Updated: No "Space, Consideration, or Support" for Zionism at Wellesley, Demand Student Resident Advisors

They later issued a "sorry if you were offended" non-apology, and so far the university seems satisfied with that.

Resident advisors are upper-class college students who live in the dorms. In return for free housing and a stipend, Wellesley RAs "collaborate to create a vital and engaged residential community. Resident Assistants aim to foster a spirit of generosity and civic engagement within their community. Together, the residential team provides programs and services that support the mission, vision, and values of the Office of Residential Life and Housing and the Wellesley College community, with the goal of creating a transformative living environment." In short, RAs are not just students but also College employees, and one of their main responsibilities is to foster a comfortable, welcoming community environment for all students. And yet, RA staff at one hall sent the following out a few days ago, reprinted here courtesy of my friend Jake Novak, who first reported it on Twitter:

Hello all, As of October 18th, 2023, the Palestinian-Israeli war has cost the lives of some 3,478 Palestinians and wounded 12,000. Israel's apartheid against Palestinians, characterized by the displacement of 600,000 individuals, the dissemination of genocidal rhetoric by the Israeli government, and the illegal occupation of native Palestinian lands, have left our hearts heavy. With all historical, political, and territorial aspects considered, Israel's zionist government needs to be condemned. Furthermore, individuals who endorse the forced removal of Palestinians should be recognized as supporters of colonization. Munger Hall stands in strong condemnation of Israel's actions and those who have supported their actions against Palestinians. We firmly believe that there should be no space, no consideration, and no support for Zionism within the Wellesley College community. In accordance with these beliefs, we plan on donating to a reputable organization that provides aid to the children and families whose lives have been destroyed. We will vote for the amount and organization in a future HoCo meeting. While Munger res staff want to support and make space for you through this devastating time, we also recognize that we may not be fully equipped to do so in the way each individual needs. Therefore, we'd like to point you to The Stone Center and The Office of Religious and Spiritual Life (ORSL) that may be able to help. ORSL is currently putting together processing spaces specifically for this issue, they may send an email soon regarding that. We care about each and every one of you, and please feel free to reach out with any ideas of how we can best support you during these difficult times.

Thank you, Munger Res Staff

--Moi Nee she/her Class of 2024

Note both the implicit dehumanization of Israelis and Jews, as the initial massacre isn't mentioned at all, and the highlighted sentence, suggesting that Zionism, the basic meaning of which is that Israel should exist, should be extirpated from Wellesley. To say the least, to write such a position is not just morally repugnant, but more pertinently is totally contrary to the role of resident advisors in making all students feel welcome. This is especially true, of course, of Jewish students, the vast majority of whom are "Zionists," and for many of whom this is an important part of their identity. Let's recall, these are not just students expressing an opinion, these are student employees of the college, who wrote this email in their capacity as employees.

The president of Wellesley, Paula Johnson, later sent an email to the Wellesley community, the salient part of which is this:

It recently came to my attention that a small number of student residence hall leaders from one dormitory sent a letter to their housemates in their capacity as resident assistants that expressed views on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Our Student Life team met with these students and talked about their role and responsibility to support all students. They have since sent an apology to all students in the residence hall. That these young leaders were able to learn from this episode gives me hope.

That *might* be adequate if the students had actually expressed true remorse, and showed that understood why this email was problematic beyond the fact that they shouldn't be issuing policy statements as RAs. Instead, they issued a non-apology apology, of the "we're sorry you were offended" variety (see below, again with credit to Jake Novak's reporting).

This is a totally unacceptable response from President Johnson, and leaves Wellesley wide open to a Title VI complaint or lawsuit. Indeed, if I can find the time, I will personally file the former.

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 12:41 PM
Subject: addressing the email I sent last night
To: Munger Fall 2023 All Hall <[e-mail]>

Hello all,

I would like to address the email that was sent last night on behalf of the Munger HP and 4 Munger RAs.

We regret any harm our words have caused to our residents, parents, alumni, or others in the community. We are also truly sorry if it has dissuaded anyone from coming to us as RAs or an HP. We overstepped our roles as reslife staff in making this statement and apologize for that.

The views expressed do not reflect the views of Paula Queenan (our CD), Cathy Bickel, the Office of Residential Life and Student Housing, Wellesley administration, the Munger community as a whole, or anyone else in the college.

If you'd like to process this situation with other resources on campus, we would like to continue pointing you to The Stone Center and The Office of Religious and Spiritual Life (ORSL).

We want our residents to know that while we never intended so, we understand how making this statement has caused hurt to specific populations in our community. We as a staff are committed to rebuilding trust and repairing relationships in the Munger community.

If anybody has felt affected by the message sent last night, please feel free to reach out to us to talk. We hope to hold a community space for Munger residents soon regarding this issue.

All my best, --Moi

[UPDATE: I removed a section of this post that included an Instagram post for which my sources apparently provided incorrect sourcing. Apologies.]

Comments

[Sarcastr0]

In short, RAs are not just students but also College employees

The marketing pabulum you quote doesn't seem to establish that to me. Saying someone will support the college mission to do good things not bad things does not establish an agency relationship.

Yes, there are student idiots, probably more about Palestine than other idiotic causes. But going in on the RA staff at one hall at one college is really reaching way down for scalps to take, much less evidence of some general leftist bent.

[David Bernstein]

Dude, as I noted they get PAID by the university, both in free housing and a monetary stipend (as I recall, over $4K). When you get paid, and take direction from above, you are an employee. I know you enjoy being a contrarian, but come on. And while you minimize it, if I were a (normie) Jewish student living in that residence hall, I'd be *extremely* upset, exactly what they are paid to prevent...

[Don Nico]

Very typical of S_0, to exaggerate to the point of gross falsehood to make his point. The post was about a specific example of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric on campus by student employees who were abusing their position of authority in student housing.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It wasn't anti-Jewish. Saying it was is an exaggeration to the point of gross falsehood.

