RFK Jr. And His Position on Israel & College Free Speech

Is he standing by his principles on these issues?

Set Your Pulse: Take a breath. Turn your attention to your body and release any tension. Breathe slowly into the area of your heart for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Stay connected to your body as you read. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

---

If you like our writing, feel free to click the ❤️ so more people can discover us on Substack. We’d also love to hear from you in the comments.

---

I’ve written about RFK Jr. multiple times over the last few months.

In my first essay, I suggested that in specific ways RFK Jr. is disrupting the status quo, even if political systems are indirectly rigged and he’s not perfect. Following his positions on the Israel/Palestine war, my second essay offered thoughts on whether I’ve changed my mind since my first essay.

Today, I want to look further at whether RFK Jr. is beginning to venture away from some of his main missions - healing the divide and standing for free speech.

Two Key Issues

After RFK Jr. took a strong position supporting Israel’s war with Palestine, it seemed to many that it flew in the face of his position on peace and war.

As a result, many revoked their support for him, and his campaign manager Dennis Kucinich quit.

We can’t say for sure why Kucinich quit, but his position on Israel has been quite clear. He points out the ‘nothingness’ of war consciousness, and how we can’t expect anything good from taking this kind of stance. He, like many others including myself, suggests taking a new approach, one built on peace and healing, not more destruction.

I recommend checking out Kucinich’s statement below. He is standing by a principle here.

The question might be, why is RFK Jr. not standing by his stated principle of peace and healing the divide? This is a question that many people need to push him to meaningfully answer.

The only thing I’ve been able to find that summarizes a number of points on why he supports Israel in what they are currently doing is the video linked here.

He essentially explains that Hamas is a big problem, wants to eliminate Israel and Jews, and needs to be stopped. And that other countries would be responding the same way if what happened on Oct. 7th happened to them.

But in 2023, is there not a better way to deal with Hamas? Palestinian people and their actions are not Hamas, yet they are paying the price. At the same time, it is clear Israel is not simply targeting Hamas.

Why does indiscriminately killing tens of thousands of Palestinians become the answer in dealing with Hamas? Humanity is being lost here.

Either people who believe another way is possible are naive, or we simply don’t have leadership willing to explore the option.

Netanyahu is taking the actions of a war criminal. RFK Jr. would call out former US presidents who’ve done the same, yet he is giving Netanyahu a pass here.

Another major issue RFK Jr. has gotten wrapped up in is his support of billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman’s open letter to the president of Harvard calling for consequences for students who are harsh on Israel and clashing with Jewish students at the school.

Everyone should push back on legitimate hate and violence, but the challenge today is very few people seem to agree on what it means to be hateful, anti-semitic’ or ‘racist’ as these terms get thrown around extremely casually.

Within Ackmans’s open letter, there are calls for censorship and lifelong punishment stating things like: "No law firm, corporation or graduate program hire or admit an antisemitic or racist student.”

This is troubling as not only do tensions voiced by students not get openly discussed if they are censored, but with no clear definitions for what is “wrong”, it creates a slippery slope for who is being punished and why.

This is precisely the thing RFK Jr. has fought against when it comes to his challenge of vaccines. The mainstream calls him “anti-vaccine” and bans him from social media, yet he himself doesn’t think he’s anti-vaccine nor does he feel he has said anything wrong.

This is the problem when you create unclear and authoritative guidelines as social media and mainstream media outlets have. You can get punished and destroyed far too easily, and meaningful solutions don’t arise to the surface. We know this intimately here at The Pulse.

RFK Jr. defended himself after being challenged on his support of Ackman’s letter by saying:

Again, who defines what bullying, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination are? These days, this can be anything. It’s like we avoid tough questions or conversations by just calling on any of those labels.

This past month I’ve been called racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic and more. These labels have been confusing to me and no one has been able to point out how what I’ve said denotes any of these labels.

