Fascists on the Left explain why they called out Chelsea Clinton

UPDATE (h/t: Malgorzata): It turns out that Leen Dweik, the woman who accosted Chelsea Clinton, is, as revealed by her now-deleted tweets, a hateful bigot, a blatant anti-Semite and homophobe, and she hates the French, too. Go see for yourself.



Yesterday I reported on how Chelsea Clinton was attacked by people at a vigil at New York University (NYU) in support of the 49 Muslims (now 50, I think) who were killed in a terrorist attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. At the vigil, Clinton was accosted by a Muslim who accused her of being responsible for the mosque shooting. Why? Because Clinton, in a single tweet, had criticized Congresswoman’s Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic comments (see below):

After that, Clinton politely agreed to meet and talk with Ilhan Omar about this issue; here’s the exchange on Twitter. I don’t know if they ever met or discussed this issue further.

At least one reader here argued that Clinton shouldn’t have been at the NYU rally because, being a prominent figure, she was making the vigil “all about her.” But that’s bogus, for Clinton is director of an interfaith program at NYU and was undoubtedly attending to show solidarity with the Muslims. As Wikipedia notes,

Starting in 2010, Clinton began serving as Assistant Vice-Provost for the Global Network University of New York University, working on international recruitment strategies.[37] She is the co-founder of the Of Many Institute for Multifaith Leadership at NYU and serves as its co-chair.[44]By 2010, she was also pursuing PhD coursework at NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service, but later transferred back to Oxford in 2011 to complete her dissertation.[36][45]

In 2012, Clinton received an award from the Temple of Understanding for her “work in advancing a new model of integrating interfaith and cross-cultural education into campus life,” together with Imam Khalid Latif and Rabbi Yehuda Sarna.[46]

Based on this, can you really argue that her presence at the vigil was unseemly?  You can, but you’d be irrational. At any rate, BuzzFeed (which I’ve been reading recently as part of my Leftist media homework), gave two of the NYU students an opportunity to explain in a op-ed why they confronted Clinton. (By the way, I’m not that keen on BuzzFeed News, which is a step above HuffPost, but not much.) Click on the screenshot; the authors are identified, respectively as “a senior at New York University studying International Relations and Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies. [Dweik] is a Muslim Palestinian whose main organizing centers on Palestine solidarity efforts; while Asaf is “a senior at New York University where she studies Comparative Politics and American Studies. She is an Israeli-American Jewish woman, and she co-founded the Jewish Voice for Peace chapter at NYU.

What we read is the usual unhinged indictment of those who dare to criticize anti-Semitic remarks, and DEMANDS that Clinton apologize.

In reality, Omar apologized on Twitter for her remarks!

Granted, this “unequivocal” apology is lame, but if Omar felt she didn’t do anything wrong, why did she apologize? To placate her fellow Representatives? If that’s the case, then she is a coward and Dweik and Asaf should have called Omar out, too. But if Omar apologized because she was sincere and recognized that her comments could be taken as anti-Semitic, then why are Dweik and Asaf going after Clinton for simply agreeing?

But on to the accusations and demands of the immature and Woke:

As a Jewish American-Israeli and a Palestinian Muslim, we understand far too well the consequences of anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, and white supremacy. And as activists who are unafraid to speak the truth, we know we have a duty to call out any bigotry wherever it exists.

We did a double take when we first noticed Chelsea Clinton was at the vigil. Just weeks before this tragedy, we bore witness to a bigoted, anti-Muslim mob coming after Rep. Ilhan Omar for speaking the truth about the massive influence of the Israel lobby in this country. As people in unwavering solidarity with Palestinians in their struggle for freedom and human rights, we were profoundly disappointed when Chelsea Clinton used her platform to fan those flames. We believe that Ilhan Omar did nothing wrong except challenge the status quo, but the way many people chose to criticize Omar made her vulnerable to anti-Muslim hatred and death threats.

We were shocked when Clinton arrived at the vigil, given that she had not yet apologized to Rep. Omar for the public vilification against her. We thought it was inappropriate for her to show up to a vigil for a community she had so recently stoked hatred against. We were not alone in feeling uncomfortable — many students were dismayed to see her there.

