The Aaron Sorkin quote (spoken by actor Michael Douglas (as President Andrew Shepherd) in the movie “The American President” is a good one. If I want freedom of anything, I have to remember that my access to those freedoms has to allow for someone else’s to have equal access to those freedoms. That’s how Democracy is supposed to work.
You see, Democracy is not a zero-sum game; it’s not “It’s my way or else.” It’s much harder than that: It’s compromise. I won’t get everything I want, and neither will you, but hopefully where we end up together is a bit better than where we started far apart.
Thank you for your response. I must respectfully disagree with your position.
Your reply contains several inconsistencies and misunderstandings. You state that criticizing Israel’s actions or policies should a protected right. However, the reality is quite different. Extremists such as Bill Ackman, Marc Rowan, and Ron Lauder, along with groups like AIPAC, actively work to control the narrative about Israel on university campuses, in our government and in the media. They routinely engage in blackmail, obfuscation, and, when these fail, they resort to evoking anti-Semitism to shut down any criticism of Israel.
You argue that the statement “I hate Zionists, not Jews” is a pretense for anti-Semitism. This is a mischaracterization. Critiques of Israel’s actions and on Zionism most often focus on its political, legal and humanitarian implications, not on Judaism as a religion. Many Jews are not Zionists, and equating criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism is more often than not an instrumentalization to stifle legitimate debate.
You are absolutely correct that Israel should be held to the same standards as other countries. It is responsible for the mass killing of tens of thousands and the starvation and displacement of more than 2 million Palestinians, with numerous war crimes documented by international bodies. Yet it is exempt from the same criticism other countries would receive for such actions. The US’ complicity in providing diplomatic cover and arms to Israel is morally reprehensible, as is the US media’s tendency to whitewash these issues, limiting fair coverage and punishing critics. It is profoundly anti-democratic.
Regarding the Penn writers' festival, I find your portrayal profoundly disingenuous. There was a clear effort to suppress criticism of Israel. For a more accurate account, you might refer to this article in The Intercept, the non-partisan, non-corporate funded, award-winning investigative journalism site, which documents the carefully concerted campaign on behalf of wealthy activists.https://theintercept.com/2024/01/13/penn-palestine-writes-liz-magill/
Your mention of campus protests turning violent is noteworthy. However, it has been the pro-Israel and MAGA extremists who have instigated these clashes, not the pro-Palestinian protesters. Universities should be mindful of who they allow on campus, as it seems the violence is frequently initiated by those opposing Palestinian advocacy.
Your reference to "cancel culture" is ironic, given that many who championed free speech now seek to suppress criticism of Israel. It is not the protestors that are suppressing free speech. The contradiction is troubling. Given the fact that US media coverage has been heavily pro-Israel and that Israel-supporters actively seek to control messaging it is a good thing that students have spoken up.
While I may not fully agree with Congresswoman Omar’s choice of words, her underlying point about the polarized views on Israel's actions is valid. Supporting Israel’s actions towards Palestinians is supporting mass slaughter/genocide/murder, however you want to term it. This is one of the greatest crimes in recent history and criticism should not be stonewalled.
I very much admire your work, which is why I subscribe to your Substack. But I find it deeply troubling to read your endorsement of restricting free speech when it concerns Israel.
I say the following as someone who is not a member of any political party.
Many of these statements above are heavily influenced by progressive/far left talking points and lack factual support. The mainstream media (Washington Post, NY Times, BBC, NPR etc.) outlets are decidedly not pro-Israel (https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-801593) and the assertion of masked campus vandals/rioters being primary MAGA and pro-Israel is honesty not supported by facts or reason. Also, the vast majority of Jews believe Israel should exist.
Similarly, the article you referenced about Penn comes from The Intercept, a publication that ranks far left on media bias charts (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intercept/) and has been consistently anti-Israel. The columnist, Akela Lacy, also has a track record of writing exclusively anti-Israel pieces (https://theintercept.com/staff/akelalacy/). Calling the publication non-partisan and non-corporate funded is disengenous at best. It has been primarily historically funded by progressive megadonors (including $500K from SBF) and is reportedly headed towards bankruptcy. (https://www.semafor.com/article/04/14/2024/the-intercept-is-running-out-of-cash)
I appreciate you support for my writing, but would encourage broadening your perspective though a more diverse range of media sources for information. By doing so, you may find a more nuanced understanding that transcends the binary narratives often presented by a single lens on both extremes.
Great article and these are indeed confusing times. While the university protests are one example of misalignment, at least college campuses are the right place for these discussions & disagreements. But what about SCOTUS(?!) - that, to me, is a much scarier situation for our society and our country. Thank you for the weekly ponderings.
While I wholeheartedly agree that moral consistency is crucial, I respectfully disagree with your use of university leaders and student protests as an example.
