WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2024
But was she right on the facts? Is Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) really "an odious demagogue?"
Stating the obvious, that's a matter of judgment. For the record, that's the way one of her colleagues, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), described her in the aftermath of December 5, as she was rising to fame.
Rep. Torres dropped that bomb, but was his assessment accurate? Before we return to Stefanik's appearance on last Sunday's Meet the Press, let's review the way she heightened her profile during the House committee hearing which occurred on that fateful day.
Three college presidents had journeyed to Washington to be questioned about the possible presence of antisemitism on their elite college campuses. Ninety minutes into the hearing, the chairwoman of the House committee finally threw to Rep. Stefanik, and the fireworks finally began.
Is Stefanik a "demagogue?" Everything is possible! As we noted last month, her questioning of Harvard president Claudine Gay started loudly and dumbly, like this:
STEFANIK (12/5/23): Dr. Gay, a Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African-Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?
GAY: Our commitment to—
STEFANIK (interrupting): It's a yes or no question!
Is that corrected [sic]? Is that OK, for students to call for the mass murder of African Americans at Harvard? Is that protected free speech?
GAY: Our commitment to free—
STEFANIK (interrupting): It's a yes or no question!
In response to each of those questions, Gay managed to get a few words out before she was interrupted. So began the thoughtful process which helped the allegedly odious pol achieve a new measure of fame.
In fairness, let's be fair! As the inquisition continued this day, President Gay's performance was almost as bad as that turned in by Rep. Stefanik.
When she was finally allowed to speak, Gay demonstrated a persistent refusal to give direct answers to direct questions. Here, for example, is where this first round of the day's inquisition went next:
STEFANIK (continuing directly): Let me ask you this. You are president of Harvard, so I assume you're familiar with the term "intifada," correct?
GAY: I've heard that term, yes.
STEFANIK: 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?
GAY: That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.
Stefanik's new question had several parts, but it was fairly direct. Among other things, Gay had been asked this:
Is the use of the term "intifada" a call for "the genocide of Jews?"
As you can see, Gay didn't exactly answer that question. As this important hearing continued, things spiraled straight down from there.
Eventually, the nature of Stefanik's question became fairly clear. Gay was never directly asked if any students at Harvard had been calling for the genocide of Jews, but she was repeatedly asked if some such call would violate Harvard's "code of conduct."
The other two presidents were asked the same thing. Remarkably, none of the three showed anything resembling skill in the way they attempted to answer.
At any rate, the enervating question was repeatedly asked. Would a call for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's "code of conduct?"
Repeatedly, Gay offered the fuzzy, formulaic outline of a possible answer. By the end of a very long day, Stefanik's final round of inquisition ended exactly like this:
STEFANIK: So the answer is yes—that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard's code of conduct. Correct?
GAY: Again, it depends on the context—
STEFANIK (interrupting; voice rising): It does not depend on the context! The answer is "yes," and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
To watch this final round of questioning by Stefanik, just click here, then move ahead to minute 25. Here's what you will see:
Wagging her finger at the presidents, the inquisitor informed all three that "calls for the genocide of Jews" would violate their universities' codes of conduct. She spoke with total certainty.
No further question need be asked! Nor was there any need to explain what would be taken to constitute such an astonishing call.
Stefanik interrupted freely on this fateful day. She lectured the presidents; she raised her voice. She wagged her finger at her targets. She told them they should resign.
She also kept insisting that calls for the genocide of Jews would indeed violate their universities' codes of conduct. It never became clear what would constitute such a call, but Stefanik was casting herself in the role of avenging angel, and she was proclaiming quite loudly.
All day long, she kept insisting that some such call would violate Harvard's code of conduct—but was she actually right? From December 5 right through yesterday morning, we hadn't seen anyone try to answer that blindingly obvious question!
Yesterday, it finally happened! A letter was published by the Washington Post. As you can see, the letter in question said this:
Letter: Claudine Gay’s resignation from Harvard
Regarding the Jan. 3 front-page article “Gay resigns in face of growing criticism”:
In a congressional hearing, Ms. Gay was confronted by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) with a hypothetical about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated the university’s code regarding bullying and harassment. Ms. Gay responded that it would depend on context. Indeed, Harvard’s rules state that “speech not specifically directed against individuals in a harassing way may be protected by traditional safeguards of free speech, even though the comments may cause considerable discomfort or concern to others in the community.”