[Commenter_XY]

Munger Hall stands in strong condemnation of Israel's actions and those who have supported their actions against Palestinians. We firmly believe that there should be no space, no consideration, and no support for Zionism within the Wellesley College community.

Nah, not anti-Jewish at all. What were we thinking?

[Randal]

On further consideration, I think you're right that this notion that no one is allowed to be Zionist deserved a more explicit retraction and apology.

We firmly believe that there should be no space, no consideration, and no support for Zionism within the Wellesley College community.

[Publius]

Anti Zionism is well known cover for anti-semitism.

[damikesc]

And, since 10/7, that cover has been a bit exposed.

They just really, really hate Jews.

[Nige]

Pro-Zionism has been a cover for a really creepy Christian Fundamentalist belief about the Jews and Israel and the Apocalypse.

[Don Nico]

If you don't see this RA statement as anti-Jewish, you are being willfully blind as is S_0 who just wants to double down multiple times on what has become his de facto support for the RA statement

[Sarcastr0]

If they didn't get paid, would your position be at all different?

[Michael P]

As long as they're appointed by the university with powers or privileges that other students don't have, they are agents of the university. For the purposes of hostile-environment law, does it matter that much whether we call them compensated employees, unpaid agents, or something else? Even ordinary students or members of the public can contribute to a hostile environment.

[Sarcastr0]

As long as they’re appointed by the university with powers or privileges that other students don’t have, they are agents of the university.

That is not actually how an agency relationship is established.

In this case, for instance, the requirements are so broad that I don't think it's at all clear you should impute this statement to the school generally.

Again, it's straining for victimhood.

[Michael P]

Classic Gaslight0. Can't answer the question, so you argue against a straw man as a diversionary tactic.

[Sarcastr0]

I made an argument - that paying someone to do 'good things not bad things' does not mean when they speak they speak for the school.

Where is the strawman?

[Michael P]

For one, I don't think anyone familiar with large organizations in today's America can seriously believe that a big-city university would give such vague direction to RAs. Indeed, you grossly oversimplified even the description that Bernstein quoted in order to get "good things not bad things".

For another, a large part of the problem is that the university's president officially endorsed the non-apology that the RAs sent, and Prof. Bernstein also made that point in the original post. Instead you have been arguing over whether or not they're agents of the university, even after I mentioned that anti-discrimination law does not hinge solely on that distinction.

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think anyone familiar with large organizations in today’s America can seriously believe that a big-city university would give such vague direction to RAs.

Did you ever go to college?

[Michael P]

Yes. Even decades ago, we got more than you claim these people do. For example, I was in charge of building code enforcement for a temporary building one social club put up (a booth at Carnegie Mellon's spring festival) and got a lot of training about what was and wasn't allowed -- for a glorified shack that would only be used for three days. Setting up even a less formal student organization involved a well-defined process.

More classic Gaslight0. You can't make a relevant point, so you engage in a personal attack. Why are you always such a contemptible shit?

[David Nieporent]

What? That’s literally how an agency relationship gets established. You engage (for compensation or not, but obviously compensation makes it clearer) someone to act on your behalf.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you practice and I don't but IIRC mere payment is not sufficient to establish agency, you need some job specifics in your contract.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Know when to stop, dude...

[Kazinski]

Nice counterfactual fallback position.

[Randal]

It's not a counterfactual fallback position. It's questioning the relevance of David's bizarre attention to the fact that the RAs get a stipend. I'm also curious why that matters so much.

[Kazinski]

They get a stipend because they have responsibilities, using their paid positions trying to impose their views on people they are hired to support is counter to those responsibilities.

[Randal]

And I think what Sarcastr0 may be saying, and I'm definitely saying, is, wouldn't they have those same responsibilities even without the stipend?

[Michael P]

Who knows? Without that payment, what compensation would they be getting to fill that role, and what obligations or responsibilities would they have accepted as part of the deal?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

If they didn’t get paid, would your position be at all different?

But they are paid, so your stupid refutation, and in this case hypothetical, doesn't even apply, you stupid shitlib.

[JasonT20]

Dude, as I noted they get PAID by the university, both in free housing and a monetary stipend (as I recall, over $4K). When you get paid, and take direction from above, you are an employee.

Colleges and universities spend how many billable hours fighting the efforts of graduate assistants to organize as employees of their schools? So, sure, if the college recognizes their rights as employees under state and federal labor laws, then they are employees. But just getting paid by the school and performing tasks designated by the school in the manner the school directs isn’t going to be enough, given the history of schools resisting that designation when it might mean having to give them legal rights that employees receive.

[JasonT20]

Also, since your subheadline states that "the university seems satisfied with" their "non-apology," any question of employee discipline would be up to the university and seems to be resolved anyway.

[Don Nico]

it does seem that way

[AtR]

They are not only paid to do this job, they are given instruction, direction, and supervision in performance of the job.

Why would the university bother to do this if they were not in any way representing the interests of the university?

[Sarcastr0]

they are given instruction, direction, and supervision in performance of the job.

Oh yeah, the 'the mission, vision, and values' bit is going to touch on Israel-Palestine stuff a lot.

Y'all picked some nuts. And you want to pretend the nuts are a lot bigger than they are. But everyone can see these nuts are small beer.

[AtR]

Their job description is quite detailed:

https://www.wellesley.edu/studentlife/involvement/student-leader-selection-and-training/position-descriptions

For example,
"RAs create, plan, and implement educational programs and community building activities reflecting the core values of the residential curriculum for their floors and communities."

or

"RAs shall be informed about Wellesley College community standards and policies, role model these standards and policies, educate others, and be willing to address behaviors and language that violates the Honor Code and/or other College policies."

