Comment by sulmon7
2 days ago
This is a really dumb take. You're relying on a straw man (nobody claimed the CEO adopted his beliefs; they're talking about brand risk) and a category mistake (treating a high-level corporate photo-op like bumping into someone at a coffee shop). You can do better.
People have the responsibility to say what they mean and make their arguments clear and well understood.
He said that being a Zionist is a brand risk. The implication is that the CEO of Vercel is a Zionist.
The CEO of Vercel is a Zionist:
https://x.com/rauchg/status/1972669025525158031
Also your original comment was a non sequitur. I replied to a VC saying they could make their own lane by being ethical and being anti-Zionist and you replied asking about business fundamentals, which had nothing to do with what we were discussing.
That post does not establish the connection that you think it does. There was no language of agreement with Natanyahu’s political views therein. In fact his language was inclusive (“peace for Israel AND its neighbors”). You drew a contrary conclusion yourself (as did anyone else who thinks similarly).
It’s fair to question whether a VC should care about a founder’s position on Zionism (or vice versa). If you don’t like it, that’s on you.
4 replies →