The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
67 Northwestern University Law Faculty on Hamas Massacre
[UPDATE: I removed the list of signators, as a few of them have related to me that they intended the correspondence in question to be "private within the NWU Law" community. I'm not sure how an email circulated to hundreds of people by email was expected not to "leak," but I have agreed to their request.]
It's hard to get law professors, who tend to be prima donnas, to sign on to anything, so kudos to to the organizers of this letter.
One of the faculty signators, Prof. Kate Litvak, submitted the letter to the Northwestern University student newspaper, which declined to publish it. Instead, it chose to publish a letter by nine arts and science professors who described themselves as "scholars of the Middle East and North Africa." The letter, which you can google but I won't link to, includes: "To condemn Hamas's attack while ignoring this broader context is to fail to understand how we got where we are today. Decontextualized declarations dismiss Palestinians' struggle for rights and self-determination. They neglect the root causes of today's violence." I guess the good news is that the authors couldn't find many any actual experts on MENA to sign. For example, of the the nine, two are art professors, and one is an English professor.
Anyway I was thinking of reprinting the Northwestern letter here, but the editorial decision of the school newspaper made the decision easy. Streisand effect it! (Note: I've heard that some faculty declined to sign because they thought the letter was insufficiently strongly pro-Israel and anti-Hamas.)
TO: Northwestern Pritzker Law School Community
FROM: Concerned Faculty
RE: Terrorism in Israel
On Saturday, October 7, Hamas terrorists perpetrated the greatest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust. The massacre took the lives of over 1300 peaceful civilians of many nationalities, including at least 20 Americans. Many children were among the dead. Adjusted for population that would be about 45,000 deaths in the U.S., or fifteen 9/11 attacks in a single day.
Celebrants at a music festival were gunned down without mercy. Homes were invaded by gunmen, who used explosives to ensure there would be no survivors. There was no military purpose to the attack, only the goal of murdering as many Israeli civilians as possible. The terrorists posted videos of their barbarous acts. Over 100 hostages were kidnapped and taken back to Gaza, evidently including two women from Evanston.
These events have affected many students and faculty, of all faiths and backgrounds, in the Northwestern Pritzker community. In Israel, 18 students from our partner Tel Aviv University are among the murdered.
As faculty members dedicated to the rule of law, we choose to make clear that we unequivocally condemn Hamas's wanton acts of terrorism, which have made the establishment of a just peace, recognizing the human rights of every community, all the more difficult to achieve.
Some have claimed that the Hamas atrocities must be blamed on Israel. What Hamas perpetrated was unspeakably evil. It is dehumanizing to blame the murders on the victims. We absolutely reject such acceptance, and near-endorsement, of terrorism.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Meanwhile, also Chicagoland, a six year old boy killed, his mother wounded, for being Muslim.
Yeah. That is sad.
It does seem like it is quite common for national news, especially if it involves ethnic conflict, to trigger particular individuals in the United States.
In this case, as with many others, it sounds like the news triggered a person who likely had a mental illness.
https://www.newsweek.com/illinois-man-stabbing-palestinian-child-1834854
The story indicates that the landlord had been previously friendly to the boy he stabbed:
And when they apprehended this guy, he wasn’t fleeing, but sitting there in silence. He refused to speak to law enforcement about what he did.
I am not a psychologist and even if I was, I wouldn’t be able to diagnose this guy without examining him. But it sure does sound like a mental illness at play here.
Ultimately, when there are dramatic instances of ethnic violence, you are probably always going to have some mentally unstable people who are triggered by the news. Advocacy groups always try to make this into something about hate or something like that, but I think it is more about individual mental illness probably. There doesn’t seem to be any bigger lessons for society here. The alternative of not reporting factual events or censoring the horror of such events can’t be on the table because the public needs to know what has happened in order to form intelligent opinions on policy responses.
In contrast to this guy, the members of Hamas who slaughtered Israelis we’re likely motivated by ideology rather than mental illness. In that case, talking about the problem being “hate” is likely more accurate (even while not being the whole story).
It would be nice if people weren’t like this. But at least a significant subset of humans are like that. Ultimately, humans are quite capable of being extremely vicious and it is quote ugly when they are.
The alleged perpetrator is being charged with a hate crime which is appropriate.
No, it isn’t. He killed a little boy. If he’d done it just because he likes killing little boys (and not because of the boy’s ethnic background), he’d be just as culpable, the crime would be just as heinous. I’d get rid of “hate crime” laws.
Take a look at the mug shot and tell me the man is sane.
I strongly agree with Ed. Motivation isn't important. In fact, calling it a "hate crime" distracts from the real crime and sends us down unproductive pathways of 'us vs them' instead of understanding the real roots of individual crimes. The entire concept of "hate crimes" should be abolished.
I agree as well. It's really a sick idea, and diminishes the seriousness of murder, to posit that it somehow becomes worse if the killer "hates" them while they're at it. Isn't murder necessarily hateful? If not, then does this mean it's more excusable if you have a supposedly loving motive? Jesus may have taught that hating your brother is tantamount to murder as a matter of the heart, but it's not illegal to hate someone.
Yet. "Liberals" and "progressives" are working hard to change that.
Intent is *always* a part of the calculation in homicides though. If you have a premeditated plan to kill someone and carry out that plan, you're guilty of first degree murder and can receive the harshest penalties available under the law. If you negligently kill someone, you're guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the punishment is much less severe because you had less of a criminal intent to cause harm the victim. Intent is a legal spectrum and we punish it with different levels of severity.
So what's wrong with harsher punishments based on the perpetrator's intent to kill or harm a victim based on an irrational hatred of the victim's demographics or immutable characteristics? It's just another type of criminal intent. It might be redundant for the worst 1st degree murders out there, but for lesser crimes like 2nd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, it can increase the range of penalties available.
There is nothing wrong with society saying "Discrimination based on certain characteristics of a person are irrational, harmful, and outside the control of the person being discriminated against but within the control of the person holding the discriminatory views. Therefore, to deter people from acting on and causing harm to others based on discriminatory impulses, killing someone for a discriminatory reason should carry greater criminal culpability than killing someone for a non-discriminatory reason."
No, hatred is not “another type of criminal intent.” Intent just means you intended to do a certain action and obtain a certain result. Of course intent is an integral part of criminal law. If I stupidly fire a pistol in the air and kill someone by accident, that’s different from killing them on purpose.
Hate is not an intent. Hatred might be a motive. A motive can be evidence probative of intent, but it’s not intent. Motive is not an element of any crime, and I don’t think there has ever been different punishments based on motive until the invention of hate crimes.
Hate itself is an emotion in the mind, even if a poisonous one that may produce bad acts. To punish someone for hating is essentially a form of policing thought crime. Perhaps you will argue that some thoughts/emotions should be policed. But setting that aside I still disagree that murdering someone for a so-called “non-discriminatory reason” should be somehow considered less irrational or harmful, nor should it be lessened or partially excused in any way, that is just appalling, and it is inherent in your formulation in the last paragraph.
I would also be generally skeptical of things that give the government more latitude such as increasing the “range of penalties available.” This invites abuse and arbitrariness. It is preferable to strive for neutral and fair equal application. Similarly, I am skeptical of laws that draw racial, ethnic, religious or other dividing lines, like hate crime laws do, or that invite government officials to draw such lines or take disparate actions expressly based on such categories.
There may be a different sort of utilitarian argument for hate crime laws, perhaps in hypothetical circumstances where there is great tension and animosity between groups it might be argued that cross-group incidents caused further violence or catastrophic social effects and therefore justify a higher level of deterrence. This wouldn’t overcome objections in my view nor stand on its own, it would be punishing one person based on other people’s hypothetical reactions and responses, and suffers from the usual critiques of utilitarian reasoning.
First, I didn't say "hate is an intent," I said discriminatory intent is an intent. Discriminatory intent is dealt with in the civil law context every day (employment, fair housing, education, etc.). There's no reason why it can't also be applied to the criminal law context as well.
Second, you seem to think "hate" is an element of hate crime laws. "Hate crime laws" is just the colloquial name for it though. The government doesn't have to prove anyone "hated" anyone else, just that the accused committed the crime BECAUSE OF the victim's traits. In other words, they intended to cause harm to a particular person or group of people *based on* perceived traits, i.e., discriminatory intent. It's not criminalizing thought though; you still need to commit the underlying criminal action to be charged with it.
Now whether the government should have so much discretion in sentencing is a whole different discussion. But I'll say there are probably just as many examples of people getting screwed because a judge's hands were tied and they didn't have discretion in sentencing (such as three strikes laws).
Finally, punishing one form of a crime over another doesn't "excuse" or "diminish" the other. The distinction between a "discriminatory" killing and a "non-discriminatory" killing is no more arbitrary than distinguishing between a "premeditated" and "non-premeditated" killing. Both have legitimate policy rationals. For example, discriminatory killings can often be intended to instill fear in the targeted group. It's not a necessary to prove at trial, but it's a legitimate policy reason to justify the difference in the law.
You've just re-labelled motive as "discriminatory intent".
Well done.
Hate crime laws do not "draw racial, ethnic, religious or other dividing lines." Hate crime committers do.
We punish criminals for both the effect they have on their direct victims and the effect they have on others. If you assault me on the street because you think I stole your girlfriend, that injures only me. (I mean, hopefully my friends and family are upset, but they're not directly injured.) But if you assault me on the street because I'm Jewish, that both injures me and terrorizes the entire Jewish community.
I used to disagree with "hate crimes" legislation, but have come around on the line of thinking you outline.
I'd add that we also view the victim's status as an aggravating factor in many cases. Killing a police officer, for example, is viewed as worse (in terms of eligibility for the death penalty, for example) than killing a plumber.
"Killing a police officer.. is viewed as worse.. than killing a plumber."
And now killing a black person should be viewed as worse than killing a white person? Or maybe vice versa? Even though hate crime laws do not say that, they can be applied in that way.
Intent, yes. That is both relevant and reasonably inferable from objective evidence.
The hypothetical reason behind the intent, no. That is neither relevant nor reliable.
Intentional murder is bad. Intentional murder because you irrationally hate people whose names begin with B is no less bad than intentional murder because you irrationally hate people whose skin is a different color.
The lobby for people whose names begin with B would like a word...
Intent is *always* a part of the calculation in homicides though.
Are you new to the English language? "Intent" and "motive" are two different words that mean two very different things.
My objection is that "hate crime" isn't something they ever prove. Instead they look at the victim, compare his tone or sex partner choice to that of the accused and viola, hate crime but only in one direction. Then there is the fact that including a "hate crime" in the charges predisposes the jury against the accused.
Better to just leave it off all together.
"but only in one direction"
Do you have any data on this? Anecdotally it seems like there is bias in the application of these laws.
Of course he doesn't have any data on it. But I have anecdata: one of the only two cases on hate crimes laws to reach SCOTUS was about a black perpetrator, white victim.
The alleged perpetrator is being charged with a hate crime which is appropriate.
Why is it appropriate? Please explain to the class how murdering someone because you "hate" one of their attributes is worse than murdering someone just because you're an evil piece of crap who likes to kill innocent people?
Everyone knows hate crime is much, much worse than joy crime.
because claiming that it is all mental illness might get him off.
And, the alleged perpetrator has been arrested and charged.
And, no one is having a march or demonstration in support of his crime. No one is writing letters to newspapers saying "we need to look at the root causes of this criminal act".
Can't say that about the Left's supporters of Hamas and their genocidal activities.
Right. The perp here will be dealt with like the criminal that he is. No one supports him. He will face significant jail time, unless he is found mentally unfit.
Unless????
Assuming he did in fact kill the boy and commit attempt murder of the mom, he will die in custody.
Mentally unfit to stand trial for murder just means he will be civilly committed for life; found guilty but mentally ill same result or he will go to a hospital for treatment, regain fitness to stand trial, and then be found guilty of murder and spend the rest of his life in prison.
Given his age, this is a foregone conclusion. His life is forfeit.
I'll pretend I'm a Moose-lum and use their arguments back on them
1: It didn't happen, where are the photos??!
2: He deserved it due to years of Oppression his side inflicted on our side.
3: If you prosecute his killer we'll ish-yew a Fa-Twat on all of your people!
Forget it Jake, it's Chicago, 450+ murders so far this year and that's the one people care about?
Frank "First thing we do, kill all the Hamas"
Meanwhile, also Chicagoland, a six year old boy killed, his mother wounded, for being Muslim.
Yes, in a country of nearly 340 million people. Are you suggesting that as an indication of some general societal condition?
Killing people indiscriminately is definitely a general societal condition in Chicago. Nothing to do with Muslims. For some reason it doesn't get talked about.
Killing people indiscriminately is definitely a general societal condition in Chicago
28.6 for every 100,000 people in 2020 according to Google. Hardly a general societal condition.
And it is talked about plenty. And I don't just mean deflection attempts from right wing tools.
28.6 per 100,000 per year is just over a 1% chance every 35 years of getting murdered. That's a little high for my tastes.
On the other hand, very little of it is "indiscriminate".
28.6 per 100,000 per year is just over a 1% chance every 35 years of getting murdered. That’s a little high for my tastes.
And that's the rate spread out over the entire city of Chicago. Depending on which part of the city you live in your odds of not being murdered are FAR worse.
This is the ideal approach for dealing with speech we don’t like. Counter it with speech you do like.
People are generally fair. Not every single person, of course. But in general, when you see a person or group advocating a bad idea, there is no need to do much more than counter the speech.
Of course, when it comes to life and death issues, no one should be faulted for being extremely disgusted at speech that does seem to excuse evil behavior.
But we can be better people by having confidence in the power of reason and persuasion. One way of looking at these cancel culture crusades is not just from the perspective of people who are targeted. But also the people doing the targeting.
Are we spending too much energy worrying about the importance of stupid ideas? I am not saying that we completely ignore such things. I believe what many people are trying to do by being aware is to prevent the next Holocaust or the next communist mass killing. I think these sorts of events took people by surprise, and some are seeking to ensure we are never surprised again.
But, that said, I think we should really on the marketplace of ideas to do most of the heavy lifting. I don’t think acts of censorship are the only thing standing between us and terror. We should prefer speech and debate. Because once you start shutting that down, you probably start partially shutting the learning process down.
There is no obvious or even good solution to this, but the problem, in general, with confronting antisemitic speech with "good speech" is that the Russian Empire, followed by the Nazis, followed by the Soviets, joined by several dozen Arab and Muslim countries, in the last 100-plus years have devoted massive state resources to promoting antisemitism. The free marketplace of ideas wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem...
Forget antisemitism for a minute and ask what four cultures had/have in common -- fascism. The Nazis were known to be fascist, but the Soviets were too, as were the Czarist Russians, and as is most of the Arab world today.
It's the close mindedness and mandated conformity of fascism that leads to antisemitism (and other bad things). By contrast, Jews are tolerated (and loved) in cultures that are products of (and hold the values of) the Western Enlightenment. Those are countries that respect the individual and the individual's inherent right to be different.
Compare the American and French Revolutions -- while the American Revolution was Locke's "Life, Liberty, & Property" (individual rights), the French Revolution was "Liberty, Equality, & Fraternity" (collective rights). A couple of hundred years later, which country is more friendly to Jews?
What I am trying to say is that as important as "good speech" is -- and it. is -- equally important are the Western liberal (small "l") values.
Well put.
In the case of the French Revolution, the new government certainly demanded conformity and exhibited close-mindedness and lack of respect for the individual and the individual’s inherent right to be different. Quite aside from their "war" on the monarchy and the aristocracy, they basically declared "war" on believing Christians (Catholics).
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0268028656/reasonmagazinea-20/
People tend to forget that the latter is why "religion" was included in the First Amendment.
Most states at the time had an adopted (official) church -- in New England it was the Puritan Church (which became the Congregational Church), Pennsylvania was Quaker, Maryland was Catholic, Virginia was "fallen" Anglican, etc.
The concern was that a big state (i.e. Massachusetts or Virginia) would impose its religion on the other states -- that each state would be allowed to maintain its own faith. Massachusetts did so until 1855...
…and he does it again!
‘It’s the close mindedness and mandated conformity of fascism that leads to antisemitism’
Anti-semitism existed for centuries before fascism – it’s one of the ingredients that went in to the creation of facism, along with hypernationalism, militarism, conspiracy theories, a sense of victimisation, resentment and siege mentality, xenophobia, and veneration of a strongman leader. It was also a core element of the beliefs of the KKK and an often overlooked element in the Red Scare hysteria.
‘Those are countries that respect the individual and the individual’s inherent right to be different.’
It is to laugh.
Finally, some moral clarity from academia. Took long enough - only a week-plus.
Kate Litvak and Bernard Black, moral beacons
Carry on, clingers
Jerry Sandusky ladies and germs, "Carrying on"
You do know what they do to people like you in Gaza, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan...????
Frank
They salute an American culture war winner?
Not quite, actually more like what happened with another Anti-Semite, Mel Gibson, in "Braveheart". If they're feeling especially merciful they'll just throw you off a building.
Frank
LOL, Meat.
Remember, your Betters are watching.
And, taking notes.
...before it was posted on the VC.
You're determined to find that elite higher education is 'lost' to antisemitism, so not too surprised you're not working hard to find evidence that might disabuse that narrative.
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2023/war-in-the-middle-east/ for instance.
Actual Jews at the left-leaning Wexner Foundation are not impressed. https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/business/wexner-harvard-hamas-israel-antisemitism/index.html
Wexner is cutting all ties and funding to Harvard after 26 years of collaboration.
They can retreat to Hillsdale, Liberty, and Regent, which is where all disaffected right-wing culture war casualties will eventually huddle for warmth, awaiting replacement.
Leslie Wexner? Another moral beacon.
Carry on, clingers.
Jerry, quit acting more like a disgraced College Foo-bawl Coach, now I get you can't count to 21 without taking your pants off, but for the Eleventy Gazillionith time,
it's "K-lingers" with a "K"
Frank
The inability to condemn barbaric atrocities is a sign of moral rot. That moral rot exists alongside intellectual achievement does not detract from the moral rot. The Nazis had very advanced scientists.
Lets see, Krauts invented the Jet, Ballistic Missile, Methadone (developed in 1937 in Germany by scientists working for I.G. Farbenindustrie AG at the Farbwerke Hoechst who were looking for a synthetic opioid that could be created with readily available precursors, to solve Germany's opium and morphine shortage problem.) Problem is they always have to make things to complicated, their King Tiger Tanks, looked great but got beat by simpler (and more numerous) Shermans,
Frank
When Les Wexner (and Alan Dershowitz, and Bill Clinton, and Ehud Barak) stand with you, who could possibly stand against you?
When you stand with protestors chanting "Gas the Jews" then that's a clue you are on the wrong side.
The dozens of people who did so should indeed be ashamed.
it's better than nothing
Pretty easy to find it Sarcastr0; see Professor Bernstein's response.
Which of course indicates nothing about Harvard being 'lost.'
The point is you foreground students saying nonsense in support of Hamas and ignore all else.
That's some strong confirmation bias and creates the illusion schools are just hotbeds of hating Israel. In reality, like so much else, it's a mixed bag.
More mixed than I'd want, but that's not the same as the stark picture you paint.
More mixed than I’d want...
You have a gift for understatement.
"that’s not the same as the stark picture you paint"
Ha! Looking to academia for moral clarity.
What next ... looking for advice on business ethics from the Biden family? ... guidance on etiquette from Trump? ... freedom of speech from China?
Shame on the student newspaper, good for the faculty. This is the sort of statement we should be seeing.
That said, it's unsettling when I see people attempting to "adjust" the death count for population. I've been seeing that a lot, including in the comments here.
Human lives are not valued based on where they live. Americans are not worth less than Israelis even though there are more of us. Humans are not valued by the market such that scarcity and oversupply affect our worth as people.
But while it's a troubling trend, the statement at face value is solid and clear. Hopefully the student newspaper gets some backlash for their moral failure.
I think the adjustment is to try to get an appreciate for the scale of the attack as far as its impact on the country that was actually attacked. This wasn't some minor little attack, it was a major attack that affected basically the entire populace in some way. I don't think American lives are worth less just because I'm trying to understand the impact on other people.
As one who "adjusts" death tolls in teaching about the horrific carnage of the first Civil War, I do it to put it into a perspective people can understand.
Your point is well taken,though.
It reflects the impact that the deaths have on the community. If there's a car crash and 4 students from your 2,500-person high school die, that's a tragedy, but it's going to have less overall impact than, say, 4 kids dying from the 10-person church youth group.
Ah. Too bad your hypothetical high schooler didn’t have ten close friends or family members, but if we found one that did, the impact is at least as large as someone who had only met ten people.
Most people in the US didn't know any victim of 9/11. Just about everyone in Israel and many US Jews knew people who were victims on 10/7
My wife's cousin, a US Jew, knows 3 [likely] hostages.
The circle of grief is just far larger in Israel It has nothing to do with their worth or value.
That said, it’s unsettling when I see people attempting to “adjust” the death count for population.
That's because you're clearly ignorant of the purpose of those adjustments. Here's a hint: It's NOT about valuing lives based on where they reside or how many there are of them.
Just confirms Dave Wooderson was right.
“Yeah, man, that’s where all the girls are right? But I’d just as soon keep workin’, though, keep a little change in my pocket. Better than listenin’ to some dipshit, doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talkin’ about, anyway!”
went through college in 12 straight quarters (OK, not counting that 1 Semester at FSU, following in the footsteps of my favorite Door, Jimmy Morrison) couldn't get wait to get out of there. Med School was even worse. Till this day I can't sit in a classroom more than 10 minutes without getting the Heebie Jeebies.
Frank
See? In context, killing children is not so bad. I'm sure, if you'd asked him, Hitler would give you all kinds of "context" to justify the Holocaust.
"Gas the Jews" -- chant heard at a pro-Hamas rally in Sydney Australia.
Like their Body Odor isn't bad enough.
Can either of you (or Prof. Bernstein) really not comprehend the fact that the quoted section of the statement doesn't say or imply that we shouldn't condemn the Hamas attack? Or that "...killing children is not so bad" is a total straw man? Are you really so focused on your narrative that you can't understand written English?
Anyone who dares bring up the fact that there is a larger context to consider here - as indeed there always is in every situation - is an antisemite or a Nazi. But dumbing down a discussion in order to score partisan points is the order of the day here.
So why don't you give us the "context" on the Holocaust?
Actually, Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" head of the PA already did it for you two months ago:
Guess the Northwestern students can crib his speech for their next letter.
I think it's great that you're hijacking the Holocaust as an excuse to kill lots of civilians, a bit of ethnic cleansing, maybe, and, to hear some of the more extreme gobshites, actual genocide. Just awesome.
People do study and discuss the context of the Holocaust all the time, you know. They call it trying to learn from history.
Let's see. 1000 pro-Hamas demonstrators chanted "Gas the Jews" a week ago. Hamas itself promises to wipe out every Jew in Palestine, at least. Who exactly is hijacking the Holocaust?
As for Holocaust studies and the "context," there is a big difference between studying history and justification. Let me know when you can find a Holocaust studies curriculum that tries to justify it.
The whole "context" is just a weasel word for "we excuse the mass killing of Jews, but we don't want to get caught out on that, so we are using a euphemism." We see through that attempted obfuscation.
Promoting a new Holocaust is vile and must be opposed. Using the Holocaust to justify some atrocities of your own is just as ignoble. Same with the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It can be used to justify things that cannot be justified, but if you don't try to understand it you haven't a hope of ending it, or mitigating the damage.
Context is history. This is just history you don't want to acknowledge.
Dude, you'd be complaining about shooting Nazis in 1944.
Its Jews fighting back that really bothers you.
It’s Israelis and Palestinians caught in a seemingly endless conflict that bothers me.
It's really unfair to expect higher standards from a first world country than from a backward religious extremist terrorist cult.
Congratulations on explicitly admitting having a double standard.
I think that if Israel were nestled in between France and Germany, like Luxembourg is, they'd rightly come in for criticism for the way they behave. Like you'd sic the HOA on a neighbor in your toney gated community who embedded broken bottles in the top of the concrete wall around their backyard, and kept a bad tempered rottweiler.
But instead they're in a very tough neighborhood, and are the nicest guys on the block, maybe too nice for their own good. It's easy to forget, because it's hardly reported, but every country they border on has already largely finished up their genocide of Jews, and is working on polishing off the last of their Christians. While Israel has a substantial Muslim population, because they're NOT genocides.
They are probably about as nice as is survivable in the Middle East, and maybe then some, as the last week's events demonstrate.
Brett, do you think 'with great power comes great responsibility' is elucidating a double standard?
Anyone who dares bring up the fact that there is a larger context to consider here – as indeed there always is in every situation – is an antisemite or a Nazi.
There is zero reason for bringing up context with regard to an act that is so fundamentally barbaric and completely unjustified by that context, unless you're attempting to lessen the barbarity of it.
But I'll bite: Please tell the class how context needs to be taken into consideration when evaluating the beheading and burning of children, gang rape and murder of women, etc.
There is zero reason'
There is every reaon. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to hide things.
'Please tell the class'
At a bare minimum, I expect who Hamas are how they came into existence and what their aims are are pretty relevant.
Relevant toi what. Certainly not for the Simchat Torah massacre.
Wuz, please tell me how my comment implies context needs to be taken into account when evaluating Hamas' actions. This is exactly what I mean about not comprehending English. Context needs to be taken into account if one is serious about stopping the conflict permanently. Hamas' actions are evil, period. No need to use context to evaluate them.
This is exactly what I mean about not comprehending English.
Physician, heal thyself. Here is the quote under discussion:
“To condemn Hamas’s attack while ignoring this broader context is to fail to understand how we got where we are today. Decontextualized declarations dismiss Palestinians’ struggle for rights and self-determination. They neglect the root causes of today’s violence.”
The claim here being that the “Palestinians’ struggle for rights and self-determination” are the actual “root cause” of what’s happening right now, as opposed to Hamas’ (and others’) hatred of Jews and stated dedication to their destruction. You don’t burn and behead children and gang-rape women as part of a “struggle for rights and self-determination”. That’s motivated by pathological hatred and blood-lust, fueled at least partially by religious fanaticism. The alleged struggle is just an excuse, as illustrated by the fact that the destruction of Israel has been a goal of many in that region (including many Palestinians) ever since that nation has existed.
'See? In context, killing children is not so bad.'
No. In context, killing children is a lot more common that people like to admit.
This would be more convincing if anyone cared that Israel has been intentionally targeting and killing kids for years and years. Apparently, those killings are just fine in context.
"Palestinians' struggle for rights and self-determination"
Genuine question maybe I'll regret asking but what "rights and self-determination" do Palestinians lack that they are struggling for?
If you really are genuinely curious, this short video gives a pretty good introduction to the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWG7JB9saE4
The short answer: all of them.
So Israel literally rules over Palestine like a conquered territory and has authoritarian rules deciding how they can go fishing, how much everyone can eat, how much electricity and water they get, etc, and they imprison them and don't let them leave so even if Argentina or Sweden or Iran would let them come there, Israel doesn't let them leave? How do they enforce all of this, they have a presence inside Gaza? Or is this the sort of communist thing where you demand that someone provide food and water and then if they don't, pretend that is the same as preventing you from having food and water?
Regardless, all the other stuff in the video certainly sounds bad.
"where you demand that someone provide food and water and then if they don’t, pretend that is the same as preventing you from having food and water?"
It is not that, no. Israel affirmatively uses its government's power to prevent Gazans from acquiring food and water, as well as other basic necessities. It does this in large part by enforcing a blockade, making it so that Gazans cannot import much of anything. As the video discusses, they let in the bare minimum amount of food to keep people alive, and no more. The blockade also makes it very difficult for Gazans to buy building materials or medical supplies. When Gazans try to build water treatment or electricity generating facilities, Israel bombs and destroys them. As a result, there is very little clean water in Gaza, and the average person has about 4 hours of electricity per day.
If Gazans try to leave, they are blocked by a barrier. If they approach the barrier, Israeli soldiers shoot them.
As to Israel's presence in Gaza, it is ubiquitous. It is impossible to sleep at night without hearing the buzzing of Israeli drones patrolling the skies. Every few years, Israel conducts a bombing campaign in Gaza. Supposedly these are meant to target Hamas fighters, but in reality, far more children die than militants. These operations are so routine to Israelis that they refer to them as "mowing the lawn."
So if I am a humanitarian organization, or just a merchant, I can't cruise up to Gaza on my ship to give away or sell food and water, or anything else? Israel would restrict that? Is there any air traffic? I can imagine that the land route is more of a problem.
And if I do pull up on my ship, can Palestinians come aboard and travel elsewhere in the world (as long as those other places permit it)? Or does Israel not let them leave?
About the bombings, is it true that Israel gives advance notice of where they will target? And is it true that Hamas uses Palestinian women and children as shields and congregates them around their locations?
As a general matter, no. Israel enforces the blockade by sea and air as well. You could not bring your ship to Gaza to transport Gazans out. It would be intercepted in the Mediterranean by Israel's navy. That certainly applies to merchants and any commercial activity. I believe it also usually applies to humanitarian organizations too, though I think exemptions are made for them on occasion.
Now tell us where all the foreign aid money the world gives to Gaza goes?
Correct.
Correct. Would and does. Israel is worried (for very obviously good reason) about Hamas smuggling in weapons, so it does not allow the free movement of goods into Gaza via ship. If you're a humanitarian organization, you can bring your goods to Israel for inspection, and if Israel is satisfied that there's nothing being brought in, then it can be delivered via one of the land border crossings.
No. Gaza's only airport closed decades ago.
Maybe Gazans need to hold an election to get a new government which cares more about its own people than killing Israel's civilians?
I hope they do, though I'm not aware of a mechanism to make that occur. In the meantime, though, Israel ought to stop imprisoning and torturing 2 million people, just because a plurality chose wrong 17 years ago. Living with a boot on one's neck does not generally foster a spirit of moderation and civility.
Perhaps the palestinians might rid themselves of a Judeocidal terror group (Hamas) to lead them. That would be a good start. Fortunately for Gazan civilians, Israel will take care of that problem for them as Israel has formally declared war and will now proceed to obliterate Hamas within Gaza. There will be civilian casualties. That is what happens in war. The IDF will do what they can to limit civilian casualties. Their blood is on the hands of Hamas. I wish it were not so.
For the foreseeable future, the IDF will be busy killing every member of Hamas they can find. Hamas members have been offered surrender as an option. Of course, their 'honor' will stop them from surrendering. Suits me; I won't lament their violent deaths at all. Were I advising Israel, I would advise expanding the 'Hamas Hunt' worldwide, as a long-term goal.
What happens post-war is anybody's guess. But Oslo (two states), disengagement, and conflict management are now off the table; these policies demonstrably failed. It is telling that neither Egypt nor Jordan want palestinian refugees; no country who hosts palestinian refugees ever extended the invite twice.
What to do with a people who have been taught from the cradle in their schools and mosques that Judeocide is perfectly legitimate, and desirable? Let's not forget, last Sunday, the streets were filled in Jenin, Nablus and other palestinian population centers with Hamas supporters handing out candy to children to celebrate the Simchat Torah pogrom. Hamas' actions had widespread support in Judea and Samaria - not just Gaza. I don't know how that can be undone, or if it ever can be. I don't think it can.
"There will be civilian casualties."
That does tend to happen when you bomb hospitals.
"I wish it were not so."
Somehow, I doubt that. You're one of the freaks on here that have been fully torqued at the idea of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This phony-somber bullshit fools no one.
"What happens post-war is anybody’s guess."
Not really. It's actually pretty foreseeable what will happen if Israel doesn't change course. If you keep 2 million people in a hellish prison, they will continue to revolt. If somehow the operation is a complete success and you kill every current member of Hamas (never gonna happen, but hey, let's just assume), the next group of people treated as subhuman will find a new banner under which to fight.
The only way out would be for Israel to radically reconsider the human dignity of the Palestinians. I hope they do so, but I am not optimistic.
We will see what caused the initial explosion at the hospital. I think many people will expose themselves as fools with the instant accusations (at Israel, of course). There is video footage of a missile fired in the area that failed at about the same time. There will be satellite and surveillance footage. We'll know, eventually. Personally, I think Hamas (or another Judeocidal terror group - PIJ?) managed to murder some of their own human shields. They were innocent civilians; their blood is on the hands and heads of Hamas. I just wonder what caused the secondary explosion that killed a lot of those innocent civilians at that hospital. Hint, hint...it wasn't oxygen tanks. You don't think Hamas would ever do anything like hide an ammo cache on hospital grounds, do you? Naaaaah. No way! I mean, it is not like Hamas ever hid missiles and armaments at UNRWA schools in Gaza. Oh wait...that actually DID happen. My bad.
Israel will rid Gaza of Hamas since the palestinians seem unwilling to do so.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/763/875/7ab.gif
Israel isn't imprisoning any of them, any more than the U.S. is "imprisoning" Mexicans when it stops them from crossing the Rio Grande.
This would be a really compelling analogy if the US blockaded Mexico, preventing it from importing goods Mexicans wish to buy, and limiting the supply of food, water, and medicine. And if it bombed Mexico’s water and electric infrastructure to keep them poor and helpless. But since it does not, this is actually just specious bullshit.
You're the one spouting bullshit, from what I read.
What would make it a really good analogy, though, is if Mexico were routinely bombarding the US with missiles, and sending in suicide bomber to blow up daycares.
You really, REALLY want to elide the reason Gaza gets treated like this, don't you?
You mean like an actual invasion type scenario, not the semantic nonsense you usually post about?
Going to be very difficult considering half of them are children and the city is on the verge of collapse.
...from all of the tunnels Hamas builds?
So Hamas made it impossible to have effective governance and a safe city life but its the responsibility of the Gazan kids to overthrow them.
Nice lie you are spouting, Tell us will the 1.3 million adults don't undermine Hamas
Maybe this time the Israeli government will think twice about supporting Hamas or anything Hamas-like.
So, it's OK if "the NWU Law community" knows that you oppose the killing of children, but you're too embarrassed to let the wider world know that about you? WTF?!
Came here to say this. "I have a pair, but SHHHH -- don't let anyone else know!" suggests they weren't all that excited about signing in the first place.
Feel free to sign your name in public, Mr Brian [ ].
Hmmm. If only the original signatories had posted their thoughts under aliases on a pseudonymous message board rather than signing their actual names to a letter distributed to others, you just might be on to something!
Or that afterwards they started getting death threats from the sort of people who might actually carry them out.
"I guess the good news is that the authors couldn't find many any actual experts on MENA to sign. For example, of the the nine, two are art professors, and one is an English professor."
Okay. So there is a lot wrong with this. First,its is incredibly uncollegial, and more than a little galling coming from a guy with a JD (more on that in a bit). Second, there are not two art professors on the letter. Art history and art are separate disciplines. I would expect an "academic" to know that, especially one trying to do a critique of expertise! Now lets look at the credentials of the people you say are not "actual" experts in the Middle East.
Rebecca Johnson: "Rebecca C. Johnson is a scholar of comparative literature with a specialization in modern Arabic literature and literary culture. Her research focuses on literary exchanges between Arabic and European languages in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the history and theory of the novel, and studies of transnational literary circulation and translation."
Sounds like she's pretty well versed in middle eastern literary culture. Experts in literature of a culture, particularly modern literature, tend to be pretty well-versed in the politics and society of a region!
Now lets do Professor Feldman:
Hannah Feldman, Associate Professor of Art History: "Hannah Feldman is Associate Professor of Art History and core faculty in Middle Eastern and North African Studies as well as Comparative Literary Studies.
Art history is a key component for understanding a regions culture and politics!
Michael Rakowitz is an Iraqi-American artist. Okay I can give you that one I suppose. But he presumably speaks and reads Arabic. Do you? It's not on your CV. Nor is any other Middle East expertise language or otherwise.
While we're on it lets look at your credentials generally: BS, Brandeis University; JD, Yale University. Hmmmmm no expertise in the middle east there. "Teaches Constitutional Law, Evidence, and Products Liability. " Hmmmmm nope not there either. So what makes you more qualified to opine authoritatively on Middle East politics than them? You do this regularly with a pretense of authority, and yet don't even speak Arabic
Professor, you are a law professor with a JD. You have a three-year degree in reading case excerpts in casebooks. That's all law school is. Blogging and punditry doesn't give you the same level of knowledge of a culture as those who study it deeply. So I don't think you're in a position to be saying who is and isn't an expert in the Middle East when at least two of the three have vastly superior credentials to you in this regard.
Arab Terrorists kill their own people with their own weapons. Israels fault!
The Ground Invasion might not happen (might not need to) like with Amurican Inner Cities just let the animals kill each other, then kill whoever's left.
Seriously, wasn't it an Egypt Air 747 a pilot crashed intentionally because he'd been arrested for indecent exposure and it was just a matter of time before he was fired (even Egypt doesn't tolerate that)
Frank
It is inexplicable that anyone genuinely interested in Israel would align with theocratic, immoral right-wing belligerence in Israel, let alone try to make support for Israel's right-wing belligerence a left-right divider in American politics.
The practical consequences of siding with the losing side of America's culture war, the wrong side of history, and the lesser side at the marketplace of ideas seem predictable.
I do not understand why anyone who genuinely cares about Israel (this excepts most of America's religious right) would follow this path, but I acknowledge the right to do so. It's their funeral.
So the left decides whether to condemn atrocities depending on which team it helps? Sounds like moral rot to me.
Yeah, professor, stop dressing like a tramp and you won't get raped.
OK, you've convinced me. Every single person celebrating / justifying the 10/7 Hamas massacre must be arrested forthwith!
Did you even read what he wrote?
What do you think the Founders meant by "Pursuit of Happiness"?
Hint: The Founders explained themselves in other writings at the time. They meant the preservation of property rights necessary to seek that happiness. Dr Ed is exactly right that the Founders were strongly influenced by the Lockean view of individual rights.
Jefferson did change “property” to “pursuit of happiness” and he did it because he lived in the era of property qualifications for voting and he wanted to make it clear that EVERYONE had these rights, not just the wealthy. People forget about this, but not only did you have to be White, male, and over 21, but you also had to own a certain valuation of real estate in order to vote.
So Jefferson changed the term, much as we have changed the term “Rights of Man” to “Human Rights” to make it clear that women have them too.
Property qualifications had been eliminated by the 1860s and hence you see Locke’s “Life, Liberty, or Property” returning in the 14th Amendment.
Jefferson was also a champion of the "Yeoman Farmer" and honestly believed that there would always be land on the frontier to be settled -- he never dreamed that the frontier would close less than a century later.
Yeah...it's more of the "right wing" "left wing" thing over there.
EVERYTHING is a right wing left wing thing, eh, Rev?
It's amazing how your small worldview transports unchanged, unmoved, across the globe, across cultures and varied histories, perfectly suited to EVERY SITUATION.
Yes, Rev...do tell us what is a "clinger."
All the arguments from the right at the moment are that civilian deaths in Gaza are acceptable. How's that for accepting atrocities that help one side?
Nice try, again. That is collateral damage from a justified military operation. Which, as I pointed out to you yesterday, is entirely the fault of Hamas for using its own population as human shields. And preventing some of them from fleeing the danger zone.
Really, are you such an imbecile that you don't understand the difference? One party deliberately targeted civilians and engaged in the most brutal and despicable acts, including raping women, beheading infants, and killing parents in front of their children.
The other side tries as hard as it can to avoid civilian deaths while it attempts to neutralize those who are responsible for the first act.
So, no, your attempt at moral equivalence is obnoxious. And, BTW, what you suggest is not the way that any other nation on the planet behaves, including the United States after 9/11. So apparently it is only the Jews who have to simply accept atrocities aimed at them.
You do realize that Israel is coming off months of left-wing protests over radical right-wing policy proposals...
There's quite lot of left-wing right-wing thumbwrestling going on over there.
Wrong again.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shoot-maim-how-israel-created-generation-crutches-gaza
Both sides target civilians and kids who pose no threat. Israel isn't as bad as Hamas, but that's not saying much.
collateral damage from a justified military operation
This covers a multitude of sins. Because it is at this point quite declared that Israel is not trying 'as hard as it can to avoid civilian deaths'
‘is entirely the fault of Hamas for using its own population as human shields.’
The Israeli bombardment of Gaza in the last week doesn’t strike me as precison-targeted at Hamas operations. Seems more like any civilian is fair game because there might be a Hamas member hiding behind them.
‘The other side tries as hard as it can to avoid civilian deaths while it attempts to neutralize those who are responsible for the first act.’
The difference is that the people who deliberately target civilians seem to have a relatively small civilian body count – their most recent atrocity being a genuinely shocking outlier – compared to what the civilian-death-avoiders have and are racking up.
‘So, no, your attempt at moral equivalence is obnoxious’
It’s not really an equivalence per se, because the dynamics and outcomes are completely out of whack, but I don’t deny it’s obnoxious to people rightfully horrified at one set of civilian deaths but accepting of other, far larger civilian deaths, but I can’t help that.
‘So apparently it is only the Jews who have to simply accept atrocities aimed at them.’
Pre-Iraq saw the largest anti-war protests the world had ever seen. The Afghan and Iraq wars were criticised and condemned by people every step of the way. So, if objecting to hideously wasteful and counter-productive military responses is what you mean by ‘accepting atrocities,’ no, it is not just Israel, who do not embody and/or represent ‘the Jews.’
"Israel is not trying ‘as hard as it can to avoid civilian deaths’"
It is indeed. Specific warnings for buildings, general warning to evacuate north gaza.
Pick a side, dude.
Who's the rape victim here, the 500 people killed in the shelling of a hospital? Were they all dressed like tramps?
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-17-23/index.html
Trying very hard.
Pick a side, dude.
This is a telling statement. Nothing we didn't already know about Bob, but he's really letting it all hang out.
Ask Hamas, it was their rocket.
We all know where your heart is, you should follow it.
According to the IDF. Don't you think they might have an incentive to lie about blowing up a hospital? Especially on the eve of a Presidential visit where he will be pressing for a measured response?
Sure it was.
Where's that Bob? Where's my heart?
I'll tell you where its not: its not with killers of children. Hamas. IDF. Doesn't matter. It's morally wrong and I won't support it.
Now what about you? Stop being a coward and answer a question for once: do you feel bad about these deaths yes or no?
Also seriously: is your answer my heart shouldn't be with the dead victims (kids) buried beneath the rubble of the hospital? is that really want you to say?
What about your heart Bob? Is it not with the dead Gazan kids? Do you spare a thought for them? Can a person be moral and spare a thought for them? Are you going to claim no one can morally grieve for dead hospital patients?
I mean can you even pretend to feel bad? Just pretend for once. Jesus.
It may well be! But I'm not going to trust IDF to tell the truth on that.
There are videos.
That the IDF posted. Again I may be wrong. Now back to you: yes or no no matter the outcome do you feel bad or grief or any semblance of human emotions regarding these deaths. Yes or no.
There are independent videos.
"Again I may be wrong. "
indeed you may be and very probably are
Okay: and this makes you feel…come on you can do it
So it looks like you were probably right about it being a Hamas misfire. Now that I've conceded: do you feel bad about child deaths in Gaza yes or no?
Nige appears to be trusting Hamas to tell the truth on that...
We should wait until we know with greater certainty.
In any case, the reason I have respected Israel without ever taking their side is because, historically they have certainly not "trie[d] as hard as [they] can to avoid civilian deaths". Yes, they truly have been victims of horrific terrorism, but for whatever reason they also tend to retaliate indiscriminately. Whether it's shooting street rioters or bombing residential neighborhoods, that's just how they roll.
Eventually, Israel's right-wing nuttery will -- and should -- cost Israel the support of the United States of America.
I hope Israel changes course severely and soon. Away from superstition-laced government. Away from immoral right-wing belligerence. Away from occupation, dispossession, and annexation.
If not, fuck 'em.
… he says, as he immediately proceeds to talk about something people don't forget about.
The initial claim that it was an Israeli strike came from an Israeli spokesman.
Anyway, a propaganda war has broken out over it, so we’ll have to see how it shakes out.
yes, i feel bad. No, that does not mean that I let children as human shields stop me from eradicating Hamas