[Sarcastr0]

Have you not seen boilerplate before? Do you think anything you just posted lets you put the RA's statement on the college generally in any way?

Sorry, you get the RA's being shitty. You don't get to jump that up to the college in general. Even if you really really want to.

Anyone who has lived in a dorm knows what RAs do and are.

[Michael P]

De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

[AtR]

You get to state your opinion ... you don't get to make it the law.

I would love for your new standard of "boilerplate has no legal significance" to be true, but it would make the jobs of many lawyers much more difficult.

[Don Nico]

"“boilerplate has no legal significance”"
obviously he also thinks that software and IT use agreements have no legal significance either, but he usually argues differently in that case.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, the thesis is not that RAs have no responsibilities, it's that their actions do not become the responsibility of the school at large.

And no, that boilerplate language does not put the school on the hook for that.

[Armchair]

"Their actions do not become the responsibility of the school at large"..

I see. So, if a resident tells a resident assistant that she was raped, and the RA just...fails to report it....the student can't sue the school? It's not the school's problem if the RA fails?

[David Nieporent]

Again, the thesis is not that RAs have no responsibilities, it’s that their actions do not become the responsibility of the school at large.

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. Obviously an employer is responsible in tort for the actions of an employee; that's black letter respondeat superior. (Except, of course, in § 1983 situations, where courts have decided that the doctrine doesn't apply because reasons.) Similarly, in the context of anti-discrimination law, an employer is liable if an employee harasses employees, generally speaking.

[Bob from Ohio]

"boilerplate"

Its a job description. You just won't give up on arguing they are not agents of the college, no matter how dumb you look.

[ReaderY]

Suopose that after a large-scale Klan lynching, these RA’s sent a press release denouncing carpettbaggers and scalawags and integratizts, demanding the immediate disarmament of the lynchees’ defenders, and declaring that while they have no problem with niggers at their school, they want to make it clear that their school has no place for supporters of uppity niggers who fight against lynching. They say the South was invaded and conquered by foreign Yankee folks who sicced these niggers on them and put them under their rule. They talk about all the horrible atrocities the Yankee settler-colonist carpetbagger nigger agents committed against the horribly oppressed people of the south, all the systematic genocide. Niggers are fine, but no illegal occupation of, no nigger rule in, no niggers thinking they can be boss in, white Southern territory.

Would you agree that either there is no inconsistency whatsoever between university policy and these statements? Or do you think eveybody simply understands that policies like these were just never intended to apply to uppity niggers?

Why does scratching out the words “uppity nigger” and writing in the word “Zionist” in crayon, scratching out the word “South” and writing in the word “Palestine,” scratching out the word “carpetbaggers” and writing in the phrase “settler-colonialists,” make a difference?

These people are claiming that Western powers permitted brutal, savage Jews to run amok in Palestine using almost the same depictions, sometimes almost the same language, that Redemptionist Reconstruction-era Klan propaganda used to depict the horrors and atrocities the niggers inflicted on them when these foreign invaders came in, defeated the valiant South using foul means, and propped these uppity niggers up in the pre-Redemption South. The sheer indignity of being ruled over by savage, brutal, uncivilized, inferior people! The horrors, the women raped, the babies rape, the genocide that took place during Reconstruction!

[Sarcastr0]

I'd say all of that is quite clearly on the students not the school.

[Michael P]

Not only clearly, but quite clearly. This is obviously a strong argument.

They're not agents because they don't have a job description, their job description is irrelevant boilerplate, and quite clearly they don't have any actual authority within their residence halls. Hell, it's not even clear they are truly students in the first place.

[Don Nico]

It is amazing gaslighting at its finest.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't join the dunderheads in the muck, Don. Learn what gaslighting means, and argue like a civilized person.

[Randal]

No it's too funny. Keep talking about how Sarcastr0 is gaslighting you Don. The fact that it's actually true is what cracks me up the most.

[Commenter_XY]

The bigger nut is the one who slithers and tries to explain it away.

[Sarcastr0]

If a student says something dumb, it's not the same as the college saying something dumb.

If a student says something dumb, and they are the RA and sign it 'Residence Advisor' it is not now suddenly the college's fault.

Sorry, you'll have to settle for students being dumb as per usual, not the very tempting but not really true 'higher education is a hotbed of liberal antisemitism.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

Section 1983 disagrees...

[Sarcastr0]

No, this relationship is not color of law. And it is not clear what right is being violated.

This is not a 1983 case.

You're just big mad and want something bigger to take it out on than idiot college students.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You say this in response to every "isolated incident."

And can we retire the "they're just kids, they'll grow out of it" talking point? These kids graduate and continue to perpetuate their "perspective."

[Don Nico]

I am afraid that is true.
It is rather amazing that a bureaucrat can argue that paid students are not employees when that the NLRB recognizes that students who are paid by their universities as employees with a right to collective bargaining.
The only rational explanation is that the bureaucrat supports the RA statement. Of course there are irrational explanations. One can only hope that one of them is operative

[Randal]

Employers aren't responsible for every dumb thing their employees say. That seems obvious to me.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Possibly not to a jury...

[neurodoc]

And you're most likely not a lawyer or otherwise educated in the law. That seems obvious to me, a lawyer admitted to practice. But you do keep returning to say uninformed things. OK, go ahead and knock yourself out. (I am surprised that Sarcastr0, if this is the same Sarcastr0 of years gone by, pre-'16, a lawyer I think, is coming across as so stupid as to the relevant law and more.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"doesn’t seem to establish that to me"

ah, some classic Gaslito. The good stuff.

[Sarcastr0]

I made an argument, Bob.

I notice you did not.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just your normal hand waving.

Everyone who lived in a dorm knows that RAs are people appointed/hired by the college who get free room and board at least, often other pay, to supervise their floor.

Your ackchyually shtick is just old.

