1213 Comments
User's avatar
Lynne Morris's avatar

This is awful. I could not finish it. The issue presented is very complicated and oversimplification as done here does readers a great disservice.

Expand full comment
Dick WB Tracy's avatar

Oversimplification? More like Kawaller simply ignores all the evidence so he can dismiss the issue entirely.

The media actually covering the protests (especially the NY Post), particularly at Columbia, have been clear that Jewish students were threatened to the point of being afraid to go to classes and certain areas of campus; illegal encampments were maintained, buildings were taken over and vandalized, and staff were assaulted and held against their will.

The perpetrators escaped punishment because Columbia shirked its duties under Title IX and NY County's woke Soros-sponsored DA, Alvin Bragg, declined to prosecute anyone on the laughable grounds that their faces were covered.

Expand full comment
Allison Brennan's avatar

Yep. Anyone can say any words they want -- I may not like the words, may think the person is a jerk or worse, but speech is PROTECTED. Actions are NOT protected. What the anti-semetic jerks SAID is irrelevant (unless directly inciting someone to violence) -- but taking over buildings, blocking access to buildings, and physically harassing students because of their race and/or religion is the problem. I didn't follow the Columbia situation as closely as the UCLA situation (since I have a good friend whose daughter goes there). UCLA was just as bad as Columbia. There were pro-Hamas protestors preventing Jews from going into the library and the university did nothing to stop it for weeks. I'm a college drop-out and participated in my fair share of protests, and this has all gotten way out of hand.

Expand full comment
SamHillHouse's avatar

Speech is protected. However foreign nationals, regardless of legal permanent residency status, are NOT permitted to promote terrorism, promote genocide, and.. FFS NOBODY is permitted to pour concrete down the toilets and plumbing of multistory buildings. The very bright and sneaky author of this article deliberately obfuscates, derides and completely ignores all of the many public posts, speeches, and direct communications in which our Syrian Algerian terrorist clearly and unmistakably called for the destruction of western civilization.

Gaslighting is not a very useful communication device. I’m personally a little disappointed that Matt promoted it.

Expand full comment
Kresge's avatar

Oh my God. Students were unruly. People couldn't get to the library. There was civil disobedience all about. It's insane!!!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Jonathan L Becker's avatar

Generally antisemites like you are resentful and insecure. Please give us your story about how 15 million people control 8 billion and other mysteries about how how Jews control your life or something. And don’t give me this BS about how people like you aren’t antisemites you’re just criticizing Israel. You are obsessed obviously. How many comments have you written in this thread?

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Why are you labeling Kilgore Trout an antisemite?

Nothing in his post was antisemitic.

Expand full comment
Jeff Keener's avatar

"...your fellow paid hasbara Israel-first troll army that infests Racket's commentariat."

That's mighty paranoid, anti-semitism neighbor.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

Who knows? Kilgore might be Matt.

Expand full comment
michael Griffin's avatar

Ms Kilgore. I actually checked out your link to the ACLU website with their one sided take on the UCLA encampment that claims among other things that their right to free speech has been violated.

For one, occupying the university property is not free speech. It’s a violation at the very least of University’s Code of Conduct. For this alone they should face suspension or expulsion.

As for your question of the harassment of other students the data is too large to share in this venue. Virtually every major news outlet has covered the harassment of Jewish and other students who were trying to simply get to classes

Expand full comment
bluecurl3's avatar

First, are you not aware of the thousands of Jewish students, Jewish professors and Jewish organizations like JVP, If Not Now, Not in Our Name, who were present at many of the demonstrations and stated unequivocally that they did not witness any acts of antisemitism, or harassment of Jewish students? Also, student demonstrations over the last 60 years have been responsible for affecting change to some of the worlds worst atrocities. More often then not, as in the case at UCLA when a group of zionist thugs showed up and initiated acts of violence against the protesters for over 5 hours before the police finally stepped in, these demonstrations for the most part have been peaceful.

Expand full comment
michael Griffin's avatar

1000’s. ?? Really sounds like a lot to me

Your reply has nothing to do with my point however.

Except you claim that “they” didn’t witness any anti Semitic acts or harassment Perhaps they didn’t but they definitely occurred and were frequent. Mostly peaceful means some were not. Occupation of university property and violence has consequences. That’s like telling a cop. Let me off it’s only my first time driving drunk in ten years.

Expand full comment
Dorothy Unleashed's avatar

I don’t care at all about this narrative, however, it is naive to think a rage mob that’s all wound up isn’t going to turn on whoever. Just look at the videos of the summer of Floyd and see the mobs going at anyone who isn’t behaving like them. It had nothing to do with the issue (obvious since that behavior doesn’t serve anyone) but with the psychology and behavior of mobs. It’s the same ugliness that we’ve seen in history, the torches and pitchforks replaced by signs and apparently masks. It’s the modern day lynch mob in action. Sure, they’d never knowingly hurt a passing Jew, right? Sure. (Sarcasm)

Expand full comment
Mary Grossman's avatar

Oh it was the mobs of Zionist Jews rampaging through the streets tearing shit up, vandalizing statues, smashing windows of Jewish Delis, shrieking “I am Hamas!”, protesting outside any building with a Jewish name on it, taking over campuses and crapping in the commons …. I totally thought it was the other way around. What a dummy I am. Thanks for setting the record straight. Moron.

Expand full comment
Andrew Holmes's avatar

A Columbia professor segregated and verbally assaulted students in his classroom for the crime of being Jewish. Individuals wearing dress associated with Judaism were confronted and excluded for the crime of walking past an illegal encampment. And I don’t think that any rational person believes that the NYPD is controlled by Israel.

Expand full comment
Jeff Keener's avatar

🙄

Expand full comment
Hamilton M's avatar

"I'll wait" for about 1 second or in other words, about as long as it too to Google "Jewish students at Columbia". Nothing about assault, antisemitism, protests etc., simply "Jewish students at Columbia" pulled up multiple articles that you claim are lies.

What's next? Are you going to start throwing the word Nazi at those who oppose your lies?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jewish-columbia-students-were-chased-194401690.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/30/us/columbia-task-force-finds-troubling-pattern-of-behavior-toward-jewish-students-on-campus/index.html

https://nypost.com/2024/08/31/us-news/columbia-antisemitism-task-force-details-student-assaults-targeting-after-oct-7/

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

No one here has to show you evidence of anything. Proof and evidence in the Khalil context are legal terms. Everyone else, including you and me, are just voicing opinions based on our assessment of

publicly available information. Some valid. Some not. But one thing is certain - the Khalil case will not be tried in the court of public opinion. Nor for that matter will the Arabs we now refer to as Palestinians' cause.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Make way! Make way! Shitloads of Israel defenders coming through very soon!

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

Lol - I,m not an “Israel defender” as regards the deportation of aliens. It seems plain common sense that guaranteed Constitutional protections apply only to citizens. The spectrum of non-citizen immigrants inhabit some grey area, perhaps informed by our Constitutional understanding, but in no way Constitutionally binding.

This makes the argument: https://www.city-journal.org/article/columbia-student-mahmoud-khalil-hamas-deport-legal

If Columbia had properly accused him of trespass and damage, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I believe courts have determined that those Constitutional protections do indeed apply to non-citizens. Take it up with them

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

Judicial interpretation of the Law is like denominational interpretation of the Bible.

Re taking it up with the courts, that process of reexamination has already been started. It will be interesting to see where it ends up this time.

Expand full comment
Bull Hubbard's avatar

The article claims "U.S. law stipulates that an alien is deportable if he 'endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.'" It further asserts that "The Syrian-born green-card recipient served as one of the ringleaders of the post-October 7 riots at his former university and functioned as the lead 'negotiator' for the student group known as Columbia United Apartheid Divest (CUAD). CUAD was one of the primary agents of chaos on Columbia’s campus during last spring’s 'encampment,' during which rioters smashed windows, defaced and occupied buildings, disrupted classes, and harassed and threatened Jewish students."

If this is true, then deport Khalil. QED.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

He can't be gone too soon imo. I question why he was admitted in the first place. Catnip to Columbia.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

He was approved by Columbia to act as a negotiator between administration and the encampment. Now, suddenly, they throw him under the bus. Why? Do you believe every green card holder should be deported for saying things you don't like? And what about him when he was admitted do you object to?

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

There is much in the law that defies or encompasses more than "common sense," and often for good reason. If the whole thing actually rested on common sense, law school could be gotten through in a matter of weeks or months. When speaking of it, one should probably get informed on the specific subject at hand so as to not waste one, and others', time.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

I've learned in my almost 80 years (60 of them married to a lawyer) that common sense is not so very common, less now than it ever was. I am well aware of the fact that law is like science - nothing much is set in stone.

You do not have to read or respond to comments which waste your time. There are lots of fools in this world..

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Fair enough.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

But HE did not trespass. And HE did no damage. He was a liaison/negotiator between Columbia administrators and the protesters. Period.

Expand full comment
Tarun's avatar

Unfair!! They are the victims here... always will be no matter what!

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Someone needs to research the psychosis that results when you convince a group that they are the world's ultimate victims always and forever. Must be a pretty heady trip, don't you think? And not in a healthy way...

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Shit is the accurate image here.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Jonathan L Becker's avatar

Every accusation of oppression by pro Palestinian Islamist protesters is actually a confession of aggression by Hamas and its supporters including the terrorist state of Iran, which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. You wonderful patriot. Go fishing.

Expand full comment
michael Griffin's avatar

How insightful

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

Proof?

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

Here's an interview with a Jewish student in the middle of one of those "anti-Semitic protests" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM1SPHTsdyY

She doesn't seem "threatened" or "afraid." These protests were surprisingly multi-cultural, with Jews, Christians, Muslims and even atheists! What you wrote is simply false. It's a falsehood that you're propagating in service of the wellbeing of a foreign government, to justify the abolition of the first amendment to the constitution.

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

What made the Jewish students afraid?

Expand full comment
MR's avatar

Go see the film October 8 and you will see exactly what it was like on campus.

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

OK, so I'll try to watch it tonight. However, I'll tell you right now that I will have no truck with the bullshit idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. The reviews suggest that the conflation of the 2 is the propagandistic purpose of the movie.

Expand full comment
Barry Wahrhaftig's avatar

Khalil is a vocal supporter of Hamas, and lauded the Oct 7th attack. Etc. No thanks.

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

Everything I have read or seen suggests this is nonsense. I suspect that the claim here is the ludicrous notion that supporting Palestinians is supporting Hamas. Even if that were the case, however, it is not terrible to support freedom fighters.

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

Source? I've seen Khalil call for the safety and liberation of both Israelis and Palestinians. Are you alleging that this is what Hamas wants too?

Expand full comment
Kresge's avatar

You respectfully decline free speech. Got it.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Please refer to his exact statements along those lines, or share where we can find them.

Expand full comment
JennyStokes's avatar

I a too.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

As I have been looking at the reports on the situation at Columbia, including the reports of supposed antisemitism from the University's task force, what I see is a lot of fear from Jewish Zionist students. However, I see very little to suggest that fear was or is reasonable. Students report feeling ostracized from groups and by former friends. There is no indication of what inspired the fear aside from some groups' support for the BDS of Israel. Only a few direct (and deplorable) attacks on Jews are reported. Often, one gets. the impression that these attacks (though not justified) were for expressions of Zionism, not for being Jewish.

In the meantime, the US government supports the genocide of Palestinians; the Columbia admin calls in brutal repression squads of the NYPD; Palestinian supporters are called in the middle of the night and their families are threatened; former IOF soldiers attending Columbia or merely stopping by attack protesters physically and with impunity. Those Jewish Zionist students should know that the violent forces are all on their side. It is, however, a symptom of knowing you are wrong to be unreasonably fearful.

Expand full comment
Greg Stark's avatar

This is the most NPC thing I've read in this thread. This is little more than a dump of leftist cliches. "genocide of Palestinians", that's a myth. More fundamentally, you don't even know what Zionism is. "Jewish Zionist" students have no forces of violence on their side, in fact they have no forces at all, they're just Jewish students. The fear is quite reasonable since they have been threatened repeatedly by masked protesters. You arrogant assumption that their fear is based on knowing they're wrong is just a projection of your own ignorance.

Expand full comment
Ed Rodenburg's avatar

Given that quite recently you could be punished for “micro aggressions “ on many campuses, why is the standard so much higher for Jewish students to feel threatened?

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Jewish students were and are taken very seriously when claiming they feel "unsafe," while Palestinian students have every reason to feel unsafe after the skunk chemical attack at Columbia. Having IOF vets on campus is much more threatening than Jewish students having to hear about BDS. I'm pretty cynical overall but I was shocked at the extremity of the double standard, but then, I didn't know that billionaire donors had come to own higher ed in the U.S., many of them Zionists.

Expand full comment
PostAmerican's avatar

I have just discovered that the film is still in theaters. I will not, therefore, be able to see it tonight. I will try to remember to see it if I find out it has become accessible to me.