[...]
Incredibly, the letter writer had done a bit of checking! As published, his letter included a link to a basic source, the Harvard College Student Handbook for this academic year.
The quotation we've highlighted comes from page 51 of that voluminous source. The Handbook provides a further link regarding the general question of permitted speech. That link takes us to an earlier Harvard publication, FREE SPEECH GUIDELINES.
Incredible! The letter writer had actually tried to determine what Harvard's "code of conduct" actually says! After reviewing his sources, we'd be inclined to say this:
Gay's formulations—however formulaic and halting they may have been—had provided an accurate account of what her university's "code of conduct," rightly or wrongly, actually seems to maintain. Perhaps if Stefanik hadn't interrupted so freely, Gay would have been able to explain such basic facts.
In our view, that code of conduct seems to take us all the way back to the Nazi Party's proposed march on Skokie, Illinois—a high-profile public event from 1976. As a general matter, that high-profile dispute led to the formulation of a widely-accepted general agreement—an agreement that that even the most abhorrent types of public speech must, in fact, be permitted to take place under principles of free speech.
You might agree with that widely-adumbrated principle. On the other hand, you might think that some such view has outlived its usefulness.
There are respectful ways to express that views. Then too, there's Elise Stefanik.
In our view, the three college presidents displayed a remarkable lack of skill as they tried to explain that basic principle in the face of Stefanik's bluster. But all of a sudden, there it was—a link to the actual "code of conduct" to which Gay had presumably been referring.
That hearing occurred on December 5. The letter appeared online at the Washington Post on January 9. In the course of those five weeks, we saw no one attempt to answer a blindingly obvious question:
Was Stefanik, the grand inquisitor, actually right in her loud, finger-wagging public declamations? We'd seen no one make the slightest attempt to answer that obvious question.
We thought Stefanik's behavior on December 5 was a loud, very stupid disgrace. We thought the presidents were amazingly incompetent, but we thought Stefanik was worse.
You can use the D-bomb if you like. Rep. Torres did. That said:
By the time that Rep. Stefanik appeared on Sunday's Meet the Press, we'd seen no one in our vaunted blue tribe try to establish the basic facts of this high-profile public dispute.
Had Stefanik been right in her loud proclamations? Nobody seemed to care.
Rep. Stefanik blustered and fumed. Plainly, she was the loudest performer back on December 5.
No one seemed inclined to wonder if she had the slightest idea what she was blustering about. If you're a member of our flailing blue tribe, please understand this basic fact:
This is the way the blue elites on whom we rely operate in the real world!
Tomorrow: Stefanik blusters past Welker
I do not rely on university presidents. I do not rely on television news performers.
ReplyDeleteI do not rely on The Daily Howler.
DeleteBob appears unaware that Harvard does not remotely obey that provision of the Handbook. “Micro aggressions” and protection of favored groups are the actual rules followed on that campus.
ReplyDeleteGay should have begin her answer with the words “our student handbook says…” But that would have invited the question of whether the Handbook is followed as regards other minorities.
You have what is morally right. I think this is where Stefanik was in her thoughts.
DeleteThen you have the code as written.
Then you have the actual day to day issue of what's enforced and who gets a free pass.
It doesn't help produce a healthy conversation when you shut stuff down and demand a Yes or No. But I understand where Stefanik is coming from with her frustration on weasel logic that makes everything grey.
But at the end of the day you have to have empathy on both sides to get that productive conversation. I question whether having a productive conversation is even the goal when it comes to these sorts of hearings. It seems fairly obvious it is not, and that's the heart of the problem.
Actually, the heart of the problem is that the people who prepped the college presidents underestimated the bipartisan support for Israel. They assumed that the folks who can affect Harvard include a fair amount of people who champion a ceasefire on behalf of the Palestinians.
DeleteThe law firm also assumed that these people would be inclined to turn their noses up at the Republican congress critters more ardently than they supported anything else.
That’s not the way this issue plays out.
"Harvard does not remotely obey that provision of the Handbook."