[Sarcastr0]

The thesis Prof. Bernstein and you have is that the position of the RAs should be laid at the feet of the school because they are paid.

Anyone who has had an RA knows that's way too far of a reach.

[Michael P]

No, the position is that this behavior contributes to a hostile educational environment, and the college has an obligation to do more than endorse a non-apology to remedy that.

As usual, you resort to a straw man rather than argue against what was actually said.

[Sarcastr0]

this behavior contributes to a hostile educational environment, and the college has an obligation to do more than endorse a non-apology to remedy that.

That would seem an argument independent of any agency relationship being established, and thus new goalposts.

As to your new goalposts, a shitty letter alone is not going to get you to a hostile educational environment. Seems subsequent actions make it clear everyone, even the authors, know the letter was shitty.

You're not going to put this on the school, you're just going to look like someone who really wants to go after schools.

[Michael P]

Go back and read my very first comment in this thread, dude. I haven't moved those goalposts at all. However, it's easier to demonstrate a hostile environment based on actions by someone with authority from the school than based on some random student.

The update makes it clear that the non-apology was totally insincere, and thus the college president's memo was based on inadequate investigation and remediation.

[Sarcastr0]

Your first comment: "As long as they’re appointed by the university with powers or privileges that other students don’t have, they are agents of the university."

That's wrong.

But also not a required element of your new thesis about hostile work environment.

Which is also wrong.

So yeah, you switched from one wrong goalpost to another.

it’s easier to demonstrate a hostile environment based on actions by someone with authority
Not something you said before. So much for privileges. And you are now well beyond the language in the OP.
It is not clear what authority do you think RA's have beyond referring stuff up to the administration which any student can do.

[Michael P]

If you want me to be so pedantically long-winded that a bad-faith misreading finds little traction, you can pay me. Otherwise, you can grow up and stop being so perversely obstinate about your own errors.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto -- they are de facto POLICE OFFICERS -- they can and do get kids kicked out of college. They have a bleepload of power and this is like the LAPD saying "Rodney King deserved it."

[David Nieporent]

Narrator: in fact, they are not de facto police officers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

On what asinine basis do you make this claim?

[Absaroka]

I'm with DMN. Colleges no doubt vary. Ours had no power to kick anyone out. AFAICT their functions consisted, in their entirety, of:

a)making sure dope smokers had a towel along the bottom of the door so the smell didn't leak out and
b)complaining about firecrackers indoors

Ours didn't enforce rules[1] about noise, opposite sex visitors, alcohol, or anything else.

Maybe yours were arresting students all the time, but ours weren't.

[1]I think there were rules about those things, but it's been a long time.

[Social Justice is neither]

Just because they don't doesn't mean they cannot. If you're enough of a problem, or in modern parlance "a threat to the community" they absolutely have the authority to start the process of having you ejected from the dorms if not the school. The fact such people generally self-select out means it's only an issue in egregious cases but we are talking about people that see misgendering as genocide so their definition of egregious may not be reliable.

[Sarcastr0]

This reminds me of the whole 'criminal referral' thing.

No authority, barely responsibility.

[David Nieporent]

That they have no police power of any sort? They can't even enforce rules, let alone laws.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At UM Amherst, they can and do.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. Try again.

[Rossami]

Let's see... They are compensated (partially via in-kind housing and partially via direct pay). They receive training and direction. They have job descriptions. Their actions are supervised. They are subject to discipline for failures to perform as required. They are covered by the university's insurance.

Under what plausible argument are they not agents of the university, Sarcastr0?

[Sarcastr0]

Their actions are supervised

Really? I remind you this comes from Prof. Bernstein trying to pretend this statement somehow redounds to Wellesley.

It does not. It's a very silly idea that it could, to anyone who has experience with any RAs ever. You can talk all you want about training and supervision and discipline, but as it actually happens in the real world Prof. Bernstein offers a ridiculous theory.

You're tangling with semantics to try and find something not silly about that thesis.

[Michael P]

Yes, their actions really are supervised. In the context of the update, who do you think was holding the (presumably metaphorical) gun to the RA's head?

[Rossami]

As Michael said, yes, their actions really are supervised. You never lodged a complaint against your RA? You seriously think the universities would pay for someone to do ... Let me change that.
Why do you think the university hires RAs? What benefit do you think they get that justifies the expense but involves no supervision?

Let's change the context a bit. Assume an RA sexually harasses a resident under their care. Do you seriously believe that the resident would be unable to hold the university accountable for the RA's actions? Are you willfully blind to the multiple cases where exactly that happened and the university either immediately conceded or lost on this very point? Do you have any legal argument or precedent supporting your claim that RAs are not agents of the university?

[Sarcastr0]

The ability to lodge a complaint about your RA does not mean the RA is supervised.

I'm not sure what you think supervision is, and maybe Wellesley is an exception, but by all accounts being an RA doesn't mean anything like regular dealings with school administrators.

Assume an RA sexually harasses a resident under their care.
I do challenge this. No one in the dorms is 'under the care' of an RA. You're trying to increase their responsibilities, as well as their ties to the school admin, way more than the reality.

Do you have any legal argument or precedent supporting your claim that RAs are not agents of the university?
I mean, burden is on you for that. You are the one that wants to rope Wellesley itself into this, you need more than janky hypotheticals and boilerplate.

[Reasoness]

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. As RAs at Wellesley we were expected to build relationships with students on our floor AND to report concerns to the adult in charge as well as attempt to encourage students to go for counseling if we thought it might be needed. We met routinely with the adult in charge of the dorm and also conducted student meetings regularly.