So when we saw Chelsea, we saw an opportunity to have her ear and confront her on her false charge of anti-Semitism against our only Black, Muslim, Somali, and refugee member of Congress. We took our chance to speak truth to power. Chelsea hurt our fight against white supremacy when she stood by the petty weaponizers of antisemitism, showing no regard for Rep. Omar and the hatred being directed at her.

Note that: the critics of Omar’s words are “petty weaponizers of antisemitism”. Jebus.  But wait! There’s more!

. . . To Chelsea Clinton: We hope that our intentions in confronting you are now clear. We believe that you still owe an apology: not only to Rep. Omar, but also to Palestinians for using your platform to defame their cause. As an Israeli national and a Palestinian, we want you to know that it is dangerous to label valid criticisms of Israel and its lobby as anti-semitic. We know that this is a tactic to silence us and deny us our free speech.

Note that Omar didn’t level any criticisms at Israel; she leveled one at the AIPIC lobby that does not fund candidates. And of course Omar herself took donations from Muslim lobbies.

Omar also criticized Israel earlier for “hypnotizing the world” and called out Jews for their “dual loyalty” because, after all, “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.” Further, equating supposedly “valid criticisms of Israel and its lobby” as “a tactic to deny us our free speech” is palpably ridiculous. These students have free speech and used it in a widely read BuzzFeed editorial. I’m sure that if Dweik and Asaf had their way, any criticism of Omar would be banned. Make no mistake: these people are not in favor of free speech unless it’s ideologically amiable.

In short, what Dweik and Asaf are saying is this: “Any criticism of anti-Semitic statements made by Muslims is Islamophobia.”

Sorry, that’s not true—no more true than saying “any criticism of anti-Muslim statements made by Jews is anti-Semitism.”  Let us make no mistake: Omar has been trafficking in anti-Semitic statements, and they’re excused by the Left because, after all, the Jews are just white oppressors.  But those attuned to the history of bigotry are like this man below:

If this really was retweeted by Ilhan Omar, I’m mystified.


  1. phoffman56
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    From their Buzzfeed nonsense:
    “..we bore witness to a bigoted, anti-Muslim mob coming after Rep. Ilhan Omar..”

    Depending on how large a group is said to define a “mob”, what they say may well be true. But then of course, logic completely deserts these morons when they consider it to follow that every person (e.g. Clinton), who had the least temerity to criticize Omar, to be part of that so-called mob.

  2. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    There once was a time, not long ago, where those people who opposed you strongly, not just merely held opposing opinions, were treated with respect as human beings; some were even friends. Now tribalism has pushed all that aside. And sadly, I just see arrogance here – lots of arrogance: “I’m right and smart and I’m going to show you just how right and smart I am” (queue smug selfie).

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 17, 2019 at 10:04 am | Permalink

      LOL wrong “cue”. Maybe I was thinking of the long line of smugness.

  3. Historian
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    In the United States, we will know that true social justice has been attained when people no longer feel compelled to refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans, viewing such a custom as a relic of an unenlightened past. That day is not imminent.

  4. DrBrydon
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    To call Clinton’s tweet “vilification” is to show a complete lack of perspective. Although the anchor tweet is clearly within the context of the reaction to Omar’s remarks, neither it, nor Clinton’s tweet, even name her. In fact, Omar made this about her by tweeting back to Clinton. The exchange is so low-key that I suspect that Dweik and Asaf are being purposefully obtuse, so that they can sling the charge of racism at Clinton, which is, in actually, vilification. They have put another white liberal on notice that she better toe the line, and check her white privilege.

  5. Posted March 17, 2019 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Can someone direct me to the checklist of fame/whiteness/religion/sexual orientation that I need to follow before I show up at an event. I’d hate to hurt someone’s feelings.

  6. Posted March 17, 2019 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    I think Omar retweeted the Zeitz tweet because she is clueless. She must have thought it was supportive of her.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted March 17, 2019 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      Yes, she’s clearly clueless. Pity that the the only black Somali refugee representative is Ms Omar, and not Ms Hirshi Ali. If Ms Ilhan is a refugee, what exactly did she flee from? Apparently not from Islamic militants rampant in Somalia, that much is clear.