The issue lies with the undue influence of some wealthy donors. Activist billionaires, like Bill Ackman and Mark Rowan, pressured universities to silence any criticism of Israel on campuses. This long predated October 7th. It started with the Palestinian festival at Penn, falsely labeled as violent (no violence occurred). This was followed by accusations of anti-Semitism and hate speech, often orchestrated to silence dissent. Essentially, it was a "shut down or lose funding" tactic.
With respect to student protests, it's unfair and disingenuous to brand all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. Many Jewish students themselves participated in these protests. Violence, when it occurred, came from pro-Israeli and right-wing fanatic supporters, not the protestors. Additionally, universities, fearing accusations of anti-Semitism, unfairly punished protestors, prioritizing appeasing donors over upholding free speech.
While Jewish students feeling uncomfortable on campus is a concern, it shouldn't be used to suppress legitimate protests. Free speech thrives on open discourse, not on silencing opposing viewpoints. Violence, however, is never acceptable and should be addressed swiftly.
The October 7th incident was undoubtedly a horrific war crime, and Hamas should be held accountable for its actions. However, the Israeli government's actions in Gaza are by no means beyond reprehension, there are many, many war crimes that were and continue to be committed every day. Despite this, the US continues to provide diplomatic cover and military aid unconditionally. Additionally, AIPAC and its supporters attempt to control the narrative surrounding Israel's actions. This approach isn’t working, as polls reveal a growing number of Americans disapproving of Israel's actions.
Universities -- and our government -- have indeed failed to demonstrate moral consistency, but not in the way you portray it. Universities succumbed to pressure and unfairly targeted protestors. Our government's unwavering support for Israel raises serious ethical -- and moral concerns.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We seem to disagree on some key points, but it’s important to have this dialogue. There are several areas where I disagree strongly. Criticizing Israel and its actions or policies is a right that should be protected. At the same time, you have to admit, there appears to be an unhealthy focus on Israel in general, with some critics holding it to starkly different standards than other countries, conflicts, and tragedies around the world. I find that highly suspicious, when combined with the massive rise in anti-Semitism around the world. People who want to hate, will always find their reason.
As a Penn alumnus, I was very involved in the Palestinian Arts Festival issue. The organizers of the event, which was pitched as an event about Palestinian culture, invited several speakers with a history of anti-Semitic rhetoric, several of whom weren’t even Palestinian such as Roger Walters and Marc Lamont Hill. I went and read the prior comments of these speakers, and there was a lot of vile, hate-filled, blood libel stuff. They were not there to talk about Palestinian culture. You can read those examples here https://robertglazer.substack.com/p/antisemitism-penn-palestine-writes
Many at Penn felt that the school was misled about the event and was not being consistent with how it had addressed other speakers in the past under the backdrop of safety-ism and cancel culture for anything that was slightly objectionable or offensive, including a speaker from ICE who was cancelled. You can’t operate a cancel culture and then expect that people won’t want things cancelled. Given the double standards, it is understandable why Penn’s Jewish alumni and donors would be upset. Their response is an exercise of free speech and free will, just as the university is free to choose its funding sources. Similarly, if a large Black donor expressed their discontent with their alma mater at a KKK member coming to speak on campus and spread hate and threatened to withhold donations, I think that’s totally within their right to do so. I also don’t think anyone would make the “power” argument in this case. People donate their hard-earned money to things that support their values.
My example focused on campus behavior that wouldn’t be tolerated in other contexts and there are 1,000 examples of this I could have used from the past decade. For instance, the University of Virginia's reaction to the Charlottesville events. I don’t remember anyone hesitating to condemn that behavior.
Many campus protests have turned violent and destructive, openly violating university policies, and it has been worst where there has been no enforcement of the rules or a constant moving of the red line. Peaceful protests criticizing Israel’s actions wouldn’t cause such issues, taking over campuses and buildings does. These schools also have no obligation to let outside people onto their private property to foment violence and intimidation. Half the people arrested in these encampments are not even students. That makes it so much worse.
Consistency in applying rules and policies is crucial. The abrupt shift from cancel culture, sensitivity and microaggression trainings to tolerating extreme behaviors under the guise of protest reflects deep moral inconsistency.
Finally, many Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its leadership and tactics, but this whole new gaslighting of “I hate Zionists, not Jews” is nothing but a clever pretense for anti-Semitism. We even had a congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, come to Columbia and say that Jews are either pro-genocide or anti-genocide. That is clearly not a comment about Israel’s government.
This is such a great distinction. As an executive coach working with leaders day in and day out I see and feel the internal push and pull they feel challenged with. Hierarchy is real, leadership is messy, and leading with moral consistency requires courage and a deep sense of self trust. Thank you for this piece. I’ll be sharing it with my peeps.
The Aaron Sorkin quote (spoken by actor Michael Douglas (as President Andrew Shepherd) in the movie “The American President” is a good one. If I want freedom of anything, I have to remember that my access to those freedoms has to allow for someone else’s to have equal access to those freedoms. That’s how Democracy is supposed to work.
You see, Democracy is not a zero-sum game; it’s not “It’s my way or else.” It’s much harder than that: It’s compromise. I won’t get everything I want, and neither will you, but hopefully where we end up together is a bit better than where we started far apart.
100%
Thank you for your response. I must respectfully disagree with your position.
Your reply contains several inconsistencies and misunderstandings. You state that criticizing Israel’s actions or policies should a protected right. However, the reality is quite different. Extremists such as Bill Ackman, Marc Rowan, and Ron Lauder, along with groups like AIPAC, actively work to control the narrative about Israel on university campuses, in our government and in the media. They routinely engage in blackmail, obfuscation, and, when these fail, they resort to evoking anti-Semitism to shut down any criticism of Israel.
You argue that the statement “I hate Zionists, not Jews” is a pretense for anti-Semitism. This is a mischaracterization. Critiques of Israel’s actions and on Zionism most often focus on its political, legal and humanitarian implications, not on Judaism as a religion. Many Jews are not Zionists, and equating criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism is more often than not an instrumentalization to stifle legitimate debate.
You are absolutely correct that Israel should be held to the same standards as other countries. It is responsible for the mass killing of tens of thousands and the starvation and displacement of more than 2 million Palestinians, with numerous war crimes documented by international bodies. Yet it is exempt from the same criticism other countries would receive for such actions. The US’ complicity in providing diplomatic cover and arms to Israel is morally reprehensible, as is the US media’s tendency to whitewash these issues, limiting fair coverage and punishing critics. It is profoundly anti-democratic.
Regarding the Penn writers' festival, I find your portrayal profoundly disingenuous. There was a clear effort to suppress criticism of Israel. For a more accurate account, you might refer to this article in The Intercept, the non-partisan, non-corporate funded, award-winning investigative journalism site, which documents the carefully concerted campaign on behalf of wealthy activists.https://theintercept.com/2024/01/13/penn-palestine-writes-liz-magill/
Your mention of campus protests turning violent is noteworthy. However, it has been the pro-Israel and MAGA extremists who have instigated these clashes, not the pro-Palestinian protesters. Universities should be mindful of who they allow on campus, as it seems the violence is frequently initiated by those opposing Palestinian advocacy.
Your reference to "cancel culture" is ironic, given that many who championed free speech now seek to suppress criticism of Israel. It is not the protestors that are suppressing free speech. The contradiction is troubling. Given the fact that US media coverage has been heavily pro-Israel and that Israel-supporters actively seek to control messaging it is a good thing that students have spoken up.
While I may not fully agree with Congresswoman Omar’s choice of words, her underlying point about the polarized views on Israel's actions is valid. Supporting Israel’s actions towards Palestinians is supporting mass slaughter/genocide/murder, however you want to term it. This is one of the greatest crimes in recent history and criticism should not be stonewalled.
I very much admire your work, which is why I subscribe to your Substack. But I find it deeply troubling to read your endorsement of restricting free speech when it concerns Israel.
I say the following as someone who is not a member of any political party.
Many of these statements above are heavily influenced by progressive/far left talking points and lack factual support. The mainstream media (Washington Post, NY Times, BBC, NPR etc.) outlets are decidedly not pro-Israel (https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-801593) and the assertion of masked campus vandals/rioters being primary MAGA and pro-Israel is honesty not supported by facts or reason. Also, the vast majority of Jews believe Israel should exist.
Similarly, the article you referenced about Penn comes from The Intercept, a publication that ranks far left on media bias charts (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-intercept/) and has been consistently anti-Israel. The columnist, Akela Lacy, also has a track record of writing exclusively anti-Israel pieces (https://theintercept.com/staff/akelalacy/). Calling the publication non-partisan and non-corporate funded is disengenous at best. It has been primarily historically funded by progressive megadonors (including $500K from SBF) and is reportedly headed towards bankruptcy. (https://www.semafor.com/article/04/14/2024/the-intercept-is-running-out-of-cash)
I appreciate you support for my writing, but would encourage broadening your perspective though a more diverse range of media sources for information. By doing so, you may find a more nuanced understanding that transcends the binary narratives often presented by a single lens on both extremes.
Great article and these are indeed confusing times. While the university protests are one example of misalignment, at least college campuses are the right place for these discussions & disagreements. But what about SCOTUS(?!) - that, to me, is a much scarier situation for our society and our country. Thank you for the weekly ponderings.
While I wholeheartedly agree that moral consistency is crucial, I respectfully disagree with your use of university leaders and student protests as an example.