[Reasoness]

I was an RA at Wellesley College. We were considered part of residence staff. We reported to an adult who was in charge of the dorm. We had to apply for the role, were trained and had very specific responsibilities. These students are entitled to their opinions, but not to retaining their RA positions after expressing them. What they did was antithetical to their role as student advisors by alienating Jewish students to whom they have responsibilities. The students should have been removed from Res Staff and replaced. The college should have made the apology to the students who lived in the dormitory.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The marketing pabulum you quote doesn’t seem to establish that to me.

RAs are literally paid by the college and provided with free housing, you moron.

[SimonP]

Note both the implicit dehumanization of Israelis and Jews, as the initial massacre isn't mentioned at all,...

Never mind your implicit dehumanization of Palestinians living in Gaza, David, throughout every one of your many posts and comments on this topic. Does the loss of Israeli life in some sense "balance out" the loss of Palestinian life? Is there some sense in which the precipitating massacre of 1400 Israelis "justifies" killing 1.8k children in Gaza, and promising thousands more?

... and the highlighted sentence, suggesting that Zionism, the basic meaning of which is that Israel should exist, should be extirpated from Wellesley.

Well, no, that's not the "basic meaning" of "Zionism," and we really ought to take some care in our invocation of that term. I've seen it used by antisemites as just a way to refer to "Jews." I've seen it used to refer to the colonial project of establishing a Jewish ethnostate in the territory that is now Israel and the OT that began in the late 19th century and continues today, embraced by the more conservative members of Israel's current governing coalition. And then there are various gradations and misapplications between the two.

I am not sure what the Wellesley RAs thought they meant by the term, but I am pretty sure that they are not saying that the official policy of Wellesley should be the elimination of modern Israel and the ejection of Jews from that territory. I suspect they are talking about the motivating ideology of certain right-wing political parties in Israel, which seeks to annex all of the OTs and subject the Palestinians still living there either to second-class or non-citizen status, or outright expulsion. That is not really a fair characterization of "Zionism," but it would explain the focus of their concern, in their message.

Anyway, it's convenient that you've posted this, because in a recent comment thread you were telling me that you don't want to give this kind of noxious speech more attention. I suppose you should have clarified: "Well, not unless I can link a student's name directly to it." Fortunately for Moi, it appears that your attempts to Google-bomb her will fade quickly. (Kudos, though, for demonstrating that Musk's Twitter is a platform almost custom-designed to facilitate this kind of online attack.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Does the loss of Israeli life in some sense “balance out” the loss of Palestinian life? Is there some sense in which the precipitating massacre of 1400 Israelis “justifies” killing 1.8k children in Gaza, and promising thousands more?

No, but the responsibility for the loss of Palestinian life is on Hamas, not the Israelis, and Hamas has been condemned plenty.

[Bob from Ohio]

"1.8k children in Gaza"

Simon just swallows Hamas propaganda without thinking.

[David Bernstein]

It's strange that literally the only wars in which people suggest that the party attacked is limited in how many civilian casualties are permitted in its response to how many of *its* civilians have been killed is Israel. But that goes back to my previous post, that the underlying idea is that since Israel is deemed the oppressor, it doesn't get to defend itself.

[SimonP]

Of course Israel gets to defend itself. I'm just curious about the legitimate military objectives Israel cannot achieve without killing thousands of Palestinian children, or why we can't talk about how their attacks might be excessive without first mentioning how many people Hamas killed.

[Currentsitguy]

There has yet to be a war in human history where innocent civilians aren't killed. This one is no different. Why is Israel held to a different standard?

[SimonP]

Comments in the vein of "war is hell" are not really responsive.

Yes, war is hell. War crimes are common. That's why, in the 20th century, we tried to formalize how they would be evaluated, after the fact.

These rules acknowledge that civilians get killed in military conflicts, and do not deem those deaths "war crimes" per se. Rather, warring parties are expected to limit civilian casualties to those reasonably necessary in order to achieve legitimate military targets. Maybe that means you can launch a missile at a wedding party in order to take out Hamas leadership. But it probably doesn't mean you can kill hundreds of civilian sleeping in an apartment building on top of a small arms cache.

That's all I'm asking to understand. So far, it's been reported, several thousands of Gazans have been killed by Israel's strikes, and we're being prepared to expect many more as the ground invasion begins. So I am just trying to ask - what has Israel achieved, so far? Has it been worth those deaths, or not?

I don't know, because the reporting doesn't say. Many VC commenters seem to believe that we should take Israel's word for it.

Some people think that's a legitimate question to ask. Other people think those of us asking that question are "moral reprobates."

[Bob from Ohio]

"it’s been reported"

By Hamas

[zztop8970]

"it probably doesn’t mean you can kill hundreds of civilian sleeping in an apartment building on top of a small arms cache."
How about tens of civilians sleeping in an apartment building on top of a small arms cache?
How about hundreds of civilians sleeping in an apartment building on top of a large arms cache?
Why don't you give us the numbers, genius ?

Or better yet, read what the law of war actually say: "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations"

[Absaroka]

“it probably doesn’t mean you can kill hundreds of civilian sleeping in an apartment building on top of a small arms cache.”

In the build up to Normandy, the US/Britain killed thousands of French citizens solely because they worked in or lived near rail yards. The Allies also bombed factories et al. where slave laborers lived. The US engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan - which probably had as much to do with ending the war as the A-bomb - and in the process killed Japanese civilians, 3d party civilians, and Allied POWs in large numbers.

Who is to blame for those deaths? IMHO Japan and Germany. If they hadn't started the war (for completely unjust reasons...) none of those subsequent civilian deaths would have happened.

[JasonT20]

If the allies had the kind of intelligence and precision guided bombs then that we do now, then many of those civilian deaths would not have been necessary to win and end the war.

[Rossami]

If the axis powers knew that the allies had the kind of intelligence and precision guided bombs then that we do now, they might have done the same thing Hamas is doing - hiding their military operations behind civilians and intentionally defeating the ability of those precision methods to reduce civilian casualties.