RFK’s support of Ackman prompted a comment from a friend of our publication Dr. Madhava Setty. He posted it here on RFK’s Substack. The comment reads:

“Bobby,

I would like to see you in the Oval Office. In order to ensure this outcome, I recommend that you immediately and thoroughly explain your support of Bill Ackman's open letter to the President of Harvard. Although some parts of his long missive are sensical and in alignment with your platform, others are not, specifically his recommendations to:

1) Not wait for police review of a situation involving the assault of an HBS student before taking disciplinary action against the alleged assailants.

2) Take disciplinary action against students for expressing their individual opinions in open protest or on Slack message boards.

3) Make such disciplinary actions part of a student's permanent record with lifelong repercussions because "No law firm, corporation or graduate program will hire or admit an antisemitic or racist student."

Are you REALLY condoning such measures? Guilty until proven otherwise? Disciplining those who express unsavory opinions? Destroying a young person's career path as a means of setting an example so that others will never cross the line with regard to what can be expressed?

How can you be a true defender of the First Amendment if you balk at supporting those who espouse ideas you find repugnant? You are coming across as a censor.

Do you seriously believe the way to eliminate an idea is to crush those who express it? Hasn't history proven the opposite? Isn't it better to offer the so-called "anti-Semites" a seat at the table so their views can be expressed and be dismantled publicly? Or is this only acceptable when it comes to vaccine-science? These are the kinds of discussions college administrations should be defending in the hope that their students leave with prepared minds and attitudes.”

I asked Madhava some questions as to what he hopes will happen from this type of questioning of RFK Jr, providing that people continue to bring this up to him from all angles.

Me: What inspired you to write this comment?

Madhava: “I want to see him win the WH. It's not because of his stance on Covid vaccines, nor his willingness to demand answers from our agencies of public health, nor his record on environmental protection nor his critique of the disastrous war in Ukraine. It's because of his willingness to change his mind when new information arises. New information can only arise if people are allowed to speak their mind without fear of retribution. He understands this. This is why he has been a strong proponent of the First Amendment and a fierce critic of censorship of any kind. Ultimately, it's his clarity of thought around this issue that will be the factor that will propel him to the Oval Office. 

What we see now, in his support of Bill Ackman's open letter to the President of Harvard, runs completely counter to the essence of his message and actions. If he wants to be a true representative of the people he will have to reconcile his recent statements with all of the extensive public remarks that have gotten him this far.”

Me: Does Kennedy's position on these matters hinder your desire to vote for him? Or do you feel he is still the best candidate?

Madhava: “Yes and yes. He is still the best candidate and yes his position on these matters significantly affects my excitement about his candidacy. I measure this by my desire to stump for him, to bring him up in conversations or on social media. I can understand why principled and informed people would now choose to abstain.”

Me: If Kennedy were to change his mind on this, what might that even look like? What could he come out and say?

Madhava: “He is a skilled orator, but he doesn't have to pull any tricks. IMO if he simply said that he has changed his mind it would be very powerful. He doesn't have to withdraw his support of Israel. He needs to show us that he respects and defends those who disagree with him. It would be best done simply and without fanfare. Just let us know that he is more committed to the freedom of expression than he is to Israel.”

Want to Get RFK Jr.’s Attention?

Recently, a reader reached out to me to let me know there is a poll on his campaign website that allows people to comment on the issues they find most pertinent right now.

She suggested using this poll as an opportunity to address any major positions that seem antithetical to his mission and platform.

In the comment section of the poll, she added the following to inspire RFK Jr. to reconsider his position:

“PEACE!!! The most important thing the US President (true human standing for and with other humans) MUST do is to contribute to peace in the world by staying true to the slogan "Heal the divide", meaning:

* not taking sides in conflicts as the politics dictate.

* not supporting oppressors or any nation against another with American finances, artillery or verbally. 

* advocate peace by restraining from "a self-legitimized" counter attack and not supporting other countries in such actions.”

If it feels meaningful to you to join in on asking RFK Jr. to address these issues, perhaps checking out his poll is a good option.

In the end, we are collectively dealing with a moment of high tension. This provides opportunities to refrain from simply taking sides but instead have an open heart and mind to hear one another out, have meaningful dialogue and push for a new culture of dealing with human conflict.