DeleteDavid, you have no reason for believing that this statement you made is true, right?
There’s this.
Deletehttps://rankings.thefire.org/rank
Go to the bottom of the list. The worst offenders are religion affiliated schools. That makes sense.
Read about how The Fire arrived at their rankings and get back to us about their validity.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:29pm, they have that info on the site (which I linked).
DeleteI will be redundant and comment on this again. The top school on the poll was a Michigan university with a student body having an acceptance rate of 86%, no letters of recommendation needed, no essay, and no standardized test requirements. Tops on Fire's list: a school labeled a university that has the admission requirements of a community college. When your rankings are almost entirely based on surveys of the student body, the intellectual quality of the survey respondents counts. Ivy League students can be counted on to be more intelligent, well read and opinionated about their environment than their counterparts at a school whose admission criteria is for the most part the ability to fill out the application. Frigging Liberty University ranked higher than Harvard in this survey, an institution that promotes the concept that the earth is 6,000 years old. So no, and for more reasons than worth my time to catalog, the survey is a crock. That Harvard students are more critical of their institution than those at Michigan Tech is to be expected.
DeleteUnamused:
DeleteWhat are the exact requirements for letters of recommendation, essays, and standardized test scores that makes a student's opinion about free speech on their campus credible?
In order for your comment to make any sense, you have to provide a specific criteria of institutional selectivity beyond which students' opinions become more valid or credible in discussing free speech.
DeleteIf you can't, some may see your comment as reductive and simplistic.
Unamused, A school with a very lenient admission policy may or may not be supportive of free speech, as indicated on the list. This does not provide an explanation for why Harvard University received such a low ranking.
DeleteFIRE surveys the student body on its tolerance of speech-related matters (openness to speakers, disruption of speakers…) and this is factored into the school rankings.
Earth to Unamused re. Liberty v. Harvard: Liberty University ranking above Harvard does not discredit the survey. The credibility of the study should be based on its overall methodology and execution, not the ranking of two schools.
DeleteIt is not simplistic nor reductive to observe that there is a massive difference between the student populations at Harvard vs a school that has nearly no admission requirements. Polling of these two groups and ranking those results depends on the assumption that the students have comparable requirements that they place on their institutions in terms of free speech. That the survey requires this to be the case in order for it to be valid, when it is extremely unlikely to be so, is problematic. Students who are less intelligent or motivated to excel are entirely different than those at Harvard. Liberty University is a school for religiously indoctrinated Christians. It cannot be compared with an institution that has a highly intelligent multicultural student body. Students at Liberty University have a very unified world view that is Christian centered (I know students with experiences there); it is not a place that is attended for diversity of opinion and as an institution does not have the same pressures placed on it for free speech as others.
DeleteYou didn't answer the question. What are the exact requirements for letters of recommendation, essays, and standardized test scores that make a student's opinion about free speech on their campus credible?
DeleteThe survey does not require students at different institutions to have comparable requirements for free speech for its findings to be valid. There's no logical basis for that claim. It makes no sense. The survey is designed to gauge the subjective perceptions of students about free speech on their campuses. These perceptions are valid data points in themselves, reflecting the students' individual and collective experiences, which do not need to be uniform across different institutions.
If someone wanted to capture perceptions and experiences across college campuses, what would you have them do? Have the Harvard kids come in and tell the lesser students how they perceive their own experience?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis is how Harvard did it.
Deletehttps://nybreaking.com/harvard-is-named-worst-school-for-free-speech-scoring-below-zero-after-nine-professors-and-researchers-faced-calls-to-be-disciplined-or-fired-for-voicing-controversial-opinions/amp/
“Harvard is named WORST school for free speech – scoring BELOW zero – after nine professors and researchers faced calls to be disciplined or fired for voicing ‘controversial’ opinions”
“Harvard’s shocking stance comes despite the fact that about 100 professors banded together earlier this year to create the Council on Academic Freedom to champion open research on campus.
“Many, many people are threatened with — and even face — disciplinary action for their exercise of free speech and academic freedom,” said Harvard Law School professor Janet Halley. ‘We are currently in a time of crisis.’”