[JasonT20]

If the axis powers knew that the allies had the kind of intelligence and precision guided bombs then that we do now, they might have done the same thing Hamas is doing – hiding their military operations behind civilians and intentionally defeating the ability of those precision methods to reduce civilian casualties.

They had no incentive to do that. Who would they have complained to about excessive numbers of civilians getting killed by the allies? There was no UN, no larger community of supposedly civilized nations, or greater powers for them to appeal to for sympathy or support.

We could go in circles with counter-factuals all day, but the point I am making is that the situations are not analogous and tell us little about the morality in the present situation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Jason, we starved Japan into submission by sinking all of its shipping. At the end, they were chopping down all their pine trees to make gasoline out of the pine sap, they were that desperate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rossami -- the Germans DID hide their rocket works in tunnels after we started bombing Peenemünde -- they also moved further east which is how the Soviets got so much of the technology.

[Currentsitguy]

Well I certainly would not take any Palestinian source as truthful. Hamas is a terrorist organization. The people of Gaza have had close to 20 years to remove them, or request help in doing so. I have little sympathy for them now.

[Scooter]

It appears someone's trying to adjust the 'Overton Window' so that the pronouncements of Hamas are accorded the same weight as those from Israel. Hamas can be accurately describes as "Lying when the truth sounds better". Israel, while capable of uttering falsehoods, does not do so with the same frequency or consequence.

[Don Nico]

"War crimes are common."
I doubt that you know what a war crime is under presently agreed on treaties.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I doubt that you know what a war crime is under presently agreed on treaties.

It's whatever the people he doesn't like do.

[neurodoc]

WHY DO YOU NEGLECT MENTION OF THE 240 PEOPLE HAMAS TOOK HOSTAGE AND CONTINUES TO HOLD? HOW FAR DO YOU THINK iSRAEL SHOULD GO TO FREE THEM? PLEASE BE EXPLICIT ABOUT THE LIMITS YOU WOULD ALLOW THEM.

[Bored Lawyer]

Of course Israel gets to defend itself -- just so long as it actually doesn't DO anything to defend itself.

What a contemptible worm you are.

[SimonP]

The "contemptible worm" in this discussion might be the one insinuating that there's no daylight between killing thousands of Palestinian children and the extent to which Israel's military response is justified.

[Bored Lawyer]

All just a cover for, "Israel is not allowed to do anything to defend itself."

Hamas is enmeshed in a civilian population, purposely so. It puts munitions and arms near hospitals. It actively prevents civilians from fleeing to relative safety. It lies, again and again, about civilian casualties.

Your suggestion of collapsing a few tunnels is contemptible. That would leave the same Nazi-like government in power. Hamas has to be brought down completely, and given what it has done, the result will be large civilian casualties. All of which are the fault of Hamas.

Note that Israel warned the civilian population to flee, which is more than Hamas did when it launched its massacre.

Really, your charges of "war crimes" are so much hot air. Israel goes out of its way to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. Unfortunately, many are necessary to achieve the legitimate military aim of eliminating a power that expressly have sworn to make endless war on Israel.

This is not rocket science. But you know that and don't care.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Hamas has to be brought down completely, and given what it has done, the result will be large civilian casualties. All of which are the fault of Hamas."

Allow me to rephrase your position:

"Once one arbitrarily decides to effect regime change of a hostile country, all civilian deaths are the responsibility of the old regime and no fucks shall be given as to how many die because one can magically wash their hands of all culpability by simply saying so."

[zztop8970]

"one side arbitrarily decides"? did you miss the part where the other side decapitated, butchered, raped and burned alive 1400 people - babies, grandmothers, young women?

You've truly lost your compass, assuming you had one to begin with

[David Nieporent]

I am puzzled by the use of the word "arbitrarily" in your comment.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That's fair, David.

There are many other less-severe measures which could be taken instead of regime change, while still strengthening Israel's security. There are relatively few options more severe than that.

I get why some people think that regime change is the only acceptable response. I disagree, and think the response has already been disproportionate and will obviously only get worse.

[SRG2]

Can you recall any pro-Palestinian group complaining about Hamas locating firing positions, military sites, etc. in or under civilian buildings or locations? I certainly can't.

[David Nieporent]

For that matter, do you see any pro-Palestinian group demanding that Hamas release those it kidnapped?

[Randal]

Well, if you believe that Human Rights Watch is pro-Palestinian, they have.

[SRG2]

I believe that HRW is pro-Palestinian but it is not a group set up for the purposes of supporting Palestinians so it's not a pro-Palestinian group.

[Randal]

Hahaha ok sure.

[Nige]

'All just a cover for, “Israel is not allowed to do anything to defend itself.”'

No, THAT'S just code for 'anyone who disagrees with us that the IDF have the right to killl thousands and thousands of civilians in 'self defence' is saying Israel can't defend itself.'

[Frank Drackman]

There is none, it's non-existent, like your dick

[Sarcastr0]

literally the only wars in which people suggest that the party attacked is limited in how many civilian casualties are permitted in its response to how many of *its* civilians have been killed is Israel.

You have paid zero attention to US politics if you think this is the case.

Not that I think it's a good argument, but come on dude.

[Nige]

Pretty sure I and many others made the exact same argument about the US plenty of times, pretty sure I was told I was crazy because the US doesn't target civilians, pretty sure I pointed out that thousands of civilians dead as collateral damage are still dead.

Russia gets excoriated for civilian killings every single day.

[Don Nico]

"Israel is deemed the oppressor, it doesn’t get to defend itself."
that is exactly the concept behind Hamas' release of a couple of hostages every few days. Invasion gets delayed, US increases pressure to wait, Israel gets more discouraged, the rest of the world sees the effect of air raids, Israeli is told that Palestinian kids have suffered enough, 2 more hostages get released, etc,
Hamas has enough hostages to play this game for a year.

