli government that are interpreted as consistent with the Zionist enterprise, as devised in the late 19th century and given political support by the British in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It is illogical to equate a belief system that has existed since the writings of Manetho in the 3rd century BDE (according to the Holocaust Museum) with the opinion that the Zionist project is unjustified and highly problematic, which could only arise after Zionism was formulated and advocated in the late 19th century.
Sorry, Gary, but I think your arguments are sterile.
Sure, some treads of Zionism are rooted in *some threads* of Jewish historical thought. But the entire Zionist enterprise is broader.
Iraqi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc., regard Israel as a homeland in no small part because Israel took them in when they were dispossessed and expelled by their former “home countries”. Does that not make Israel – the only country that took them in, no questions asked – their *homeland*?
I understand Judge Chutkan has to let these things play out to avoid the risk of the whole case getting tossed on a technicality, but are Trump’s attorneys intentionally trying to send their own careers and reputations down the crapper by pulling this kind of junk? Have they no dignity, or are they taking legal advice from the firm of Guiliani, Powell & Eastman? And Hunter Biden? And abundance of caution has given the special prosecutor too much leash and now the whole thing is an abundance of embarrassment that sounds like a Trump play for what he plans to do to ordinary private citizens.
Somewhere someone has to say enough is enough
Lawrence O’Donnell’s opening monologue tonight was an attack on the appeals court, which has yet to rule after many weeks about reinstating the gag rule. He’s arguing that Trump is a judicial terrorist, who is now succeeding in bullying the courts – although so far not judge Tanya. The three judge panel of appeals court judges must back her up. All pressure must be directed toward them, for not understanding the extraordinary threat that we face by allowing Trump to defy judicial authority. And garland is beneath contempt.
Lauren, I was going to highlight Lawrence's monologue as well, since it reinforced a point I made to Robert several days ago. Like the media, the federal judges seem to be viewing the situation we face as a country as just another variation of the usual political season battles. There have been many plaudits offered about how our judges are, at least in some cases, standing up as a bulwark against MAGAism, but are they? Chutkan keeps getting saluted as a no-nonsense judge who is exactly the jurist to oversee the DC trial but it seems to me that she continues to offer Trump incredible deference? To what end? I really don't think his supporters are going to care, or even understand, about the details of what is happening in the judicial proceedings. What should be happening is fines and even jail for Trump, and sanctions against the lawyers who, if they raised some of the arguments they have in recent motions (like double jeopardy due to the impeachment proceedings) in cases not involving Trump and his minions would have already been sanctioned. I see little that is being done that will deter future bad behavior by bad-faith attorneys guided by either money considerations, ideological ones, or a desire for publicity.
Robert, thank you for continuing to write, despite not feeling 100% well.
When a good chunk of your informed and motivated pro-democracy readers misread or misinterpret your columns, it's not surprising that less informed and motivated Americans are confused or uninformed about Biden's accomplishments, the complexity of border reforms, the implications of the wars against Putin's and Hamas's terrorism; the idiocy, ignorance, and traitorous intentions of many Congressional Republicans; etc., etc. I wish there were a cure so every American would pay attention and keep themselves informed and engaged. It's a complex world that demands our attention, and it can feel overwhelming. So much depends on each voter.
Thank you, Robert.
Yesterday, I read that WaPo article about the judge granting the pregnant woman leave to have an abortion. I gotta say, it felt like I was living in the Twilight Zone reading about this woman being treated like property, her fate in the hands of "those who know better."
Since R's are so obsessed with property rights over and above civil rights, her husband should countersue the State of Texas for tampering with his "property." Which leads me to the idea that maybe it should be up to the men who donated their sperm to decide whether a woman should have an abortion, and not the state. Rant over.
Always good to be reminded of ones place in the food chain.
Indeed.
Great Rant
Lynell, what an excellent idea!!
If, God forbid, something horrible happens to that woman in Texas trying to save her own life, I hope there are teams of lawyers lining up to charge Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott with murder. On the optimistic end - I hope she travels to a rational state with no Texas style interference. And I hope high school graduates previously focusing on attending UT, Rice, Texas Tech, etc, shift their goals in their very own interests of safety and apply to colleges in states where they can be safer.
Women have already been harmed in those states. Moreover, she’s only able to do what she did because she’s white. Black, brown, poor people will never have their stories heard or the ability to sue the state / AG.
The doctors should honor the court order. Then let the corrupt AG and Governor themselves be taken to court if they prosecute them. Someone has to stand up to these terrorists against women.
This action by the Texas Attorney General needs to be recognized and called out as another assault on the authority of the courts.