Expand full comment
Lipo Davis's avatar

How do we tell the difference?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

There's a complete vacuum where the skunk attacks at Columbia should be, or the violent attacks on the encampment at UCLA, or dozens of other examples of violence by Zios and their police helpers. It's getting downright surreal to dialogue with these blinkered fanatics. Makes you understand how deeply fucked this country is, doesn't it?

Expand full comment
Jonathan L Becker's avatar

I don’t know, violence, maybe? lslamists with keffiyehs calling for the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews? Encampments that prevented students thought to be Zionist or Jews from going, where they wanted to go on campus? You know stuff like violence and intimidation

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Hasbara nonsense. There's no evidence for any of it.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

What made you stupid?

Expand full comment
James Roberts's avatar

What specific harmful actions did Khalil commit? Or incite to be committed?

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Why do people think the federal government doesn’t have the right to say something to Columbia? If they want autonomy, then don’t take a penny of our fuckjng taxpayer money. When you accept taxpayers money, you’ve agreed to our wrath

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar

absolutely. This is terrible reporting. It belongs in the National Inquirer, not here.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

The New York Post? That's your Northstar? Hilarious...

Expand full comment
anonmom's avatar

Lol

Expand full comment
thomas Dreyer's avatar

Thank you. This was truly odious. The students facing deportation obviously lied to obtain their visa. I say if Prince Harry lied on his visa application about his drug use we should deport him as well.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

Trump already said he doesn't want to deport him because he is already burdened by a very bad wife. It seems reasonable to me. There's only so much a man can take.

Expand full comment
North Country's avatar

I think President Trump is being considerate of the Royal Family who don’t want Prince Harry and family back.

Expand full comment
Clarity Seeker's avatar

Like Alec Baldwin?

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

I don't think this is obvious. What was the lie? Could you prove that they committed visa fraud in court? If so, why do you decline to indict them or prosecute them for that crime? Could it be that you're bullshitting?

Expand full comment
thomas Dreyer's avatar

Well i ran the international program at a university. In order to get a student visa. Among the areas that they explore is whether the potential student has views that are contrary to the interests of the US. These students are guest in our country. If they are disruptive we do not owe them the same deference that is owed a citizen.

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

I don’t think he was disruptive. The videos that I’ve seen show him engaging in a time-honored American tradition: peacefully demonstrating against the decisions made by his institution, in his name, with his tuition money. Better than that, his actual words called for peace and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians: indeed, in insinuated (accurately) that the fates of these two peoples are intertwined, and the destruction of one will lead to the destruction of the other, so both should be elevated. Khalil is among the best of us, and it’s because of his virtue that he’s being targeted. This man is a guest in MY country, and I’m honored that he chose to be here.

Expand full comment
thomas Dreyer's avatar

Lol really wasn’t disruptive he was one of the ringleaders. If your a guest in this country act like one.

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

I presume that he acted with utmost respect and obedience to the law, until proven otherwise in a court of law. I've seen no video evidence that runs counter to this conclusion. I didn't see him in the videos depicting violence or harassment. Nobody has been able to proffer evidence to that effect. That's why the Trump administration isn't charging him with a crime: they know he's innocent.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

No, he was simply a liaison/negotiator between Columbia's administrators and the protesters. Nothing more.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
thomas Dreyer's avatar

No moron. I ran it for a midwestern university. Do you still move your lips when you think?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
thomas Dreyer's avatar

Night moron

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
thomas Dreyer's avatar

Night douche bag. Ooops little to close to pussy for you

Expand full comment
thomas Dreyer's avatar

He is both. And both can be revoked by the Sec of State

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

Are we really going to pretend that Hitler did nothing wrong because he never hurt anyone himself and just spoke words? That the mob boss who tells his boys to "take care of him" is just exercising free speech?

The fact that left-wing people are dishonest enough to pretend not to know the difference between free speech and attacking people doesn't require the rest of us to pretend to be that stupid as well.

Here's the homework for Racket News, if they care to make a real difference: Write an article articulating where the line is. THEN talk about real-world examples.

Expand full comment
Greg Stark's avatar

I'm a right-wing people, and it appears that you are the one who does not know where the line between free speech and attacking people is, but I'll give you a hint. Khalil is accused only of saying things people don't like, he isn't accused of attacking anyone. It appears you need to do your own homework assignment. While you're at it, write an essay on guilt-by-association and why it's un-American.

Expand full comment
Michelle Dostie's avatar

He is accused as well as conducting, leading the Hamas group that he applies America citizens’ first amendment rights in addition. Sec of State Rubio is revoking the Green Card (not LPR) because he would never have received the gift of one from this nation had he indicated his intentions to act in support of terrorist Hamas prior to the US giving him that status.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Hasbara nonsense. There's ZERO evidence that Khalil supports Hamas.

Expand full comment
Cara C.'s avatar

Isn't he accused of helping to barricade the library (trespassing) and also of vandalism and destruction? Not just speech. Besides why should a non-American get the privilege of being a guest when he misbehaves and promotes Hamas?

Expand full comment
Emily's avatar

If they had evidence of a crime he could have been charged with said crime. A White House official even said “the accusation here is not that he has a committed a crime.” He is being jailed for first amendment protected speech. The fact that he is a Green Card holder and not a citizen does not make him a more legitimate target for this. He’s a legal, permanent resident and he should not be subject to deportation without having committed a crime and being convicted under due process. Besides, any person on US soil has exactly the same speech rights as any citizen. If they can do it to him, they can do it to any of us. The Israelis on here may not understand it because they don’t live in a free and equal democracy, but in America this is antithetical to everything our country stands for. I think that’s the disconnect here, so many commenters aren’t even American.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

It is simply not true that the only way he can be deported is to be convicted of a crime.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

That's not what she said.

Expand full comment
Tarun's avatar

So many here misbehave and support violence... just over there not over here.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

No, he has not been accused of any of that.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Very nicely done.

Expand full comment
Marie Silvani's avatar

Imagine an American student as a guest in a mideastern college behaving like this but pro Israel. Prison I’m sure

Expand full comment
Greg Stark's avatar

I'm sure also, but we're supposed to be much better than that.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Are we really going to prosecute this whole fucking thing every time someone mentions that guy's name or says the word "Israel" out loud?

Let's all agree to save time, as NO ONE will be persuaded by ANYONE in these comments, one way or the other, and not drum through all this shit again and again.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

I agree that prognosticating is a complete waste of time, except as an effort to clarify one's own thoughts, but it is an irresistible American pastime. The courts will decide - haha just like they settled RvW to everyone's satisfaction.

Expand full comment
Evans W's avatar

Word.

Expand full comment
Gary D Foster's avatar

You telling me to shut up?

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Pretty sure I didn't. I rarely tell anyone to shut up, but when I do, they know for sure what just happened.

Expand full comment
Brad Besco's avatar

Well said sir. At its essence you are either inclined to support mass murder or you’re not. Seems pretty simple to me. Perhaps I am just a simpleton. 🤔

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Problem is, each side is accusing the other of "mass murder."

Expand full comment
John Frank's avatar

"he doth protest too much"

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

All you need to do, dude, is move on. But, nope. Here you are...

Expand full comment
Ollo Gorog's avatar

Spot on!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Bull Hubbard's avatar

Where can I join? I'm not Israeli or Jewish, but I could use some extra $.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Contact AIPAC.

Expand full comment
Ollo Gorog's avatar

I think they know the difference, JD. I think they have this fundamental belief that this must be, it must exist, to protect the freedom. You know, the old "it's the speech we hate" mantra.

There is a line, and we've got to find it. I certainly don't know how, but I just recently went on a serious multi-rant because I found out that a subscriber had been libeled (section 230 exempted libel, of course) mutliple times with the words "Nazi cunt" on a Substack. We have to find a line, or one will be found for us.

I got news for you guys: Your freedom to say horrid and awful things to each other, lives on a knife's edge. That edge is called the Section 230 Exemption, and it is granted, and rescinded, totally at the government's pleasure. It's a ticking bomb that is at the last second, waiting for "the something" to happen.

And don't forget that when "the something" happens, and there is no more Free Press, and there is no more Substack, it will NOT be an infringement on your speech rights.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

Freedom doesn.t last long without self-discipline.

Expand full comment
Ollo Gorog's avatar

Those are beautiful words! Thank you, so much! I wish.... lol!

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

I wish too.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

I wish too.

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

Apply this logic to Trump saying "you need to fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore" before a thousand of his most rabid sycophants violently attacked the capital building, resulting in multiple deaths.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

The only deaths were those of Trump supporters. . .

The crowd only became violent after police fired rubber bullets into their faces.

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

I'm sure Trump supporters would understand why police had to use violence during that riot if they imagined foreigners attacking the capital building like that.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Especially if police fire rubber bullets into their faces.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

When the debate has devolved to the point of comparing Khalil (a liaison/negotiator between Columbia's administrators and the protesters) to Hitler and a mob boss, as Taibbi would say, you've lost the plot.

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

I haven’t lost anything. I’m using simple, obvious analogies to point out the absurdity of pretending that there’s no “speech” that’s ever criminal. You, meanwhile, are weasel-wording Khalil into something very different from what he is.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

No, you just don't want to believe who he really is, and would rather believe the hasbara nonsense. And the only "pretending" going on is claiming he said anything "criminal."

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Floyd Boyd's avatar

You're a big, tough guy at the typewriter. Probably a complete wuss when confronted with an actual person. The truth hurts.

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar
Mar 21Edited

Kawaller: "For all I know, some of these demonstrations may be advocating for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs."

🎶 And love may grow

For all we know. 🎶

But I kinda doubt it. Which Arabs have you seen lately willing to risk the wrath of other Arabs through public demonstrations?

The first amendment is not a suicide pact. We DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE guests who hate us and hate what we stand for. Out!

Expand full comment
JennyStokes's avatar

YOU stupid people.

I don't know if you know this but USA is on a 'terror list' for many countries.

NOT many people will be coming to the USA.

Your tourist industry is dead!

Expand full comment
James's avatar

Oh no! Whatever will we do? My entire industry is dependent on the vast wealth of Ceylon.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

We are missing out on Terrorism Tourism!?! Probably USAID has a grant for that.

Expand full comment
June Maulfair's avatar

We have fifty states, I've only been to seven. Seems like a good time to tour the USA

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

The West is worth a road trip. Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Washington are all beautiful, and people are open and mind their business and don't care to tell you about yours. You'll get some of that in Seattle, but it's not as bad as parts of California or most of Wyoming. And most have legal weed.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

I had to miss it this year. The Sandhill crane migration at the Platte River in central Nebraska is a bucket list trip. One of the last great migrations left on the planet. You can’t describe it. You have to be there.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Sounds pretty cool. I’ll check it out.

Expand full comment
BD's avatar

You must be overjoyed re: legal weed. What fine way to virtue signal.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Who am I virtue signaling to? Normal people who like to get high now and then?

Can you add a bit of context to your comment?

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

What's wrong with legal weed?

Expand full comment
KAM's avatar

Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela—they accuse the US of terrorism.

That where you're from, Jenny?

Expand full comment
Tommy T's avatar

If for some reason you don’t Love/Like America??? GET THE FUCK OUT, put the your money , where your mouth shits

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

A terror list?! That is incredibly awesome, and probably way overdue. Can you share where you got this information? I've been saying since 10/7 that the world needs to stop traveling to the U.S. The revenue from tourism is more diluted here than in, say, Bora Bora, but many places rely heavily on it. Money is all Trump, Musk and their minions understand. The rest of the world needs to hit us as hard as it can.

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

YIKES!!!

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

But how many of us "stand for" Israel?

Expand full comment
Tarun's avatar

YOu seem to speak for all of us in what we all stand for.. but i'll wager it's what you stand for and you want to shove it down our throats.... correct?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Correct. But Khalil isn't one of them.

Expand full comment
clockworkHolden's avatar

By disrupting your echo chamber?

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

No. By being wholly incompetent.

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

I would say that Ben is more naive than incompetent...

Expand full comment
Zayphar's avatar

In this case, I think the phrase you were looking for is "willfully naive".

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

I like that even better!

Expand full comment
clockworkHolden's avatar

You're a fragile little snowflake. It's probably in your best interest to find news outlets that only confirm what you already believe. There's no shortage of them out there.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

Hardly. I have a wide range of sources and am.pretty astute at weeding out bias/prejudice, mis-, dis-, and mal-information. But this piece does not even rise to that level. It is awful. Maybe it was supposed to be comedic. That is his lane. But it did not rise to that level either.

Expand full comment
Frak's avatar

Stay mad.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Yes. These procrastinating adolescents are just cosplaying Hamas warriors in order to skip college class on a sunny Friday afternoon. Just “costumes” of murderers who committed atrocities most of can’t and would not imagine, and filmed and posted on social media to share with the rest of us and to further traumatize and victimize. And continue to do so to this day.