[Sarcastr0]

The only Israel statement remains ridiculous. I notice you didn't really address that part.

But lets say that's Hamas' planned action. Wouldn't put it past them. That doesn't mean Israel is above criticism.

[SimonP]

I realize it's suspect. I would welcome more accurate, reliable numbers, if you have them. But you don't, do you?

[Bob from Ohio]

The lied by a factor of 10 [at least] when the hospital was "leveled" so lets go with that as SOP.

[SimonP]

So - believe Hamas's numbers, but discount them according to an arbitrarily-selected metric? Are you trying to get at the truth, or are you just interested in de-spinning something that you presume to be propaganda, for purposes of winning internet arguments?

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not "arbitrary" its based on a specific prior lie. People tend to follow patterns.

I have no idea what the number is, no one does. More than zero, far less than the Hamas claim is the range.

They inflate the numbers to draw in rubes.

[Frank Drackman]

IT WAS A HAM-ASS ROCKET THAT HIT THE HOSPITAL PARKING LOT, AND YES I KNOW I'M SHOUTING!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, that passed,
Parkinsonian Joe even Let Bibi know we know they (Israel) didn't do it. I'm sure Bibi was so grateful.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, I wonder about secondary explosions -- we both know that Hamas stores toys in its hospitals, and I doubt they are built to NATO specs. Hence one good bang out in the parking lot could touch off a lot of stuff inside the hospital as well...

[Drewski]

And you believe Hamas's numbers even though they've been proved false. They still claim over 200 civilian casualties from the hospital blast they caused and attribute them to Israel. Did you remove those from your tally? Of course not, because acknowledging that Hamas did it would be bad for Hamas, and you seem to be exceptionally loyal to them.

[Nige]

They've dropped an unholy amount of ordinance on that city in the last few weeks. Thousands dead is a certaintly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sucks to be them.

[Nige]

That's what Hamas said about the people *they* massacred.

[Scooter]

Just like the MSM immediately bought into "ZOMG, THE ISRAELIS JUST BOMBED A HOSPITAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".

Business as usual.

[SimonP]

None of the news I follow reported on the hospital bombing that way. They reported hundreds of deaths, but noted that it wasn't clear who was at fault. And, as facts became clear, all of that was rolled out in a timely fashion.

The only people, it seems, who think that the mainstream media jumped to an anti-Israeli narrative are people who don't follow quality journalism. In fact, I'll bet you heard about the hospital bombing on a right-wing aggregation site claiming that the MSM's coverage was biased against Israel.

Oh, and uh - never mind that the conviction that the bombing was caused by a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket is something that Biden has been pushing pretty hard. Do you trust him, in this instance?

[Bob from Ohio]

C'mon, Simon, the New York Times had an Israeli Bombs Hospital page with a picture of a different destroyed building.

[SimonP]

I still have the Wednesday print edition – it’s just in my recycling bin by my desk. From 10/18, the day after the strike:

Headline: Blast Kills Hundreds at Gaza Hospital Sub-headline: Palestinians and Israelis Blame Each Other Ahead of Biden’s Arrival

There’s a large image, above the fold, of Palestinians injured in the blast, including a caption: “The cause could not immediately be verified.” There’s another image, across the fold, of a destroyed building (as you state). Caption: “Pulling the dead and wounded from a building’s rubble in Khan Younis [that is, another city in southern Gaza]. President Biden was set to arrive in Israel on Wednesday.”

So, maybe you’d be misled, if you didn’t know how to read.

Now, I don’t know how any of this was presented online. I generally avoid the newspapers’ online editions. But it seems to me that you’re just lying about the coverage, to suit your own purposes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I generally avoid the newspapers’ online editions. But it seems to me that you’re just lying "

They changed it before your edition went out. The first image is on line at many places.

Stop being intentionally obtuse.

[SimonP]

The first image is on line at many places.

It seems you're more interested in the controversy over the initial reports than the underlying events.

And - as it turns out - you're misrepresenting even what the right-wing sources have screenshot from the initial reporting. Surprise, surprise.

[Frank Drackman]

The New York Times, all the Bullshit they print to fit the Marxist Stream Narrative.

[TwelveInchPianist]

CNN reported that hundreds were killed in an apparent Israeli airstrike.

[SimonP]

Well, the earliest CNN article I can find on the subject online doesn't say that, and there's no correction of an earlier misstatement. So I have to decide whether to believe that you are accurately recollecting the television coverage, or if instead you are just recalling something half-remembered, after having paid barely any attention in the first place, with all the tenacious intellect I've come to expect from you.

[zztop8970]

Liar.
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1714338460008399025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1714338460008399025%7Ctwgr%5E8579b4e087b7cbbff88c298a9fdc838daae7b4ca%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.camera.org%2Farticle%2Fcnns-mea-culpa-on-al-ahli-hospital-coverage-isnt-enough%2F

[zztop8970]

And there a correction right below that tweet. You are a pathetic little liar.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And stop calling people names. It doesn't belittle him, just you. You sound like a 3rd grader.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And stop calling people names. It doesn’t belittle him, just you. You sound like a 3rd grader.

Identifying personality traits is not "calling people names". Do you know the best way to avoid being branded a liar? Try telling the truth.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't subscribe to X, so I can't see all the discussion. But the tweet you linked says "Palestinian Health Ministry says...Israeli strike..." So they apparently weren't reporting that it was an Israeli strike, but that the Palestinian Health Ministry said it was.

[Michael P]

Is propaganda inherently newsworthy? Should headlines report it uncritically? Why did so many news outlets revise their headlines after actual facts came out?

Even in the US, news media can be liable for defamation if they print defamatory material but simply (correctly) attribute it to a third party. It's not just a question of what defines good practices.