As well as attempted (so far) murder
We have an American health care system that, as Walter Cronkite reportedly observed, is neither healthy, caring, nor a system. As a clinician I follow this women's health topic avidly. I’m not sure my state can wait until a high level politician is affected by a relative dying of a "late to treatment" ectopic [pregnancy in a 1/2 inch diameter fallopian tube]; having cancer with no chemotherapy while pregnant; having one's fertility/health affected, life threatened or taken by a septic abortion; having to undergo a full term pregnancy with its attendant possible complications for a fetus that will be non viable; having a “back alley” abortion that goes wrong; and many other scenarios. My state is in for tough times if its one OB/GYN residency program is affected negatively by the current trigger law; and if the result is a dearth of OB/GYN providers in the state. As one OB/GYN said “I’ve never seen somebody die from an ectopic pregnancy until this year." "We’ve seen people who have had dramatic and unfortunate outcomes earlier in pregnancy due to lack of access locally and in surrounding states. So this is a major connector and driver for our ability to recruit and retain workforce for the future, and we’ve already seen it in applications locally and nationally for medical training, especially for OB-GYNs.” A sad time indeed with women unable to be treated and access to care impeded by lack of trainees who chose elsewhere to learn and practice.
More women governors would help. More women leading legislatures would help. And fewer politicians like Mike Johnson or Ken Paxton who are so sure they know what’s best for the rest of us since God told them so.
P.S., Robert. I did not know you are not feeling well. Please take care of yourself first.
The US Holocaust museum and almost everyone else defines genocide as: "an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Advocating genocide is less like free speech and more like a threat to the people who are the object of the proposed genocide. The three college presidents and the university trustees who are their bosses, should recognize that and act appropriately.
Erroneously describing an act as genocide is another matter. The Israeli response to the October 7th atrocities was particularly furious because they saw the violence as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the people of Israel. There is justification in seeing the atrocities in that way. The acts of the Israeli settlers on the West Bank, not nearly as well publicized, but murderous, nonetheless, could also be seen as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the Palestinians living in Palestine. That the government of Israel is arming and supporting and protecting those settlers is disgraceful.
The Israelis, however, have made clear the purpose of the bombing in Gaza -- initially, primarily, in the north and now primarily in Khan Yunis. The Israelis are attempting to destroy the tunnels deep underneath, tunnels that are the site of government and military organization, tunnels that are the haven of Hamas -- the imposed leaders of Gaza. The Israelis urged the people of northern Gaza to move south. Now they urge the people of specific areas within Khan Yunis to move. This is an imperfect way to protect civilians, but the bombing is not an act of genocide. It is not part of a plan or a promise to destroy Palestinians.
Until a few days ago, I could say the above with assurance. Then, Netanyahu announced a plan to occupy Gaza and remove many Palestinians, a plan, in effect, to make them no longer Palestinians. In making that proposal, in combination with the support for the settlers, Netanyahu makes his country more legitimately subject to charges of genocide, to charges that his bombing campaign are not really targeting Hamas, but are intended to destroy Gaza's Palestinians.
'
We can be grateful for Joe Biden's leadership. He has already denounced any plan for Israel to occupy Gaza. He is committed to creating a Palestinian state. Joe Biden has not achieved every single goal of his presidency, but he has achieved a lot. He may be able to achieve this goal, to create a Palestinian nation that, with the support of the international community, thrives and does not have genocidal intentions toward Israelis and Jews.
Joe Biden may be able to make Netanyahu and/or his supporters accept a Palestinian nation. Some Israelis have criticized Joe Biden for interfering in what are properly Israeli decisions. Netanyahu and his supporters, long ago, lost the right to make that argument. No foreign official has interfered with American politics more than Benjamin Netanyahu.
So well said. Thank you for this.
Robert,
As you know, I was one of the people who commented on the "perception problem". My point is that Democrats have not learned from the very effective Republican playbook. Most everyone on this forum wants Biden and team to elaborate on the terrific things that the administration has achieved. And they are many and wonderful.
But that is not how elections are won. People need to hear how things will be better if they vote for someone. True. But many people don't vote on an aspirational level. You and I might. Many here might. But most people are focused on their personal travails. Democrats need to clearly explain how so many efforts to improve America have been BLOCKED by Republicans. We need to play the same blame game - with the truth!
Immigration is a big problem. And WE have attempted to fix it. But the Republican Congress won't work with us to get it done. Turn the tables! Videos of families being separated. Videos of hard working folks from around the world building a better America. Videos of Ron DeSantis shooting innocent people at the border - yes, he just said we should do that!!!
