BA pro-Palestinian bike ride in Philadelphia has drawn fire over which restaurants are off-limits.
BFox News on X says the ride targeted six Jewish-owned restaurants over alleged ties to Israel.
BAlleged ties. That phrase is doing a lot of work. Do the organizers actually know where the money goes?
BProbably not. What they know is the owners are Jewish. That's the problem.
BNo, the problem is boycotts are legitimate political speech. You can refuse to spend your money somewhere.
BWhen the test is 'Jewish-owned,' it's not a boycott. It's a blacklist.
BBut they named six specific places. The boycott list says some of these owners support the Israeli military. That's their test.
BThree arrests on a restaurant street. That's not a policy seminar.
BBecause counterprotesters showed up and turned it into a mob. That's not only on the anti-Israel side.
BIf your protest has to single out Jewish owners to make a point about Israel, you've already lost the point.
BOkay, the method is ugly. But the underlying question—should foreign policy affect local businesses—is fair.
BFair question. But the answer isn't 'target the Jews.'
BYou keep saying 'target.' They're asking people not to spend money there. That's the whole point of a boycott.
BSupporting Israel is not a crime. And being Jewish isn't evidence.
BIt's not evidence. But it's also not automatically antisemitic to criticize that support.
BThe organizers can say whatever. The effect is Jewish families scared to open their doors.
BAnd I see people using boycott pressure the same way they do against any government. It's a tool.
BA tool that historically gets aimed at Jews. Maybe choose a different one.
BSpeaking of fights, one is already forming in Congress.
BReuters on X reports Democrats are likely to probe Elon Musk, Stephen Miller, and some big companies once they take the House in January.
BOf course. First day with the gavel, and it's investigation season.
BIs that wrong? Musk has government influence, and Miller has a direct line to the president. Oversight is literally the job.
BOversight, sure. But the likely incoming chair already has a hit list. That's political theater.
BThe Oversight Committee doesn't investigate nobody. It picks targets. That's how it works.
BThen why Musk and Miller? Because they're loud, not because they've done anything wrong.
BMaybe because they have real power and real conflicts. That's exactly what Congress should examine.
BSo you think Democrats didn't just spend a midterm campaign running against them?
BThey did. And they won. Now they want checks on the people they campaigned against. That's democracy.
BIt's revenge. It's 'we hate the administration, so we'll subpoena the administration.'
BOr it's 'there's a billionaire with government influence and a chief of staff with a direct line to the president.' You take the oversight where it is.
BFine. But don't pretend it's about the public. It's about 2026.
BMaybe it's both. That doesn't make the questions bad.
BWe'll find out in January.
BDifferent file: there's a report that Jared Kushner wants to bring back a NATO-Russia Council after the war.
BIf true, that's either naive or the only way to keep talking to Moscow. Hard to tell.
BThe post from Anton Gerashchenko on X cites a Washington Post column. No official confirmation from Kushner.
BIt says he wants broader talks between Russia and Europe alongside ceasefire negotiations.
BRight. And European officials, reportedly, insist a ceasefire in Ukraine comes first.
BThat's the right order. You don't give Russia a seat at a security table while rockets are still flying.
BBut you need a forum ready for the day after. Otherwise you're negotiating through press conferences.
BThe NATO-Russia Council was suspended after Crimea in 2014. Reviving it now looks like a reward.
BIt wasn't a reward. It was a place where both sides could talk without pretending they agreed.
BBut Russia blew through the agreements that body produced. Reusing it just gives Putin a propaganda win.
BSo you'd rather have no channel? That's how misread signals start.
BI'd rather have a ceasefire first, then build whatever forum is needed. Kushner's version skips step one.
BFair enough. Ceasefire first, and the forum can follow.
BRunning alongside is still premature. Ukraine hasn't said it wants a NATO-Russia Council.
BAnd the Ukrainian posters on this are furious. They see this as selling them out.
BWith reason. Any framework without Ukraine at the table is dead on arrival.
BAgree to disagree on the forum. But everyone should agree Ukraine can't be left out.
BThat part is not up for debate.