Nothing to see here? He got here in December, 2022. Less than twenty-eight months in America, and he is an out-front player for Hamas - American Style.

It will be so moving to read his Letters From A Louisiana Jail, which Amy and the rest of his 19 attorneys will be sure to share with us on a regular basis.

Expand full comment
Bull Hubbard's avatar

It's a venue where soyboys can pick up chicks, too. 'Twas ever thus.

I'm reminded of a "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers" comic in which Fat Freddy joins a demonstration and immediately barges into the library demanding to be shown where they keep the "fuck books." He's shown the door by a gigantic monstrous librarian who says "The university library will NEVER hold 'fuck books.' Now GET OUT!"

I tried to find an archived copy of the comic, but failed. I think it's in one of the first five issues or so, around 1969.

Expand full comment
Leslie Sacha's avatar

I loved that issue. Must have read it 30 times. Also when Phineas decides he’s NOT paranoid. And the Thanksgiving “Turkey was already stuffed” story.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Ha!

Love the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers!

Expand full comment
Artemus Gordon's avatar

Dealer McDope and Fat Freddy's Cat. Man that was a long time ago...

Expand full comment
omnist's avatar

You're fake, right? This is a copy/paste from a Youtube comment or something, right? Nobody could be that stupid and also have found their way here naturally and managed to make a comment.

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

So much for toleration of free speech - isn't calling someone stupid an insult designed to shut them up?

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Thank you! Smiling sun emoji

It strikes me as just another example of assigning no value to people who don’t think like you, or who don’t look like you, or who don’t share your history . . . Hmmm. What does that remind us of.

Expand full comment
omnist's avatar

Responding to stupidity by calling it stupid is how free speech is supposed to work. Notice I’m not calling for mommy to come and silence anyone.

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

Of course you're not calling for mommy - she's out working to pay for your substack subscriptions while you're sitting on your ass in the basement. Meanwhile, you seem to be unable to respond coherently to someone's argument other than the sixth-grade level "you're stupid." Well, done, Einstein, well done...

Expand full comment
omnist's avatar

See, you used words. You didn't need a moderator to come and make you safe.

And I read your words and concluded that you're a dunce and will never say anything of value, and I can safely mute you forever. Free speech works!

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

Many of the TikTok atrocity videos were posted by IDF soldiers proud of what they had done (sort of like Americans in Abu Ghraib). Our brave fine Congress had a way to deal with such atrocities: They banned TikTok. And soon Trump's waiting period for TikTok will end and we will be shielded from anti-Semitic Zionist atrocity posts which put Israel in a bad light.

Expand full comment
DarkSkyBest's avatar

Saturday morning, Oct. 7, 2023, I turned on the morning news show on Fox (naturally, right?). They were showing a video of a young woman being dragged into a jeep-like vehicle by men with guns. Her pants were stained. She was driven away. During the day, photos of a dead naked woman in the back of a truck were making their way into media. Did the IDF film and publish those images?

Did the IDF release images of bloody babies’ beds, and evidence of other atrocities committed that day? Yes, and why? Did the Allies film the atrocities in WWII in the death camps. Yes. And how interesting any number of people are denying the existence of the Holocaust and the barbarity of Oct. 7.

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

It's actually a very simple issue, Lynne. Destroying the first amendment for at the behest of a foreign government is likely to cause backlash against that government by freedom-loving Americans.

Expand full comment
wrknight's avatar

That is true, but it's also true that destroying the First Amendment for issues like wokism is not only likely, but did cause a backlash. The fundamental problem the author is pointing out is that various groups are attempting to destroy the First Amendment in order to advance their own agenda.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

So BS your biases and prejudices are on full display. And like BK make a vast oversimplification. First, 1st A rights are civil rights and as such relate to a particular field of law. Civil rights issues can be raised in civil actions such as suing an entity for violation of civil rights. But they are more often raised as defense to criminal prosecution or as justification for criminal conduct. Significantly to do either the accused has to admit the offense, and your whole argument is Khalid did nothing wrong. Criminal conduct is not excused by labeling it free speech. Speech is protected. Some acts, such as peaceful protest, are protected. (At least here for now.) But vandalism and trespass are not excused (just ask the J6 protesters). False imprisonment (of the maintenance workers) is not excused. Threats, intimidation, and harassment of a group of students based on their religion or ethnicity is not excused. But Khalid is not charged with a crime nor is he required to be to be subject to deportation. As others have already told you if he is relying on a student visa and violated the terms thereof he is subject to deportation. If he is relying on a green card visa and violated the terms thereof he is subject to deportation. If he lied on the student or green card visa applications he is subject to deportation. But my understanding is that the basis of his deportation is a rarely used (til now anyway) method and is based on a State Department determination that he has engaged in conduct contrary to America's national interests. You know and I know the United States of America is a close ally of Israel. Since the inception of the modern nation of Israel. More importantly Khalid knew it. The entire purpose of the protests was to force divestment of investment in and aid to Israel, to turn the tide against Israel and weaken Israel. Nor was he a mere participant, rather he was an organizer and a negotiator. His conduct as an organizer raises the inference of conspiracy to commit [crimes] and engaging in organized criminal activity, both of which increase the classification of the underlying crime(s). As the negotiator he was the very public face of the organized protests. Protests In which others BTW were very careful not to disclose their identities. Which sort of refutes the notion that all was above board as hiding behind masks and hoods generally indicates nefariousness and a desire not to get caught so engaging. Additionally according to his wife's recent statements he was aware of the risk of being detained and deported as he had advised her what to do in the event thereof and had tapered his public appearances at the new protests. Additionally neither you nor I have any idea what his actions entailed. But he does. And various federal entities likely have a decent idea for him to have been summarily detained as he was. My guess is that they have digital records, surveillance footage, witness statements, and maybe transcripts if bugged conversations, etc.. Reportedly he may be an intelligence asset of a foreign entity or entities. If so most likely he will agree to deportation to avoid criminal prosecution. It sounds to me like he may have been trying to prepare his wife for his absence. Lastly it is disingenuous, to say the least, to argue that Gaza and Hamas are not synonymous with the Free Palestine movement. That is their entire point - from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. You really need to try to see the big picture to have any possibility of intelligently assessing this matter.

Expand full comment
Bradley S's avatar

Khalil is not charged with a crime because he committed no crime. He's an innocent man who did nothing wrong. I will believe that until the day he's convicted of a crime in a court of law because all humans subjected to American jurisdiction are presumed innocent until proven guilty. He used his free speech to advocate for a cause that he cares about. You think he's wrong, great, say so. That's your right. It was his right to speak his mind. It's your right to speak your mind. This is how America works. Detaining him without charge and deporting him based on unproven allegations of wrongdoing undermines the bill of rights, both the first and sixth amendments. He's a legal permanent resident. That means that if he violates no law then he gets to live here forever.

You pro-Israel types want to make him a free speech martyr? What a terrible idea. This will backfire. Two days ago Bernie Sanders said that we need to end arms shipments to Israel on the Senate floor. Today he held the largest rally of his entire political career. The man is 83 years old. The spell may eventually break on the Israel issue in America, and stunts like deporting a peaceful man who broke no law will contribute to that sea-change. Just ask Bill Maher or Andrew Sullivan, who are quite pro-Israel but oppose deporting Khalil without charge. You people are completely in the wrong on this issue, and it's very much to the detriment of your own movement.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Amen!

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

He is subject to deportation without having been charged with or convicted of a crime. I do not think it was merely speaking his mind that caused his deportation.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

State Dept and DHS are claiming it's because he's a "threat to national security." Hmm, where have we heard that before? Oh right, any time the government (led by EITHER party) seeks to silence its detractors. Look at what the Biden Admin did to the J6ers.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

Because there have been abuses in the past does not mean it is being wrongfully applied to Khalil. That is the way everybody gets eaten by the wolf after the little boy cried wold too many times. But I think you have, perhaps inadvertently, hit on why so many people are troubled by this - because of the potential for abuse. I do not pretend to know the answer. Unlike most others commenting on the thread. The only thing I do know is the Khalil matter involves many areas of law and it is not a simple matter. Which was the gist of my original comment.

Expand full comment
Emily's avatar

Nothing you are arguing makes legal sense. The issue is this is an arrest of someone who has not been charged with a crime by government entities acting outside their powers, using a wartime law outside wartime against a person who is a permanent legal resident of this country, based, apparently, on the content of his speech. If he is accused of specific crimes he could be charged with those crimes. Saying a civil rights issue can be raised in a lawsuit but not as a criminal defense is a nonsensical argument. If the very basis of a criminal case constitutes violating the defendant’s civil rights, the answer is not that the case goes on but the defendant can sue someone in civil court, the answer is the criminal case is invalidated. Most Americans would know that.

Re “intelligence asset”: he was a Chevenning scholar, meaning he was sponsored by the British, our ally, and would have been through a vetting process, making him less likely to have any kind of terrorist affiliation.

Re “national interests”: The allyship with Israel is what seems to be contrary to US interests at this point, and many Americans are realizing it, especially now with the attack on our first amendment, which Israelis may not understand is central to our concept of freedom and what it means to be American. The ways that Israel supposedly benefits us are all illusory. The terrorist threat we work together to combat is generated largely because of Israel. The military and spy tech is funded by us and they spy on us. Trump may be bought by Israel, but who’s to say we don’t elect a true America first leader next time, who campaigns on cutting Israel loose? We can only hope.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Sadly, hope is all we've got. Problem is, no one will even be considered for POTUS unless they pledge their undying fealty to Israel; a foreign country, no less. So much for "America First."

Expand full comment
wrknight's avatar

I don't think the issue is complicated at all. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. All the author is pointing out is that the conservative right now claims that words are dangerous because it's about their issues, but when it's about the liberal left's issues, words are not dangerous at all. That is hypocritical.

But we, in the U.S., abound with hypocrisy. We claim to fight for democracy while overthrowing democratically elected leaders. We condemn abortion as murder while applauding the slaughter of 10's and 100's of thousands of people in foreign countries. We claim to be a peace loving nation while starting wars all over the world. We claim to be the land of the free, but we have the highest per capital prison population in the world. We claim to have the best healthcare in the world but we have the worst national health statistics of all the developed countries. And to top it off, we claim that the First Amendment protects our speech, but not speech that offends us.

I hope I haven't offended you.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Amen!

Expand full comment
Dog Milk's avatar

We hope you recover soon.

Expand full comment
Anthony James Hall's avatar

This essay is short and simplified, that's for sure. But to me it seems sensible and makes issues accessible to folks who maybe can't handle all the nuances. The fact that the author is under the Free Press umbrella, which has been afforded some kind of privileged position here on Substack, helps me see it has been written for a mass audience of unsophisticated readers. Posing the core issue as Left and Right is the main instrument of the simplification. Demonstrating to stop a horrendous live case of genocide that seems by now to never stop, should elicit outrage from decent people across the political spectrum.

Here my takes on the matter

https://anthonyjhall.substack.com/p/from-america-first-to-israel-first

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

There is a lot of what you describe on Substack but to me this piece was worse than that. The Khalid deportation is stoking lots of flames but people are weighing in with zero knowledge much less understanding of the issues. Khalid's conduct - conduct, not speech - involves a number of fields of law. Immigration, civil rights, criminal and administrative. The but, but, but he hasn't been convicted of a crime!!! or he is being deported for his free speech!!! folks might as well tattoo stupid on their foreheads. And because of the national security angle we are not likely to ever know all the details. But the utter insensitivity to the concerns of the intimidated and harassed Jewish Columbia students is egregious. I see no other justification for that except Jews anywhere are fair game.

Expand full comment
Anthony James Hall's avatar

Yah. This case encapsulates so much of what is going on now. Khalil embodies a rallying point for the resistance. He is doing so as Trump goes off the deep end in his efforts to pay back the people who allowed him to seize power in the White House.

Kkalil, it seems, is spotlessly clean in his legal record, his academic record, and his negotiating record to date. The unwillingness to charge him as a political prisoner is a new US version of Israeli administrative detention. Khalil's current treatment definitely sends a signal where we are headed in the Trump era.

In the background of it all, is the fact that the current Israel-US partnership is led on the Israeli side by the most notoriously war criminal in the world right now, Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is walking around free as he fires his top officials who know too much about the PM's roles in the real genesis of the Oct 7 psy op. That bundle of issues is presently going by the name of Qatargate.

So right now we are dealt impunity as usual for the folks in high who are really responsible for the most horrific crimes against humanity (Covid too). Meanwhile Khalil is becoming a symbol of the wretched of the earth. The wretcheds are being criminalized along with lots of other folks who are resisting the march towards Greater Israel by means of mass slaughter. Who is next?

