I’m struggling to find the words to describe how difficult and upsetting the last couple of days have been as an Israeli woman.
Everything surrounding the debate over the online looksmaxxing streamer Clavicular’s visit to Israel, both publicly and privately within activist circles, has shown far too many women that there may be no line left that cannot be crossed.
When someone is politically useful, or their following can be leveraged, even allegations of sexual assault can suddenly become negotiable.
This has opened up an important conversation that we need to have within the Jewish and pro-Israel community. Are there lines that we simply should not cross? Have we reached such a low point that we will accept anyone as an ally?
Even a man who is friends with hateful groypers and who has been accused of sexually assaulting a minor? Are we really comfortable pimping out Jewish women to the manosphere for the sake of effective public diplomacy?
I had never heard of Clavicular before Thursday, when several social media content creators said they were planning on collaborating with him. Right away, it sparked a long and heated debate.
When his name was mentioned, the only thing I recognized him from was footage of the so-called “Miami Nazi Party,” where he appeared alongside some of the worst antisemites on the internet.
The group included Myron Gaines, Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate, Clavicular, and Sneako, all proudly singing “Heil Hitler.”
Clavicular, whose real name is Braden Eric Peters, rose to prominence through “looksmaxxing” content promoting extreme cosmetic procedures, steroid use, and hypermasculine self-improvement.
He has openly said that, as a teenager, he repeatedly hit his own jaw with a hammer as part of a practice known as “bone smashing,” claiming he believed it would stimulate bone growth and create a more angular, masculine jawline.
Clavicular has no shortage of legal controversies. In March 2026, he was arrested in Broward County, Florida, on misdemeanor battery and criminal conspiracy charges related to an alleged altercation between two women.
In May 2026, he and another influencer pleaded no contest to unlawfully discharging a firearm after a livestream showed them shooting at an apparently dead alligator in the Florida Everglades.
Right now, Clavicular is the defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by a young woman who alleges that, after meeting him when she was 16, he provided her with alcohol while she was a minor, injected her with what she claims was a mixture containing meth and a fat-burning substance without her informed consent, and sexually assaulted her while she was incapacitated.
Clavicular has denied the allegations, which have not been proven in court.
To most women, this is where the debate should have ended.
Yet despite all of this, there were people who insisted that engaging with him was still the right move.
They argued that his large Gen Z following, an age group that has been so heavily influenced by anti-Israel narratives, presented an opportunity to reach people who are normally exposed to nothing but anti-Israel propaganda.
Views vs values
In my line of work, I have met and learned from many people who once held extremist and antisemitic views. There have been incredible cases where people fundamentally changed their beliefs, especially after visiting Israel and actually speaking with Israelis.
In almost every case, whether the issue was Israel or something else entirely, those individuals said they changed because people were still willing to engage with them patiently and respectfully.
That willingness to have difficult conversations is what ultimately helped pull them away from extremism.
This is why cancel culture is so dangerous and why I understand why certain people would want to engage with a figure like Clavicular.
But where is the line? When someone is accused of drugging and sexually assaulting a minor, do we look the other way?
When someone’s entire online persona is built around demeaning and sexualizing women, do we still want them in our circle for the sake of views?
Even worse, do we put Israeli women in a position where they are encouraged to meet an alleged predator simply to show him how “hot” Israeli women are?
How is this any different from what happened with Graham Platner?
I criticized mainstream Democrats for ignoring his history of alleged sexual misconduct and his Nazi tattoo, and now people within my own community have shown me that they are willing to look the other way if they believe they can still benefit from the relationship.
Some people who are unfamiliar with the details have dismissed this as a simple disagreement over strategy, arguing that calling this out and creating internal conflict within the Jewish community is the wrong approach. I respectfully disagree.
When women’s safety is at risk, and the people enabling that risk are men who are our friends, men we warned and pleaded with not to do this – then we have a responsibility to speak out.
This goes beyond strategy. It forces us to ask what our community is willing to tolerate and who we are willing to embrace.
These past few days have been incredibly painful, particularly for many of my female colleagues who work in media and public diplomacy.
What we have witnessed is that, in a post-October 7 world, there are still people who are willing to look the other way when it comes to allegations of sexual assault if they believe there is something to gain from it.
That realization has been truly heartbreaking.
The writer is the co-founder and CEO of Social Lite Creative, a digital marketing firm that specializes in geopolitics.