Republicans call out their opponents vociferously. We should be doing the same thing! Senator Tuberville could be the poster child for treason! How many voters have a member of the military as friends or family? This is a gift of an ad. Tuberville endangers our troops. Video of Trump fawning over Putin. Audio: "What were these two men talking about in their secret meeting in Helsinki? Why are there no transcripts? No notes. What is this man hiding?" "Why are Republicans helping the enemy?"
What are we waiting for?
Most do want to know how the next administration will help with the list. Childcare, healthcare, homecare, eldercare...housing, clean water and food security. But they should know how the MAGA white supremacists are blocking progress on those issues.
Call them out! Videos of Clarence Thomas and Leonard Leo on vacation. Audio: "How was your vacation this year, did you enjoy that yacht and the fancy dinners aboard?" Video of Republican Oligarchs at a party. Audio: "This guy paid no taxes last year. What did you pay? Thanks Republicans!"
We are playing softball. MAGA is playing hardball. Time to change the game. And spend twice as much putting these attack ads on TicTok as we do MSM. It's where young people live and it's young people who will determine whether we fall into fascism or not.
I completely agree. I have never understood the Democratic Party’s tepid, sporadic messaging. It’s like a batter taking strikes and then making a checked swing on the final pitch in the strike zone.
Thank you for the link to Michelle Goldberg’s article. I agree. I was horrified by what I saw of the hearings, but not for the reasons that the media is seizing on. The panel felt like a McCarthyist rerun. The presidents failed precisely because instead of actually standing up for different perspectives on Israel and Palestine, they ended up with platitudes which were unconvincing. They could have given a clear answer about the horrors of genocide AND highlighted that being anti the state of Israel is in fact not antisemitism. That Jews around the world have different perspectives on Zionism and to demand allegiance with one view on campus is to limit every one’s freedom of speech and to undermine the very point of a university. In refusing to explicitly defend diverse ideas, they came across as beholden to donors and insincere.
Thank you.
Thank you for these (yet again) - even more so knowing you have been feeling poorly.
I am in full agreement with your take on The Three University Presidents.
A few thoughts on this:
1. It is mind-blowing that they either received no or terrible media training. Did no one think to tell them that "rolling your eyes contemptuously and sneering 'it depends on context' is not a great response."
Or that "when you say 'if it turns into conduct' that 99% of people will not grasp that you are making a subtle legal distinction and instead will hear "When they actually, you know, start killing the Jews, then it becomes an issue." -- that this is a national television audience, not a seminar room.
And that all three took the same miserable tactic... and now Elise Stefanik (of all people!!!) is the Great Defender of the Jews and enjoying, as today;s top NYT headline put it, "a viral moment."
2. This comes on the heels of another tone deaf Dems-in-the-House move where Raskin, Goldman and Nadler got caught up on the fact that the GOP bill denouncing antisemitism had an overly broad definition and so chose to tell their fellow Dems to vote "present" - and all they got for their efforts was a slew of "Dems In Disarray" headlines and an electorate that had little idea why they were doing what they did, giving the House GOP another big win. Too often our candidates get caught up in the fine print when national politics is a game of headlines.
3. If there is a silver lining to all this, it is that the "Woke Left" (for lack of a better term) has been thoroughly discredited over the past two months, especially those in academia. While it is important to note that none of these people are actually elected Democratic officials, Fox and their Friends have been adept at painting them as Democrats and stirring up outrage over the rantings of random adjunct professors.
So their implosion takes a key tool away from the Right Wing Media who can only report on how outraged former Sanders supporters are about his refusal to call for a cease fire for so long.
So yes, we will have moments where Laurence Tribe, Doug Emhoff and Josh Shapiro are praising Elise Stefanik rather than.a House Democrat, but in the long run, the ability to claim the center as Trump veers further and further right and deep into fascism, bringing the GOP along with him, is only going to be a good thing.
Yes, there will be a period of "Dems in Disarray" as all of the Squad and their supporters are being primaried. (Jayapal is allegedly in the crosshairs now too, for her disgraceful dismissal of the rape of Jewsih women on CNN), but once they are out, the Democrats can run as the party of the center and normalcy and common sense-- all the things that worked for Biden in 2020.
Alan: I agree that these three University presidents were ill-prepared to sit before a panel of congressional representatives on such an explosive topic that is very prone to exaggeration and manipulation. There were many ways that they could have responded to even the most aggressive questioning without coming across as tone-deaf. I also agree that even people watching the hearing would likely have been put off by the university presidents' responses, even though close analysis, which I provided, according to my take on it, in another post above, shows that their preparation was largely to blame, allowing them to be sandbagged and made to look foolish and/or insensitive. Ms. Stefanik is a full-throated defender of Israel without qualification. In my view, that was what drove her questioning methods, which was very successful, based upon the headlines that followed. Anyone who watched the entire hearing from start to finish, with any kind of open mind, could not possibly come away with the impression that these witnesses are anti-Semitic or endorse genocide against the Jewish people around the globe, but if they only saw the articles about it, they might. Being questioned in court or in deposition or in a hearing before congress, where those doing the questioning are lawyers or are coached by lawyers, can be very intimidating to the unexperienced.