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

Thousands of people who support Palestine have protested. Few have been arrested and fewer still subjected to deportation measures.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

"the utter insensitivity to the concerns of the intimidated and harassed Jewish Columbia students is egregious." -- Because there was none.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

I think it likely there was. For example, harrassment statutes generally say anything intimidating or threatening is harrassment which makes sense but there are other statutes that cover those offenses so harrassment statutes usually include other things like annoying, embarrassing, or subjecting the victim thereof to public ridicule.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Now you "think it likely" there was. Yet your last comment claimed it as fact.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

I was not there so I have no first hand knowledge, which I try to acknowledge by saying things like I think, I believe, etc.. . During the 2024 dem8nstration, which I believe forms the basis of Khalil's deportation, I did see first hand accounts at the time of the demonstration of people who said they were Columbia students and Jewish who expressed fear. But to be clear my last comment just dealt with what constitutes harrassment. Legally that is. And my point was that it does not take much to constitute harrassment.

Expand full comment
Robert Jiroutek's avatar

"Demonstrating to stop a horrendous live case of genocide that seems by now to never stop, should elicit outrage from decent people across the political spectrum."

For a second or two I thought you were changing the subject to abortion.

Expand full comment
Jim Wills's avatar

All I needed to see was the lede. When that's nonsense, don't waste your time.

I didn't.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

Unfortunately, I'm compelled to agree.

'Conservative' and 'liberal' have become almost meaningless markers. I get that Matt has to produce something on this issue, but this piece ain't it.

Expand full comment
wrknight's avatar

Reading through a number of comments, it's apparent that many people do not read for comprehension and some people don't read at all.

The author of this article is Ben Kawaller, not Matt Taibbi.

And I'm glad the First Amendment was intended to protect all of us.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

At which point exactly do I state that Matt is the author this article. Please be precise. NB if I wanted to state that Matt is the author of the article the article, why don't I just say so? Use those great reading skills and work it out for yourself. BW below seems to have tripped into the same hole.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Because you said, "I get that Matt has to produce something on this issue." And btw, Matt HAS written pieces on this issue. Pretty sure I saw you in the comments sections under them.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

Congratulations, you've confirmed your own levels of literacy. 'Produce' and 'write' are very different verbs with entirely different etymologies. Let me help.

When discussing media, media such as Racket News (the hint is in the title) 'producer' and 'writer' have critically important meanings. Examine the credits in a book, magazine, cd, film, tv program, radio program etc, etc, etc - the 'writer(s)' have to be distinguished from the producers. Why? Both for clarity, and because the producer gets all the money.

So, contra your well-intended if snarky remarks about the reading skills of others, appended to my own clear comment, I do not believe I'm in any need of correction, or remedial reading and writing advice, at least in this instance.

Re: your btw, Matt has written and has spoken on this topic, at least once, but not in recent memory, and certainly not in the manner of this article, in which Ben grins and leaps into this raging bonfire of a topic, akin only to jumping into a volcano wearing a ski goggles for protection.

Writing a piece dedicated to exploring the Israel/Palestinian conflict invites thermonuclear levels of abuse, irrespective of the stance. Hence, Ben's approach, which I think to be an imaginative, if ultimately futile, experiment in discourse. Did Matt say to Ben: 'ok, you do it, I'll pay you'? I've no idea.

I hope I've addressed both your points. Remember: write and produce don't mean the same thing when discussing media. Have a good one.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

This article was not written by Matt Taibbi; it was written by Ben Kawaller.

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

He can't be gone too soon imo. I question why he was admitted in the first place. Catnip to Columbia.

Expand full comment
Kresge's avatar

Where is he wrong?

Expand full comment
Harry Potter's avatar

Agreed. Chanting From the River to the Sea is enough right there. It may be a simple chant but says annihilate the Jewish state. The students being useful idiots who want their version of the 60’s is not an excuse enough for harassment and endangering their Jewish fellow students. Or for being in favor of the real genocide that took place on October 7th. If only they were, as students, intellectually curious and aware enough know about Hamas parading the corpses of dead children through the street as Gazans cheered.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

"It may be a simple chant but says annihilate the Jewish state." -- Only if you believe (and/or promulgate) the hasbara nonsense. The key part of that slogan is PALESTINE WILL BE FREE. Which ACTUALLY means no longer suffering under apartheid policies, occupation, indefinite detention without charge, human rights abuses, and indiscriminate killing.

And oh by the way, Israel's zionist leadership uses that slogan, too, but for the ACTUAL purpose of annihilating the Palestinians as a means to their zionist goal of a Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel):

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea

"harassment and endangering their Jewish fellow students" -- There's ZERO evidence of this.

"the real genocide that took place on October 7th" -- Oh, so when only a few hundred are killed by Hamas, it's genocide. But when TENS OF THOUSANDS are killed by Israel, it's not genocide. Double-standard much?

If only YOU were "intellectually curious and aware enough [to] know" about the region's history going back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

Expand full comment
Ollo Gorog's avatar

Thank you! Forgive me, but I'm a WASP male. Actually, my Mom made sure I was baptized Catholic... soooo, I got that goin for me, lol!

I don't understand why there has to be this anti-Zionism. I'm getting that anti-Zionism is kind of like anti-Americanism, but no one conflates that with anything. Am I making any sense?

Expand full comment
Barry Wahrhaftig's avatar

Khalil is a Hamas supporter, and loved the Oct 7 attack, on and on. No thanks.

Expand full comment
Ollo Gorog's avatar

Although I appreciate your time, you really didn't answer my question. However, for the record, I feel that Khalil represented enough of a danger, and he had clearly violated his green card agreement. He should've moved on the side of caution, he did not. That says a lot to me. I feel he should be sent home.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

There's ZERO evidence of this.

Expand full comment
omnist's avatar

You don't understand why people should oppose genocide?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

You'd understand if you knew the real meaning of zionism.

Expand full comment
Ollo Gorog's avatar

I hate to beat a dead horse, but again (not again for you, but again in this thread), you didn't answer my question. So, maybe I'm asking this:

Is this a place for haters to primarily hurl insults at one another, or can I, a open-minded, God believing, non-secular, American veteran boomer, get some info? You want me to read Google? You KNOW I'm not gonna get the real story! You want me to go on a search of obscure websites? Forget it! What is Zionism apart from Americanism?

EDIT: See, here I go again! Not realizing that everyone just wants to fight! That's what it's all about isn't it? It's all about, "I'm gonna tell this jerk a thing or two!", isn't it?

Civil discourse can ONLY be maintained with a designated AUTHORITY. In sports, they're often called "refs", but they are NECESSARY! What would you're favorite sporting event be, without the refs?

Expand full comment
The Biz's avatar

I don’t think it’s the words as much as the support of terrorists. I’m pretty sure that’s what the non citizens are being sent home for.

Expand full comment
Tom High's avatar

Pretty sure you’re clueless.

Expand full comment
The Biz's avatar

Am I though? Typically when someone attacks me personally I just ignore them, but I feel like I should point out that American citizens aren’t being punished for their speech. Non citizens are being sent home for supporting terrorist regimes. Even if it’s moral support, it’s still support.

Expand full comment
Mark Blair's avatar

Isn't moral support just words?

If I were to say "bin Laden had a point", it seems like a stretch to say that would be moral support for Al-Qaeda.

By this standard, anyone "parroting Russian talking points" is guilty of providing Russia moral support, and only a simple executive order stands in the way of severe consequences.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

He's not a citizen, that matters. And he was spokesperson of a group that did commit violence. That matters.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

No it doesn't.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

But if you hand out flyers about how bin Laden was right, we're getting closer.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Right he was the spokesperson of a group who broke laws and were violent. And he is NOT a citizen.

Expand full comment
Jack Gallagher's avatar

And, as that "spokesperson" he was making demands of Columbia in exchange for a cessation of illegal activities. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out, that's the crime of extortion.

Expand full comment
Mark Blair's avatar

Doesn't that constrain our ability to debate our nation's foreign policy?

For example, the KLA were on our terror list until we decided to take their side in the conflict in Serbia.

One day you can't say the KLA are right, the next day you can?

Seems arbitrary considering that the only thing needed to declare something a terrorist group is an executive order.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

Or more recently like al-Julani, a headchopper of ISIS, who was reviled by State Media until they found out, as with Hillary from Sullivan, that the headchopper offspring of al Qaeda were working FOR the US. Biden and Israel just made al-Julani head of Syria to rid the country of "undesirables". Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter.

Expand full comment
John Cusick's avatar

And the NAZI-oriented Azov Battalion that was on the State Departments watch list for a couple of years... until the Russia-Ukraine War started, then, suddenly, they were "reformed" and declared heroes.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

Closer to what? Right about what? As I recall, the Bin Laden letter was an illumination of the perceptions of the Arab World about the United States’ support for Israel. That support in itself is, by any measure, a support for terrorism. (Please refer to Leon Pinetta’s characterization of the pager attack last year).

I don’t think you can say that his opinions were ‘wrong’. They were opinions.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

About how Bin Laden was right to murder a bunch of people because he didn't approve of US foreign policy.

This case is even worse because the flyers contain outright lies.

https://archive.org/details/hamas-our-narrative

Expand full comment
Joe Bruno's avatar

You can say anything you like Mr. Blair, as long as you are a citizen you are one of us. As a guest on the other hand, one is wise to be a little circumspect in one’s public statements. Perhaps saying “Bin Laden had a point” would not be out of line for a guest at a dinner party, but to stand out in front of your house with a mega phone and start shouting it to the neighborhood might be a little bit beyond the pale sir. Guests are expected to behave. I expect it of my guests and we should expect it of all of our guests.

Expand full comment
Mark Blair's avatar

We used to believe that free speech was a human right.

Our country was founded on that.

It seems we no longer respect our guests human rights.

Shows how much we value free speech.

Also, keep in mind these are permanent residents, which are usually a spouse of an American citizen.

Is it worth destroying an American family over speech, which hurts nobody?

I'm sure if we look, we'll find many that supported Trump that "parroted Russian talking points" to deport.

Now, if there is proof he committed violence, I can understand deporting him on those grounds. But not for speech.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

(This comment thread has gotten a bit unpleasant so I’ll just address one of the more reasonable people here.)

You’re right about the issue of free speech and its fundamental importance to or culture. What I find interesting is how few people know what the man actually said and did.

He is clearly a victim of the Israel Lobby, plain and simple. He is not charged with anything. So, as you said, it has to be a free speech issue only.

Have a good day!

Expand full comment
Paraskevopoulos Alexios's avatar

He did have a green card though, so that entitles him to the same rights as citizens as far as I know.

Expand full comment
The Biz's avatar

It does not. A green card is a visa you don’t have to renew. It does not give you the same rights as a citizen. The man should have been smart enough to wait until he was a citizen before sympathizing with a terrorist group that is currently holding an American citizens hostage.

Expand full comment
calmdown's avatar

The Biz - he's sympathizing with the Palestinians in Gaza who are getting slaughtered. That's another way of looking at it, which I think is surely valid.

Expand full comment
Penny Adrian's avatar

If he sympathized with the Palestinians, he would demand that Hamas surrender and release the remaining hostages, most of whom are dead. He would also condemn the grotesque atrocities that started this war. None of these "pro Palestinian" protesters give a shit about the Palestinians.

Expand full comment
Pscheff's avatar

clampdown sympathize all you want but do it from Syria or whatever gutter country he's from.

Expand full comment
Lipo Davis's avatar

Fuck the Palestinians. I have no sympathy for them.

Expand full comment
Mick's avatar

The Biz - he's sympathizing with the Palestinians in Gaza who Fucked Around and are Finding Out.

-There, I fixed it for you...

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

No. He is a Palestinian who organized protests and negotiated demands to achieve divestment of investment in Israel, boycotts of Israeli goods and services, and sanction on Israel to weaken Israel. Israel is a longstanding ally of the US and recipient of a lot of US aid including military assistance. So Khalid's conduct was contrary to US interests. That is the basis of his deportation.

Expand full comment
JennyStokes's avatar

Green Card Holders of which I was one before I left this begnited country 20 yrs ago have the same free speech rights as citizens. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

How long did it take you to get a green card? Were you here on an F1 first? Or did a company sponsor you with a work visa? What's the work visa you would need? Oh Jenny, let's dig into this!!

Expand full comment
BD's avatar

I for one am glad that you left. Stay away.

Expand full comment
Grazyna Wojcik's avatar

you have to renew a green card every 10 years

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

How did a student on an F1 visa get a full Green Card in 18 months? Where did his team of attorneys come from? There are A LOT of suspect things with this guy.

Expand full comment
Paraskevopoulos Alexios's avatar

Pretty sure I read he got married and got it from there.

Expand full comment
JAE's avatar

I’m a recent green card holder. You don’t get one through marriage.

Expand full comment
The Biz's avatar

That will give you an opportunity to get a green card. It usually takes a much longer time to receive one. Years, typically.

