The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bari Weiss's Olson Lecture: You Are the Last Line of Defense
"There is no place like this country. And there is no second America to run to if this one fails."
One of the capstones of the Federalist Society National Lawyer's Convention is the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. The namesake of the lecture was a conservative lawyer and political commentator, and the wife of former Solicitor General Ted Olson. Barbara Olson was tragically murdered on 9/11 onboard American Airlines Flight 77, which was flown into the Pentagon. The first Olson lecture was delivered by Ted Olson in November 2001, barely two months after the horrific terrorist attacks. Later addresses were given by Judge Robert Bork, Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Mukasey, and many other leading jurists. I have attended every Olson lecture since 2008, and have witnessed many moving tributes to Barbara, and the important causes she believed in.
The Olson lecture at the 2023 Convention will always stand out in my memory. The speech was delivered by Bari Weiss of The Free Press. I'll admit, when I first saw her name on the schedule, I was a bit confused. Bari is not a lawyer, not a member of the Federalist Society, and not a conservative. Yet, my confusion quickly dissipated. Bari delivered a rousing, timely, and penetrating speech. Bari spoke to our current moment, including the conflict in Israel and attempts to destroy our own civilization. She formed a common kinship with those she disagrees with--especially a FedSoc crowd. And she connected with everyone in that room. At the end, the room was silent. You could hear a Madison lapel pin drop. When Bari concluded, the standing ovation lasted for nearly ninety seconds. (It was the longest one I could remember following an Olson lecture.)
Bari has posted the text of her remarks, titled "You Are the Last Line of Defense" on The Free Press. If you haven't already subscribed you should--I did.
Here is an excerpt, but I encourage you to read--or better yer, listen to--the entire speech:
Over the past two decades, I saw this inverted worldview swallow all of the crucial sense-making institutions of American life. It started with the universities. Then it moved beyond the quad to cultural institutions—including some I knew well, like The New York Times—as well as every major museum, philanthropy, and media company. It's taken root at nearly every major corporation. It's inside our high schools and our elementary schools.
And it's come for the law itself. This is something that will not come as a surprise to the Federalist Society. When you see federal judges shouted down at Stanford, you are seeing this ideology. When you see people screaming outside of the homes of certain Supreme Court justices—causing them to need round-the-clock security—you are seeing its logic.
The takeover of American institutions by this ideology is so comprehensive that it's now almost hard for many people to notice it—because it is everywhere.
For Jews, there are obvious and glaring dangers in a worldview that measures fairness by equality of outcome rather than opportunity. If underrepresentation is the inevitable outcome of systemic bias, then overrepresentation—and Jews are 2 percent of the American population—suggests not talent or hard work, but unearned privilege. This conspiratorial conclusion is not that far removed from the hateful portrait of a small group of Jews divvying up the ill-gotten spoils of an exploited world.
But it is not only Jews who suffer from the suggestion that merit and excellence are dirty words. It is every single one of us. It is strivers of every race, ethnicity, and class. That is why Asian American success, for example, is suspicious. The percentages are off. The scores are too high. The starting point, as poor immigrants, is too low. From whom did you steal all that success?
The weeks since October 7 have been a mark to market moment. In other words, we can see how deeply these ideas run. We see that they are not just metaphors.
Decolonization isn't just a turn of phrase or a new way to read novels. It is a sincerely held political view that serves as a predicate to violence.
If you want to understand how it could be that the editor of the Harvard Law Review could physically intimidate a Jewish student or how a public defender in Manhattan recently spent her evening tearing down posters of kidnapped children, it is because they believe it is just.
Their moral calculus is as crude as you can imagine: they see Israelis and Jews as powerful and successful and "colonizers," so they are bad; Hamas is weak and coded as people of color, so they are good. No, it doesn't matter that most Israelis are "people of color."
That baby? He is a colonizer first and a baby second. That woman raped to death? Shame it had to come to that, but she is a white oppressor.
…
Ted once said of Barbara that "Barbara was Barbara because America, unlike any place in the world, gave her the space, freedom, oxygen, encouragement, and inspiration to be whatever she wanted to be."