The issue lies with the undue influence of some wealthy donors. Activist billionaires, like Bill Ackman and Mark Rowan, pressured universities to silence any criticism of Israel on campuses. This long predated October 7th. It started with the Palestinian festival at Penn, falsely labeled as violent (no violence occurred). This was followed by accusations of anti-Semitism and hate speech, often orchestrated to silence dissent. Essentially, it was a "shut down or lose funding" tactic.
With respect to student protests, it's unfair and disingenuous to brand all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. Many Jewish students themselves participated in these protests. Violence, when it occurred, came from pro-Israeli and right-wing fanatic supporters, not the protestors. Additionally, universities, fearing accusations of anti-Semitism, unfairly punished protestors, prioritizing appeasing donors over upholding free speech.
While Jewish students feeling uncomfortable on campus is a concern, it shouldn't be used to suppress legitimate protests. Free speech thrives on open discourse, not on silencing opposing viewpoints. Violence, however, is never acceptable and should be addressed swiftly.
The October 7th incident was undoubtedly a horrific war crime, and Hamas should be held accountable for its actions. However, the Israeli government's actions in Gaza are by no means beyond reprehension, there are many, many war crimes that were and continue to be committed every day. Despite this, the US continues to provide diplomatic cover and military aid unconditionally. Additionally, AIPAC and its supporters attempt to control the narrative surrounding Israel's actions. This approach isn’t working, as polls reveal a growing number of Americans disapproving of Israel's actions.
Universities -- and our government -- have indeed failed to demonstrate moral consistency, but not in the way you portray it. Universities succumbed to pressure and unfairly targeted protestors. Our government's unwavering support for Israel raises serious ethical -- and moral concerns.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We seem to disagree on some key points, but it’s important to have this dialogue. There are several areas where I disagree strongly. Criticizing Israel and its actions or policies is a right that should be protected. At the same time, you have to admit, there appears to be an unhealthy focus on Israel in general, with some critics holding it to starkly different standards than other countries, conflicts, and tragedies around the world. I find that highly suspicious, when combined with the massive rise in anti-Semitism around the world. People who want to hate, will always find their reason.
As a Penn alumnus, I was very involved in the Palestinian Arts Festival issue. The organizers of the event, which was pitched as an event about Palestinian culture, invited several speakers with a history of anti-Semitic rhetoric, several of whom weren’t even Palestinian such as Roger Walters and Marc Lamont Hill. I went and read the prior comments of these speakers, and there was a lot of vile, hate-filled, blood libel stuff. They were not there to talk about Palestinian culture. You can read those examples here https://robertglazer.substack.com/p/antisemitism-penn-palestine-writes
Many at Penn felt that the school was misled about the event and was not being consistent with how it had addressed other speakers in the past under the backdrop of safety-ism and cancel culture for anything that was slightly objectionable or offensive, including a speaker from ICE who was cancelled. You can’t operate a cancel culture and then expect that people won’t want things cancelled. Given the double standards, it is understandable why Penn’s Jewish alumni and donors would be upset. Their response is an exercise of free speech and free will, just as the university is free to choose its funding sources. Similarly, if a large Black donor expressed their discontent with their alma mater at a KKK member coming to speak on campus and spread hate and threatened to withhold donations, I think that’s totally within their right to do so. I also don’t think anyone would make the “power” argument in this case. People donate their hard-earned money to things that support their values.
My example focused on campus behavior that wouldn’t be tolerated in other contexts and there are 1,000 examples of this I could have used from the past decade. For instance, the University of Virginia's reaction to the Charlottesville events. I don’t remember anyone hesitating to condemn that behavior.
Many campus protests have turned violent and destructive, openly violating university policies, and it has been worst where there has been no enforcement of the rules or a constant moving of the red line. Peaceful protests criticizing Israel’s actions wouldn’t cause such issues, taking over campuses and buildings does. These schools also have no obligation to let outside people onto their private property to foment violence and intimidation. Half the people arrested in these encampments are not even students. That makes it so much worse.
Consistency in applying rules and policies is crucial. The abrupt shift from cancel culture, sensitivity and microaggression trainings to tolerating extreme behaviors under the guise of protest reflects deep moral inconsistency.
Finally, many Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its leadership and tactics, but this whole new gaslighting of “I hate Zionists, not Jews” is nothing but a clever pretense for anti-Semitism. We even had a congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, come to Columbia and say that Jews are either pro-genocide or anti-genocide. That is clearly not a comment about Israel’s government.
This is such a great distinction. As an executive coach working with leaders day in and day out I see and feel the internal push and pull they feel challenged with. Hierarchy is real, leadership is messy, and leading with moral consistency requires courage and a deep sense of self trust. Thank you for this piece. I’ll be sharing it with my peeps.
Thank you Robert for being clear and consistent and remind us to do the same.
As always, you nailed an important and pressing issue with clear moral clarity!
Without partiality .