  7. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Ms Omar was called out by Ms Clinton Jr for despicable anti-semitic remarks, implying Jews are controlling our policies and government, straight out of the “Protocols”.
    (As said, she did not criticise Israel’s policies, which would have been legitimate IMMO).
    And criticizing AIPAC, which does not even fund, is rich coming from someone who actually accepted funding from CAIR.
    I think these SJW’s (and suspected Islamic apologists) owe an apology to Ms Clinton Jr.

  8. Mike Anderson
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    These people that attacked Chelsea Clinton are stupid, harmful, and should be discouraged, but it’s wildly inaccurate to call them fascists.

    • Posted March 17, 2019 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      By their actions and avowed intentions, they fit the description.

      • Mike Anderson
        Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

        Nonsense. “Fascism” has a meaning (readily available with a little research), and the behavior of Chelsea Clinton’s critics in this case isn’t close to it. There’s no nationalism there, nor dictatorial/totalitarian inclinations, nor appeal to tradition, etc.

        These people are misguided, but not fascists.

        • Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

          I think that is fair. The relevant definition is “authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy…” So one can see there are clear parallels but of course they are not emergent from the right wing and that is indeed a point.

          • Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

            I always thought of “fascism” as a kind of government, or at least a property of government. It seems a stretch to use it on an individual or a group of people. Perhaps the problem is we don’t really have a suitable term. We can use “authoritarian left” but non-lefties can certainly engage in this kind of behavior too. We can’t just say “authoritarian” as that’s just too general.

        • Posted March 18, 2019 at 10:35 am | Permalink

          It seems you are working off Umberto Eco’s list of 14 elements from his classic essay “Ur-Fascism”, yet neglect to heed his maxim of “family resemblance”; i.e., a movement does not need to shoot the moon on all 14 elements to quality as ‘fascist’.

          As for you specific complaints, Nationalism has been replaced by its antithesis, ‘diversity’ or ‘multiculturalism’, while a reflexive embrace of iconoclasm substitutes for an appeal to tradition. One might also interpret its believe in being ‘on the right side of History’ as a claim to imagined legacy.

          With its suppression of dissenting views, and its cadre of arrogant elitists certain they know what’s best for the ignorant masses, the Regressive Left is most assuredly totalitarian and dictatorial. The rest of Eco’s list fits the Regressive Left to a T.

          • Mike Anderson
            Posted March 18, 2019 at 11:41 am | Permalink

            Nationalism has been replaced by its antithesis, ‘diversity’ or ‘multiculturalism’, while a reflexive embrace of iconoclasm substitutes for an appeal to tradition.

            To suggest the opposite of fascism is fascism puts you Dinesh D’Souza territory.

            • Posted March 18, 2019 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

              “To suggest the opposite of fascism is fascism ”
              I did no such thing, but to falsely claim so was a prerequisite to your petty insult.

              Try responding to substance with substance next time.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted March 17, 2019 at 3:07 pm | Permalink


      • Posted March 17, 2019 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

        Good enough. They use fascist methods of bullying, shouting down people with opposing views and trying to prevent them from expressing their views.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Number of days after Christchurch shooting that it took New Zealand to announce it would enact a semiautomatic rifle ban: 1

    Number of mass shootings in Australia since it enacted its 1996 semiautomatic rifle ban: 0

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted March 17, 2019 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Handguns are already virtually banned here (which is probably one large reason why we have a low gun-crime rate). You can get a license to own one but I think you’re not allowed to carry it around, you can only keep/use it at a pistol range.

      Rifles and shotguns are less controlled but semi-autos over seven shots are banned. However one can get bigger magazines and (illegally) fit them.

      I think changes will be to ban completely the bigger magazines themselves, and possibly to register individual guns.

      I believe guns used to be individually registered but the police’s records got so hopelessly scrambled they gave up. This was BC (before computers, and particularly before the Internet). I think individual registration would be much easier to carry out now.


      • Helen Hollis
        Posted March 17, 2019 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

        Excuse me, but what state of the US are you speaking for?