"The Worst Colleges for Free Speech" is the title of the article in The Fire website. Not so. Let's say you show the same movie to two different groups of students from opposite ends of the academic spectrum. On Monday you show the film featuring Mo, Larry, and Curly to the bottom tier group who gives it a 75% rotten tomatoes rating and on Tuesday the same movie rated by the top tier group gets a 35% rating.The correct title to an article about this is "The Mo, Larry, and Curly Movie is Rated Differently by Sub stratified Students" NOT "Between Monday and Tuesday the Mo, Larry and Curly Movie Got 40 Points Worse". But even this is not as complex as the case in point, where the students are watching different movies but their ratings are compared. The correct title of the article should have stated " Student Ratings of Their Colleges for Free Speech". The title that was used and the one you would like to hang your hat on, Cecelia, and others, has nothing to do with the policies of the colleges in question. That would be obtained by a more difficult but accurate assessment of each campus by an independent entity. Whoever wants me to set an academic cutoff for authenticity misses the point entirely.
DeleteOr "The Worst Colleges for Free Speech According to the Perceptions of the Students That Attend Them"
DeleteUnamused, this is part of the criteria Fire.Org uses to gauge the climate for free speech on colleges campuses.
DeleteHarvard is shit. The fish rots from the head.
DeleteWhy bother with the false analogy about everyone watching the same movie?
DeleteIf Harvard students are watching the drama of what’s going between research scientists and 100 profs who banded against administrators, this would certainly affect the student’s feelings as to free speech at the university.
DeleteYeah, in a way that wouldn’t happen at Michigan Tech.
Unamused. These people are devoted to hating Harvard and the other Ivy league schools that brainwashed the likes of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. If people cannot see the logic in your argument, it is because they don't want to.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:22pm, perhaps next time, you’ll try an argument based upon logic.
DeleteCecelia, I am not interested in arguing with you. If it helps you sleep soundly at night convinced Harvard University scores below zero (how is that even possible?) on the "free speech o-meter', be my fucking guest. LOL
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:02pm, I will. Thanks!
Delete12:20: If I were only addressing you, I wouldn't bother.
DeleteIMO Stafanik was not flailing. Her point was clear. Calling for intafada and chanting “From the river to the sea” was a way of calling for genocide, and that should be a no no. Gay chose not to address theses issues.
ReplyDeleteBTW I cannot recall Bob directly addressing them either? Doe’s Bob think those phrases amount to calling for genocide?
Of course I may be prejudiced. I see Stefanik as a brave warrior effectively fighting antisemitism on college campuses.
Does Bob think that antisemitism is a problem at many campuses?
Gay was clear and she disagreed with you.
DeleteSupporting intifada and calling for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea are perfectly legitimate. Massacres, rapes, and sexual mutilation are illegitimate.
DeleteStefanik isn't smart enough to come up with that yes/ no question by herself. I wonder who she plagiarized it from.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think she isn’t smart? She can be both evil and smart.
DeleteYou would think that there would be many people calling for the head of this odious demagogue (rather being a grandstanding pol).
DeleteThey aren’t because the people who wanted this show-and-tell got the answer they knew they would get, and the people who regret that fact are still cringing over it.
Sally Kornbluth has not resigned, but she wears ugly glasses.
ReplyDeletehttps://president.mit.edu/about-mit-president-sally-kornbluth
If I understand the body of this post, the answer to the initial question is, "No, Stefanik was not correct." She declared that the Harvard code of conduct prohibited such speech. Apparently, it does not.
ReplyDeleteI encourage anyone who thinks they have an opinion on this to review the transcript of the committee hearing. I am particularly struck by the attitude of Representative Virginia Foxx toward the university presidents. Here's a portion of her first question:
ReplyDelete"How did your campuses get this way? What is it about the way that you hire faculty and approve curriculum that’s allowing your campuses to be infected by this intellectual and moral rot?"
Why, the evenhandedness of the endeavor leaps right off the page, doesn't it?
I agree, Quaker. The words "infected" and "rot" indicate a bias. But, I'm in favor of a bias against antisemitism.
DeleteI don't think that's the precise bias in play here.
