You're still stuck on the bailey. Let's see the motte (in this case, some evidence of a pattern of calling for genocide of Jews at Columbia)

The punishment needs to be commisserate with the crime, and dealt with through due process; to do otherwise is distinctly un-american (see 1st amendment on freedom of assembly, 4th amendment on freedoms from unreasonable state actions: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons[...] against unreasonable searches and seizures", and especially the 5th amendment: "[no person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law").

What we are seeing at Colombia University (as well as the country at large) is the continual abridgement of these rights. Note that for the fifth amendendment specifically, the constitution refers to any person, not just citizens. Those here legally are entitled to due process protections under the law.

The following argument relies on the following: (1) Universities historically have been the the catalysts of change through student protest. (2) Peaceful protest is a right of the people that shall not be abridged. (3) Public Universities (being government institutuions themselves; see campus police and jurisdiction) have a duty of care to protect their students.

With the above holding true, the argument against this being a "betrayal" falls facially flat, as it is a severe consequence that the university capitulated to, and had a duty to prevent. The arument boiled down to "they were being disruptive, so we should get rid of them," because the betrayal amounted to the jailing and deportations (or attempted deportations, in some cases) for the "crime" of being nonviolently disruptive in a public place.

Without articulating a legally rationed basis for a criminally sanctionable offense, an equivalent is threatening to jail and deport construction workers when they block a business entryway. In general, you do not have a right to be merely inconvienced by others in a public space.

The second paragraph answers your second question, actually.

Exactly. Most people of Jewish faith I have met puts the interests of Israel above those of the United States, because it is in their religion to return to the homeland. Look no further than Pelosi arguing that if the Capitol burned to the ground, as long as Israel prospers, elected officials will remain committed to Israel. Btw, one cannot find this video anywhere anymore (you will find it on Facebook using Pelosi Capitol). I wonder why.... People advocating for Israel at this point are traitors to the United States and should be treated as such. When elected officials like Pelosi would rather the capitol burns to the ground but Israel prospers, I feel nothing short of dread. But students writting opeds opposing Genocide is the story...

You can be 100% correct while not being mainstream.

And you're laundering what the linked page says--they try to paint a picture of JVP being anti-semitic, but don't specifically accuse them of that. They do call them anti-Israel and anti-Zionist but you must not conflate that with anti-Semitism.

Do you find the ADL credible anyway. Seems they themselves could be accused of anti-semitism: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5097676-elon-mus...

Saying Musk's anti-semitic behavior isn't anti-semitic is definitely stretching the truth.

Right on. And the conflation of anti-Israel and anti-Jew feels really dangerous, considering the current state of affairs in Israel.

I'm an American, thankyouverymuch. I've been to Israel once. I don't care a whole lot about the place either way. Acting like I must be aggrieved when someone attacks that country is doing far more damage to me than the attack.

I remember first hearing of the "not in our name" protests (very early on) and thinking "I'm so glad I'm not the only person who realizes that what is being presented as patronization is blame."