Expand full comment
Roger Holberg's avatar

And was this 30 year old actually even enrolled as a student?

Expand full comment
John Cusick's avatar

People should look up the various differences in Green cards and eligibility before they spout off.

There are student visas, green card visas and LPR Status Visas through marriage -> LPR - Lawful Permanent Resident

Like it or not, his arrest and deportation is technically illegal since he has not been charged with any crime. His arrest has been solely because he participated, non-violently, in protests against the extreme level of killing taking place in Gaza and the West Bank. a protest, whether effective or not, is not illegal.

As Matt clearly pointed out , the government has failed "to identify a single crime he has committed. Rather, it’s all guilt by association: he has “helped propel” episodes of “anonymous violence,” and has led a movement that “has involved everything from erecting encampments on school property to directing death wishes at Zionists"

And before anyone jumps on me because I, like Matt, feel his arrest is bullshit, anti-Zionism (a political issue) is not equivalent to anti-semetism ( freedom of religion issue).

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

NO, it does not give him same rights. He was the spokesperson for a group who broke the laws and he CAN be deported if he does that.

Expand full comment
Paraskevopoulos Alexios's avatar

It does give him the same rights (I think Glenn did a video on that). Also, the guy didn't participate in the demonstrations or the break in Hamilton Hall himself. He was simply supportive of the cause that the people who did the break-in also support. (Or at least purport to support). If you wanna call him a "spokesperson" for speaking at the rally, then so be it, but then can a guy who speaks in support of curved immigration be considered a spokesperson for racists or Nazis, because they too support the same thing?

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Glenn is off on this and has been a long time. Of COURSE, it's different. A citizen cannot be deported. A green card holder CAN be deported for heading a group that broke our laws. Hello. NO non citizen has the same rights as citizens. Period.

Expand full comment
Jack Gallagher's avatar

In his spokesperson role he made demands of Columbia in exchange for an end to unlawful activities of the CUAD protesters. Obvious extortion. But your overall tone suggests that you think he needs to be convicted of some crime to have his green card revoked and to be deported to Syria. That is not the case.

Expand full comment
Mike B's avatar

Charles Manson didn't participate in the murder of Sharon Tate either.

Expand full comment
Greg Stark's avatar

Lawbreaking is not a guilt-by-association thing, it's something individuals do. If one person in the group broke the law, that's on them. If everyone in the group except Khalil broke the law, that's still on them and not one iota falls on Khalil.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Sorry, but this guy told Columbia they would not stop breaking the law unless they capitulated certain things. And he's no citizen. If you h ave a green card, this is a very bad idea. That is inciting violence. Period.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

Not true. Conspiracy, aiding and betting, and engaging in organized criminal activity all involve someone else doing the criminal deed to some extent. Otherwise you could never convict mafia bosses, drug kingpins, or cartel leaders.

Expand full comment
Jay's avatar

Amazing how many people conflate a Green Card with Citizenship. Its NOT. All that a green card is a resident visa, but a visa nonetheless. And like any visa, it can be revoked by the issuing authority after an appropriate determination by the Sec of State. And actively supporting a designated terrorist organization Hamas why Khalil is deservedly in the process of being sent back to wherever he came from.

Expand full comment
Greg Stark's avatar

This is just straight-up false, you don't know what you're talking about. A permanent resident alien (LPR) *cannot* be deported solely by a determination by the Secretary of State.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

You are wrong. One can if the activities of the holder are contrary to US interests. (And whether you, or I, or anyone else likes it, US interests are closely aligned with Israel. ) I think it likely that there is sufficient evidence thereof, as well as plain old criminal conduct, against Khalil and that he will agree to deportation rather than face prosecution.

Expand full comment
RRDRRD's avatar

No, only a citizen has the full rights of a citizen.

SCOTUS Demore v. Kim, Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens

Expand full comment
Greg Stark's avatar

False, that case does not have any impact on the First Amendment rights of green card holders. Demore v. Kim dealt solely with the lawfulness of holding without bail an already *convicted* criminal pending deportation. And notably, it did not say the Congress could violate his 5th Amendment rights because he was not a citizen, it said that the detention without bail *was not a violation of 5A*.

Expand full comment
RRDRRD's avatar

And it also said that Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Now, jump ahead to reality and read the clear language of the Immigration and Nationality Act which is unequivocal about the powers of the State Department; "An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable."

Subsequent cases state that "A letter from the Secretary of State conveying the Secretary’s determination that an alien’s presence in this country would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, and stating facially reasonable and bona fide reasons for

that determination, is presumptive and sufficient evidence that the alien is deportable under section 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, and the Service is not required to present additional evidence of deportability.

Would this apply to a citizen? NO! It is clearly a rule that would be unacceptable for a citizen who has full constitutional rights. Which SCOTUS allows. Get a grip - green card holders can be deported for failing to report a change of address; why would you think Khalil's behavior is not more detrimental than that?

Expand full comment
Paraskevopoulos Alexios's avatar

He has the same rights against government abuse, though, no?

(I admit I'm not properly informed on this, so I'm willing to concede this)

Expand full comment
RRDRRD's avatar

Well, define abuse. Being a little bit sarcastic on that one but let me try to explain. I am not a lawyer but I have been researching this for the last few days because of the controversy and it seems there are a few principles that are different for green card holders and other foreign nationals that make the deportation in question legal.

1) Only citizens have a right to be in the US, all others are guests granted the privilege of being here (bear in mind that rights/privilege are defined by law differently than common usage)

2) The Federal government has substantial powers, generally through the State department, to determine who will be granted this privilege. Their standards for admission are often more demanding of personal behavior than could be demanded of a citizen and the application process can include assurances that you don't do certain things and promises that you won't. If you do not agree with these conditions, you are not admitted, If you lie about it, not admitted either.

3) Deportation can hinge on illegal behavior OR behaviors proscribed by the standards. As far as I can tell, decisions by the State department (and, I think in certain circumstances, DOJ) are not subject to appeal to the judicial system. It is, in essence, as if when your behavior is contrary to your promises, then you are returned to the status of an applicant and they are rejecting the original application.

This is probably not the right terminology and over simplistic but while I (as a citizen) can espouse support for a terrorist organization (as long as I do not give them material support or openly incite illegal behavior) a foreign national who has stated (in order to be admitted to the US) that they do not and will not espouse support for terrorist organizations cannot renege on their promise without being subject to deportation.

Moreover, as they are not citizens, the State department has the authority to determine if the "contract has been broken" - not the judiciary. So, the freedom of speech is curtailed for them by the terms of admission and the due process is in the form of the state department review (which may be a very short and informal hearing, without representation)

As far as I can tell in the case of Khalil, it is a stronger case (his relationship with Hamas may be much stronger than just espousing and his organization of the Columbia protests/riots may rise to the level of conspiracy or accessory). Again, this would be determined by State, not the courts..

Expand full comment
Penny Adrian's avatar

This is lack of education. No, a green card holder does NOT have the same rights as citizens. They can't even vote.

Expand full comment
Paraskevopoulos Alexios's avatar

They have the same rights against government abuse, though, I think, no?

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

No, not exactly. He is classed as a “ US person” . Do your homework on this matter. You will learn something

Expand full comment
Paraskevopoulos Alexios's avatar

They have equal rights against government abuse, though, no?

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Yes, of course

Expand full comment
BJ Karibian's avatar

Citizens cannot be deported.

Expand full comment
Sera's avatar

Well, native citizens cannot be deported. But naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked and can then be deported.

Expand full comment
Paraskevopoulos Alexios's avatar

Against government abuse***

Expand full comment
Zaruw's avatar

No, it does not.

Expand full comment
flipshod's avatar

Moral support? So no even speech, but pure thought?

Expand full comment
Tom High's avatar

Yes.

Expand full comment
Simon's avatar

Ok, the support of "freedom fighters" who rape and murder civilians. Whatever you want to call them.

Expand full comment
Tom High's avatar

The Israelis have been and are doing most of the raping and murdering of civilians. And it isn’t close.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Some people (freedom fighters) did something.

Expand full comment
JAE's avatar

Why are they clueless? Give evidence don’t just insult.

Expand full comment
Horatius Dumpp's avatar

Just ignore it. It's a troll. It lives under a bridge.

Expand full comment
Chilblain Edward Olmos's avatar

What a cogent argument!

Expand full comment
Penny Adrian's avatar

Your well reasoned response has convinced me that "The Biz" is wrong.

Expand full comment
Gary Creamer's avatar

Great argument, Tom High.

Expand full comment
Joe Bruno's avatar

Ok. Support that!

Expand full comment
Safir Ahmed's avatar

"Support for terrorists"? Really? Based on what, exactly? If they had any evidence that this man actually supported Hamas -- you don't think Trump, Rubio, and others would have been blasting it all over the internet?

Expand full comment
Greg Stark's avatar

I don't like Khalil, and I wish he'd never come to this country, but "support of terrorists" is protected by the 1st amendment. What's not protected is "material support to terrorists". Rhetorical support is protected, and, as a permanent legal resident, Khalil gets the benefits of 1A.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

No he doesn’t. He’s not a citizen, he’s a visitor/resident. He has 1a rights in Syria and Gaza. Oh, that’s right, they don’t bother with that stuff.

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

Are all of you commenters aware of this?

It did not matter who the foreigner was, where from, and why they came - under the Biden administration there was no vetting. Heck, they flew 30 thousand foreigners here every month for almost 4 years saying they were asylum seekers. Tax payers paid for that. None of the Afghans flown here on tax dollars were vetted either.

The Tsarnaev brothers were terrorist and the FBI knew because Russia told them so. Yet, the did nothing but make a big spectacle locking down the entire city and asking if anyone recognized their pictures so everyone would believe the FBI had no idea.

I am not saying Khalil is a terrorist but why was he working as a soft tool for the UK's M16 except to rabble-rouse in America.

Expand full comment
Joe Bruno's avatar

Delightfully absurd and utterly emasculated reasoning. Bravo Mr Stark.!

Expand full comment
Timothy Wallace's avatar

There are a lot of good points made in this opinion piece. However, any nation (foreign or otherwise) that engages in intentional mass slaughter of civilians is knowingly creating it's own bad optics. Further, It is painfully obvious that the US government is acting unconstitutionally when it acts IN ANY WAY to censor or chill a Constitutional right of it's citizens by silencing their criticism of misconduct regardless of: who has committed the misconduct, whose feelings get hurt, or who might feel threatened. This is especially true when the speech is the most highly protected form of the First Amendment right of free speech (aka 'political speech'). Instead, the government should represent the sentiments of it's citizens and act accordingly. THAT is what an actual America First policy would reflect.

Expand full comment
wrknight's avatar

Obviously, it's not just Cheerleaders of Khalil’s deportation that see things in black-and-white. Clearly, all the sympathy for suffering Palestinians is, in reality, support for terrorists. There can't be anything in between full support of genocide on the one hand and full support for terrorists on the other. If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. There is nothing else.

Life is so easy when everything is black and white.

Expand full comment
Ali Lynn's avatar

I'm interested in seeing how everything plays out in the courts, but there's something very distasteful about foreign nationals coming to this country only to make demands of our government. It seems Khalil is acting on behalf of foreign interests; terrorist or not, is this someone we should be granting permanent residency?

I do agree with the sentiment that putting everything under this "antisemitism" umbrella doesn't seem helpful. It seems like preferential treatment of a particular group, and given stereotypes about Jews, this definitely does not seem helpful to them. I think the administration should stick with the more generic branding of immigration reform.

I do share MT's concerns about this type of legal action eventually being taken against citizens, although I'm not sure how that would work when it's based around deportation (to where would they deport citizens?).

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

He wasn't making "demands of our government." He was NEGOTIATING with Columbia University administrators on behalf of a fully authorized Columbia student group protesting Columbia's investments in Israel.

"It seems Khalil is acting on behalf of foreign interests" -- By negotiating that a university divest from Israel? For decades, U.S. citizens have protested for the public & private sector divestment from other countries. Many of those citizens were once permanent residents. Permanent residents have the same constitutional protections as citizens, including the First Amendment right to protest.

Expand full comment
Ayn's avatar
Mar 21Edited

I can't even with this guy. Last seen cherrypicking the few lunatics he could roust up at RFK's Nicole Shanahan announcement in Oakland to make fun of "conspiracy theorists" in the Free Press. Oooh, bold take, Ben. (I attended and can attest the event was nothing at all like the way Ben made it look.) Now describing those Columbia protests as: "... a bunch of kids camped out and…wished?" SMH. Matt, please, don't do this to us.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

Yes, I have devotedly followed Matt for almost a decade and rarely see him making coverage mistakes like this. There are a lot of facts about Khalil’s case yet to come out in the deportation proceedings that could well leave everyone presenting Khalil as a speech martyr with a big egg on their face. (They might not, either, but why is a veteran investigative reporter like Matt staking such a strong claim on an issue where key facts are not yet known?)