First of all very few people actually watched the hearing and the media coverages distorted what happened and then the response to the bad coverage made it worst than it was.
Genocide is an easy concept to understand with no equivocation.
Ilene: I do not agree. Genocide is not an accusation that should be oversimplified, because doing so interferes with being able to speak clearly about it and thereby makes the accusation lose clarity, which makes it easier to cynically manipulate its use for political purposes. I suggest you visit the United Nations webpage that addresses this: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml#:~:text=The%20intent%20is%20the%20most,to%20simply%20disperse%20a%20group.
In the case before us. it is my view that a student chanting "globalize the Intifada" is not clearly expressing the intention to participate in the killing every Jewish person on Earth, which his what Ms. Stefanik was asserting was the case. Did some students in that protest who hold the view that every Jewish person on earth should be killed? Perhaps. If so, it is no doubt our shared opinion that such a view represents dangerous, appalling extremism that must be fully condemned. Likely the majority of them were calling for the end of the brutal aerial bombardment of Gaza that had brought about thus far, at least 17,177 deaths of Palestinians (Gaza Health Ministry), the great majority of them civilians, and a humanitarian disaster that is quickly reaching epic proportions. A serious effort to understand the viewpoints of the student protesters must acknowledge this disparity in power and the impact of its use, which has already reached a multiple of ~13x, as measured in deaths alone.
Gary,
As I said about your initial post you make some valid points.
BUT
I think you don’t give enough noteworthiness to the fact that the ATROCITIES of Hamas are overlooked by the protests.
I ache for the loss of life of the innocent Palestinians. Do much waste, but the protesters only put blame on the Jews for these losses, not in Hamas, who stop the citizens from leaving, who imbed themselves amongst them, who position munitions beneath them, who really could care less about their welfare. Instead they turn them into hate filled individuals who beat young children taken hostage.
Mob mentality does strange things to even reasonable people, so yes I think some and maybe many amongst the protesters do want the total annihilation of Jewish people while others know not what they do or say and are caught up in a moment. Sad in a group who should be able to do more critical thinking by virtue of being in institutions of higher learning.
As to the leaders who were called before Congress, how do you think they would be graded for their preparedness and performance if they were in class?
A great thought but not sure it will happen.
Which great thought are you referring to Stephen. I have many ;)
The comments about the university presidents.
Sorry, Robert, but Michelle Goldberg is right and you are wrong. And I'm particularly surprised that you, a trial lawyer, did not see it. The hearing with the college presidents was a set up from the beginning,. First, Stefanik defined "intifada" to mean genocide. In Arabic it has come to mean an uprising or rebellion, but not genocide. (As the first modern use was against the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq in the 1950s, it cannot have included genocide.) The presidents should have objected to the definition, but--having been poorly advised by their lawyers--they did not. Then, later, Stefanik's question about student conduct and genocide built on her original, maliciously wrong, definition. What the presidents should have done was to question the question, to say, "Excuse me, Congresswoman, but I am not aware that any of our students called for genocide." Which, as far as I know, is the truth. And there are a couple of other factors here. First, college codes for behavior are not self-enforcing, and a single instance even of "hate speech" would not be likely to earn more than an admonition. And second, college kids say stupid things. As I've noted out here, in 1935, the Oxford Union declared that its members would not die for king and country, but many of them did a few years later. I'm going on too long, so I'll conclude that the presidents did not acquit themselves very well, but they were poorly advised. They need to think more about public appearances like the one this week. And fire the lawyers who "advised" them.
Sorry...but a lot of people out there marching want Jews gassed again.
Nothing new.
Yes, they do. And I'm one of those they'd gas. But Stefanik was crying crocodile tears over anti-Semitism. Look who she surrounds herself with.
I worry that justice will not prevail, that the courts are too courteous to Trump's continued delays. Lawrence O'Donnell said the courts are too slow and could go much faster.
I feel that we are being barraged with obstruction (the House Republicans) and the media continues to tout negative polls.
I wonder, too, about the perception of the economy and blaming Biden. The families who lost their child tax credit are indeed suffering but who are the Americans who are out there spending for the holidays, traveling with lower gas prices and lower airfares but also complaining about inflation?
I guess we hang tight and vote Blue in 2024.
It is hard to be patient while Trump's supporters cheer him on.