DeleteThe majority of the people attacked by Joseph McCarthy were Jewish. House of UnAmerican activities, house of anti-anti-Zionist activity committee, same chazarah.
DeleteAs Chris Rock said "Fuck all these immigrants" does have a ring of German to it.
This pundit argues that Stafanik is now the leading candidate to be Trump's VP choice. Is it right?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2789506/elise-stefanik-is-running-for-vp-and-shes-winning/
Nah. Trump sees everything through the lens of television. Stefanik doesn't have "the look" that he thinks reflects his own greatness. He'll be more likely to choose Noem or Mace.
DeleteHere's an example of what the university presidents faced in the hearing. Bob complains the presidents showed a lack of competence. What's the proper response when you're being questioned by blockheads like this?
ReplyDeleteRICK W. ALLEN: Let me tell you how serious this issue is. In 1885 BC, BC not AD, BC, the Bible says Genesis 12:3, I will bless — talking about Israel, I will bless those who bless you. And whoever curses you, I will curse. And all peoples of the Earth would be blessed through you. That is a serious, serious promise. In fact, we heard one of the panelists talk about the Jesus of the Bible.
and of course, our church, was founded by Jesus, who was a Jew, the American Church. In fact, the church throughout the — the world. You know, this is the Committee of Education and Workforce. Illiteracy — illiteracy is the number one problem in our workforce. But I think from a standpoint of truth, biblical illiteracy is the number one problem in America.
We are a biblically illiterate society. We have no idea about these promises that are ancient in this book that the prophecies, every one of them has come to fruition. Every single one of them.
That weird question is really about antimerism on their campuses. One simple, proper response would be: "There is no antisemitism on my campus. Antisemitism is forbidden." Unfortunately, that statement would be false.
DeleteA better response would be, ":Unfortunately, there is some antisemitism on my campus., We're working to eliminate it." Unfortunately, that statement would also be false.
Thanks for Stefanik's performance, campuses all over the country that were allowing antisemitism are now working against antisemitism. For me as a Jew, that's a heroic achievement.
All this from Stefanik's five-minute interrogation? That's quite a claim.
DeleteAlso, I think anyone who goes on about how Jesus personally founded "our American church," makes a poor advocate against antisemitism.
DeleteDavid, would you suggest re-education camps for anti-semitic students?
Delete@2:50 Actually my preference would be to allow more free speech. I'd prefer that it be OK to criticize Jews and equally OK to criticize other groups.
DeleteSo, you were ok with the neo-Nazi white supremacist torchlight marches in Charlottesville? As I recall, nobody stopped them.
DeleteYes, Quaker it's quite a claim. Or, I would say, it's quite an achievement. Of course I'm projecting or guessing about the effect. But, IMO the fact two of three university Presidents lost their job because of antisemitism will motivate all university Presidents to be more mindful of antisemitism on their campus.
DeleteAntisemitism is forbidden." Unfortunately, that statement would be false. DiC @ 2:45
DeleteActually my preference would be to allow more free speech DiC @ 2:57
So when you said "unfortunately", you meant fortunately? You're a fucking double-talking bullshitter, David. You got your scalps, got the fuck away.
Anonymouse 3:00pm, spoken like a congress critter.
DeleteSome -people think it's not really about antisemitism on their campuses but about censoring pro-Palestinian speech on their campuses using the well worn tactic of equating legitimate, legal free speech re.opposition to specific acts by the Israelie govt. with antisemitism.
Delete3:10,
DeleteYup. Mike Johnson.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but there's just so much insanity from that hearing that folks should be aware of.
ReplyDeleteBURGESS OWENS: Ok, Ok. Let me just — let me just — I’m sorry, I’m running out of time. And what you’re saying is very simply, in 1960s, it would’ve been Ok for Whites and Blacks to segregate themselves, because they felt more like the people they were with. I disagree very, very much. But let me just say this, if in case we discover, and this is for everybody here real quick, in these last few minutes, that there’s a direct link from DEI and CRT to the growth of Marxist interest groups, like BLM, Antifa, and the pro Hamas on campuses, would you then end the DEI initiatives on your campus — if there’s a link between what that is and what the result of hatred?
Would that be a — would that be finished on your campus, real quickly? We have just, yes or no. Dr. Gay, I will start with you, yes or no?