There is no place like this country. And there is no second America to run to if this one fails.
So let's get up. Get up and fight for our future. This is the fight of—and for—our lives.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Since conservative these days mostly means anti-liberal, Bari Weiss is quite conservative.
These days she's just an anti-DEI anti-cancel culture scold. It does seem to pay well, but she comes off as a clown to anyone who isn't eager to hear lefty-bashing.
To be fair, first I heard of her she was talking about how kool the Intellectual Dark Web of Ben Shapiro et al was, so I may not have a full picture of her arc.
Oh, and the University of Austin. LOL.
Sorry, I was going to engage with the message here but...there's so little here I wandered. So yeah this post is off topic, but cancel culture is anti-Semitic is boring.
It would be nice if you did engage it, instead of instantly poisoning the well against her. How political.
What did you find of particular interest or insight on the post? Maybe I missed something.
Felt like a graduation speech to me.
That success being unearned because of outcomes analysis and statistical overrepresentation was essentially the same claim made historically of Jews.
Nothing?
"Essentially the same" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
You are, after all, conflating a lot of the historical baggage of anti-Semitism (blood libel, "killing Jesus," pogroms, and even conspiracy theories born of religious difference- such as the early prohibition against usury) with modern discussions about merit.
For example, I think that there is a reasonable conversation to be had that can both take into account the value of actual merit and hard work, as well as acknowledging that some of what people believe to be merit is actually a product of societal issues.
But that would be hard. Also? Not really "essentially the same" as the history of anti-Semitism, is it?
It’s a strawman.
Not many have the simplistic take underrepresentation is the inevitable outcome of systemic bias. Maybe like college students? But that’s way superlative and general and ignores the actual theory of intersectionality.
And I have not heard anyone suggest that Jews have unearned privilege.
Best you get is the right-wing white supremacists talking about Jews in the media.
Now, there may be some outliers who say these things. But they are not the mainstream of liberal thought at all. That isn’t even the mainstream of the pro-Palestine anti-Israel cohort.
Closest I see on the left is a few pretty rarified conversations about Jews and whiteness. But those folks are off on their own tend to be more wanking amongst themselves than engaging with the world at large.
"Not many have the simplistic take underrepresentation is the inevitable outcome of systemic bias."
IIRC, that is fundamental to Critical Race Theory, whose adherents claim to be many.
The claim of CRT is that many of the instances of underrepresentation are caused by systemic bias, not that that outcome is inevitable. As usual, instead of actually engaging with a difficult argument, people just make a caricature of it and then fight with that instead.
Bullshit, you CRT proponents run to any statistical difference to "prove" systemic bias based on whatever CRT grievance group you're currently shilling for.
And thus you will believe whatever because all counterevidence is CRT fakery.
...
The issue isn't people believing this. Indeed, it's _almost_ true. Strong enough systemic bias will cause underrepresentation. Weak systemic bias might not.
The pernicious problem comes with closely related statements that are confused with it, and are popular: "systemic bias is the same thing as underrepresentation"; "systemic bias is the only thing that can cause underrepresentation"; "underrepresentation is a good enough proxy that lets us assume systemic bias".
Underrepresentation can be a good starting point to look for systemic bias, but even that needs a huge dose of salt.
So, sarc is opposed to people ending cancel culture. Got it.
Could've saved a ton of words and just wrote that.
Hey, how would you define cancel culture? Does it apply to these anti-Israel protesters?
“Cancel culture,” to me, is punishing people based on disagreement with their political beliefs. Punishments include terminating employment or forced change of job functions, not based on performance of the respective job, but again, as PUNISHMENT for political beliefs. Punishments also include terminating speaking engagements and targeted harassment (e.g. actions to disrupt normal free movement, vandalism). A side effect of cancellation is social ostracization (read: “malignant silence”), particularly by coworkers and organizational superiors, not because those people believe the targeted person should be ostracized, but because they fear being punished themselves if they express what they think.
(In effect, the express and implied threats of a minority coerces silence from a majority who fear retribution.)
By all appearances, including your question here, you tacitly endorse the appropriateness of such punishments, and seem to feign ignorance of it.
"By all appearances, including your question here, you tacitly endorse the appropriateness of such punishments, and seem to feign ignorance of it."
That was a lot of verbiage to completely miss the point.
I think the entirely reasonable point that was raised was that a lot of people were decrying cancel culture when it applied to speech that they like, but are suddenly in favor of it when it comes to speech that they don't like. Weird, huh?
Remember, it’s actually not hypocritical at all if you think about it and also aren’t very good at thinking.
So I ask how you define something. You give a definition that is not really in keeping with current conservative practice (since they try for those scalps *all the time*), tell me I must love this thing you just defined for me, and then tell me I'm lying when I asked you to define it.
As loki noted, you kind of made my case for me here.
Are you opposed, in principle, to the behavior pattern that I described?
As you wrote it, still full of holes and assumptions, so not enough data.
Punished does a lot of work here.
Is not wanting to associate count as punishment? Is social ostracization for Holocaust deniers bad now? Do you need to give KKK members a job or else you hate freedom?
And this: "the express and implied threats of a minority coerces silence from a majority who fear retribution" is not cancel culture. Cancel culture can't work without a majority willing to get behind it. What this sounds like is resentment from a minority who likes to think they're the majority.
I am against firing people for peccadillos, and against the twitter mob demanding firings.
That looks like a pretty clear "no" to me. (I know...only under "just causes.")
Was it that they didn't teach you the "sticks-and-stones" thing as a kid, or is it that you just can't tolerate [blah-blah]?
I don't know why you describe the other guys as being any nastier than you. They just use different talking points.
And remember, above speech: retribution.
(uggh)
your definition was vague in some places and wrong in others.
That is all I mean and that is what I said.
You seem really committed to hating me for but utterly agreeing with your take.
If she places freedom of speech ahead of DEI as it is currently applied, that doesn't make her a conservative, it makes her an old-school liberal.
No, she's a new-school right-wing gravy train grifter.
She doesn't have particularly strong free speech principles, just very strong free speech rhetoric.
Bari Weiss has been a misfit and serial malcontent since college (or was it high school?). She associates with institutions, then decides she is being persecuted and leaves loudly and sanctimoniously, causing those institutions and the relevant people to regret associating with her.
She's a disaffected culture war casualty with a flair for profiting from narrowcasting to other societal rejects -- a natural fit with the Federalist Society.
And she's a whore, too, but then, we tend to go on, don't we?
I have not heard that and am skeptical — unless Kate McKinnon says it is true.
"grifter"
Definition: Meaningless insult directed at people I don't like.
Grifter very much has a meeting - it means you're validating people in their priors without regard for any actual ideals or principles.
To wit: "She doesn’t have particularly strong free speech principles, just very strong free speech rhetoric."
Just FWIW, that's not the dictionary meaning, which is a con man.
Cambridge: "someone who gets money dishonestly by tricking people".
He knows that, he is just doing his usual gaslighting.
Google right wing grifter and you will find the phrase did not originate with me.
"validating people in their priors "
You are such a bureaucrat. No normal person writes like that.
Ok Bob.
"She doesn’t have particularly strong free speech principles, just very strong free speech rhetoric."
Reminder for those who don't want to be like Sarcastr0:
Bari Weiss was an editor at the New York Times. Her boss (James Bennet) effectively got fired for publishing an opinion piece by a Republican Senator. Rather than siding with the newsroom censors, she resigned. To Gaslight0, this means she has no real free-speech principles.
Those are not the reasons she sucks.
Here's a starter:
https://newrepublic.com/article/158535/self-cancellation-bari-weiss
"Weiss is convinced she was targeted for her “centrist” beliefs, but a great deal of the criticism she has received has been about specific flaws with her writing. She has been critiqued for her uncritical glamorizing of right-wing YouTube celebrities, for citing a fake Twitter account as evidence of the illiberalism on college campuses, and for her hypocrisy on the subject."
New right wing darling Glenn Greenwald: "It’s truly amazing: Weiss now postures as some sort of champion of free thought on college campuses. Yet her whole career was literally built on ugly campaigns to attack, stigmatize, and punish Arab professors who criticize Israel.”
Arab professors such as the George Soros prosecutors she criticized (not by that name, of course) in this speech?
You are the one who sucks here, dude. You're standing with newsroom censors, defending your abuse of language on the grounds that someone else did it first, and dissing a Jewish lesbian because you disagree with her version of leftist politics. Even by TNR standards, what you quoted was weak cherry-picking.
That is a different, shitty thing she is doing.
I've explained Weiss is doing a lot more than standing up to newsroom censors, in fact I linked to an article laying out what I think is a great case that that's bullshit.
You, however, are ignoring the actual stuff I wrote and linked, and repeating the same nonsense I addressed yet again.
Saying I must agree with someone because they are a Jewish lesbian is some weird demographic essentialism.
it’s ok, you both are for lower taxes.
Seriously, at least in this speech, she seems a ‘big tent’ liberal. Or maybe ‘an enemy of my enemy is a friend ‘ liberal
When your starting premise is wrong, it's no great surprise that the rest of your logic goes wrong, too. Conservatism means far more than merely anti-liberal. And I say that as someone who is neither. You need to take off your blinders and try to understand the people you think you are arguing against.
(Yes, there are a few fringe elements who are reasonably well described by the parodies you create. Neither movement should be defined only by their fringe elements.)
There is a lot to say for what conservativism was, even if it wasn't my worldview. But it got eaten by negative populism.
I'd say you should check around you if you think owning the libs isn't the new stated goal of everyone except like Mitt Romney.
The GOP doesn't have a platform. CPAC is pure 2 minutes of hate. The Federalist Society hosts the AG ranting about the godless libs tearing down western civilization and Christianity.
You seem pretty level-headed. Sorry about your bedfellows.
I'll go further. The rest of the world, and I mean you, Europe and Japan, would not have remained as stable and free as you think sans the US with its big brotherly hand on your shoulder, from enemies external, of course, but also enemies internal, by leading the way in how things should be. Most have some kinds of supreme court thing that asserts as rights stuff in the Bill of Rights, for starters. The weight of how the US behaves as model for free, righteous countries is not lost on either side of the aisle. How often that is sacrastically brought up in political battles internally!
It irks me when people act like no amount of fear is too much. These metaphors are over leveraging.
City on a Hill making a comeback? But America has a government, which IIRC you think is a priori evil and corrupt.
Krayt is a land of contrasts.
Weirdly, as much as there is to say about Reagan, he was always an optimist. He packaged his conservatism, for better or worse, in a sunny vision of America.
I think that stands in stark contrast to what we see today.
From "shining city on a hill" to "I am your retribution."
(You may have to explain the difference to them.)
'US is Big Brother' is not a take I was expecting.
'The weight of how the US behaves as model for free, righteous countries'
It's certainly a model for the disparity between claim and reality. After all, it laso provided the model for Hitler's anti-Jewish laws. The US promotes stability in certain favoured areas, yes. Not so much in others.
Didn't know it was already Festivus, but it looks like Bari Weiss is already getting ready for the ritual airing of grievances.
I liked this part:
"When antisemitism moves from the shameful fringe into the public square, it is not about Jews. It is never about Jews. It is about everyone else. It is about the surrounding society or the culture or the country. It is an early warning system—a sign that the society itself is breaking down. That it is dying."
That seems pretty spot on. Nazi's marching at Skokie and then going home to their trailer parks doesn't bother me ... there will always be a small percentage of people who abuse their kids or pets and other loathsome things. But society needs to have a clear consensus that such behavior isn't acceptable and must keep that fringe marginalized.
But when, to pick one of many recent examples, GWU students projected the words “Glory to Our Martyrs”, those aren't losers who are going to slink back to the trailer park.
Kristallnacht was of course a very bad omen for German Jews, but it was also a very bad omen for everyone else in Germany - it showed that the decent people of Germany had failed to keep their society's evil contained. The decent people of Germany ended up paying dearly for that failure.
(not that it should matter, I'm neither ethnically Jewish nor religious at all ... I've just read enough history to recognize when today rhymes with the past)
What makes the four students at GWU, who were forced to end their anti-Israel demonstration by campus police, more worrisome than four Neo-Nazis marching around Skokie? Both groups are likely responsive to their social group's approval or disapproval for whatever they get up to. Are the neo-nazis getting a pass because they're less educated or poor? What's the measure here that makes GWU students a worse case in your eyes? Why not use the "Unite the Right" march in Charlottesville as an example of open anti-Semitism; it was a lot more than 4 students at university.
If there were only four students at GWU performing stupid pro-Hamas stunts, that would not be concerning. But that was just one example -- we have people killing 70-year-olds for wearing the Israeli flag, rioters breaking in the doors of Grand Central Station in NYC, and other university students physically blocking Jewish students from attending classes. There's an epidemic of antisemitic abuse that goes far beyond marching around and shouting evil slogans.
'If you don't like that anecdote, I have others! Unsourced, natch.'
“Glory to Our Martyrs”
On a Library dedicated to a Jewish couple
Don't bother. Just shut down all public colleges & universities.
As for private schools: If it were up to me, I'd let all private actors play whatever "nasty games" they like. But, as long as the various "anti-discrimination" laws are still in effect, let's prosecute / sue them to the full extent of the law. Sauce for the goose, and all that.
Special exceptions for nonsense-teaching, superstition-based, bigoted, bottom-of-the-barrel conservative campuses, though . . . right, Mr Grinberg?
The speech was a wonderful tidbit of propaganda, including the honest plea “May God avenge her death.” Leni Riefenstahl would be proud!
The problem is that God isn’t the one doing the avenging… that is, unless we adopt the ridiculous position that God is embodied in the Israeli Occupation Army waging this its Fourth Gaza War. Should each of the progeny of Palestinian Christians who have been killed by Israelis since 1948 — a group of murdered faithful which outnumbers all Israelis killed since 1948 — make the plea “May God avenge her death?” Or is it instead morally reprehensible to plea for retribution targeting specifically-selected religious or ethnic groups?
I do agree with the thrust: “But fighting is for all of us. Especially when there is something so precious worth fighting for.” We must strive for truth: we must fight those who shade and suppress the truth. We must strive for justice: we must fight those who wrongfully deprive others of land, property, and freedom. We must strive for a better tomorrow in which each man can pursue his own notion of happiness: we must fight both those who vengefully take innocent lives and those who supply arms to such vengeful criminals.
We must fight the embodiment of evil, regardless if it wears a swastika, a kufi, or a kippah. Today it wears a kippah.
Evil originates in the chaos of nature, in the storm, the flood, the drought, the fire of the lightning bolt. It passes through each of us and each of us humans can not but try to slow it down. Look first for inner peace, before projecting evil on others. Don't hate people you don't even know.
The IDF did not kill the Palestinian Christians, nor the Coptic Christians, etc....
Gaza hasn't been occupied by the Israelis since 2005. And it was Hamas who started this war.
Nor is war a numbers game - "you killed more of us than we killed of you so you're the bad guy" isn't a valid principle.
"Gaza hasn’t been occupied by the Israelis since 2005."
Great point. It has merely imprisoned, blockaded, and starved them since then.
And supported Hamas.
Believing, wrongly, that Hamas could end up as a potential partner in a settlement.
Please try to be serious. Israel supported Hamas precisely because it knew that Hamas would *not* ever agree to a peace settlement.
In partnership with Egypt.
We must strive for truth indeed: there's no occupation in or around Israel.
"Their moral calculus is as crude as you can imagine: they see Israelis and Jews as powerful and successful and "colonizers," so they are bad; Hamas is weak and coded as people of color, so they are good. No, it doesn't matter that most Israelis are "people of color."
Is this really why conservatives think people call Israelis "colonizers"? That it's because of skin tone, and not the Israeli government's decades-long policy of colonizing the West Bank by using state-sanctioned violence against its inhabitants? No wonder the tide is turning against the Zionist position - they refuse to even engage with the actual arguments of their critics.
By the way, there is nothing "powerful" about using laser-guided bombs to destroy ambulances, bakeries, and children's hospitals by pressing a button miles away. Nor is there anything "weak" about laying down one's life for one's people.
Nuke Gaza.
Very persuasive. If you continue with that line of thinking, you'll have yourself a speaking gig at a FedSoc convention in no time.
When the far left talk about "power" in this context, they're talking at a higher level of abstraction.
Yes, conservatives (and not just them) correctly recognized the fact that Marxists has an incredibly simplistic worldview: oppressors vs the oppressed. And yes, most anti-Israel commenters incorrectly presume that Israel is a "White" country, perhaps because they believe that Netanyahu - who just so happens to be White - is their image of Israel. In reality, the majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi, and as such, they're not White.
Plus the Israeli government is not "colonizing" the "West Bank" (Judea and Samaria). They're not an imperial, colonial power. And the territories in question ought to belong to them (international law). The area is disputed atm, and the Israeli were willing to part with that land, but the other side refused it every single time. Too bad, because they're not going to get any better deal, it's likely that they're not going to get ANY deal in the future.
You have an eerily romantic view of the fundamentalist terrorist butchers who are willing to sacrifice themselves and their own children just to kill a few hundred Jews.
"They’re not an imperial, colonial power."
He said, in conclusory fashion, without any supporting argument, and despite the fact that the Israeli policy of settlement of the West Bank is a textbook example of colonialism.
"And the territories in question ought to belong to them (international law)."
Any particular provision of international law? Or is this just yet more bullshit you made up?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you have a monopoly on writing comments "in a conclusory fashion, without any supporting arguments".
But then, I doubt that there exists an argument that could convince someone like you not to be an ill-informed anti-Israel talkbacker. Kinda like asking Jeremy Corbyn to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group, simply impossible...
Ok, so then I guess there aren't any principles of international law that support your assertion. Just as I suspected.
"But then, I doubt that there exists an argument that could convince someone like you"
You'll never know if you don't try. But just spewing mindless bullshit won't cut it.
Not to convince you, just to prove you wrong:
- Treaty of Sevres, the Ottoman Empire ceded territories to the Allies, including the geographical region called Palestine
- San Remo Conference, the Balfour Declaration's spirit was adopted, declaring that "a national home for the Jewish People" shall be established
- League of Nation's Mandate of Palestine, unanimous decision, which made the British the trustees for that mandate
- Israel declared its independence in 1948, meeting all criteria of the Montevideo Convention (declarative plus constitutive statehood)
- UN Charter, Article 80 affirms that all previous treaties shall remain in effect, and be considered part of international law
- uti possidetis juris, which is international customary law, states that a state shall inherit the land of the previous entity, within the administrative boundaries of that entity
To sum it all up, Israel not only is a legitimate state, but it has more document affirming its legitimacy than most other states. The Treaty of Sevres, the San Remo Conference, the League of Nation's mandat, plus the UN Charter are all part of international law. Israel also met all prerequisites to be considered a state based on the Montevideo Convention and applying the uti possidetis juris principle (int'l customary law) makes Israel the sole legitimate claimant to all the land within the boundaries of Mandatory Palestine.
Yet if you're still unsatisfied with all these historical and legal facts, we could also approach the whole question of ownership in reverse. After the War of Independence, both Egypt and Jordan occupied the mandate's land, thus preventing Israel from exercising their rights. Jordan's occupation and annexation of the so called "West Bank" was not recognized by the international community, except by Britain and Pakistan. So they weren't legitimate owners of the land. Then they signed a peace treaty with Israel and officially renounced all their claims. Egypt did the same thing basically, except they did not annex the Gaza Strip, but then refused to keep the area after making peace with Israel. But here comes the best part: the so called "Palestinians" didn't actually exist as "a people" prior to the 60's. Their very first official representatives were the PLO terrorist organization who had and has a Charter. That Charter explicitly denied any claimed to the "West Bank" and to the Gaza Strip. Only after Israel took control of those lands in a defensive war in 67'. In other words, the so called "Palestinians" never actually wanted to have a state, never really demanded a state, which is partly explained by the fact that they never really a nation prior to the 60's anyway. They then retroactively want to demand a land that never actually belonged to "them", for they never actually had any state, for they had never actually been a real, uniquely separate people, from the larger (or even Levant-ene) Arabs. Even the original plan of the Arabs was to just kill all Jews in 48' and then claim all the land, which would have been split between the neighboring Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Without Jews and Zionist, there would never had been "a Palestinian" meme, for the real Palestinians were the Jews themselves (up until 48' that is).
The bulldoze people out of their homes and shoot them if they try to come back. But I suspect ‘Israel as coloniser’ goes back to the Balfour Declaration – Imperial Britain still playing Great Power games and making a multi-generational mess in the proxess.
Israel does not do such things. If they'd be doing such things they would have finished the job decades ago. Maybe try and adjust your senses to reality instead of relying solely on propaganda.
There is plenty of evidence that they do, in fact, do these things. NPR and other news organizations with a long history of reliable, accurate reporting have documented this.
If you're asking why they didn't just kill the frog outright and instead chose to boil it slowly, consider how the US and EU along with hard-won allied Arab nations would respond.
NPR and other news organizations with a long history of reliable, accurate reporting have documented this.
Please don't make me laugh.
If you’re asking why they didn’t just kill the frog outright and instead chose to boil it slowly, consider how the US and EU along with hard-won allied Arab nations would respond.
So that's why Israel did not kick out all Arabs back in 1948? Or 1967? Or at any other time back when they easily could have, well before the US-Israeli alliance was that strong?
Aunt Teefah is lying here. She (?) and her ilk call all Israelis colonizers, not just Israelis living in the West Bank (where, incidentally, they had lived until they were driven out by Arab violence in the decades before 1948.)
"As goes Ohio, so goes the nation. The Jews—please don’t quote me on this—are Ohio."
What is she referring to? Maybe it's selection bias, but the Ohio news which I am most familiar with is that they put a right to abortion into their state constitution.
Is she saying that the innocent Jews murdered by Hamas are like unborn babies in Ohio? I would totally agree with that.
But she calls herself moderately prochoice. In fact, she avers that she's gay-married and she supports a constitutional "right" to SSM, just like Ted Olson.
So I don't think she or the FedSoc can pose as defenders of the best in Western tradition.
Also, there's a difference between a punitive expedition to rescue hostages and punish terrorists, and a wider Middle East war with no endgame - we've done that before.
"As goes Ohio, so goes the nation" is a fairly weathered political saying -- before finally breaking the streak in 2020 it voted for the winning presidential candidate 13 elections in a row.
I suspect she was just alluding to that sort of harbinger angle and doubt abortion entered into it at all.
OK, fair enough.
She didn’t *intend* to make a totally apropos remark, it just sounded that way.
She didn’t *intend* to make a totally apropos remark, it just sounded that way.
To you.
From the speech:
Background: Sheriff Jim Fryhoff said that Paul Kessler fell and hit his head during a confrontation between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian protesters. Kessler was taken to the hospital and died. Fryhoff asked the public for any video which would help determine whether Kessler fell as a result of someone hitting Kessler.
It's reasonable to suspect that Kessler was hit, but what Weiss said is a lie. She presents her assertion that Kessler was killed by an anti-Israel protester as fact, not speculation. Her criticism of NBC is entirely dependent on the idea that this is a fact, since newspaper headlines are not the place for speculation. Furthermore, she writes “killed,” not “accidentally killed.” It's not likely that anyone intended to kill Kessler, because most people don't think they can kill someone with a single punch. But the word “killed” has a strong implication that the killing was intentional, and as a professional writer, Weiss undoubtedly knows that.
Intellectual integrity is a disqualifying attribute on much of the right. Weiss, a talented writer with a lack of moral scruples, fits right in.