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 17, 2019 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

          Infinite is speaking about the gun laws in New Zealand where this incident happened. So, no US state.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted March 18, 2019 at 7:18 am | Permalink

          Sorry, I should have specified that. NZ, as Diana said.


  10. Posted March 17, 2019 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    The thing I hate most about these exchanges is that they take away from any real discussion of the issues. Instead of focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict, they are discussing who has the right to say what, did they use the right words, and what were the hidden messages in their speech. It is so tiring.

    • DrBrydon
      Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

      I think, perhaps, that sometimes that is intentional. Not everyone is a person of goodwill, and there are those that want to shut down debate if they think it leaves them in possession of the field.

      • Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        Most definitely it is intentional. It is much easier to attempt to shut someone down than to argue the issue smartly and persuasively. In many case, those doing the shutting down don’t even have to take a position. Call someone a white male with privilege or a fascist and you’re done.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 17, 2019 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

          If also makes it all about them and isn’t thrat what everything is about?

    • Posted March 17, 2019 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      Actually, in this case it is a discussion about who has the right to attend a vigil for the victims of a mass shooting.

      These people have turned what should have been a dignified event of remembrance and support for the relatives of the victims into a political football. They are beneath contempt.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted March 17, 2019 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

        Interestingly, a couple of the Christchurch motorcycle gangs turned up at the Christchurch mosque yesterday to show their sympathy. It made for a strange sight – a few armed police, gang members, and Muslims.

        Everybody was respectful.


  11. Jon Gallant
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Poster #8 is correct that calling Dweik and Asaf “fascists” is distinctly unfair—-to Benito Mussolini. Except in one way, for their tirade does somewhat resemble Benito’s egomania. The pronunciamento is mainly about themselves, swelling with self-congratulation for being “unafraid to speak”, for their “unwavering solidarity”, and their matchless heroism in “speaking truth to power” (by mobbing Chelsea Clinton). The Marxism-Leninism-Exhibitionism of some years ago has finally evolved, they and their counterparts on other campuses reveal, to Exhibitionism pure and simple.

  12. jgkess@cfl.rr.com
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    Jesus, Jerry, give it a rest on this crap. Most of us don’t have to actually smell crap in order to recognize it. Most of us know what’s up on the Left, but it’s still better than what’s up on the Right. That said, I lost both my cats within a week—Opal and Cleo. RIP.

    • Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      Well, I am sorry about your cats.

      • jgkess@cfl.rr.com
        Posted March 17, 2019 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

        Grief over the death of pets is a strange thing. Opal, especially, saw me through many withdrawals. Cleo was more like,” Fuck you, idiot”. I rather preferred Cleo.

    • JB
      Posted March 17, 2019 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

      I appreciate our host’s insights on topics across the board; he often offers perspectives that shed new light on things I find interesting. Instead of directing him on what to talk about and what not to talk about, you could just click past articles that don’t interest you.

      I’m sorry about your cats.

    • Posted March 17, 2019 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

      Your cats aside, the stench permeating from the crap of the left woke-is-me unfortunately needs relentless decompositing. With new subscribers to WEIT and casual readers this is how it has to be.

    • Posted April 7, 2019 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      You’re gone, pal.

  13. Richard Sanderson🤴
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Good call on calling these people “fascists”. That is exactly what they are. A lot of them are racist as well, like Dan Arel, who is currently ranting on social media (again!) about how Chelsea Clinton is somehow “Islamophobic” because she politely called out some of the antisemitism of people like Ilhan Omar.

    Arel, like a lot of the New Racists, has taken to Stanning for Omar, Sarsour, and various other antisemites. He also insisted that any attempt to say Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with antisemitism, what just some sort of plot by “the Zionists”.

    Laughably, Dan has a history of anti-Islam vitriol, far greater than than anybody he and his fascists have in their sights, such as Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, or now, Chelsea Clinton.

    Other New Racist fascists include:

    Ryan J Bell
    ** ********
    Zei_Nabq (Squirrel Boy)
    “Blunty King”
    Peter “Humanisticus” Ferguson
    Johnny “Hitler was a Zionist” Spooner
    “Sacha Saeen”
    Steve Shives
    Eiynah (NiceMangos)
    Max Blumenthal
    Glenn Greenwald

    …and various other extremists who seem to enjoy creating a hostile environment for Liberals, Humanists, and progressive Muslims/ex-Muslims.