The Alien Enemies Act issue is, in my opinion, much more worth Matt’s time and attention. The administration is claiming domestic wartime law enforcement powers without judicial oversight, a la warrantless surveillance/Snowden.

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

Since moving to the U.S. in 2015, the issue of Jewish anti-Americanism (for a lack of a better term) has become a thorn in my side. While living abroad, mostly in Israel, this issue never concerned me—I had other challenges to deal with. But now, I see it front and center, and it deeply bothers me. On a daily basis I see my fellow Jews tell the world about their made-up version of Judaism "Tikun Islam", or rather "Tikun Olam", which is a make believe idea of fixing the world. This would be like declaring a BLT sandwich kosher: It isn't, but it is tasty.

Nowhere in the world have Jews had it as good as they do in America. Even in Israel, life is harder. Israelis work longer hours and endure greater hardships than their American counterparts. In fact, in Israel, there is a term for something extraordinary: America. It signifies the pinnacle of excellence, a level of success that cannot be surpassed. That is how highly America is regarded by Israelis.

Yet in America, many Reform and Conservative Jews seem to do nothing but complain. From historical figures like Emma Goldman to modern-day religious leaders, such as the rabbi at my old Synagogue in Raleigh, NC (where I live) the focus is often on criticizing the administration of President Trump while turning a blind eye to the alarming rise of antisemitism during the Biden era.

If that weren’t enough, consider the activist judges spearheading legal campaigns against President Trump—many of whom happen to be Reform or Conservative Jews, primarily appointed by Democrats. And when it came to the "lawfare" strategy against Trump, the leading politicians pressing the attack were also Jewish. Nancy Pelosi herself avoided direct involvement, instead deploying willing allies to do the work for her.

When one steps back and looks at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that American Jews, as a group, have benefited tremendously from this country. Yet, many fail to appreciate the opportunities it has provided them. Just recently, Senator Chuck Schumer mocked wealthy individuals, calling them greedy—despite the fact that his own son-in-law, Michael Shapiro, secured a high-powered role as a Managing Director at BlackRock shortly after leaving the Biden administration.

According to ChatGPT, only about 1.09% of active-duty U.S. military personnel are Jewish—a statistically small contribution to the defense of a nation that has provided so much. As an Israeli who served (like most Israelis) this is akin to spitting on the hand that feeds you. This is a stark the contrast to the tens of thousands of Israelis who made their way back to fight right after the October 7 attacks, while so many Reform Jews went to protest and hold Shabbat dinners together with terrorist sympathizers at Columbia. They have no allegiance to anything; not even their own people.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

Jews only represent 2.4% of Americans. If you remove the Jewish children, the Jews older than 35, most Jewish women of fighting age (only 17% of American military is female), than 1.09 percent of active-duty U.S. military that are Jews is a pretty good percentage.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

I forget to discuss this, a statement of yours that I totally disagree with, "When one steps back and looks at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that American Jews, as a group, have benefited tremendously from this country. Yet, many fail to appreciate the opportunities it has provided them."

I was born a decade after WWII ended. The appreciation of American Jews for American troops who helped liberate them from Nazism was profound. My father was one of those soldiers, a Jew, who later went to medical school with the help of the GI Bill. He would never have been able to afford it otherwise, even though he waited tables throughout college and during summers to pay for his college tuition. An American flag is placed on my father's grave every Memorial Day by members of his synagogue.

My sister and her husband have just recently retired to Raleigh (NC) and have joined your synagogue. They are New Jersey liberal Democrats, and seem to enjoy their experience so far, including the rabbi's sermons. I on the other hand have a conservative leaning ideologically...meaning that Jews come in all shapes and sizes, we're not monolithic in belief.

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

And yet, the campuses are full of Jewish Voice for Peace antisemites who held a memorial for Sinwar. The Rabbi in Raleigh wanted to travel to take people of the community to visit Arafat’s tomb, see where I am going? Your father was of another generation, they were different.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

They are a microcosm of the 7.5 million Jews who live in the United States. Most Jews are living their lives without public protest... they go to work, studying in classrooms, take care of their families, and are positive contributors to their communities, nationwide.

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

Without a doubt, but I see no sign of Jewish leadership doing anything to distance itself from this “microcosm”, on the contrary, they play right along with them wearing their kippot and talitot. Perhaps they should ask someone to play the Schindler’s List soundtrack in the background. No other Jewish community on the planet has had sympathy marches, not Europe, not Australia, not Canada, not Latin America, not Asia, not South Africa. Please explain it, why is it that the ONLY microcosm is with US reform and conservative DEMOCRAT Jews?

Expand full comment
MR's avatar

I share your perspective on American Reform/Conservative Jews. I used to be one of them until I woke up.

Expand full comment
Peter Frampton's avatar

JVP are not anti-semites. They are anti-Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and tired of ALWAYS pretending to be the victims when they are the ones with genocidal intentions against Palestinians. I know many JVP members

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

Really? Go watch everything from Douglas Murray, you don’t have to take my word for it. JVP reminds me of the German Jews who could not understand why the Nazis would compare them to the dirty Polish Jews, after all, they were better German Jews! You need new friends.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

He wants you to go watch Douglas Murray, the guy who talked about how the Nazis had a conscience.

Expand full comment
Alison Cipriani's avatar

True but it is very clear that the democratic party is much less interested in supporting Israel than the Republicans. Maybe time for Jews to follow black Americans and Hispanics to the right.

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

And if you keep removing people, then you have no people and no need to serve! As for your family living in Raleigh, welcome! No idea what synagogue they joined, but when you say liberal there are basically 1 reform and 1 Progressive, formerly Conservative, so I would rather be disenfranchised that belong to either of those. Your fathers’ generation as the rest of “The Greatest Generation” were people we don’t have anymore, no comparison can be made to them, especially to Gen Z and Millennials who are just immature to the extreme in my opinion. Jews might come in all flavors as you say, US Jews need to grow up.

Expand full comment
PSweeney's avatar

I found your take on this interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Expand full comment
Horatius Dumpp's avatar

Thank you for a thoughtful comment.

Your final paragraph echoes a thought I have had since I saw these sympathizers in the news. They have aligned themselves with a toxic political position that is in direct opposition to their own culture, history, religion and their own amazing Jewish people. This political thing seems like a bizarre religion that requires a hateful allegiance, replacing ancient, valuable beliefs and actions.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

This was very interesting. Thanks for your pov on this.

Expand full comment
Brian Katz's avatar

Thank you Alex. I grew up in America and have lived here all my life. And I’ve watched in horror as the American Jewish community has committed suicide for all the reasons you noted. In fact, one of my liberal Jewish American friends of 45 years recently said to me: I’m not sure I can support project Israel any longer. Well, my respect for my friend is now zero. I visited Israel for the first time in the spring of 2022 and really enjoyed the experience. I believe that the cause of what you write are many and would point you to the book: Betrayal, Compiled and Edited by Charles Jacobs and Ari Goldwasser, for an in depth analysis. My two cents: American Jews live very far away from Israel and have been lulled into complacency by their success and comfort in America. Add to that, too many have replace their Judaism with liberalism. It’s a toxic mix that will surely reduce the Jewish population in the US over the coming years. And to be honest, after meeting so many proud Israelis on my visit there, I’d prefer that Israelis carry the torch forward over my fellow American Jews.

Why self exiled ?

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

Because Israel is at a crossroads itself. We lack a constitution and terms limits, you can’t have the same person in power forever.

Expand full comment
Brian Katz's avatar

I understand. Yes, a term limit for the PM and a Supreme Court that is appointed by the people (via the PM) would go along way in reducing the intensity of the rhetoric. Both sides of this debate have made grave mistakes.

The US has a great constitution but many faults too. If I had to point to one thing that has undermined the US democracy the most, I would say that it is money. It’s a republic, if you can keep it.

Expand full comment
omnist's avatar

I thought it was bad for Israel to carry out a genocide but then I visited Israel and I had a great time!

You're not a real person. No way. Fake account. Some kind of "message multiplier" botnet. Must be.

Expand full comment
BD's avatar

You are the one who is FAKE

Expand full comment
omnist's avatar

Yeah okay there @bd12207922

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

"spitting on the hand that feeds you..."

Now do Howard Zinn and Herbert Marcuse (History's least grateful refugee).

I'm not Jewish but my wife is, and every year we host her family for Christmas. I decorate the tree, arrange the presents, make the plans for eating—and the moment I turn my back, they change and re-do everything.

Jews are a very restless and anxious people, they can't sit still and relax, they have to always be in charge.

Or in the words of the great IB Singer:

"Jews remain forever Jews with their energy and their rage to mind everybody’s business."

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Boy, I’ll bet the Holiday times at your house must be exhilarating. With your wife’s relatives rearranging everything when you turn your back. This comment wins first prize in passive aggressive comment of the year.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

thanks i love prizes! but is ok my people are just as annoying. ahh the joys of family...

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

My maternal grandparents were Albanians, who make the Jews look happy-go-lucky.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

lol agreed. Same here

Expand full comment
DMC's avatar

Im thnking our in-laws are related LOL

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

ha! lol

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

I can attest to that CP. They are in charge even when they are in your home for dinner. They are also talkative and good listeners and animated too.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

u just described my wife perfectly ;)

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

I grew up in New Jersey, ie: surrounded by Jewish people. I have Jewish friends I love and have a fascination with Jewish history, but I have never met a Jewish family that wasn't dysfunctional. In fairness, a very high percentage of nuclear families are dysfunctional, but I've met a few people who had happy childhoods. They weren't Jewish.

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

That is like saying: “I never met an ____ who wasn’t an alcoholic”. I don’t accept that statement.

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

Remember the words: In order to create a more perfect union! This country started as a project to create a union of States that strives to be more perfect, the process is ongoing, no one said we are done, and yes, corruption will destroy everything, that is why the work of DOGE is so important in my opinion.

Expand full comment
Alison Cipriani's avatar

I'm moving back to Israel in August. Totally agree with you.

Expand full comment
Alex Verjovsky's avatar

Actually the $4B is for military assistance only, and it has to be spent in US weapons and products. it cannot be used to purchase any weapon or service that is not made in the US by a US company.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

I thought the U.S. was highly regarded in Israel because we cut it huge welfare checks every other week. Hmmm....

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

Perhaps MAGA is in direct contention with the one world government which was planned by and will be led by the Jewish banksters who probably do not trace to Israelites from Judea, but rather Hebrew through the Edom line. The only real Jews are descendants from Judea who I understand are not Zionists.

Expand full comment
Robert Shamberg's avatar

I don’t mind reading pieces on racket that I disagree with. That’s part of the reason I subscribe. But this was just plain intellectually empty. The author, and I have no idea who he is, comes off as a high school senior in terms of his logic and thought process. Very disappointing that racket would actually post this.

Expand full comment
Big Noise's avatar

I’ll bet Bari Weiss and TFP rejected it.

Expand full comment
Maggie Barth's avatar

My first thought exactly

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

They would have rejected it for insufficiently kissing of Netanyahu's ass.

Expand full comment
Ted's avatar

🤣

Expand full comment
Robin R Murphy's avatar

Ditto. I was disappointed.

Expand full comment
Brian Katz's avatar

I agree.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

Ben Kawaller doesn't speak for American Jews. I haven't met a single American Jew, including myself, who doesn't want Mahmoud Khalil to be deported back to Syria. I live in the epicenter of Jewish America...the NY-metro area.

Khalil is a guest in America...a bad guest. Somehow he received a green card within a couple of years of having established residency. I know people, some married to Americans, who have waited decades to get a green card...and many still haven't received one despite yearly application and legal representation.

Mr. Khalil's green card can be revoked, and I hope it will be. He's a domestic terrorist...he's inciting violence against Jewish Americans, and it's only a matter of time before that incitement morphs into physical action against his targeted groups, Zionists and Jews. His harassment of Jewish students on the Columbia University campus, barring them from of freedom of movement to enter their classrooms, is immoral if not illegal. Again, he's a bad guest. You kick bad guests out of your home.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Please refrain from addressing this pawn of Hamas as “Mr.” That implies some level of status that he has not earned. Thanks for your comments.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

That was tongue in cheek. My face-to-face reaction to Khalil would be more like, " Hey idiot, get the f--k off my lawn ". I promise you, he would take one look at me and move quickly. Then again, I'm an old Jew, an "alter kocker" with little patience for asswipes like him.

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Excellent. I was also poking fun at you. Blessings to you….

Expand full comment
Jonathan Miller's avatar

He lives in New York and probably reads the Times. (I say that in sympathy not as insult.) So he's probably just used to using honorifics.

Expand full comment
ironwrkr's avatar

Exactly. These people are our guests and should mind their manners. Which includes staying out of familyts squabbles. It is very rude. I am a bit of a free speech absolutist but the idea of groups of foreigners coming to our country and holding events that can range from protests to riots does not seem correc

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

“I am a free speech absolutist”

No you’re not.

