Who decided it’s accurate?
Here it is, FWIW 
Can’t read it at the Haaretz site without giving them my email, not happening.
I guess Piker is saying our reaction to the sobbing young Israeli woman wearing dirty gray sweatpants that were soaked with blood from her crotch to her knees as she was kidnapped by Hamas should be ignored because Israel asked for it?
Where does systematic rape factor into this context? Why is it wrong to feel zero sympathy for Palestinian murderers, terrorists, and rapists?
That’s a bad guess given that it’s Haaretz, which has reported extensively on rapes occurring on both sides of the conflict and would be unlikely to engage in such a crude and one-sided weaponization of the topic.
Totally a guess on my part since I can’t read the article.
But I’m far more interested in Piker’s stance on the Oct7 rapes, whether they were justified by “the context,” or not.
Go find something about it then Not the article for you.
Interesting article. Be nice if they’d upload the full interview to their YT channel. Looks like it was conducted about two weeks ago so maybe now that the article has been published they will.
Because you can’t tell which are those and which are civilians, and because it ignores the reasons that many of the ‘murderers and terrorists’ became such in the first place?
But it is a convenient position to hold as: you can’t tell. And potentially don’t even care to. Differentiating between those mentioned and those that are civilians makes supporting the Israeli ‘not genocide’ difficult.
Context has never been of much value to y’all in the past; somehow context doesn’t count when it’s a Palestinian atrocity, but for Israel? “Oh they’ve been getting attacked for decades, the Palestinians keep attacking certainly because they’re a death cult and they hate Israel”
Surely there were no outside factors that led Palestine to go from a land of comparative peace between the various religious groups in the area to Hamas leadership!
Very very little lol
lol and yet every day more dems are asked about him and more disavow him. 
I thought you said context. Here’s the classic “what he actually said”
look, to the anti-Zionist Jews in my community, you have a a very tough job ahead of you. Well, you have to go back to your communities and and try to get uh your your elderly relatives to understand that this connection between Israel and Zionism that is expressed over and over again through a lot of these Jewish institutions, okay, is teaching people the idea that Jews are monolithic. And this is a dangerous, it is a, cause look, it’s a very dangerous uh mode of propaganda. And you want to know why? Because people don’t fuck with Israel any longer. And if and if Jews in America keep putting uh this this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone’s going to come around and take action. Not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews. Okay?
We’re teaching people the wrong lesson.
At the end of the day, American Jews do not prioritize Israel, but they do prioritize anti-semitism. And that’s precisely the reason why a lot of this propaganda that is facing uh the American Jewish side from a lot of these Jewish outlets, right, will tie the two all the time. And we hear that from outlets like ZBS as well, right? when the host asked Angie Nixon like, “Oh, well, don’t you think we shouldn’t stop giving weapons to Israel at a time when anti-semitism is exploding?” Where’s the connective tissue between these two events?
American Jews do care about anti-semitism. It’s understandable to care about anti-semitism.
They don’t care about Israel. So, how do you tie the two? You say, “Well, Israel is the only thing standing in the way of of uh the next holocaust happening.”
That’s how you do it. That’s how you do it.
So, every single time you have prominent Zionist Jews come out and be like, “No, this is anti-semitic. To oppose Israel is anti-semitic.” You’re teaching people that, you’re teaching people the trope of dual loyalty. That’s what you’re teaching people.
After you teach them that, you can’t turn around and say, “Oh, well, this is dual loyalty. This is anti-semitic because at a certain point, people are not going to give a shit.” And we’re already past that point. It’s that simple.
Taken from this video with some discussion.
That’s a nice distraction .On par with your norm. But I was talking about Dems disavowing him. Are you suggesting they’re mistaken, or just, uh, uhm, saying something?
What he actually said is a distraction lol. OK, you do you.
lol my focus was on the Dems that want nothing to do with him .lol
And now this,
I doubt there’s enough time left to distance himself from Piker. Not with both the left and right constantly bringing him up.
Talk about context!
No, but I think that automatically assuming that position because they take AIPAC money isn’t accurate.
Those are some heavy hitting names though, huh?
Well sure, but it’s a useful barometer of their general alignment.
They were. I feel like that’s gonna change somewhat over the next couple election cycles.