CLAUDINE GAY: Our DEI efforts are about ensuring that all of our —
BURGESS OWENS: Ok, so that’s a no.
Thanks for that. Hunter Biden's lawyers were better at averting another such choreographed shit show. When he showed up unexpectedly at their theatrical display and they had a mass seizure. Which did not deter MTG from again holding up pictures of his genitalia.
DeleteThe use of the word “Demogogue” seems to be what gives Bob pause, thou his own account of Stefanik would seem to apply. Maybe Bob feels as a non office holder he has license, and that may be fair enough.
ReplyDeleteNo Worries About Job If You Wanna Take Some Handsome Monthly Ma Income From Home On Your Computer or Phone Just Q Do Online Working Data Copy Paste Very Simple If You Wanna Apply Online Work
ReplyDeleteJust Follow This Link…..>>> Www.Smartcareer1.com
it poosible that i can make income grow and also like same as schwantz? i have small schwantz.
Deletefor schwantz i desire it be like pinocchio schwantz. grow many time.
DeleteDeporting leftists outside of places of influence is an old American tradition. We deported Emma Goldman and Walt Disney testified before Congress about his labor organizers.
ReplyDeleteThe game is revealed when you can use the idea of criticizing US empire, to not only tell Jewish leftists to leave the country, but to tell any leftist to leave the country.
The whole point of Zionism is a system of monitoring and keeping the temperature of Jewish rage at the system from joining with working class people of color, especially Arabs, Vietnemese, Africans etc. who resisted French imperialism together and formed a bristly edge at US expansionist fantasies. If Jewish leftists stay organized they represent a serious threat to white supremacy.
That's not "the whole point" of Zionism of course, but close enough.
DeleteAny ethnocentric (or "identity politics") ideology is good for fragmenting the working class, and inevitably will be used for that purpose.
Said the American politician proudly "It's a good thing we have Israel to put all these Jews I'm so proud of, otherwise they could take over the education system with Karl Marx."
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 3:59am, who are you quoting?
DeleteIt's a quick shorthand joke.
DeleteYou can see hints of this in the McCarthyist Red Scare hearings:
"according to Aviva Weingarten’s 2008 study, of 124 people questioned by McCarthy’s Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in 1952, 79 were Jews. McCarthy’s investigations led to the destruction of the 50,000-member leftwing Jewish People’s Fraternal Order. When the Senator began calling for court-martial of Dr. Irving Peress, a leftwing army dentist, and held hearings to claim that the army was “soft on communism,” he was censured by the Senate and tumbled from power."
Leading gentile Zionist Arthur Balfour viewed Judaism as foreign to British blood. His acts have " been framed as the major antecedent to Britain's more substantial and enduring legislative moves in the 1960s to restrict entry, regulate borders, and nominate and identify “undesirable” entrants effectively (if not explicitly) on racial grounds.. "
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/abs/right-to-asylum-britains-1905-aliens-act-and-the-evolution-of-refugee-law/38AA06B0808D0AA25137B7DF8A018D04
https://jewishcurrents.org/may-2-mccarthyism-and-the-jews
Consider the ridiculously backhanded compliment of white power saying they support Jews as long as they live far, far away from your country and are participating in assimilation into white supremacy rule of law.
Anonymouse 4:52am, so this not an actual quote or even a paraphrase from a current American politician.
DeleteDecades later, is this why some of Pres. Biden’s own staff have written letters demanding a mitigation of his support for Israel? It’s not like the U.S. considers the land of Israel as being anything other than a Middle East ghetto?
I'm using a character of Uncle Sam to make a grim joke.
DeleteRacism as an ideology requires everyone belong to land and move there forever ... It keeps the slaves living far away from the money. It tells you where you belong.
It's assimilation into white supremacy to go along with this.
Zionism is an assimilationist movement going along with white supremacy to attack Jewish political anger and keep it on tap like alcohol, bottled to be used when needed against white enemies.
Theodore Herzl said this, he called racists his biggest allies.
Jews have a history that's being erased of justice studies in academy and power politics and the idea we can just accept the Israeli Superman over the activist is itself calling Jews weak for not being in the army.