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

You live in a bubble and you surround yourself with likeminded people. That’s fine.

I hope you understand that making exceptions to civil liberties (and yes civil liberties are extended to non-US born citizens) will lead to further erosions of said liberties.

I get that you are hurt and you want vengeance but this isn’t the way. Khalil isn’t even accused of a crime. This is a way to chill speech. Please think about the larger implications.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. I'm as well read and broadminded as anybody subscribing to Racket News.

Of course Khalil is accused of a crime. He's overtly undermined the national security of the United States of America through his support and promotion of a terrorist organization while trying to impinge on the rights of American citizens. His arrest was just. His deportation will be just. The application of U.S. law upon a non-citizen isn't vengeance. Once he's returned to his homeland he can spew as much antisemitic garbage as his heart desires.

Lastly, THIS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! It's about this asshole trying to undermine the civil liberties of Jewish students who attend Columbia University by actively attempting to impede their freedom of movement on campus, and their ability to the attend classes that they've paid for, and have the right to attend without fear or harassment. And, it's about his support of Hamas, undeniable support by all accounts, which the U.S. State Department deemed to be a terrorist organization in 1997. As of last week, Columbia University, after pulling the foot of the Trump administration out of its ass, has promised to keep their campus clear of pernicious characters like Mahmoud Khalil.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

"his support and promotion of a terrorist organization while trying to impinge on the rights of American citizens." -- There is ZERO evidence Khalil did either of those things.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

There was enough evidence to initiate action against Mahmoud Khalil by both The Department of Homeland Security and The Secretary of State. Homeland Security says, Khalil participated in "activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization” and was distributing pro-Hamas propaganda. The White House has explained, “This administration is not going to tolerate individuals having the privilege of studying in our country and then siding with pro-terrorist organizations that have killed Americans,”.

If you think Khalil has been arrested without evidence, then protest peacefully on his behalf. Send money to his wife. Petition your congressman or congresswoman to help free Khalil. I personally think he's guilty at minimum of being a pest guest of the United States, and should be deported posthaste, and his green card revoked.

Lastly: "Under New York Penal Law § 490.10, providing material support to a designated terrorist organization is classified as a class D felony. The maximum sentence for a class D felony in New York is up to 7 years in prison." There no denying that Khalil broke this law.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Ah yes, the government rhetoric "participated in activities aligned with Hamas," whatever the hell that means. As I said, ZERO evidence.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

Last year there were 1,126,690 international students studying at American universities and colleges, nationwide. Very few were arrested and/or deported by the Federal government. I'll trust our government rhetoric over the support Khalil is getting from shady NGO's or his team of attorneys who've in the past volunteered to represent al Qaida terrorists.

Expand full comment
DingDongDoodooDaddy's avatar

As someone born and raised in the Adirondacks, I appreciate your screen name. Outside of that, I don’t think there’s much of a discussion we are going to have. Have a good day.

Expand full comment
Catskill Mountain Man's avatar

I'm having a good day. Thanks.

Expand full comment
Brian Katz's avatar

I agree.

Doesn’t speak for me either.

Expand full comment
Jonny's avatar

Not buying it, sorry. Misplaced empathy got us where we are.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

" this grandson of a Palestinian refugee had the dignity to show his face while protesting, presumably because he has a sincere belief in the righteousness of his cause."

Or he thought he wouldn't be held accountable. Just like the pro-Hamas protesters chanting "from the river to the sea" for the last 4 years. They weren't wrong. Until they were.

What does the grandson comment have to do with anything, other than Ben's inability to objectively report rather than injecting his opinion into the story?

I have no problem if this bigot wants to express his racist views, so long as he's not threatening anyone or committing crimes like breaking into buildings on colleges, destroying property or preventing students from getting to class. But we know he's done all of that. And he still has apologists like Ben pretending he doesn't know.

Expand full comment
DAVID FORSMARK's avatar

He thought it would be fine because he's exactly the kind of person the Biden Administration WANTED to import. And, he was fast tracked for that reason.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

He entered with a student visa and married a US citizen. That's typical, not "fast tracked."

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Please do not tease or feed the Zionists. It only encourages them.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

I hear ya. There are some known zionist trolls I avoid because I know there's no getting through to them. But the sheer amount of hasbara on these threads kills me, so for those not yet identified as trolls, I feel the need to counter them. Because maybe, just maybe, they have a modicum of humanity and rationale.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

I admire your faith and forbearance. I had a screed from Catskill Mountain Man today in my inbox that was so alternate reality I would have been at a complete loss as to where to start if I were willing to pursue a dialogue. The only thing more remarkable than the creativity of their personal set of "facts" is how deeply convinced they are that they're true. Is this what it's like to work in a state hospital?

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Wouldn't know about the hospital thing (I'm a private school administrator), but yeah, I've had encounters with that particular commenter, as well. He (like all rabid pro-zionists, I've learned) definitely lives in an alternate reality. It's mind-boggling how deeply entrenched the hasbara is with those folks.

Expand full comment
Evans W's avatar

Ah yes……the same Ben Kawaller of The Free Press who publishes some of the most painful video interview pieces imaginable. If you haven’t thrown up in your mouth lately, just take a couple of minutes to watch little gem.

🙄🙄🙄

https://x.com/benkawaller/status/1894100930389254555?s=46

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Just watched .. what a joke. What a shill. What a grifter.

Expand full comment
Chilblain Edward Olmos's avatar

Seriously. His voice is nails on chalkboard painful.

Expand full comment
Roger Holberg's avatar

Wish I had the Kool-Aid concession at the rally in that video. Those people are main lining it (except for about one or two more or less rational interviewees.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I got a good chuckle at "if you haven't thrown up in your mouth lately..."

It reminded me of a comedian who had a bit about someone tasting milk that had gone sour, saying "that's disgusting, taste it"

Expand full comment
Biff's avatar

“For all I know, some of these demonstrations may be advocating for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs.”

To include this statement in your article you lose all credibility. You’re a journalist? If you have evidence of any demonstrations advocating for the peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs then write about it, show it to us. But instead you include this lame statement of “for all I know”. Surprised, and disappointed that Matt would publish this on Racket.

Expand full comment
DAVID FORSMARK's avatar

This made me laugh out loud, I gotta say.

Expand full comment
John Mitchell's avatar

The way it works is that the government should provide evidence of their claim that Khalil personally supports Hamas or that he's actually a threat to the government's foreign policy objectives - a claim that would be absurd except for the fact that Trump wants to forcibly get all Palestinians out of Gaza (and probably all of Israel), making anyone who supports their rights a "threat".

At a press conference on April 23, 2024 (1), Khalil says (starting at 27:07) "We are here to affirm that we believe that the struggle to achieve liberation - Palestinian and Jewish liberation - is intertwined and go hand-by-hand. And after all, this is a movement of equality, social justice, and liberation for Palestine and the rest of the world."

That's inconsistent with the claims made here, wholly without evidence, that he supports terrorism, the destruction of Israel and/or Jews, etc.

As another example, a woman at a pro-Palestinian protest at Columbia University said (2; 0:38 - 0:45) "Clearly we're all against violence, but we're just asking for the lives of Palestinian civilians to be acknowledged as well."

So there's some evidence for you. Do you have any evidence supporting the claims made by the majority of readers here? Don't you find it curious that they don't present any such evidence?

The blatant indifference to facts and truth is most egregious on Canary Mission's web page on Khalil. For example, they condemn him for standing next to Maryam Iqbal at a protest, claiming that Iqbal led the chant calling for Israel’s destruction. In the video, neither of them is leading a chant, and the fact that Khalil happens to be standing next to Iqbal, among many other people, obviously proves nothing - it's a pathetically weak "guilt by association" argument.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/live/kI3VrmZCVfY?t=2190s

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL-pIpnaixA&t=5s

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Thank you for bringing facts to this otherwise fact-free thread. Very refreshing. It's telling that after 3 days, none of the pro-zionists have bothered to try refuting your comment.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Arguing with Zionists makes pushing sharp sticks under your fingernails sound fun.

Expand full comment
reel life's avatar

Matt has a one-sided view on Israel/Palestine, sadly.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

But you don't, right?

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Kinda shocking. I had to read that over and over, looking for the obvious typo or something that would let my boy off the hook. Teaches me another valuable lesson: don’t be too keen to fall in line behind someone. Thanks for jolting me back to reality, Matt. You can say some stupid shit just like the rest of us.

Expand full comment
Thucydides's avatar

The author's intense hatred for President Trump and his folding this irrelevancy into his narrative as if all would agree makes one distrust anything he has to say. I am surprised you would select this as a guest post, Matt.

Expand full comment
Bill Cribben's avatar

Kids ( your word ) chanting from the river to the sea find it inspirational. Few of the chanters are kids. What would fulfillment of the inspirational chant look like? I suggest Genocide.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

You're lucky you only have to "suggest" or imagine genocide. The people of Palestine have lived it every day for near on a hundred years. I suspect you couldn't handle for 10 minutes what Palestinian children endure year after year after fucking year, for fuck's sake.

Expand full comment
Charre's avatar

You know how I know it isn’t genocide? Because it has lasted “near on a hundred years” and there are more Palestinians now than ever. They are born and raised with the entire goal of hurting Israel, and many die to hurt Israel and are celebrated by their families for doing so.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

I see. Can we have your list of authors and historians who've informed your views? I assume you've looked at the work of Israelis like Milo Peled and Ilan Pappe, as well as Chris Hedges (who speaks Arabic and lived in the Middle East as a journalist), Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, and too many others to list? How do you square your views with theirs?

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Tell me about the population of Gaza and the changes since 2005... you know since Hamas took over, err, was voted in, killed their political rivals in Fatah (and anyone else they deemed undesirable like gay people) and stolen the money given by the dupes internationally for torture tunnels. Yes, they are so misunderstood innocents those Hamasniks.

Expand full comment
Charre's avatar

Do you have an actual point? Naming people that disagree with me isn’t even an argument, and it took you at most a few minutes to do but would take probably at least hours to try to counter in detail. What specifically do you even disagree with?

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

You're unfamiliar with the definition of "genocide." No one even has to die for the definition to be met. If you're going to say that Palestinians are "born and raised with the entire goal of hurting Israel," you should be able to support it. That it is Israelis who are raised to despise and want to hurt and/or kill Palestinians was brought home to me by Max Blumenthal's book "Goliath," which he wrote after spending months in Israel. He documents the indoctrination--reminiscent of how the Nazis talked about Jews--that Israelis undergo from a very young age against Palestinians, as does Nurit Peled, the daughter of an IDF general during the 1967 war. As for the supposed Palestinian hatred for Jews, I've listened to many hours of interviews with Palestinians, quite a few of whom express gratitude for American and European Jews who call for an end to the genocide. That said, think about this: some Jews have regularly come to Gaza, ever since you were born, to "mow the lawn." Some of them have tanks with the Star of David on them. How would you feel about Jews under those circumstances? I understand how important it is for defenders of Israel to deny Palestinian suffering and magnify Jewish suffering, which has indeed been considerable throughout history, but it was not Palestinians who committed the Jewish holocaust. It was Europeans, and they're the ones who should pay for that crime instead supporting Israelis in taking the land and lives of Palestinians.

Expand full comment
Roger Holberg's avatar

Er, there are many definitions of some of which are very self-serving. The Britannica, however, defines it as follows, "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. Learn about the history, legal aspects, and criticisms of this crime against humanity from Britannica's experts." I would say destruction contemplates people dying. The "cide" is the giveaway as in homicide, patricide, matricide, infanticide, regicide, etc.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

I'll go with the Genocide Convention, crafted in response to the Nazi holocaust against the Jews (and others):

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), or the Genocide Convention, is an international treaty that criminalizes genocide and obligates state parties to pursue the enforcement of its prohibition. It was the first legal instrument to codify genocide as a crime and the first human rights treaty unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948, during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly.[1] The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and has 153 state parties as of February 2025.[2]

The Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." These five acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[6] The convention further criminalizes "complicity, attempt, or incitement of its commission." Member states are prohibited from engaging in genocide and obligated to pursue the enforcement of this prohibition. All perpetrators are to be tried regardless of whether they are private individuals, public officials, or political leaders with sovereign immunity.

Expand full comment
Charre's avatar

So you are claiming they intend to destroy Palestinians but are just really bad at it?

Expand full comment
Jack Gallagher's avatar

...combining the Greek word "genos" (meaning "race" or "tribe") with the Latin suffix "-cide" (meaning "killing")

Expand full comment
WilliamD's avatar

You beat me to it.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Oh please, Jews have experienced it forever. Nobody knows what started this nightmare. They both talk a good story. Palestinians are far from peace loving people.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

That's the logic of a woman who beats her child and says "Shut the fuck up! I had it worse as a kid!" If resisting the theft of your land and the killing of your people by violent settlers makes you not a "peace loving people," so be it. The Israelis should have a tiny fraction of the honor and courage Palestinians have.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Oh please. Listen to you attacking Jewish people with no understanding of their historical plight. Nobody knows for sure what started this and I doubt highly you were there. Were you there when Hamas murdered those people, raped children and women and filmed it? And the "child" parallel is absurd.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Let's assume all of the bigoted things Megan believes are true, and that all of those events led up to the cease fire that existed on 10/6/23. On 10/7, Hamas and the Palestinians broke through a fence and tortured and murdered farmers, foreign workers, people at a concert and Arab and Druze and Jewish Israelis. Megan, likely due to her bigotry, is unwilling to come to terms with the video that Hamas and the Palestinians gleefully posted on Signal. They were euphoric - their voices are as disturbing as their barbarism - as they murdered and raped and tortured and kidnapped these people. That's who Megan is defending.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Again, let's see the links, the specific sources, and the documentation, of which there would be a mountain if all this happened. I'm willing to look at your sources if only you'll provide them. And for the record, the Palestinians broke through the barrier keeping them trapped in Gaza a barrier erected by Israel in violation of international law. (This was directly analogous to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II.) If you have sources who disagree with that framing, you should be able to cite at least a few. If you persist without doing so, I'll know that you're counting on readers here to believe your inflammatory accusations without a shred of credible evidence, as many have been duped into doing since October 2023, though with steadily diminishing success.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Yes, this is true. Megan is correct, though, that Palestinians were being kept from leaving Gaza. Maybe due to Hamas' activities. But I didn't like that. Megan is wrong about a lot of this if she wants peace. And certainly she is wrong about the barbarism they committed.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

The "rape" allegations from October 7th have been thoroughly debunked by journalists a great deal more credible than anyone you lean into. Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal are an excellent source for the correction of this lie. As for "Were you there....?": I wasn't there when the Nazis murdered the Jews either, but I know that happened. I obviously in no way attacked Jewish people, but I get how important the "anti-Semitism" schtick is to people trying to defend Israeli genocide. As for how you would know whether or not I have any understanding of the historical plight of Jews, it doesn't really matter to you, does it? The hyperventilating of you and countless others in response to supremely reasonable objections to cold-blooded murder betrays your lack of actual arguments. You wouldn't pass an American public high school debate class with that kind of "reasoning."

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Oh please. They filmed releasing dead hostages and celebrated it in the streets. They did not debunk a thing. Israeli genocide. Get real.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

I managed to get a terminal MFA degree and teach at a university 9 years, teachers asked me to take their classes in grad school because I was "a critical thinker." I would look in the mirror.

Expand full comment
Randy Delp's avatar

Do you consider yourself an intellectual Megan? Do you debate to seek truth, or to support whatever preconceived notion you have? Do you earnestly seek to give people a chance to change your mind - to test the validity of your own belief, or do you just want to be right and unshaken? I can tell you the facts are not on your side. If you wish to have an earnest discussion and are reasonably intelligent you can learn this.

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

You mean the rape and murder that Hamas and Palestinians recorded and posted online? That's what you're saying doesn't exist. Wow, you're lost. And apparently blind. Or unwilling to admit you've been conned by Max B and Mate and his pops.

Expand full comment
Randy Delp's avatar

The Son of an original founder of Hamas - has the credibility to speak. You do not. Listen here and listen to every speech he has given before you venture to sound so ignorant again.

https://youtu.be/Y2Efkrrz5q0?si=ijH2cbFaBR5KZ8tp

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

Here in our Country, all citizens have the right to speak.

Expand full comment
rob's avatar

There is no genocide in Palestine

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Then you disagree with the vast majority of scholars, experts, and professionals on the subject. Personally I don't care what you call it when civilians, journalists, aid workers, and doctors are being deliberately targeted with horrific weapons and a medieval siege.

Expand full comment
Horatius Dumpp's avatar

If this was supposed to be a genocide, then someone has seriously fucked up because the "Palestinian" population has multiplied many times over since 1948, right up to recent years.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Look up the definition of "genocide" since you're clearly unfamiliar with it. But nice try defending violence backed up explicitly genocidal statements made by Yoav Gallant and plenty of other Israelis. These are well-documented by South Africa in its petition to the ICJ more than a year ago.

Expand full comment
Horatius Dumpp's avatar

Oh no, I am not the one who is misusing this gravely serious word.

I didn't defend any violence - take a few deep breaths and re-read my comment. I merely pointed out that the "Palestinian" population is larger than ever, after 80 years of this "genocide."

Expand full comment
rob's avatar

Genocide is a concerted plan to exterminate a race , there is zero evidence Israel has done that

Expand full comment
Jonathan Miller's avatar

No, he disagrees with a collection of leftist anti-western Jew haters. That's a far cry from the unearned labels of Scholar and Expert. I'm sure however you have cherrypicked your data to support your own predisposition of hatred of Jews.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

OK, is there any other nation that can't be criticized without being a hater of a religious or ethnic group? If I criticize India, am I an anti-Hindu? If I criticize Albania, am I anti-Muslim AND anti-Orthodox? Exactly how does this work?

Expand full comment
Roger Holberg's avatar

Oh, please. Twenty percent of Israel is Palestinian Arab. The Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria and Gaza has quintupled since 1948. Some "genocide." But you are right in one regard. I couldn't endure being taught to hate and kill people from my earliest age like "Palestinian children are.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Look up the actual definition of "genocide" and see my comment above in response to Charre.

Expand full comment
Horatius Dumpp's avatar

You go look it up, since you keep misusing and abusing this word. Try a real dictionary.

Expand full comment
Horatius Dumpp's avatar

If this was supposed to be a genocide, then someone has seriously fucked up because the "Palestinian" population has multiplied many times over since 1948, right up to recent years.

Expand full comment
John Duffner's avatar

Interesting that he should compare it to lyrics from Woody Guthrie, a shill for Stalin.

Expand full comment
Randy Delp's avatar

This Saudi gentleman delivers an accurate blunt assessment of the ‘Palestinian’ problem. I learned something.

https://youtu.be/4N6ON1Ng-WM?si=a5YSlnodHSLZCKRa

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

I think the issue is much more complicated than laid out here. Unfortunately, we don't have the details of what these people have actually done or not done (though you can go through the trial documents here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69719040/mahmoud-khalil-v-william-p-joyce/)

The issue is obviously complicated by the fact these people are here as guests and hosts typically don't need much reason to throw out a guest.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

Bingo. I commented above that this as much as anything is why I’m shocked Matt put all his cards on the table over the Khalil case. Matt is almost always an inveterate investigative journalist—but here he staked out a maximalist position on an issue before key facts ever came out. Very unlike him.

Expand full comment
John Mitchell's avatar

I haven't read the court documents, but I've read dozens of comments, here and elsewhere, by people claiming that Khalil personally supports Hamas, terrorism, the destruction of Israel, etc., but not a single one that provided a single piece of evidence as opposed to mere "guilt by association" arguments. Yet these same people demand evidence that Khalil is innocent of the government's charges, rather than citing evidence that he's guilty. This indifference to facts and evidence is very disturbing. It's the same attitude I argued against with Democrats during the Biden administration.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

I will only make one reply and leave it at that because it was almost impossible to make progress with people on Matt’s post about this last week. Khalil was a known leader of an organization that committed violent and illegal acts at Columbia. Rubio has alluded to evidence that he was involved in planning these actions (used the term “mastermind”). So let’s see the state’s evidence. And we can all attach disclaimers to those statements that he lime anyone has the presumption of innocence. But nor do people have blanket immunity from having allegations made against them by the state, so long as they have due process (which Khalil has had).

Expand full comment
John Mitchell's avatar

My comment focused on articles and reader comments about Khalil, none of which (among those I've seen) provided any evidence supporting their claims against Khalil. It's remarkable to see how certain people can be of things they apparently have no evidence of. It remains to be seen if the government has any such evidence, but based on what I've seen so far, I doubt it.

Khalil explicitly denied being a "leader" of CUAD in the sense of directing the protestors. CUAD is a coalition of about 80 student groups. Some of the protestors explicitly called for peaceful means, others called for or used violence. He described himself as a spokesman and negotiator for a student protest groups (1). The claim that that means he supports everything that any of the protestors support or did isn't even logically consistent, given the wide range of viewpoints among the protestors. It's analogous to claiming that Donald Trump was personally responsible for the Jan. 6 protestors who were violent, a claim that I argued against though I don't support him. Some of those protestors were violent, some were peaceful. Does the fact that Trump called for the protest make him guilty of the violence?

The statements I have seen from Khalil are contrary to the claims made abuot him. For example, he says in an interview (2 at 27:07), "We are here to affirm that we believe that the struggle to achieve liberation - Palestinian and Jewish liberation - is intertwined and go hand-by-hand."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-university.html

[2] https://www.youtube.com/live/kI3VrmZCVfY?t=2190s

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

Columbia University's graduate student union is demanding the Ivy League institution establish a "sanctuary campus" where public safety officers are barred from patrolling "organizing spaces, including classrooms." The union, which is embroiled in active contract negotiations with Columbia, also wants the school to provide free "legal support" for student visa holders, destroy "all records" related to campus protest participants, and sue the Trump administration "and other anti-immigrant actors."

Student Workers of Columbia, which boasts roughly 3,000 members and is affiliated with the United Auto Workers, shared an internal document outlining the demands during a Saturday Zoom meeting, which the Washington Free Beacon attended. The document, written by a "working group" of the union's international members, cites the "unprecedented detainment of former student-worker Mahmoud Khalil by the Department of Homeland Security while in a Columbia University apartment building and the ongoing presence of ICE around campus" before making "immediate demands of Columbia University."

tps://freebeacon.com/campus/in-internal-documents-columbia-grad-student-union-spells-out-demands-for-sanctuary-campus-free-from-public-safety-patrols-and-protest-records/

Expand full comment
John Mitchell's avatar

That's interesting, but I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that none of the articles or reader comments I've seen denouncing Khalil provided any evidence whatsoever that he is guilty of the things the Trump administration has alleged. The article you cited, while relevant to the general issue, doesn't provide any such evidence either.

This type of discussion often change focus from a specific question (e.g., Khalil's arrest and whether there's evidence of his guilt) to more general issues (what Columbia student groups are demanding, how they view Khalil, etc.).

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

It's worth pointing out this isn't Matt's writing, it's a guest post.

Expand full comment
flyoverdriver's avatar

Yes - but he editorially approved it and made a post with a similar thrust about the First Amendment and its relation to the Khalil case last week.

Expand full comment
John Mitchell's avatar

Thanks for posting the link to the court documents regarding Mahmoud Khalil. Do you know if any of them contain the government's evidence, if there is any, that Khalil did anything meriting his arrest and deportation? I've read quite a few articles and watched some videos with him at protests or interviews, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever of the government's claims.

Expand full comment
Lekimball's avatar

Huge difference. These people are NOT citizens and they are compromising Jewish students who ARE citizens. And this guy was the spokesperson for a group who broke laws. Way over simplified here. Ridiculous, actually.

Expand full comment
Safir Ahmed's avatar

This is pro-Israeli money doing it's work -- the big donors like Miriam Adelson and others of the pro-Israeli lobby. Trump isn't the first to mouth their words -- Biden funded the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilians, and almost all of Congress is beholden to the lobby.

The evidence is simple: not a single charge has been filed against this man -- because there likely is no evidence he had anything to do with Hamas. If they had any evidence, they would have bombarded us with it.

Expand full comment
omnist's avatar

The comments here look like pro-Israel money doing some work as well. No way are there actual human beings behind all of these genocide apologetics.

Expand full comment
Mary Grossman's avatar

I’m pro Israel and did t get any money from Israel. How do I get in on that pro Israel money. DM me.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

Contact AIPAC.

Expand full comment
reel life's avatar

He was distributing Hamas literature, and helped organize mob vandalizing and intimidation.

Expand full comment
Safir Ahmed's avatar

I understand you *believe* that he was doing that. My point is about *evidence* -- the law of the land we live in does not operate on what anyone thinks or believes, and certainly our government must have evidence -- and file charges in a court of law -- before deporting a legal resident.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

No, Khalil himself did NONE of those things.

Expand full comment
SB Native's avatar

Indeed. THAT is material.

Expand full comment
Jay's avatar

So how long you, and your kind, been on Qatari payroll ?

Expand full comment
MR's avatar

Exactly.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

There doesn’t need to be a criminal charge for him to be deported.

Expand full comment
TeeJae's avatar

But there does need to be SOLID EVIDENCE that he violated his permanent resident status. So far, DHS and State Dept have not provided any. And their public claims that Khalil is a "threat to national security" is rhetoric, NOT evidence.

Expand full comment
Mike Sigman's avatar

Very mushy and scattered logic. Pointless post.

Expand full comment