    • XCellKen
      Posted March 17, 2019 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      Steve Shives is still a thing ?

      • Rich Sanderson
        Posted March 17, 2019 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        He is still a thing, in certain circles.

        Like “NiceMangos”, he is one of those #NewRacists who likes to lecture others on who the “good people” are, and who is a “racist”, etc., all the while chumming with varioius racists, antisemites, and pro-violent thugs.

        Apparently, he recently got a “developer grant” from Vidcon. Why Vidcon are giving out grants to racist grifters like Shives, the mind boggles.

  14. JB
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Maybe Omar herself is responsible for the NZ massacre because she apologized for her earlier remarks, thereby stoking anti-Muslim hatred? Or maybe she is responsible for the Synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh last year since she supports BDS? And AOC claimed that Wells Fargo is responsible for climate change (I’m not kidding) because they loaned money to companies who are not environmentally responsible. I think with a little work, we can blame anyone for anything.

    The last tweet, Prof Coyne, sounds like it’s sympathetic to Omar until the “hook-nosed” part. She must have missed it (or not understood the meaning) before retweeting.

    I find it pathetic that a group who has contributed so much to human progress can be comfortably vilified, attacked and in some cases purged without criticism because they are seen as a successful class rather than as an oppressed one.

  15. Helen Hollis
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    JB, we do not need another representative of our citizens to tweet blindly and without thought.

  16. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 17, 2019 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Just read Jerry’s update. Why does she hate the French? At least this means she won’t come to Canada because she’ll hear French and see it on all our products.

    • Posted March 18, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Probably something to do with Algeria.

    • Martin Levin
      Posted March 19, 2019 at 2:37 am | Permalink

      Je dois lui envoyer des tweets en français alors.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 19, 2019 at 8:38 am | Permalink

        Bien sur.

  17. Roo
    Posted March 18, 2019 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    I think the thing that troubles me is the idea that standards of decency should be tied to approval of what you have recently Tweeted. I would be just as appalled if Omar was pregnant (maybe that’s sexist of me, but as someone in the process of becoming a micro chimera myself, you become painfully aware of how every outside influence and swing in cortisol levels can potentially impact things – if you wouldn’t scream at a baby you shouldn’t scream at a fetus,) and was accosted while attending an anniversary memorial for the Pittsburgh synagogue victims. What people think of her Tweets is irrelevant, it’s wrong to accost pregnant women at vigils because it’s wrong to accost pregnant women at vigils, period. If you don’t like someone’s Tweets, write a thoughtful letter and post THAT to your social media feed.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 18, 2019 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      I find that with the elderly as well. When my mom was ill, she lightly hit a car in a grocery store parking lot. Two people in their 20s immediately accosted her yelling how she better not go anywhere because they are witnesses and they are going to go in the store and tell them to hold her there etc. My mom wasn’t going to go anywhere anyway and when the owner of the car was found, they both agreed there was no damage and there was no issue. My mom was really upset about the whole thing, and being ill already, it really put back her recovery. But those 20 year olds felt so entitled and smug at harassing an old lady and determining she had the worst intentions instead of asking her if she were okay and if she’d like them to help.

      • Roo
        Posted March 18, 2019 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

        Ugh how awful! I’ve run into similar ridiculousness over men in parking lots thinking I parked too close to their beloved car, and it is really unnerving. I try to be charitable towards people but I do find it particularly despicable when people seem to deliberately look for someone weaker than themselves to intimidate.

  18. Posted March 18, 2019 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    SMDH…wow…when people criticize Zionism and Israel, they are being antisemitic. Period. Why? Because Israel was promised to the Jews many thousands of years ago. It is the homeland of the Jews. The Arabs who live within the Israeli borders have much much better lives than the ones outside of Israel, and do not want war. Anyone who says “I’m anti-Israel, but not antisemitic” is a damned liar.

    • Posted March 18, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      Israel was promised to the Jews many thousands of years ago.

      That’s a fairy story.

%d bloggers like this: