There is a global protocol for guests. You are a visitor with special permission. You are forthright with gratitude, and I appreciate the generosity that has been extended to you. You use your manners, say please and thank you, and remind yourself what a treat it is to be there—or so I thought.
I listened to some interviews about the fate of a young man who
was arrested and detained for his pro-Palestinian speech. He was a guest in the US on a visa. He was here as a student at
Columbia University, my Alma Mater. I am
in despair at how my school has chosen to support this young man's behavior and how they
have allowed others to suffer so he could feel affirmed. I am certain the pressure will be on me in the upcoming years as I get targeted marketing emails to donate to compensate for their poor judgment.
The story revolves around free speech. Free speech has ALWAYS been a topic of discussion. Say something wrong about the king, and off
goes your head. Say a lie about the king’s
enemy, and you get a castle and a valley filled with peasants of your
own. That was true five thousand years
ago, five hundred years ago, and fifty years ago. Where is right and wrong through all of this?
History of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was
adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten
amendments to the Constitution. Its origins lie in the political and
philosophical currents of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment, as
well as in colonial experiences with British rule. The First Amendment, as
ratified, reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
It passed with broad support, reflecting a consensus on
safeguarding these liberties against federal overreach.
History of Free Speech
Free Speech didn’t last, as written.
And you are glad that it didn't. What am I talking about?
We decided a few hundred years ago that false advertising is
illegal. Someone’s free use of their tongue to deceive us into purchasing a
good or service that is not “as advertised” is a crime. It is unforgivable. The phrase "as advertised" has a tone of accountability built into it.
We also agreed that free speech is not OK when false
statements harm a person’s reputation. We decided that if a person’s loose tongue
threatens our nation’s security, that, too, is illegal.
The most recent addition to the limitations on free speech
is labeled as “hate speech.” If a person’s
words incite harm to someone or are a threat to their well-being, we label that
as equally illegal. Everyone has a right
to say what they want, including telling someone they hate them and wish they
would die; they just can’t say that they are the ones coming to kill you.
What really happened?
It is challenging to reduce it to a single paragraph, but not
if I leave out my opinion.
Hamas attacked Israeli citizens (no law enforcement or
military were targeted) in October of 2023.
They killed and raped, and they took hostages as they returned to
Gaza. Israel decided to retaliate with two
intentions. They wanted to prevent
future attacks by wiping out Gaza’s leadership’s ability to repeat the attacks and
retrieve their hostages. Hamas knew that
this would be their intention before they attacked, and they structured a
method of gathering global support for their cause by using their own people as
shields against the Israeli military, forcing the Israeli army to kill civilians
as they sought retribution. Portions of
the world watched videos and called this genocide. Others saw the same videos and chose to support the Jews and their right
to live in safety. Both sides had
horrific videos to show, trying to win over sense and emotion from both sides. Both sides used religious texts and “rules of
fair warfare” (whatever that means). Both
sides claimed self-defense as their core motivation. The fighting isn't over.
Mahmoud Khalil is the guest of ill repute. He is the poster child of how this international
skirmish is negatively impacting students at Columbia University.
The Antagonist
This young man was a ringleader and acted as the spokesperson at Columbia when Jewish students were tracked down and beaten, with the university not choosing to either condemn the pro-Palestine violence or offer assistance to these Jews. He lead protests to attempt to get his university
(and my university!) to divest from Israel.
He participated in the destruction of property and threats against
Israeli students.
At the core of the issue is the issue of Free Speech. Can a young man like this man be considered
“exercising his First Amendment rights” when he targeted, harassed, and
intentionally made Israeli students feel unsafe and unwelcome? The videos of how these young Jewish college students were
beaten made the news last spring, and it polarized us.
Sorting out fact from truth.
The student hired a lawyer who was looking for the spotlight. His lawyer found a microphone and a series of listening ears. Let’s look at the lawyer's positions.
1) He claims that his client was “peacefully
protesting and exercising his constitutionally protected activism."
2)
He claims that his clients
was within his legal rights to participate in tracking down and attacking Jews
that were part of the Columbia University community.
3)
He claims that it is unfair
for his client to be arrested and detained in Louisiana, as it inhibits his client's rights to
attorney-client privileged conversations.
4)
He claims that his client's arrest
intends to silence all protestors, not just the ones at CU.
These claims are obviously extreme, but let's examine the truth.
·
This guy is not a US
Citizen and does not share the same rights as the rest of us. He can’t vote. He has a visa to be here and is a guest of the United States. His lawyer is trying to convince the public
that he has the same rights. He is also avoiding the reality that he is behaving inappropriately, celebrating the physical harm done to someone who has never harmed him or anyone he knows.
·
He claims that it is within his legal rights to track down and witness an attack on someone if you are not the one swinging
the club. That is not even close to true. There are laws against
participating in a felony, even if only passively.
·
The government concluded
that the school’s choice (not inability) not to protect its Jewish students from known
threats was a violation of the terms and conditions for $400 M worth of
funding, and the government responded by canceling the funding.
As I analyzed the story, I chose to look outside of the US
to see if other countries were experiencing similar issues. What were their reactions? Is the USA the only place where Jews are
being attacked because they are Jews, not because of what they have done?
I found an article from the UK in the Telegraph. It was an internal study that compared
violent crime between native Britons and people who were immigrants or were on
a VISA. Specific to sex crimes (the
preferred crime type for Hamas), the report said that immigrants are 70% more likely
to commit sex crimes than native Britons.
The author sought to suggest that the methods used to allow entry to
immigrants and the associated education and law enforcement resulted in a more dangerous United Kingdom.
Imagine that. How
shocking to learn that people new to the country select a “culturally
inappropriate” response as they seek to get their way in a country other than
their own.
I conclude this Palestinian student is NOT exercising free speech. He is creating hate speech. He is actively involved in making people
unsafe. It is not limited to making them
“feel” unsafe. They are actually unsafe
once people embrace this young man’s ideology. Can you imagine letting a guest into your house and he acts like this?
The Christian response
As a Christian, I own that I have Jewish roots. The Old Testament is as much my people’s
history as it is for the Israeli Jew.
The tendency is to have tunnel vision and conclude that we have to take
the Jewish position, as they are the greatest Creation. They are God’s chosen people. How can we say we are pro-love or pro-God if
we choose not to defend God's people?
Yet, the core of the moment is the answer to your question,
“What does God mean when he says love your enemies?” An analogy applies here.
I hate the Nazis.
They killed people with joy in their hearts. We are called to protect the innocent. People who seek harm against the Jews “just
because they are Jews” are doing evil no different than the Nazis.
Yet, if I meet an individual nazi, I am not facing the enemy. I am facing a single person. As such, I can see myself
investing in getting to know them and potentially love them. Hollywood has multiple movies that play on
this theme. Hogan’s Heroes is a comedy
based on the idea that the enemy can become a friend, but only one person at a
time. That one-person-at-a-time idea is what highlights the difference between enemy and enemies.
This young “activist” is a hypocrite. He hates Jews and wants others to hate them
just because they are Jews. Yet, he
wants us to empathize with his unique circumstances. The media is talking about his pregnant wife as justification for him to be set free to continue his evil antics that threaten other people's safety.
Strip his
VISA. Deport him immediately. Let him reapply and agree to the terms and
conditions of what it means to be here as a guest of the United States.
Filter By:
