Defense of Hamas Brutality By Seven University of Michigan Law Student Organizations (UPDATED)

[Originally posted on October 13. In light of the updates, I am reposting this and moving it to the to the top of the Conspiracy.]

This was circulated to the law school community on Monday [Oct. 10], so no excuses about it being an initial visceral reaction to be re-thought as a scope of the massacre became clear. I have the entire statement, which I am happy to share, but for now I just want to present the first paragraph. I don't really have words to describe how disgusting this is. It's both morally appalling and wildly dishonest at the same time:

Palestinians in Gaza are fighting against the Israeli colonial entity on an unprecedented scale. So far, they have bulldozed barbed wire and walls that have kept them trapped as hostages in Gaza, the largest open-air prison in the world. They have captured Israeli occupying soldiers and retaken some of their land from Israel. This guerilla warfare, although not without a steep cost to Israelis and Palestinians, is the first instance of Palestinians fighting occupying Israel in recent years. Despite Palestinians understanding the brutal reaction of the Israeli regime, they remain persistent in fighting for their life because in all actuality, the war has been ongoing for the past seven decades. As one Gazan poignantly said, "Today, we will either be free or be killed, and either is better than being caged."

Here are the student organizations that sent it.

Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP)
Black Law Student Association (BLSA)
Muslim Law Student Association (MLSA)
Middle Eastern and North African Law Student Association (MENALSA)
National Lawyers Guild (NLG)
Res Sista Loquitur: Women of Color Coalition
Students Taking Action for Racial Solidarity (STARS) Executive Board

[UPDATE: Following immediate pushback from the Jewish Law Students Association and I'm sure others, BLSA retracted its endorsement of the statement within a few hours of it being circulated. STARS retracted its endorsement the next morning.

RSL provided a clarification: "We appreciate and recognize the nuance of the Israel-Palestine conflict, its impact on both communities, the significance of the atrocities impacting civilians, and the unprecedented grief amongst the Jewish community. As such, we cannot emphasize enough that as an organization, students, and humans, we are vehemently opposed to - and do not condone -violence. As a signatory, we sought to acknowledge and support Palestinian liberation. In no way did we aim to hurt our peers."
SJP, which drafted the letter, essentially reaffirmed its statement. I'm going to reprint its entire reaffirmation after the fold.

After SJP's reaffirmation, MLSA spent most of its follow-up decrying Islamaphobia and racism. It did not retract its signature, and instead condemned all recent violence against civilians, equating Hamas's barbaric massacre with Israel's military response: "Consistent with our historical stance across the years -we, as Muslim members of this community, unequivocally condemn all acts of violence targeting innocent civilians with the hope that this condemnation serves as a lasting commitment. This includes the recent violence against civilians at the hands of Hamas and the IDF. To assume otherwise is unsound in its reasoning and rooted in disturbing racist ideologies. It is self-evident, yet the presumptions made against our humanity speak to the extent of Islamophobia on this campus."

Thereafter, MENALSA weighed in: "The MENALSA board would like to clarify our position on the recent discourse. It's very easy for us to condemn the violence perpetrated by Hamas against Israeli citizens. We apologize for staying silent on this issue, we certainly did not mean to imply approval for, or celebration of, acts of terror."

After the fold is SJP's followup statement. If you read it carefully, while the email stats that SJP's words were "distorted to imply that we condone violence against innocent civilians," you will not find any specific criticism of Hamas's Oct. 7 orgy of violence against innocent civilians, nor, for that matter, any clarification that SJP considers Israelis civilians to be "innocent civilians," an important omission given the trope in Palestine Solidarity circles that no settler is a civilian, and all Israeli Jews are settlers.

And as one student responded:

Your words were not distorted they were simply read. You said "captured occupying Israeli Soldiers" "guerrilla warfare" and "only now that they feel the consequences of their own racist colonial actions that the one-sided war has become two sided" then finally "The unprecedented resistance by Palestinians from Gaza did not happen in a vacuum. Rather this is the response of people pushed beyond endurance for years."

All those statements you made directly after a terrorist attack by Hamas that targeted, killed, and captured hundreds of civilians. The logical conclusion anyone who reads your words reaches is that you consider the attacks this weekend to be guerrilla warfare, consequences, and resistance. I want to add special emphasis on the captured occupying Israeli soldiers comment as those captured were not soldiers, but civilian's including children, and foreign nationals.

Here is SJP's followup statement:

Caitlin Doolittle <[e-mail]> [Bonus irony: while an undergrad student at U. Penn., Ms. Doolittle was an "Anti-Violence Educator."]

To: lawopen <[e-mail]>

To the Law School Community,

Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:30 AM

Let us be clear: our organization's very existence is about ensuring that all people, Palestinians and non­ Palestinians alike, are free from bodily harm, violence, and oppression. No one rejoices in the loss of life. Palestinians deeply feel your pain. For almost every day for 75 years, Palestinians have watched their children, mothers, and families be attacked, mutilated, and murdered. This is precisely why we call for the full recognition of rights for Palestinians whose lives have been devalued under the occupation and apartheid of the Israeli-settler colonial state. The fact that our words were distorted to imply that we condone violence against innocent civilians is unconscionable and done in bad faith.

We are appalled that individuals have chosen to read our message as a glorification of the murder of any civilian. There are two important questions we now ask you to consider: 1) whose deaths cause you to feel rage, and 2) who do you direct that rage to?

The events of this weekend in Gaza and the violence that is coming are not things that happen in a vacuum. The root cause of all rights violations in Palestine and Israel is the settler colonial structure of the Israeli State and the resulting apartheid and blockade Israel has imposed on Palestinians. Israel has been suffocating the people of Gaza by turning off their electricity, cutting off their water supply, bombarding residential buildings en masse, and deploying banned chemical weapons. Israel is now depriving Gaza of electricity. Palestinian hospitals have no power and Palestinians who have done nothing but exist are unable to access medical care under the consistent bombing and the incoming IDF incursion in which every restriction is revoked. There remains no way out of Gaza. In a nation in which mere Palestinian existence is seen as a threat to Israel and dehumanization of Palestinians is key to Israeli politics, this is undeniably a license to continue ethnic cleansing.

We therefore reaffirm our statement that the only viable way to end the violence in the region is for Israel to end the systematic discrimination against the Palestinian people, treat them as equal citizens with freedom of movement, and allow Palestinian refugees the right of return to their homeland. We will not back down from this stance that has been supported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner, and many other reputable human rights organizations.

On another but related note, what has occurred on lawopen has been disappointing, harmful, and incredibly alarming to various members of the law school community. The mass, unquestioned lslamophobia is deplorable, and the selective recognition of humanity is reprehensible. There have been analogies to 9/11, Palestinian people have been likened to "animals," and the entire "Muslim world" has been demonized. We have seen time and time again what follows when we dehumanize an entire group of people in this way, and it's distressing that some of our law school peers felt comfortable spewing this rhetoric. We are deeply saddened that a community that should strive for justice has chosen to attack LSJP and other organizations attempting to achieve it.

Free Palestine.

LSJP]

Comments

[SimonP]

*cue tiresome discussion about how "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences"*

What say you, David? I realize you're more focused on blacklisting law students who engage in wrongthink - you're a good soldier! - but I'm curious how many civilian Palestinian deaths and how much suffering would be considered a "proportionate" response to Hamas's (admittedly shocking, terroristic, and unjustifiable) attacks.

That is the question so much of this finger-pointing at student organizations seems designed to avoid.

[David Bernstein]

You appear to be as much of a moral reprobate at these students, and as such I have no intention on further engagement.

[David Bernstein]

I accidentally marked a reply alas spam, but I wouldn’t want regular readers to miss this: Martinned 58 seconds ago Flag Comment Mute User I have no desire to defend these students, or to engage in some kind of discussion about the distinction between explaining something and justifying it. But I am amused that it took all of four minutes for Bernstein to confirm your point by cancelling you.

[Jacob Grimes]

You're wrestling with pigs. It's not worth it.

[SimonP]

I am a “moral reprobate,” exactly, how? I have no problem denouncing Hamas’s actions as terroristic and unjustifiable attacks on many innocent Israelis. I also have no objection to Israel responding with proportionate military force to bring those terrorists to justice (or death, if necessary). I also find the excerpt in the OP to be another ham-fisted attempt to comment on the situation that omits any acknowledgment of the basic evil of Hamas’s actions and can be read to be an attempt even to justify it.

I have no problem acknowledging all of that. My only complaint is that – yes, here is another awful statement by another group of law students with more opinions than sense, and I hope that they can be convinced that (i) this is not the way or time to express the sentiment that they want to express and (ii) in the future, they would do well to think a little bit more about how their future colleagues and clients would view a statement like this.

But do we have to talk about every one of these? Do we have to engage in this public campaign designed to silence any kind of dissension? Do we have to use VC as a platform to try to doxx and blacklist law students?

You accuse me of being a “moral reprobate,” but as I’ve mentioned before, your penchant for using this platform to single out law students for attack, to try to harm their employment prospects, is not only unseemly for an educator of future lawyers, but could in some cases be deemed tortious. I’m sure the only reason the OP doesn’t list individual student names is that the only signatories to the statement are the student organizations. You’ll wait for commenters down here to come up with the student rosters.

As for my moral standing – as I said. I don’t feel the need to repeat the same somber moral truths that everyone else is repeating endlessly. I instead see the need to stand apart from our collective mantra and observe where that mantra is bound to lead us. And, in this, you only help to confirm what I am saying about it. You are falsely calling me a “moral reprobate” simply because I refuse(d) to engage in the same somber ritual that you insist must be observed.

And yet, where do we disagree? Is it that I do not say what you think I must say? Or is it because we must not utter any concern for the innocent Palestinians caught under Israeli fire? Am I a “moral reprobate” for opposing war crimes, no matter who commits them?

[Jacob Grimes]

Nah, Bernstein's right. To bring up proportionality is absurd given the brutality of Hamas' actions (how many proportionate rapes and beheadings should the IDF perform, I wonder?), and like a few other posters over the past few days, to make no distinction between aggressor or defender, or decry the refusal of Israel to supply enemy territory with food and electricity as somehow uniquely barbarous and not a normal, logical response, is simply tiresome and transparent.

[SimonP]

Another vote for "war crimes good," I see.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, exactly how long do you think they'd permit you to live?

[SimonP]

The only thing stopping you from killing me or my ilk is the means and the opportunity. Suffice it to say that living with the modern "we are all domestic terrorists" MAGA movement has inured me somewhat to this tiresome "gotcha." It might have more purchase if you weren't constantly on here calling for civil war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, I have both means and opportunity -- YOU'RE NOT WORTH IT!!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Vote"
Something that doesn't exist in Gaza. When was the last time the people of Gaza expressed their support of Hamas via an election? Answer below:

In the Gaza Strip
Main article: Governance of the Gaza Strip

Following the Fatah–Hamas conflict that started in 2006, Hamas formed a government ruling the Gaza Strip without elections. Gazan Prime Minister Haniyye announced in September 2012 the formation of a second Hamas government, also without elections.

[SimonP]

I'm quite aware. I'm aware, also, of the Palestinian Authority's rampant corruption and incompetence, of Hamas's failure to do the job of government even within Gaza, etc. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.

Civil society in Gaza was dysfunctional, long before Israel started bombing it to dust. They have a high poverty rate, incredibly high unemployment, and really very little hope that anything will change any time soon. Those conditions make it fertile territory for militant organizations with links to the Iranian network of resources and support. Which is why we should have been working harder to do something about those conditions. More Israelis and Palestinians might be alive today if we had.

[iowantwo]

Those conditions make it fertile territory for militant organizations with links to the Iranian network of resources and support. Which is why we should have been working harder to do something about those conditions.

Arabs have been seeking the extermination of jews for 2000 years, and you think getting them all jobs will fix them?

[Drewski]

And I haven't seen Israeli war crimes, just people imagining their every act as a war crime and predictions that they'll commit them based on the fact that they're Jews.

[ReaderY]

Claiming there is no proportionality in these circumstances is not just a demand for the death of more Jews before they will be permitted to defend themselves. It’s a cleardeclaration that NO circumstances will permit it.

The United States responded to 9/11 by invading and occupying Afghastan simply because it hosted the leader and key bases of the 9/11 terrorists. Israel’s civilian losses are far more severe than the U.S.’s after 9/11.

9/11 makes clear that a complete occupation with widespread loss of civilian life on the attackers’ side after a massacre on this scale is not merely proportionate. It’s downright customary.

The only reason Israel is being singled out and treated differently here is a belief that while all human life is proportionate, some lives are less proportionate than others. To claim a reaction similar to the U.S.’s after 9/11 isn’t proportionate is to proclaim you think that Jewish lives are less proportionate than other lives, indeed you think they are worthless.

[Martinned]

9/11 makes clear that a complete occupation with widespread loss of civilian life on the attackers’ side after a massacre on this scale is not merely proportionate. It’s downright customary.

It was also illegal. It was the US doing exactly what art. 2(4) of the UN Charter forbids: using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state.

Israel is in no way being singled out. It is being asked to obey the Geneva Conventions that it itself ratified, and customary international law that applies to everyone.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/customary-international-humanitarian-law/indiscriminate-attacks-rules-1113/D2D77629D8C7B37CF4CB507BE364531B

[ReaderY]

Yes, during the 2014 war Hamas supporters bullshitted that Israel was indiscriminately targetting civilians and gave numbers that counted every Hamas fighter killed as a civilian.

Look, even Hamas realized that what it did in 2014 didn’t work. It changed its tactics this time. Yet here you are offering nothing more than the identical propaganda line. Let’s put morals and concepts of truth aside, they’re irrelevant to your thinking anyway. Have you considered the possibility that this might not be very smart? Shouldn’t you be at least a little concerned that, having been outed as a liar before, recycling the same identical discredited bullshit again now, might hurt your credibility and cause?

Or are you simply supremely confident that Americans have no memories and will be willing to believe anti-semitic myths about Jews, regardless of any prior or current facts? You might be right about that. After all, Southerners successfully repeated the myth of black people as rapacious savages well into the 20th century. Perhaps you are banking that the same will prove true of Americans and Jews.

[David Jay]

Correct. A lot of apologist words to rationalize a lot of viscerally morally repellant behavior by Hamas. Hamas has taken billions and realized per capita GDP less than Haiti's. This is not an oppressor (Israel has created success out of a hostile desert), it is malingering. The same runs through the fake-injury difficulties Hamas has created in all other ways. Why is the Middle East so barren, except where hydrocarbons flow free? It's not because of anything but this foolish, backward culture.

[zztop8970]

You need to read a little further down, to article 51.

[Toranth]

As usual, you have no understanding of what the Geneva Conventions or the traditional "laws of war" actually require.

You might want to read up a little on what "proportionality" and "reprisal" mean. And what, exactly, Israel is permitted to do under those conventions and the laws of war to an enemy party that deliberately uses its military to target civilians, and then hides its troops out of uniform among a civilian population.
Hint: It's a hell of a lot more than Israel is doing - or even what Hamas is accusing Israel of doing.

[Don Nico]

"proportionality"
Most people do not understand that concept in international law. I strongly recommend the piece by David French in today's NYT, that explains the concept in Jus in bello very clearly
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/opinion/israel-hamas-isis-gaza.html

[Mr. Bumble]

pay walled.

[SimonP]

Some of us pay for quality journalism. Where do you have subscriptions?

[Mr. Bumble]

Implying that the NYT is "quality" journalism confirms your lack of judgement.

[SimonP]

Where do you pay for "quality journalism"?

[Nige]

Billionaire cranks pay for it for him.

[SimonP]

@Nige: I do kind of wonder if Mr. Bumble's complete non-response is better interpreted as an admission that he doesn't pay for news, anywhere, or doesn't bother reading anything that qualifies as such.

"News? I'm not so gullible as to believe any journalistic source. Instead, I form my opinions on the basis of whatever headlines happen to come to my attention across the various websites I peruse."

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, you're called "Suckers"
I've heard there's one born every minute.

[Martinned]

In another thread I recommended this blog post, which includes reflections on both the law and the morality of what Hamas did and what Israel is doing in response. (And no, I'm not endorsing every single statement in this post.)

https://www.ejiltalk.org/our-shared-horror/

[Don Nico]

Speaking of Hamas' view of morality.
Has anyone heard Hamas offer to trade hostages for electricity, water, medical care, etc. for the citizens it "governs"?
Why not? Because they want all blame from their fellow travelers to fall on Israel.

So let's keep our ears open for offers from Hamas to help the ordinary Gazan. Better put on super-duper hearing aids, because we not going to hear a peep.

[David Bernstein]

The paragraph I posted had nothing to do with proportionate response, it was solely defending the Hamas massacre. No reason to let them threadjack.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Whatever excuses you offer, the truth is you either can’t answer the question, or you’re embarrassed to publicly answer it.

Chalk the “Professor” down as a vote for “kill them all.”

[Nige]

'To bring up proportionality is absurd'

It's actually the most important thing to bring up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Do we have to use VC as a platform to try to doxx and blacklist law students? "

Yes, we do.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

They're not even being doxxed. They're quite open about who they are and what they're saying/doing.

[Frank Drackman]

They all look the same, so there's that.

[Aunt Teefah]

Anyone who believe that Palestinians are human beings with human rights will necessarily be deemed a “moral reprobate” by these people. You should welcome their hatred.

[Don Nico]

You really don't get it. I doubt that you ever will. No one said that Palestinians are not human beings but 1 million adults chose Hamas terrorists to be their government, to indocrinate their small children with hate, to use them as human shields. I'dsay that you are the one who does not see Palestinians as humans but rather as pawns in a game of hating and killing Jews.

[Commenter_XY]

They are willfully blind, Don Nico.

[Randal]

No one said that Palestinians are not human beings

Commenter_XY 4 days ago
The actual translation from Hebrew is ‘human animals’, not ‘barbaric terrorists’. Both fit.

Go for it ToxicMale, argue that "human animals" are still "human beings with human rights."

They are willfully blind

It seems that Aunt Teefah was seeing things quite clearly, whereas you're so blinded by hate you don't even remember your own rhetoric from Monday.

[Martinned]

How many?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#Results

[Don Nico]

Alas,
That is the price of democracy. And since 2006, where is the clamor for new elections?
Is it suppressed by Hamas? You bet it is.
Gazans are imprisoned by their government.

[shawn_dude]

Which makes it hard to hold them responsible for Hamas' choices even while reasonable responses to Hamas' actions in Israel will place (even more) innocent Gazans at risk.

[Don Nico]

Physical perils of Gazan civilians is exactly what Hamas wants. That is why Hamas is urging Gazan citizens to stay in place and remain as human shields. To the extent that they follow the orders of Hamas they are no longer innocent, but have become active enablers

[Sarcastr0]

To the extent…

https://www.theonion.com/dying-gazans-criticized-for-not-using-last-words-to-con-1850925657

[Absaroka]

That's kind of a non sequitur, Sarcastro. Don Nico said "To the extent that they follow the orders of Hamas".

The Israelis should try to spare noncombatants to the greatest extent possible, but those noncombatants will suffer greatly no matter how hard the Israelis try.

The German/Italian/Japanese civilians suffered horribly, whether they supported the wars their countries started or not. Having artillery dropping on your neighborhood is just unimaginably horrible. But when your government starts a war and loses, you will pay a price. The US/Britain weren't going to just surrender to prevent civilian deaths in Axis countries.

If the Israelis do to Gaza what the Soviets did to the people of Berlin, those are war crimes and I will be first in line to condemn them. But I'm not expecting that, and I doubt you are either.

[zztop8970]

A very clear majority

[Toranth]

Huh, once again Martinned shows he cannot read.

Hamas got about two and a half million votes, when you combine the parallel proportional and district voting. It's right there in the table you linked to, yet you were unable to see it. Or chose to lie about it.
Incompetence or malice; who knows which one?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Do we have to use VC as a platform to try to doxx and blacklist law students? "

Yes, we do.

I was denied access to the only law school I could afford because I had offended some people, and for far FAR less than this! Fair is fair, these schmucks deserve to pay as well.

Furthermore, am I the only one who is noticing the Domestic Violence overtones in her email -- the "she deserved it" and "she made me hit her" stuff?

Correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure someone will) but wouldn't a few domestic violence convictions define one as not moral enough to practice law? So how is it different here? She's essentially saying that Israel deserved it because her skirt was too short,

And it's not just doxing these schmucks deserve -- if they weren't born here, they need to loose their citizenship. DEPORT THEM!!!!

[YehoshuaK]

The concept of proportionality is that you must not use more force than, in sound military judgement, is needed to achieve legitimate war aims. It has nothing to do with "do not inflict more pain upon the enemy than he inflicted upon you."

In the current case, the legitimate war aim is the destruction of the terrorist organizations Hamas and its allies. Since that aim has not yet been achieved, it is obvious that Israel has not exerted more force than is needed to achieve it.

[Don Nico]

The "open air prision" is the government built by Hamas by the choice of its citizens. HAMAS not Israel is the jailor. In any responsible government, the police and government officials would be out helping the citizens during and after air strikes. No, Hamas is nowhere to be seen.
Gazan men wail to cameramen that there is no one to help them. Of course not. The Hamas terrorists are in hiding.
As for the children, Hamas fills their heads with hate from their earliest years robbing their innocence from them
As the siege continues, Gazans need to turn on their Hamas jailors. Then their misery might end

[Mr. Bumble]

You neglected to mention how all of the aid to Gaza went to Hamas and was used to buy weapons and build tunnels to house their terrorist operations.

[Aunt Teefah]

Just utter nonsense. Hamas does not enforce a blockade against the Gazan people. Hamas did not build a wall around Gaza, and shoot thousands of people who approach it. Israel did that.

Hamas is a prison gang, yes. But to claim they are the jailers is beyond absurd.

[Don Nico]

As I said; you are blind ed by your hatred of Jews.

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, you're right, the only reason I could possibly object to 2 million people being savagely imprisoned in inhumane conditions is because their jailers are Jewish.

What an unserious lout you are.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize Egypt was a Jewish state

[Aunt Teefah]

Do you actually think this is some kind of gotcha? Yes, I oppose al-Sisi and Egypt's part in keeping the Palestinians trapped too. You are a clown.

[Commenter_XY]

Better a clown than an antisemite.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Wow, really? He doesn't agree with Israel's treatment of Palestinians, so he's an antisemite? From you I'd expect that kind of mindless psychobabble, but I'm a little surprised by Don, who is usually more thoughtful.

[Don Nico]

AD,
Please be careful of what you read into my comments.
I would be happy to go through a litany of unconscionable actions of the IDF against Palestinians. But those to not justify wanton, genocidal, terror.
I fully expect Israel and a civilized nation to respect the jus in bello. However, I also expect that Hamas will act against the best interests of Gazans to put them in harms way every moment so that Hamas retains its human shields.
The situations of past injustice and declared war against a genocidal enemy are not parallel.
I hope that is thoughtful enough of a clarification.

[Nige]

So if criticism of Israeli policy regarding Gaza implicates all Jews, then all Jews are implicated in Israel’s policies regarding Gaza. I think that might be actual anti-semitism.

'I fully expect Israel and a civilized nation to respect the jus in bello.'

If you fully expect that, it seems weird to push back against people worried about whether they will or they won't, since that is the central concern, and the comment section is full of ostensibly pro-Israeli commenters justifying and even calling for their not respecting any such thing.

'Hamas use human shields' is not a cover for every dead Palestinian civilian.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Don, that's all fine. I was only responding to your accusation that Teefah is "blinded by hatred of Jews." I didn't see anything written that justified such a comment.

[YehoshuaK]

Hamas could at any time have ended the blockade just by agreeing to live in peace in Gaza without threatening Israel. The blockade was not ever meant or aimed at causing pain to civilians. It was always aimed at minimizing Hamas' ability and opportunity to commit genocidal crimes of the sort which they so shockingly and triumphantly committed on October 7.

Yes, the fault here is entirely Hamas'. If not for Hamas (and its various allies and supporters, mustn't forget them), Gaza would have long since been an independent Palestinian state living prosperously and happily next to Israel.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and shoot thousands of people who approach it."

Got a cite for that claim?

[Aunt Teefah]

Sure do!

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2019/02/no-justification-israel-shoot-protesters-live-ammunition

"More than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers, week after week at the protest sites by the separation fence.

The Commission investigated every killing at the designated demonstration sites by the Gaza separation fence on official protest days. The investigation covered the period from the start of the protests until 31 December 2018. 189 Palestinians were killed during the demonstrations inside this period. The Commission found that Israeli Security Forces killed 183 of these protesters with live ammunition. Thirty-five of these fatalities were children, while three were clearly marked paramedics, and two were clearly marked journalists."

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for responding. Hard to understand how there were only 189 deaths.

[Aunt Teefah]

No problem. My understanding is that the Israelis (generally) try to shoot the Palestinians in the legs. As a result, it is now quite common in Gaza to see children and young adults who are unable to walk.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, so the IDF went out of their way to spare their lives....unlike Hamas. Cognitive dissonance much?

[Aunt Teefah]

No, the IDF went out of its way to shoot a bunch of people, including a lot of children, that posed no threat to them.

[Randal]

"Are we the baddies?"

[David Nieporent]

that posed no threat to them.

It takes a particular degree of chutzpah to make that claim at this point in time.

[Frank Drackman]

6,000??
about 2 million less than needed, apparently

[Brett Bellmore]

2018-2019 Gaza Border Protests

Seems rather mixed to me: The IDF didn't open fire until they attacked the border, but there may have been some genuine civilian casualties, too.

[Aunt Teefah]

There is no "border" - Gaza is not a separate sovereign nation. And there was nothing "mixed" about it. Your source says 223 Palestinians were killed and 9,204 were injured, whereas between 4-11 Israelis were injured, and either zero or one were killed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There is no “border” – Gaza is not a separate sovereign nation."

So there's no border between California and Nevada? Wow.

And I guess we found out why they shoot Palestinians who attack the border.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There is no “border” – Gaza is not a separate sovereign nation."

Riiiight. They've "just" got their own government, army, and so forth. Nothing like a separate sovereign nation. Seriously, do you look at what you type before you hit "submit"?

[Aunt Teefah]

So you're saying it is a sovereign nation? In that case, blockading it is a universally-recognized act of war against it, justifying it to wage war against Israel.

Most Zionists are savvy enough to try to thread the needle on that one. I guess you didn't get the memo.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, blockading Gaza would be a universally recognized act of war. So what?

Acts of war are normal during wars, you did know that, right?

"How dare you blockade us, just because we're bombing your territory and sending kill squads to slaughter your people at random! That's an act of war!"

Your position is that stupid.

[Aunt Teefah]

Are you under the impression that the blockade has been implemented in the past week or something? Israel has blockaded Gaza since at least 2006.

[David Nieporent]

Are you under the impression that the blockade has been implemented in the past week or something? Israel has blockaded Gaza since at least 2006.

You mean, since an enemy government whose declared goal is the destruction of Israel took over the place? What a coincidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

Setting aside a rocket attack back in '75, the Palestinians have been fairly regularly bombarding Israel from the Gaza since 2001.

Which means, so what if Israel commits acts of war against Gaza? You're allowed to commit acts of war during a war, and the Palestinians in Gaza have been at war with Israel for better than 20 years now.

Or are you going to argue that bombarding a country's territory isn't an act of war?

[Don Nico]

Teefah is unable to make such distinctions because she does not want to. Her sub-text is that Hamas was justified in the manner of its attack.

[Nige]

See? it’s fine for the IDF to shoot as many unarmed Palestinians as they want.

'Her sub-text is'

No, that's actual text you added on.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If Israel has blockaded Gaza since 2006, how is anyone there still alive?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Was the question too tough for a law professor to provide some kind of response to?

What's the matter David - embarrassed by your response? Is there a number of Palestinian dead that would put Israel squarely in the wrong here, or are you ok with any number of casualties?

I hope you instruct your students to argue better than you do.

[Bored Lawyer]

Is there a number of Palestinian dead that would put Israel squarely in the wrong here, or are you ok with any number of casualties?

Were there enough German dead in WWII that would have put the Allies squarely in the wrong?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You probably think that's a clever retort. Naturally there's a bit of an issue with comparing civilian casualties in an era where it took hundreds of bombers with thousands of bombs to destroy military targets to current technological capabilities.

If that's acceptable to you, then perhaps Israel should just firebomb all of Gaza? We firebombed Tokyo after all. Why should anyone learn lessons about humanity and minimizing collateral damage?

They've already cutoff food, water, and fuel. You can read about the rest if you actually care.

We can learn to do things a better way. Israel deserves to hunt down those responsible, but the reality is that the punishment will fall mostly on the civilians like it always has.

[Bored Lawyer]

In other words, you have no real answer. While technology has improved since WWII, there is no way to pacify a murderous regime other than war, which results in large civilian casualties. Especially where the murderous regime purposefully hides behind civilians, as does Hamas.

My retort showed just how stupid your question was. The assumption of your question was, if some magic number is reached, then Israel would be in the wrong. Mutatis mutandis, that means that if some threshold of dead Germans was reached in WWII, that means that the Allies would suddenly be considered the villains. Yeah, it's absurd. As was the premise of your question. Absurd.

Israel should do what it must to eliminate Hamas. That will, in all likelihood, cause many collateral deaths. It should kill no more than necessary, but to the extent necessary to achieve that goal, it should not hold back one drop. Since 2005, it has made many surgical strikes, but never comprehensively bombed Gaza the way the Allies did to Tokyo and Dresden. So, frankly, your response is more rhetorical BS.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your retort shows that you didn't even consider the question in any context at all.

It was always rhetorical to the extent that a specific number not only varies among people, but isn't even the point. For most people, there is very clearly a limit. Your "as much as necessary" leaves quite a bit to the imagination that you're willing to ignore. The eagerness around here to basically say "kill them all if you need to."

War crimes are already being committed. Do you care? Is there any military response by Israel that you would not countenance?

Now those are rhetorical questions.

[Bored Lawyer]

For most people, there is very clearly a limit. Your “as much as necessary” leaves quite a bit to the imagination that you’re willing to ignore.

Yes. War is a messy, evolving thing. Especially when you are dealing with a Nazi-like regime as Hamas. So, yes, whatever is necessary to pacify and eliminate Hamas is justified. Not one person more. But not one less.

War crimes are already being committed. Do you care? Is there any military response by Israel that you would not countenance?

No, they aren't just another lie by the Fellow Travelers. And, yes, I would not countenance any gratuitous killing of civilians. Neither would the IDF, which has and will punish same.

[Nige]

'Neither would the IDF'

There is no army in the world about which this could be said with such ridiculous confidence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kill them all if needed.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another Fellow Traveler response. You don't understand what "proportionate" means.

[SimonP]

While you, for your part, do not believe that "proportionate" has any relevance to the discussion. You're in the "wipe 'em out" camp. I suppose I tend to err on the "let's stop killing innocent people" side of the equation.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

His complaining that you do not understand "proportionate" shows he understands it; your rebuttal confirms you do not.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another lie. Fellow Traveler.

[SimonP]

It's not a lie. You've outlined your position as "no sympathy for Palestinians," blaming them for having "elected" Hamas many years ago.

Never mind that their alternative was - what, Fatah? That Hamas isn't exactly freedom- or democracy-respecting organization, for Palestinians? You can maybe blame New Yorkers for their own tax burdens, even though a significant portion of New Yorkers vote Republican. But blaming Palestinians for what Hamas is doing is a little insane.

[zztop8970]

No it's not, since they voted for Hamas

[Martinned]

For the avoidance of doubt, there is no legal requirement that the response has to be proportionate to the attack. Proportionality in the laws of war means that indiscriminate shelling that knowingly cause civilian casualties are forbidding unless the civilian casualties are proportionate to the military objectives of the attack.

[Don Nico]

To quote David French's article:
"The U.S. Army’s 'Law of Land Warfare' field manual ... defines the legal obligation of proportionality as requiring 'commanders to refrain from attacks in which the expected loss or injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects incidental to such attacks would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.' ”

[Frank Drackman]

If we went by that the Marines would still be fighting the Japanese

[Martinned]

Exactly

[Josh R]

Because this is now a war, there is no requirement for a proportionate response. Israel's legal obligation is not to commit war crimes.

[Martinned]

Indeed.

[SimonP]

That's all I meant by my use of "proportionate." I hadn't realized that so many would assume that, by "proportionate," I meant to measure the significance of Israel's military response to the attacks inflicted upon them. I meant "proportionate" in the sense of, "the appropriate level of force to achieve legitimate military ends within Gaza."

[zztop8970]

"I meant “proportionate” in the sense of, “the appropriate level of force to achieve legitimate military ends within Gaza.”
That's not what proportionate means in international law. thaks for proving you don't really understand it.

[SomeGuy 2]

Operation Meetinghouse by itself killed an estimated 100,000 Japanese civilians and made about a million of them homeless. Defeating odious regimes always requires attacking the civilian population they subjugate. Nobody likes it, but only Israel is expected to discover the one weird trick to defeat the enemy belligerent without any mess.

And, like with Japan, the end of this war is simple. Hamas can end this war today by offering unconditional surrender. They refuse. If you're troubled by the cost, then take it up with Hamas.

[Martinned]

Operation Meetinghouse by itself killed an estimated 100,000 Japanese civilians and made about a million of them homeless.

For the record, that wouldn't be legal today.

[SomeGuy 2]

You can't target civilians. If you're targeting Hamas, it's just a question of proportionality, nobody expects a total avoidance of civilian casualties. I believe Israel is on the right side of the line, if Hamas disagrees they can file a lawsuit and we'll settle it in court.

[Don Nico]

I suspect that you are correct and that Meetinghouse is very different to the nuking of Hiroshima that transformed Japan from one of the world's most warlike nations to one of the most pacifist in a single day.
My worry concerning North Korea is tht is will reverse that transformation... but that is a separate topic.

[Krayt]

Sure it would. Smashing the economic manufacturing might of an enemy is always a valid goal.

If you wish to maintain that idea, continue to be glad you live in a world where demonization of the enemy is not a useful tool in a monster struggle.

How blessed out military dominance we can afford such airy things!

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas will not unconditionally surrender. And, gauging the mood of the typical Israeli on the street, the IDF is not inclined to accept surrender from any member of Hamas. I am not sure I want the IDF to accept a surrender either, given the savagery of the attacks.

Hamas members will be located, pursued, and then killed. They will not leave Gaza alive. Seems just to me.

[Martinned]

There’s a war crime I hadn’t seen mentioned yet this week: not accepting surrender.

[Don Nico]

I expect that you are correct as long as the act of surrender is manifestly genuine rather than having the trappings of subterfuge.

[ReaderY]

The answer is easy. Assuming one takes proportionality seriously and a Jewish life is actually considered equal, then the Hamas massacre killed proportionately far more Israeli civilians than the 9/11 massacre. So a response merely equal to the American response, which included the complete conquering and long-term occupation of Afghanistan with widespread loss of Afghan civilian life, would be a far less than proportionate response.

A call for a proportionate respose is a call for Israel to significantly increase the severity of what is doing and worry about civilian casualties a lot less then it is currently worrying.

By calling for a proportionate response, this is what you are calling for Israel to do. Strict justice, strict proportionality, would frankly support wiping Gaza off the map entirely.

And if you think that calling for a proportionate response is calling for anything less than that, you are giving away that you think a Jewish life isn’t worth a piece of shit, so you would consider any act of self-defense, any act at all, an unfairly disproportionate act.

[Krayt]

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!"

"For praising mass executions of women and children, you are canceled from future job opportunities, law students."

"WE MEANT THEM, NOT US! Like Trump people or somethin'!"

[loki13]

I agree that this is a stupid and condemnable statement.

That said, look at the signatories. At a certain point, we need to stop breathlessly sending out every single non-baked (because they aren't even half-baked) "statement" dreamed up by a group of students at a college.

Would I prefer that they stuck to traditional dumb student activities, like "drinking beer," and "doing drugs," and "thinking that they can solve the world's problems." Sure. But just because a group of idiot self-organize and self-identify as a student group doesn't mean that they are anything other than idiots.

"Group of misinformed randos at some college send out a statement showing their own ignorance," gets a little old in terms of breaking legal news.

(With that in mind, I do acknowledge, as I did in the other thread, that it is worrying that such beliefs have become more widespread. Disagreement with our ally, Israel, is often used by anti-Semites as an introduction to spread their vile hate.)

[Martinned]

Are people becoming more stupid? Or does the internet just make all of humanity's stupidity more visible?

[Rossami]

It just makes it more visible. But truthfully, not even much of that. If you read the Letters to the Editor in old dead-tree newspapers, you can find the same and more at pretty much every point in history. Even the ancient Greeks complained about it.

[Krychek_2]

The Internet makes it easier for stupid people to find each other.

[Krayt]

That's one damned tight little echo chamber they live in, if they're constantly reassuring each other mass executions of women and children are ok.

[ReaderY]

See my comment below. The advocates of a “free” Germany started small in the 1920s. Nobody gave them any attention. And look what happened. Ten years later they were in that, and ten years after that they were well along to finalizing their solution. They nearly succeeded in creating a “free” Europe before the settler-colonialists stopped them.

[loki13]

Godwin's law.

Look, any anti-Semitism, from the right or the left, is something to be concerned about.

"Stupid college students with an excess of self-importance and a severe deficit of common sense," is not exactly breaking news. Moreover, this concentration on the acts of a few (again, look at the signatories in terms of the clubs ... and you KNOW there is overlap) isn't really breaking news. At the same time, we are also seeing a lot of amazing rallies in support of Israel at many college campuses.

To the extent we are covering these issues on a legal blog (is it? really? still?) I'd prefer to give as much air as possible to the students doing the right thing. And as little as possible to these idiots.

[MaddogEngineer]

But our democracy is in danger from "those people". That's exactly what we're being told, repeatedly, that we risk following Weimar Germany's path.

Godwin's law for thee , but not for me.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
I loved this line: “Stupid college students with an excess of self-importance and a severe deficit of common sense,” is not exactly breaking news.

[ReaderY]

We are dealing with people who actually massecred Jews by the townful, and in fact say they want a Judenfrei Palestine. The conparison is completely justified.

[David Nieporent]

“Stupid college students with an excess of self-importance and a severe deficit of common sense,” is not exactly breaking news

Hey, these are stupid law students with an excess of self-importance and a severe deficit of common sense.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The best of the best law students...

[Brett Bellmore]

Godwin's original law just observed that the probability of a reference to Nazis approached 100% as the length of an internet thread increased. A perfectly legit observation.

The version that says that the first person to refer to the Nazis loses the argument... I wonder if some Nazi came up with that one? Nazis sure would find that version handy.

As it happens, it's hardly possible to discuss Hamas without Nazis coming up. They're a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was in thick with Hitler during WWII. You might as well invoke Godwin's law during a discussion of the SS.

[Krayt]

Comparison to Nazi is hyperbole...unless the comparison is apt, as with the current situation.

[Nige]

'The advocates of a “free” Germany started small in the 1920s.'

Hey, guess who's banning books and college courses, passing laws against trans people and declaring their leader to be above the law? Seems like a bigger start than a damned stupid statement.

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, may I ask a few questions.

Is it illegal for me to look for a complete list of members of the clubs that signed on to that statement; because I want to be sure they will never work in my organization by inadvertently getting hired in the first place? Is it illegal to publish the member lists?

Where do you come out on this?
Would you hire any of these law students in your law firm?

[loki13]

Let's see. I will try my best to answer your questions in order, but briefly.

1. No, it is not illegal to look for that information, assuming it is available in a manner that is publicly accessible and you don't violate laws to try and get it.

2. It is not illegal to publish a list of members. However, if you make a mistake and include someone who is not a member, then you may be subject to lawsuit by that person.

3. I am generally not in favor of doxxing college students because young people are stupid, and hopefully will learn to be less stupid. I would note that these are law school students ... so .... still, generally opposed. That said, if the members additionally ratify it by posting it personally, or disseminating it, sure.

4. No. I wouldn't say that categorically, because people learn and grow, and it's possible that at some later point they will have a better understanding of how to comport themselves .... but I wouldn't want someone with such bad judgment. Anyone who refers to the atrocities that happened in such a manner is not just a person I would have severe issues with from a moral standpoint, but would have severe questions from a professional standpoint in terms of presenting arguments.

[Commenter_XY]

Your #4 really resonated with me...absolutely yes, and on point.

Laughed at this (it is so true) = ...young people are stupid, and hopefully will learn to be less stupid...

[David Nieporent]

I would add to your #1-4 two related points:

1) These are not dues-charging membership organizations, but college/law student clubs. The fact that someone wants to get free bagels (or whatever food Muslim-Americans supply at their gatherings) and signs up to be on a mailing list does not necessarily make him a "member" of anything.

2) Even if someone is legit a "member" — even an officer — that doesn't mean anyone consulted him/her before signing on to this statement on behalf of the student group.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think you make a good point about avoiding guilt by association.

Just because some wicked fanatic claims to be speaking for a student group doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth. Someone capable of defending terrorism would be just as capable of hijacking a student group and pretending that the whole group shares his fanaticism.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'd just ask the candidate to tell me about it.

Their response would guide my response. I wouldn't assume I knew what their response would be (though I could guess, and probabilities being what they are, I'd probably be right).

[bernard11]

Exactly.

And these reports lead to a great exaggeration of the number of Hamas supporters. The other day we had 31(!!) student groups at Harvard issuing such a statement. Thirty-one!! . Why that must be almost the whole student body. Right? no. They were virtually all Muslim groups. We have no indication as to the size of their membership, or how much they overlap. Nor do we know what percentage of the members actually endorse the statement.

For reference, Harvard has total enrollment of about 25,000.

Still, it's a weapon in the culture wars, I guess.

[Absaroka]

"Still, it’s a weapon in the culture wars, I guess."

Perhaps so. OTOH, imagine that after the murder of James Byrd 31 student groups at Harvard issued statements supporting the murderers. Even if they are small groups, and have membership overlaps, I kinda want to know about that. A small problem today can grow into a big problem later.

[bernard11]

Sure.

But you wouldn't go and claim that Harvard students in general, and maybe the university itself, supported the murder, at least not until you knew a heck of a lot more detail.

My point is that this sort of crap is widely used to slam universities, to point out how they lack any morality, etc. when it simply means there are a few morons at Harvard, as elsewhere.

[Ben_]

They seem to welcome evil and give it a comfy, nurturing home.

[Nige]

Dun-dun-dunnnn.

[FivebySixThree]

As if the law profession doesn't have an image problem as is. People tend to view individual lawyers that they work with positively but the profession as a whole is dragged down by events such as these.

eventually the bar and companies specializing in law need to step up and let these college organizations that this is not acceptable and while it is the right of these students to protest that does not protect them from the repercussions of the stances they take nor their words

[Martinned]

I wouldn't say that the legal profession - as opposed to legal academia - necessarily has a reputation for being left-wing/liberal/terrorist-loving/etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Sure, but that’s because you’re a moron.

[zztop8970]

It does in the US. https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/yes-the-aba-is-still-a-left-wing-advocacy-group/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lawyers_Guild

[Mr. Bumble]

Just wondering about the history of these groups. Are they long standing or ad hoc group du jours?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can't speak to law schools, but as to colleges & universities in general, they are both common and redundant, often with overlapping membership.

Hence not only do they have an influence that vastly exceeds their actual numbers, but as each organization receives its own allocation from the student activities fee, they are funded way in excess of their collective membership numbers.

This exists because university officials want it to exist -- if the student affairs profession leaned any further to the left, it would fall over.

[bernard11]

I can’t speak to law schools, but as to colleges & universities in general, they are both common and redundant, often with overlapping membership.

So they have even fewer members than the number of organizations would suggest.

[Kristian H.]

The best part of the social media era is the self identification of terrible people.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sez who?

[David Welker]

I don’t think anything is gained by saying this point of view is morally appalling. Instead of reacting in an emotional manner, I would just point out that Jews once had a state in Israel and around the 1950s, they established one again. Who is the “settler” and who is “indigenous” is thus a matter of perspective. How far back in history are we supposed to go?

Ultimately, I do not believe the idea that ancestry establishes worth is logically sound. Your parent may be very “accomplished” but you may be very “unaccomplished” or vice versa. Furthermore, whether a person should be “measured” by accomplishment is subjective.

The United States was established by conquest. The same is true of every other nation on earth. If you go back far enough, no group is truly “entitled” to anything whatsoever on a moral level. At some point, someone seized a natural resource through the use of force.

The ultimate issue thus is, how can people live and thrive now? How can they get what they need to not only exist, but to thrive? The idea that Palestinians need to harm Israelis to thrive is logically incorrect. In fact, actions to do so will make it harder for them to thrive, because of reprisals.

Ultimately, that is just logic. I am not saying anything about who “really” deserves to be where, which I don’t think is even a logically coherent question if you have a long-term perspective.

The idea that we should just “morally” condemn people isn’t logical. They can just “morally” condemn you back. “You are justifying the stealing of OUR land” or “you are justifying the stealing of THEIR land” depending on the perspective of the person who is making the argument.

If it is just “competing moral condemnation” there is no solution except who has the ability to exert more effective physical force.

As for the assertion that the point of view of these student groups is “wildly dishonest,” I doubt that. They probably really do believe that the morally relevant fact is that the land was “stolen” from the people who were “supposed to have it” and that “resistance” in the form of physical force is justified in response.

Here is the thing, the real problem is not that these people are “morally bad” for thinking like this. I think the assertion that they are “morally bad” is just arbitrary. They might say that killing of non-combatants was “necessary” to achieve their objectives. Just as Israel is going to attack buildings housing civilians, including women, children, and babies when Hamas hides in them will be viewed as “necessary.”

Look at the United States in WWII. When we dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, something that I happen to believe is morally justified, that too killed babies, children, young adults, women, and men. Why was it morally justified? Because those actions likely resulted in less killings overall. Facing a fanatical foe that was willing to “fight to the end” otherwise would have been even more destructive and, ultimately, inhumane. Some similar calculation may be in the contemplation of these student groups.

I think rather than trying to establish “moral self-righteousness” it is better to use reason.

1) Is fighting with each other really a good use of our time? 2) Isn’t war deeply unpleasant and also dangerous? 3) Won’t we all be better off if everyone is able to reach their true potential, based on their abilities?

I believe it is appeals to reason, not moral condemnation, that will actually be effective. Appeals to reason recognizes the equality of the other person or group, whereas trying to establish moral superiority is just a way of establishing a sort of dominance, with all the ugliness that implies. As a sort of primate, we humans actually do like the idea of dominance. That is why appeals to moral superiority are so tempting. But as rational human beings, we can do better.

[apedad]

Not arguing but does this make sense?

"At some point, someone seized a natural resource through the use of force."

"The idea that Palestinians need to harm Israeli’s to thrive is logically incorrect."

In the first statement you're saying force is necessary and in the second you're saying force is not necessary.

[David Welker]

In the first statement, I am saying that force was used then.

In the second statement, I am saying that force doesn't need to be used now if people work together to use reasoning. And ultimately, I am saying that resorting to force rather than reasoning will make life worse for everyone.

I think people like to focus on unjustified use of force in the past, as if somehow moral purity can be achieve by returning to some sort of "pure state" before then. But there is no "pure state" because if you look at the people who occupied the land before that, they or their ancestors took it by force as well. If we play this game, it will never end. So, let's not play this game. Let's play some other game.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Please learn to read. Saying force was used is not the same as saying using force is necessary.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“At some point, someone seized a natural resource through the use of force.”
.
In the first statement you’re saying force is necessary

Are your reading comprehension skills really that abysmal?

[VinniUSMC]

Yes, apedad's reading skills really are that abysmal, and have been on display here for years.

[Longtobefree]

"How far back in history are we supposed to go?"

Maybe to here?
On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates". Genesis 15:18

[David Welker]

Yeah, but not everyone shares that religion.

And the Euphrates is all the way in Iraq. If we took that statement seriously, it would imply Isreali conquest of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, a bit of Turkey, and about a third of Iraq.

That is the kind of moral claim that should be avoided.

[Don Nico]

But Islam is a Mosaic religion

[Krychek_2]

As I said in an earlier thread, I am mostly in sympathy with Israel, but I don't think quoting the Wholly Babble helps. The Flying Spaghetti Monster gave all that land to me, after all, and I'd like some rent out of it.

[SimonP]

I mean, the chain of title has a few gaps since then.

[Longtobefree]

"I think rather than trying to establish “moral self-righteousness” it is better to use reason."

My reason says raping women and killing babies is wrong.
(at any time, anywhere in the world)

[David Welker]

Well, someone may miscalculate that doing these actions would result in a greater good.

The bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did a worse thing to many of the women than raping them. (You might think that dying instantly is better than rape, but for many, the death was not quick or pleasant.) Same for the babies point.

Anyway, maybe they think that fewer women and babies will suffer in the long run if they intimidate their enemies. Of course, as they are about to find out, that is definitely false.

Anyway, I think these actions are gross. Of course, I do. But human beings, in general, have done a lot of awful things. And we need to resort to the use of reason, not moral condemnation, if we are to effectively persuade people to stop.

Like, if you like women and children so much (and you should!), you should want to use the method of persuasion that works. And moral condemnation does not work.

If moral condemnation worked, then there would be an argument for it. Like, if I felt that we could convince everyone to work together and behave rationally through moral condemnation, I wouldn’t be against it. But I think this perspective fails to understand what motivates the people who are being condemned and thus tends to be ineffective as a method of persuasion. Also, where does this process end?

If you want to be persuasive, you had to inhabit the world from someone else’s perspective. And I mean that very seriously. Pretend that you actually believe the nonsense they believe for a moment.

[Joe_dallas]

Adding to Welker's comment-
The dropping of the bombs on hiroshima and nagisaki not only saved lives ( estimated lives saved are somewhere between 1m and 3m counting japanese, american , chinese and korean lives)

The second thing the A bombs help accomplish was destroying the war like culture of the japanese. What has emerged in 75+ years of a peaceful and prosperous country.

fwiw, destroying the culture of hamas and the palestinian people , most of whom support hamas is the only long term solution. Just like japan and WW2, that will save more lives in the long term.

[David Welker]

I certainly think that Hamas has to pay a price. That organization should be totally dismantled and the area pacified.

But how are you going to stop the next Hamas? I think through appeals to reason, not moral condemnation. When people understand that they can thrive without fighting and that fighting interferes with thriving, they will begin to take a different path.

[Don Nico]

" I think through appeals to reason, not moral condemnation."
If only that would work, but 5000 years of history suggest that the idea is doomed to failure

[David Welker]

I think modern history after the enlightenment, when we humans started relying more on reason and less on moral condemnation, has shown the opposite.

Look, reasoning has its limitations. Some people refuse to "play that game" too. But it is the best tool we have and should be our go to tool.

[Don Nico]

I agree that we ought to try. But we cannot be foolishly optimistic when dealing with ideologues.

[David Welker]

Agreed.

[Nige]

If you can get the French and the Germans and the English to get along without killing each other, heck if you can get the Irish and the English to get along without killing each other, you can probably do the same with the Israelis and Palestinians. The problem is that it is really, really hard work and it's easier to just go along with lobbing rockets and reprisals at each other and using those as political capital until something really bad bubbles up like this.

[David Bernstein]

Do you think that the account provided in the paragraph I reprinted is an accurate account of what happened?

[David Welker]

That is an excellent question.

The answer has to be no. Because you can't communicate reality in a paragraph. Further, it has to be no, because it is one-sided. It does not include understanding of the situation from the many more relevant perspectives that exist.

It is horribly incomplete. And I think that is just an objective fact about it. It is not my opinion that it is incomplete, but an objective truth similar to the law of gravity.

Do I think that some people actually and sincerely believe this is a good description? Yeah, they probably do. But that is because they are thinking awfully superficially, right?

[Ben_]

Look at the United States in WWII. When we dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, something that I happen to believe is morally justified, that too killed babies, children, young adults, women, and men. Why was it morally justified? Because those actions likely resulted in less killings overall.

Even if it didn't.

No one fighting any war should say "we're going to let 10 of ours die to avoid having to kill 100 of theirs." Any conception of "morally justified" that might lead to such a decision is unrealistic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Raping hippies at a music festival and beheading babies at a farm commune isn't even guerrilla warfare.

Neither was a legitimate military target, there is no justification for it. None.

Although I ask AGAIN -- exactly what part of "Kill the Jews" do American Jews not understand???

[Ben_]

Can Democrats learn from events?

Until the killers are in the house with you, there’s always an opportunity to make up a story where you’re one of The Good Guys and that’s all that matters. How can people who do that ever learn?

Try saying the non-terrorist side is fashionable. Make civilization fashionable again. Then Democrats will value civilization.

[gormadoc]

The talking point "largest open-air prison" is wrong. If you want areas and/or populations under travel restrictions, extensive surveillance, and generally crappy conditions, Xinjiang, Tibet, Nakhchivan, Indonesian New Guinea, and North Korea are all larger in at least one way.

[David Bernstein]

It’s also incorrect, because for the attack, Israel was allowing Gazans with proper papers to leave through the Aqaba/Eilat, and others could leave through Egypt. Several hundred thousand Gazans have moved abroad since Hamas took power 16 years ago. Thousands more have received treatment in Israeli hospitals.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, it is Hamas who are the jailors. And who are absent now in their citizens' hours of need.

[SimonP]

"It is not true that you are in a prison; after all, with the consent of your jailers, you may sometimes be permitted to leave."

[SomeGuy 2]

It's not the consent of the jailers, it's the consent of other countries who must agree to take the Palestinians. Yeah, you can't travel across international borders if the foreign power doesn't want you there. By that logic, the entire world is an open air prison because Mongolians cannot decide on a whim to relocate to Taiwan.

[Social Justice is neither]

Don't let Ilya see that comment.

[Commenter_XY]

Ilya the Lesser? 🙂

[shawn_dude]

They don't have planes and boats? They're not being kept in Gaza; they're being kept out of Israel. That's not a jail, that's a national border.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, no, they don't have planes (or an airport), and there is in fact a naval blockade as well.

[zztop8970]

They had an airport and no blockade, until they elected Hamas and started a war.

[David Nieporent]

The airport closed before Hamas was elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat_International_Airport

And even if your facts were right, that doesn't refute what I wrote.

[zztop8970]

It refutes the gist of your argument, that they couldn't leave. They could, even by air until the 2nd intifada, and had no naval blockade until they elected Hamas and started a war.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These denunciations would be more persuasive if posted under the name of someone who did not (1) voluntarily associate with a bigot- hugging blog and (2) stand mute with respect to that blog's regular publications of right-wing antisemitism.

[David Welker]

Well, if you aren't able to separate the logic of an argument from the person making it, what does that say about you Kirkland?

I think it says you aren't very smart. You always think your pet project is relevant, when it rarely is.

Also, you make it sound like being "persuaded" is a gift rather than a matter of reasoning. "I am not going to be persuaded by you because I don't like you."

Could anything be more arbitrary, irrational, and frankly, tribal???

You, Mr. Kirkland, do not practice logic or reason. And yet you condemn religion as superstition. I am sure your hypocrisy could be thicker, but not by that much.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was talking mostly about the partisan jackassery and deplorable hypocrisy of the speaker. That he appears to be particularly emotional, unhinged, and partisan in this context is not the main point. It's the selective, partisan, disingenuous nature of the entirety of his communications.

If you wish to try to argue that religion is something other than superstition, have at it, clinger.

[David Welker]

Your words are as follows:

"These denunciations would be more persuasive"

The author's "denunciations" have a persuasiveness or lack of persuasiveness that is unrelated to how you feel about it. He isn't posting about himself, but about external events.

"It’s the selective, partisan, disingenuous nature of the entirety of his communications."

How often do you engage in sincere communication here? But you are calling someone else "disingenuous." Look, I am not trying to be mean. But I think you have some blind spots, like we all do.

Like, I don't know why you can't try a little more sincere approach to communication, one that relies on the reason and rationality that I have heard you claim to elevate more and less on repetitive moral statements that sound, frankly, somehow competitive.

Like, are you here to prove you are morally better than owners of the blog? What are you trying to accomplish?

Look, let me put it this way, if you communicated in a more sincere way, I would take you seriously. And I am sure others would as well.

And let us say that you ARE sincere and not disingenuous. I think then you are being misunderstood. But you can fix that impression if you are inclined.

Like, are you really making good use of your time? Your time is valuable, whether you recognize it or not.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t know why you can’t try a little more sincere approach to communication

Of course you do. We all do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What did you think of Prof. Bernstein's post?

Was it a good use of time, for him or for the reader?

What do you think of his silence concerning rampant right-wing antisemitism at his own fucking blog? Or his silence concerning the incessant, multifaceted bigotry that is a signature element of his blog?

I will understand if you do not wish to answer.

[David Welker]

If you want to know what I think of his post, you can move your eyes to my response above.

And also, you always have an excuse to veer off topic. Which is something I wouldn’t mind if you spent some time on topic as well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bigotry and partisan hypocrisy are the ever present topic at thus white, male, right-wing blog.

Clingers prefer to try to avoid that subject. Mostly because they like (or at least appease) bigots and applaud partisan hypocrisy.

That is part of the reason they do not win at the modern American marketplace of ideas and bring their disaffected whining to this blog.

[Currentsitguy]

I have always rejected the historic claim argument for land. I take a more pragmatic approach. Land belongs to a people if they can take it, hold it, defend it, and govern it. Nothing more.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Except in this case, Israel was formed by the UN, so it doesn't get anymore legal than that. Israel was NOT formed by conquest. The expansions of 1948 Israel were due to the Arabs losing wars of aggression. Also legally justified means to acceed territory. So, no, Isreal does not occupy any land illegally.

[Currentsitguy]

I think the UN act is irrelevant. In 48, 67, and 73 they were able to fulfil all of the conditions I laid it, and indeed managed to expand their territory and hold it. It's probably a difference that makes no difference, but I thought I'd point that out. Had the ships arrived in 48 and the people just stormed off and took the land it would make no difference today.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel's disgraceful record at the UN makes it unlikely Israelis are fans of the "UN makes it right" argument.

[Currentsitguy]

Hence the reason I never used the UN as justification.

Is Kaliningrad Oblast really East Prussia and occupied German land? Granted they are a thorn in the side of NATO but I don't think anyone is making that claim.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I intended to respond to the other wingnut but nested my comment improperly.

[Currentsitguy]

No worries.

[Martinned]

There's a treaty that says that it isn't, so that seems like a straightforward question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany

[Jonathan Affleck]

If we are picky, Prussia was a territory that belonged to the King of Poland, and the Hohenzollerns were only allowed to govern Prussia. At the beginning of Hohenzollern rule, the Hohenzollern King called himself the King in Prussia not the King of Prussia.

In that region, rulers and borders changed without any transfers population until after WW2. My grandfather lived in three different states without leaving his home city.

[Ruqt]

"Friend or foe?" a rationale inquiry in use for centuries; not one "supporter" is bright enough to understand that no one would ask, all would be as dead as the rave supporters and peace lovers, you would die with your signs and message shirts as you tried to beg "I'm on your side."

[ReaderY]

While these are currently small groups, it’s worth noting that the advocates of a “free” Germany were hardly noticable in the 1920s. Yet they took power in the 1930s, and by the 1940s they had nearly succeeded in their goal of a “free” Germany, indeed a “free” Europe, before the settler-colonialists stopped them.

They should have been given more attention and resisted more when they were small.

Same here. We all know what people who advocate massacring Jews mean by a “free” country.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Why not provide links to the statements of the student organizations?

Statement of CUNY Jewish Law Students Association: CUNY LAW JLSA STATEMENT ON EVENTS IN OCCUPIED PALESTINE

[Aunt Teefah]

Really an excellent statement, and one that gives lie to the fraud that there is something "Jewish" about the way Israel treats the Palestinians. How long, though, until Bernstein and the execrable commenters on here defame them as antisemites and try to get them cancelled?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can anyone pinpoint the moment at which the Volokh Conspiracy turned 180 degrees and became a big fan of cancel culture?

Can anyone predict the moment at which the clingers will turn 180 degrees again?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Prof. Bernstein et. al. aren't just calling these groups antisemitic, but any commenter here who tries to engage in any kind of nuanced discussion is labeled as "morally reprobate," or "fellow traveler." It's pathetic, at a blog run by academics ostensibly encouraging the free exchange of ideas. I understand that the circumstances of the attack are upsetting, but we should be doing better than this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You expect too much of disaffected, polemically partisan, hypocritical, overwrought faux libertarians.

[David Nieporent]

I'm pretty sure it actually gives lie to the fraud that there's anything Jewish about the "CUNY Jewish Law Students Association," though I'm sure there's a bunch of asajews as members.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not all Jews endorse Israel’s violent, immoral, superstition-laced right-wing policies and practices. A number of Jews are far better than that.

[zztop8970]

The statement does not even mention the Hamas massacre and you label it "excellent". Tells us all we need to know about you, a cheerleader for war crimes, rape, murder and kidnapping of civilians.

[F.D. Wolf]

A testament to the current state of legal education (and higher education in general).

These little Nazis are the prosecutors and judges of tomorrow.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It isn't all bad with respect to American legal education. Look at UCLA's faculty improvement project!

Carry on, clingers. Maybe elsewhere, though, in some circumstances.

[Randal]

Yes yes, disugusting, appalling, etc.

The problem, David and others, is that you're totally failing to grapple with why such a large and increasing number of people are taking the Palestinians' side, and what to do about it.

I suppose this isn't new, so maybe it doesn’t matter, but it does seem to me to be getting worse.

Obviously it's not the case that all these people are fundamentally evil. I think it's another dangerous trend to just write off those you disagree with as being inherently bad people not worth engaging.

For various reasons (mostly having to do with religious / cultural identity IMO), this war seems to be particularly polarizing. Supporters of Israel tend to (publicly) find no faults with Israel and have no sympathy for Palestinians. If you’re someone who has any sympathy for the Palestinians, and you're a bit daft like a college student, you might look at the situation and say a) I don't seem to fit with these blindly pro-Israel / Zionist absolutists and b) they're very one-sided in support of Israel so I guess that's the way to be.

This war has a rhetorical element to it. Lots of rhetoric, and it's extreme on both sides.

To prebut what I suspect your reply will be, there's a difference between moral clarity and one-sided rhetoric. I agree that Hamas' actions here should be unequivocally denounced as evil and unwarranted. But many many people, here and elsewhere, have gone on to relish the brutality of the Israeli response, occasionally even calling for the genocide of the Palestinians. (Looking at you, ToxicMale Commenter.) Where are the people calling for de-escalation, compromise, and peace? Or progress towards any solution at all short of genocide? All I see is everyone calling each other morally reprehensible and hoping they die. These college kids are just following along. "I learned it by watching you!"

https://youtu.be/KUXb7do9C-w?si=rcDNHvo-_5-5qph1

[Commenter_XY]

(Looking at you, ToxicMale Commenter.)

Randal, I'm looking at you too. I like to keep antisemites like you in the public eye. You related to Misek? I bet you are. You sound alike. Equally warped, that is.

I completely support without reservation the physical obliteration of Hamas within Gaza. Perfect legal and valid war aim. Israel's elected Knesset has declared war, and that is in fact the war aim: Hamas members will be pursued, and killed. They will not leave Gaza alive. They will die violent deaths. I will not weep for them. That is not genocide. That is war.

Gaza civilians should heed the instructions given to them by the IDF since Sunday (10/8), if they value their lives. Move southward toward Rafah. Physically separate from Hamas members. I don't think warning the civilian pop that bombs are coming, and where they are going to be dropped, counts as genocidal, by any legal definition.

Randal....go ahead, take the side the medieval death cult, whose sickening selfie videos have shocked the conscience of the world (rightfully so). By all means, demonstrate your own moral confusion so we can see it, and just shake our heads.

Finally, take your de-escalation and use it as a suppository. 😉

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I completely support without reservation the physical obliteration of Hamas within Gaza.

When you are begging the American mainstream to reconsider its decision to stop supporting Israel's longstanding and disgusting right-wing belligerence, remembering this point could help you predict the response to your request.

[Randal]

If you’d been paying attention you’d know that I’ve been suggesting that Israel would have been better off and it would’ve been a morally better decision had they decided to defeat Hamas long ago. That's what I was referring to by "progress towards any solution at all." I think the “snake in a box” strategy is both bad and wrong.

But your rhetoric goes far beyond simply defeating Hamas and veers into genocide. For instance:

They made their choice at the ballot box. They had agency. Now live with it. Or in this case; die.

Even your over-the-top “physical obliteration” wet dream is suggestive of war crimes.

[SimonP]

Gaza civilians should heed the instructions given to them by the IDF since Sunday (10/8), if they value their lives. Move southward toward Rafah. Physically separate from Hamas members. I don’t think warning the civilian pop that bombs are coming, and where they are going to be dropped, counts as genocidal, by any legal definition.

No, it's not "genocide," not yet. It's a different war crime.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I like to keep antisemites like you in the public eye.

'

Wrong. You generally do not object to the right-wing antisemitism at this blog . . . or to the nonstop and diffuse bigotry that saturates this blog. You're just a partisan hypocrite who wails especially intensely when his ox is gored.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not sure all those Gaza civilians can move towards Rafah. Where are they going to stay? Are there UN refugee camps there, or is this just a destination in the middle of the desert? What about people who don't have transportation, or who are confined to hospitals or their homes?

"I don't care" is a potential response, but it's not one that relieves you of moral responsibility for what you are supporting. I agree, all Hamas fighters should be obliterated, but what you're seeking to absolve yourself from is any responsibility for the deaths of non-Hamas fighters.

Sorry, but if there are no moral consequence-free ways to respond to the Hamas atrocities, Israel simply cannot respond the way it chooses.

[zztop8970]

International law recognizes that non-combatants may be killed if they are embedded within the combatants, and places the responsibility for that on the combatants, not the attacker

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Obviously it’s not the case that all these people are fundamentally evil.

Of course not. A lot of them are just plain stupid. For instance, those who make idiotic claims like this:

Supporters of Israel tend to (publicly) find no faults with Israel and have no sympathy for Palestinians.

A great many of us freely acknowledge that Israel's record is not a spotless one, and do not wish any harm on any non-terrorist (or terrorist-supporting) Palestinians. You seem to be unable to discern between "no sympathy for Palestinians" and "Palestinian civilian casualties are an unfortunately unavoidable side-effect of a necessary and well-justified effort to eradicate Hamas".

If you’re someone who has any sympathy for the Palestinians, and you’re a bit daft like a college student, you might look at the situation and say a) I don’t seem to fit with these blindly pro-Israel / Zionist absolutists and b) they’re very one-sided in support of Israel so I guess that’s the way to be.

In instances like the current situation, being "one-sided" in support of the aggrieved party is the only conscionable position.

[Randal]

A great many of us freely acknowledge that Israel’s record is not a spotless one, and do not wish any harm on any non-terrorist (or terrorist-supporting) Palestinians.

There's a difference between wishing no harm and having sympathy. Having sympathy means recognizing that Palestinians have been in a crap situation for a long time, and that Israel is at least partially responsible for that. I'm not talking about collateral civilian casualties, I'm talking about the basic living conditions of Palestinians.

In instances like the current situation, being “one-sided” in support of the aggrieved party is the only conscionable position.

You obviously didn't read my whole post which included a prebuttal to this response.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There’s a difference between wishing no harm and having sympathy.

Hoping that they're not harmed certainly demonstrates a degree of sympathy.

and that Israel is at least partially responsible for that

What the hell did you think, "Israel’s record is not a spotless one" meant in this context?

You obviously didn’t read my whole post which included a prebuttal to this response.

You're mistaken. I read it, and found it to be a bullshit strawman...like so much of what you post. That it was a preemptive bullshit strawman didn't help.

[Randal]

Well then great. I expect to hear more reasoned rhetoric from you in the future. If you always leave out the parts about the suffering of the Palestinians and anything negative about Israel, then dumb college kids will continue to take up the cause.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you always leave out the parts about the suffering of the Palestinians...

Nobody is always leaving out any such thing. Most of us are simply not buying (let along mindlessly regurgitating) the fantasy-based argument that their plight is entirely...or even primarily...the fault of Israel. Most of us have been quite vocal about the fact that Gaza, for instance, is a shitty place to live. But we also point out that it wouldn't be if Hamas (and those who willingly put them in power and/or continue to support them) would abandon destroying Israel and murdering Jews as their purpose in life and instead adopt a goal of making their home a better one.

[David Nieporent]

such a large and increasing number of people are taking the Palestinians’ side

Objection: assumes facts very much not in evidence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, whatever the figure is, it will probably increase once the Israeli response gets going...

[ReaderY]

It’s worth noting that the three retired generals who rushed into southern Israel with only small arms on hearing of the attack had all participated in street protests against the Netanyahu government.

Nobody is suggesting that condemning or resisting this massacre is an endorsement of the current Israeli government or its policies.

[mydisplayname]

In his treatment of just and unjust wars, Walters cites only Jerusalem of 72 A.D., leaving modern Israel out of the discussion. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465052711/reasonmagazinea-20/ . More recent (2021) statems by others (Yael Shahar in The Times of Israel) note that "Of course, both principles — proportionality and distinction — become asymmetrically applicable in an asymmetric war. Terrorists not only make no attempt at distinction, but intentionally target civilians (this is the very definition of terrorism, after all). A state cannot and should not do the same, not only out of moral considerations, but also because overstepping those moral bounds ultimately corrodes a state’s values and integrity."

Given that the United Nations sanctioned an Israeli/Jewish claim to territory, can the United Nations rescind such claim with the goal of peace? Or is such a claim even valid under the Lockean principles embraced here in the United States? As Americans, we assert [in writing] that people have the right to defend themselves against any government -- foreign power or otherwise -- which possesses no true sovereignty (due to lack of accountability, ineptitude, corruption, moral bankruptcy, et c.).

How is the 100-year old, apparently irrevocable, blessing of an unelected, non-democratic body such as the UN different from being "chosen" by an invisible magical elf? God "chose" both King George and Israeli Jews.

[mydisplayname]

The lack of jus post bellum following World War I remains an elephant in the room.

Plato suggested that enemies should "[fight] as those who intend someday to be reconciled." General Lee was allowed to keep his sword and horse; General Grant proclaimed “Gentlemen, the war is over; the rebels are our countrymen again.” More importantly, "Officers and men will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by the United States authority as long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they may reside" and "[c]ouriers and Wounded men of the artillery and Cavalry whose horses are their own private property will be allowed to retain them." Returning to Locke:

"The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain. The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their own possession which should punish offenders."
[...]
"[H]e that appeals to Heaven must be sure he has right on his side, and a right, too, that is worth the trouble and cost of the appeal, as he will answer at a tribunal that cannot be deceived, and will be sure to retribute to every one according to the mischiefs he hath created to his fellow subjects — that is, any part of mankind. From whence it is plain that he that conquers in an unjust war can thereby have no title to the subjection and obedience of the conquered."
[...]
"[A conqueror] has no more title over the people of that country who have done him no injury, and so have made no forfeiture of their lives, than he has over any other who, without any injuries or provocations, have lived upon fair terms with him."

[ReaderY]

What in the world does “lack of a jus post bellum after World War I,” or any of the quotes you’ve stated, have anything to do with anything? To the extent that your qotes are platitudes that people should get along better, sure, people should get along better.

But Hamas isn’t fighting a war in which it hopes to eventually be reconciled with its enemy. Hamas is fighting a war to wipe its enemy out. Israel has to deal with that.

Netanyahu’s basic premise has been that all Palestinians are like Hamas and any form of Palestinian identity or nationalism is inherently anti-Israel, that everything is a zero-sum game in which one side must necessarily dominate or wipe out the other.

But whether its true or just a self-serving belief of the Israel right that any form of Palestinian identity or nationalism is just like Hamas and wants to eliminate Israel and not reconcile with it, the fact of the matter is that Hamas is just like Hamas, and Hamas wants to eliminate Israel rather than reconcile with it.

[ReaderY]

The Jewish people’s claim to sovereignty in their native land is an aboriginal claim, based on their aboriginal nativity to it. Like any other native people’s aboriginal claim, it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything the UN said or did, or anything that happened in WWI or after.

You may think that the King of England’s claim to the British throne “by the grace of God” is nothing but a fairy tale. But that doesn’t give you or the UN or anybody but the British people a say in the matter. Just because the UN may have passed a resolution recognizing the British claim to sovereignty in their land some time in the past doesn’t mean that a future anti-British UN can destroy that claim by passing a resolution.

Frankly, no nation’s sovereignty derives from the UN. National sovereignty is aboriginal to it. And this is particularly true of the sovereignty of aboriginal native peoples, like the Jews in the land of Israel.

[Moderation4ever]

My guess is that these are pretty small groups. The fringes usually are small. I hope that as the brutality of the terrorist attack have come to light they can sit around and think about how those freedom fighters they cheered have just fucked the Palestinian people for a long time to come.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm sure they're small groups. But it has been pointed out that the space between "justifies atrocity" and "commits atrocity" isn't that great, and for each idiot stupid enough to put there name to it, how many thought the same and had the wisdom to keep their mouths shut?

I think we're on our way towards a generation of domestic terrorism here and abroad, as these sort of people graduate from mouthing off to setting bombs. And, why not? The Weathermen got teaching gigs, what would you expect from an educational system that would do that?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

There's nothing to fear from these misguided college students. There is a lot to fear from misguided MAGA zealots. We'll see who causes the most trouble.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd have to be high on drugs to think that was true, after the riots during the Trump administration.

And I don't think you're high on drugs...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I've never been much of a drugs guy. I had consumed a little tequila when I wrote the comment. Perhaps that explains it.

I've known quite a few misguided college students through the years. I know quite a few MAGA zealots now. I stand by my statement.

[Nige]

'the space between “justifies atrocity” and “commits atrocity” isn’t that great'

You must be worried about the guy here who wants Gaza nuked and the other guy who wants liberals gassed.

'as these sort of people graduate from mouthing off to setting bombs'

Just last week you were envisioning yourself as one of those people in the event of a second US civil war.

[F.D. Wolf]

Remember when Charlottesville was a national emergency that required America to fundamentally re-examine itself?

We're currently experiencing dozens of Charlottesvilles, mostly at our "elite" universities. I'm sure everyone is shocked at the difference in media coverage (when they bother to cover it at all.)

[Roger S]

Charlottesville? You mean the place where some people organized a peaceful protest related to Civil War monuments? The was a counter-protest, and the main event was canceled. Yes, there was one unfortunate death when someone got hit by a car. I am not seeing the connection.

[F.D. Wolf]

The media reported on Charlottesville like it was The Night of Broken Glass. Joe Biden has mentioned it incessantly, claiming it was what motivated him to run for President.

This time we have dozens of similar demonstrations, many at prestigious universities, with people literally chanting, "Gas the Jews!" The media's concern this time, when they have any it all, is that these virulently antisemitic protestors might suffer employment discrimination.

The difference is that the left-wing media view the former as political opponents and the latter as political allies.

[Randal]

1. Because college kids.
2. Let me know when Biden goes mealy-mouthed and says something plausibly supportive.

[Absaroka]

"Because college kids"

So 23 year old law school students are too young and irresponsible to be accountable for their speech, but a 22 year old 2nd LT can command a platoon, or a 21 year old SGT can command a squad. And they can marry and sign contracts and work as police officers or ER nurses.

Is the argument that attending college or law school impairs the development of good judgement? That seems like an odd argument, and contrary to my college experience.

[Randal]

No, the argument is that college kids are always marching around for some misbegotten cause or another, and it's just not particularly newsworthy.

[Absaroka]

So if, say a law school KKK chapter has a rally and burns a cross, no biggie, just (22+ year old) kids on a lark, hardly newsworthy? I wouldn't have guessed you'd think that, but I applaud your consistency.

[Randal]

I mean, that kind of thing happens from time to time, and it gets less press than this is getting. So yeah.

[Brett Bellmore]

"that kind of thing happens from time to time,"

Seriously?

[Randal]

Here's the most recent, from just a few weeks ago. Relatively mild... but it is Alabama 99% of the time. 1% Mississippi.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/09/12/alabama-condemns-racist-homophobic-taunts-at-texas-football-players/70831031007/

[Brett Bellmore]

That fell rather short of, "a law school KKK chapter has a rally and burns a cross", don'cha think?

[Nige]

Is this turning into yet another lament for the lack of right-wing views in universities?

[Randal]

Hahaha high five.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, that's not actually my experience, but then, I went to an engineering college in the 70's, not a liberal arts college in the '20's.

Maybe the latter aren't assigning enough credit hours?

[F.D. Wolf]

Indeed, just dumb college kids. I certainly wouldn't hold them to the same standard as high school kids wearing MAGA hats. I seem to recall just a little bit of media interest in that story.

[Randal]

I don't.

[F.D. Wolf]

Nicholas Sandmann. Yeah, it was a pretty obscure little story. Google it sometime.

If our worthless media perceives a story as potentially hurting Republicans, they deem it "newsworthy"; if they perceive it as potentially hurting Democrats, then it is not.

[Randal]

Oh, a single misreported incident that everyone apologized for? Try harder.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whining right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties.

Are a culture war's winners obligated to be magnanimous toward the rejected losers?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The student nailed it: their words were simply read, not distorted in any way. They clearly and simply refused to condemn the terrorist acts committed by Hamas.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not a fan of George Monbiot, but I found his recent opinion piece in the UK Guardian informative:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/18/rules-of-war-israel-hamas-crimes-violence

Israel has every right to fight back against terrorism--right up to the point where they would commit a war crime if they went any further. If that leaves Israel with "no good options", I'm very sorry. There are no guarantees in life. Sometimes you just don't have any good options and need to move on, plan better or think harder.

(I'm against both terrorism and war crimes, in case you don't understand where I'm coming from.)

[Mr. Bumble]

So what do you consider to be a "war crime" other than war itself?

[SimonP]

The law of war permits attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure if reasonably necessary and proportionate to the military value of the strike.

So far, the reporting I've seen claims that thousands of Palestinians have been killed, but only a few members of Hamas's command have been. So I'd like to understand what Israel thinks it's bombing, exactly, and whether thousands of Palestinian lives have been "worth" what they've achieved, from a military perspective.

That's setting aside the decision to cut off water, food, and power to Gaza, which is a clear war crime in itself.

The dispute over who bombed a hospital parking lot has, unfortunately, blocked any meaningful discussion of those issues.

[David Bernstein]

"If that leaves Israel with 'no good options,' I’m very sorry." It doesn't, but if it did, then necessity would come into play. No system of law can say, "you have to obey the law, and the law requires you to either kill yourself or allow yourself to be murdered."

[Josh R]

What options does Israel have that are within the laws of war? What actions that Israel has taken so far comply with the law and what have not? What would victory look like and can it be achieved?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Assuming it was indeed "necessary", they could assert that as an affirmative defence. In court, following their arrest on war crimes charges. I have no problem with that sequence of events.

[Randal]

No system of law can say, “you have to obey the law, and the law requires you to either kill yourself or allow yourself to be murdered.”

You could move.

[Vryedni]

That's one hell of a heckler's veto.

[Randal]

Yeah. Sometimes, when everyone's heckling you including the police, and the heckling takes the form of murder, it's time to swallow your pride and move on.

This isn't far off from the situation that the Palestinians find themselves in.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

think harder

If ever there was an example of someone desperately needing to take their own advice....

[StonewallDeSoto]

I don't care about intractable Middle Eastern blood feuds, and you can't make me.

[SimonP]

Ah, an update! David won't stop until he gets some more law students fired!

[Mr. Bumble]

How do you "fire" a student; law or otherwise?

[SimonP]

Is this a genuine question, or are you making some kind of asinine non-point about how rescissions of employment offers are not "terminations," per se?

[Mr. Bumble]

Say what you mean and mean what you say you patronizing fop.

Words and meaning matter. A student may be suspended or expelled, not fired.
An employee may be suspended or fired. An offer of employment is just that, an offer, which may be withdrawn for any number of reasons or declined by the prospective employee.

[SimonP]

Got it, you were making the asinine non-point. Figured.

When you have nothing of substance to offer, go with pedantry.

[Mr. Bumble]

As I said above: patronizing fop. Pretentious too.

[Social Justice is neither]

Those strike-outs are mighty generous. They're not really distancing themselves from the terror attacks just justifying themselves and declaring victimhood. Every last one of these marxist students can rot in hell for all I care, they've had a week to discover decency and humanity and have not.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, the fact that they signed on to it to begin with makes their doing an about-face (under pressure) pretty meaningless.

[AtR]

To all the smug sociopaths out there trying to whitewash Hamas's behavior: please tell me what level of victimhood and oppression would drive you, personally, to rape women and burn their children alive.

[SimonP]

I wouldn't "whitewash" their behavior, but I do understand that the barbarity they've demonstrated comes from a place of extreme deprivation and hopelessness. I do not believe that people are naturally driven to this level of evil. I think they find their way there through channels that we, sometimes, create for them.

For me, I imagine the violent criminal who murders the member of a rival gang, over some turf dispute. That criminal is solely responsible for the crime he commits, and the murder has no justification, no other place to shift the blame. But we can also recognize that people often turn to crime when they're raised in conditions that valorize that, or where crime is more profitable than legitimate work, or where they lack social support networks that can keep them "clean," etc.

The reason that students are having a hard time striking the right tone, when discussing this conflict, is that they are trying to make a point that is very hard to make, because it requires acknowledging that, while humans have agency and moral responsibility for their own actions, that agency is itself socially-situated. Blaming Israel for Hamas's violence is offensive to us in precisely the same way that it is often offensive to blame "society" for a brutal gang murder.

Unfortunately, the widespread effort to penalize the people who attempt to make this point, about the conflict in Israel and Gaza, makes it even harder to keep the two levels in view. It encourages people like you to respond to attempts to make a conflicted, nuanced point about the roots of violence in Gaza with sophistic, juvenile challenges like the one you've offered here. It flattens the debate into this "us vs. them" dynamic where you either support Israel, or you support Hamas.

But that just promises to further bolster the conflict. That simplistic approach may, ultimately, result in peace. But the only way it will do so will be by completely eliminating any Palestinians living in Gaza.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If precedent is anything to go by, the mere presence of Western troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia is enough to justify the mass murder of civilians.

[Aunt Teefah]

"given the trope in Palestine Solidarity circles that no settler is a civilian, and all Israeli Jews are settlers."

Note the absence of any citation or link to support this claim. That's because, for all intents and purposes, it is fake. At most, maybe Bernstein has seen some fringe group with like seven members make this claim. But the overwhelming majority of people who support the rights of Palestinians absolutely do not think that Israeli civilians are fair game.

By contrast, the "trope" that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza is the official government policy of the Israeli state. https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-president-says-no-innocent-154330724.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20an%20entire%20nation,They%20could%20have%20risen%20up. A policy with which Bernstein doubtless agrees.

[AtR]

It took all of two minutes to find some sources for this trope:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/settlers-are-not-civilians-yale-professor-defends-hamas-terrorism/

[AtR]

And this ... https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/hamas-has-targeted-settlers-not-civilians-ambassador-jarrar/

(have you heard of Google?)

[David Bernstein]

A few links below from a very brief google search. These are your people Teefah, own it

https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaleft/comments/17205ej/remember_settlers_arent_civilians/

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-college-free-speech-543aff623d5f54ad6529fe598ae48271 (There was also controversy over social media posts by a professor of American studies, Zareena Grewal, who wrote after the Hamas attack: “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”)

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/7b0e9319-8a59-402f-ae3a-eefeafdf4ba5.webp

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/177hqk6/are_settlers_civilians/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/174ibkq/do_you_consider_settlers_as_civilians/

[SimonP]

It would be wrong to refer to the victims of Hamas’s attacks as “settlers.” They were members of kibbutzim and other Israelis living on Israeli land. I do not see any reason to refer to the victims of Hamas’s attacks as “settlers” other than to attempt to delegitimize the Israeli state itself and tie their presence to the Zionist movement that began well before the establishment of the Israeli state. They were in no meaningful sense combatants (apart from actual active members of the military) and were not legitimate targets.

But it is also true that, in modern terms, when speaking of places like the West Bank, settlers often view themselves as “peaceful combatants,” moving into communities scattered throughout the West Bank, pushing Palestinians off their land, to establish a presence there and draw the Israeli government into shielding them with military force. They are intentionally engaged in an ongoing effort to push Palestinians out of the West Bank, and they are fully aware of the aggression inherent in their actions. They are not legitimate targets for terrorist attacks, either. But they are aggressors.

So there is equivocation and truth, from both sides, when saying that “settlers are not civilians.” It is true that, in this context, that slogan is aimed at the legitimacy of the Israeli state. But it rings true because of the longstanding policy of the Israeli government in the occupied territories.

[ReaderY]

But of course, that’s precisely the purpose.

[Aunt Teefah]

Exactly as I suspected. One single, solitary professor, plus a handful of random reddit posters, is all you could come up with. Little wonder why you tried to sneak in your noxious claim without citation.

Meanwhile, not a peep about the fact that it is the OFFICIAL POSITION of the Israeli government that all civilians in Gaza are legitimate targets.

[David Bernstein]

"You're making that up!"
"No, I'm not, here are five examples I found in 60 seconds."
"That's only five examples, and anyway, I'm going to make up something about Israel to distract everyone's attention."

[SimonP]

Actually, a more accurate paraphrase would have been:

"You don't have any evidence for this claim, apart from maybe a handful of kooks."
"Here is a handful of kooks to prove my point."
"But... that's what I said you'd have."
"I win!"

[Randal]

Not to mention that none of the kooks even make the core claim that DB has attributed to Palestine sympathizers generally that "all Israeli Jews are settlers."

[Michael P]

Pay closer attention. It’s right there on the third link, the cleverly named StalinwasaGryffindor. The heavily upvoted GeistTransformation1 in the fourth link. akhdara in the fifth link literally says exactly that, with nothing else to add.

You should be ashamed of such blatant lying.

If you want notionally respectable people:

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2020/7/7/israel-is-a-settler-colony-annexing-native-land-is-what-it-doeshttps://bdsmovement.net/colonialism-and-apartheid/settler-colonialism

[Randal]

Talk about lying!

It’s right there on the third link, the cleverly named StalinwasaGryffindor.

That isn't even about settlers. It's about mandatory Israeli conscription.

The other ones you're talking about are I assume comments somewhere down the linked reddit posts? The fact that you're digging deep into reddit comment threads in order to find evidence of this allegedly common trope means I win.

Your settler-colonialism links aren't any good either. Neither of them makes the claim that the settler-colonialists they're talking about aren't civilians and, as such, become legitimate military targets. You really need both in order for DB's claim not to be libelous. I win again.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yep, it's "official"...

"The President of the State is the de jure head of state of Israel. The position is largely an apolitical and ceremonial role, and is not considered a part of any Government Branch. The President's ceremonial roles include signing every law (except those pertaining to the President's powers) and international or bilateral treaty, ceremonially appointing the Prime Minister, confirming and endorsing the credentials of ambassadors, and receiving the credentials of foreign diplomats. The President also has several important functions in government. The President is the only government official with the power to pardon or commute prisoners. The President appoints the governor of the Bank of Israel, the president of the national emergency relief service Magen David Adom, and the members and leaders of several institutions. The President also ceremonially appoints judges to their posts after their selection.[3]"

[Michael P]

We can read, you know. The thing you linked to doesn't even remotely say what you claimed.

[Nige]

That's a grotesque paragraph, with its careful elisions and sanitising of the violence committed by Hamas. At least be honest about what happened. The only hope in the horror is if it makes people draw back from escalating into even worse horror.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why post this call for moral outrage at a blog that targets bigots as an audience and features an incessant stream of bigotry?

[JustsomeDude98]

Created an account just to comment this due to the author’s stupidity. Doxxing students is really the behavior that George Mason wants its law professors engaging in? This is a pathetic action for someone who’s supposed to be educating the next generation of lawyers. The fact that this was published is abhorrent and journalistic malpractice. How in the hell is David Bernstein still employed after writing not just the names, but the emails of students at a university he doesn’t even teach at? I encourage everyone who also finds this article (essentially focused on doxxing graduate students, mind you) to call George Mason law school nonstop and encourage them to suspend or fire David Bernstein. This behavior is unacceptable for any educator, let alone one at a graduate level.

[Estragon]

I mean, it’s not the first time

[JustsomeDude98]

Clearly. It seems like it gives him purpose. Pretty damn creepy. How sad his life must be as a professor that he spends his free time dunking on and doxxing random students instead of taking up a normal hobby like a well-adjusted adult. Hopefully he grows up soon, but I won’t hold my breath because he seems to have the brain of a 5 year old.

[Lockean Liberal]

For a joke, this post really wasn't funny. Don't get me wrong, the punchline was hilarious... But you took way too long setting it up. By the time I got to the punchline... the part where you flagrantly admit none of these students actually defended Hamas and clarified that what you called "defense of brutality" was one statement that merely didn't condemn Hamas and a second statement where they did condemn violence perpetrated by Hamas but failed to provide a detailed account of every specific act of violence.... by the time you got to that punchline I had already started to lose focus on your set-up.