[Nige]

Jesus does nobody remember the Iran/Iraq War? Every night, competing claims of death tolls acheived by either side. You weren't expected to decide that one or the other was lying and that one number was correct and go out and argu about it with your neighbour, you were just supposed to note that those were the claims.

[SimonP]

Are you all trying to prove to me that you can't read, or...?

[zztop8970]

The NYT itself has already conceded it erred in its coverage and (sort of) apologized, but its sycophants here are still in denial.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/new-york-times-gaza-hospital-blast-reporting-hamas-israel-1235624756/

[Don Nico]

"as facts became clear,"
It also became clear that 500 deaths was grossly inaccurate, as was the statement that it was the hospital that was bombed.

Basically your position is that “Israel is not allowed to do anything to defend itself.”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Basically" is doing a lot of work there.

[Frank Drackman]

It's not doing any work, it's one of those stupid words like "Literally" stupid people say to try and sound smart, cool cats like me and my muse Hemingway go right for the throat,
"Jesus Wept" (like a Bee-otch) what else needs to be said?

Frank

[Don Nico]

Meaning what?
As the Hamas hostage game plays on, that is de facto what is happening. Israeli troops are stationary outside of Gaza and Hezbollah makers just enough threatening moves to keep them pinned in place

[David Nieporent]

None of the news I follow reported on the hospital bombing that way. They reported hundreds of deaths, but noted that it wasn’t clear who was at fault.

You are completely full of shit here. 110%. They did not "note that it wasn’t clear who was at fault." The headlines were all along the lines of "500 killed as Israel bombs hospital, Palestinian health ministry says." (And the NYT did, in fact, illustrate the story with a photo of a bombed building elsewhere in Gaza — not the hospital, for obvious reasons.)

The first NYT headline was "Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say." Then they elaborated: "Israeli Airstrike Hits Gaza Hospital, Killing 500, Palestinian Health Ministry Says." The first BBC headline was "Hundreds killed in Israeli strike on Gaza hospital - Palestinian officials." The WSJ said "Israeli Airstrike on Gaza Hospital Kills More Than 500, Palestinian Officials Say." Reuters said, "More than 300 killed in Israeli air strike
on Gaza Hospital -civil defense official." AP was not quite as bad; at least they led with the fact that it was just an allegation by Hamas: "Hamas-run Health Ministry says Israeli airstrike on hospital kills hundreds"

Later, when that framing became untenable, they started adding that Israel disputes the claim and blames PIJ's rocket. And, yeah, two days later they admitted that experts had concluded that Israel was correct and Hamas was lying.

But the initial reporting was so one-sided that the UN put out a statement saying, "GENEVA (19 October 2023) – UN experts* today expressed outrage against the deadly strike at Al Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, which killed more than 470 civilians on Tuesday (17) and trapped hundreds under the rubble. " What makes this particularly telling is that there was no rubble. Setting aside who to blame, the entire thing was a fabrication.

[SimonP]

Headlines. You're complaining about headlines, and really on just the nuance between "Palestinians say" and "Hamas says."

What did those stories say, David? What was the actual reporting? You've compiled a list of accurate headlines and your complaint is... what? That they weren't drafted to invite readers to draw a skeptical impression about the claims summarized in the headlines? Is that what news organizations are supposed to do? Cue up things for us so that we can have fully-informed and balanced views just by scrolling past dozens of tweets?

My initial impression was that Israel bombed the hospital. But I derived that impression from perusing Reddit, not really reading anything, and just scanning headlines and text-threads where people were expressing outrage over it. That misimpression was on me, not the media. Reading the actual coverage of it, I found that reporters had always done the basic journalistic task of asking Israel/IDF about it, and they consistently reported that Israel/IDF disputed the Palestinian Health Ministry's initial claims.

People need to take more responsibility for their sloppy ignorance, not blame the media.

[Commenter_XY]

Physician, heal thyself = People need to take more responsibility for their sloppy ignorance, not blame the media.

[Publius]

Drop your Hamas propaganda. Every source of information in Gaza is controlled by Hamas, so expect plenty of lies. All of the military research conducted has concluded that the hospital explosion was the result of a failed rocket launch originating from inside Gaza. However, the facts do not matter for American "useful fools".

[Vryedni]

The Times admits they misled their readers:

On Oct. 17, The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage with claims by Hamas government officials that an Israeli airstrike was the cause and that hundreds of people were dead or injured. The report included a large headline at the top of The Times’s website.

Israel subsequently denied being at fault and blamed an errant rocket launch by the Palestinian faction group Islamic Jihad, which has in turn denied responsibility. American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions.

The Times’s initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage — and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels — relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.

The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility.

Given the sensitive nature of the news during a widening conflict, and the prominent promotion it received, Times editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation, and been more explicit about what information could be verified. Newsroom leaders continue to examine procedures around the biggest breaking news events — including for the use of the largest headlines in the digital report — to determine what additional safeguards may be warranted.

[SimonP]

Show your work.

Because, literally speaking, Hamas isn't killing Palestinians. Israel is. And from the apparent reporting, it's not entirely clear what military targets Israel is going after, that's causing the number of Palestinian casualties we're seeing. I've seen something like - less than ten Hamas commanders killed? What are they bombing? Empty apartments that a Hamas fighter slept in once? Everything we're seeing right now - in terms of just the sheer violence, to say nothing of the massive internal displacement ordered by Israel (and their lies to western media about it) or blockade of food, energy, and water and humanitarian aid - suggests that Israel is responding with unnecessarily overwhelming military force, not proportionate to the value of legitimate military targets, and is broadly indifferent to the impacts that their attacks are having on Palestinians.

So - if what you're saying is that even Israel's war crimes are Hamas's "responsibility," are you not, in fact, saying that Hamas's attack on Israel fully justifies an unlimited massacre of innocent Palestinians, by the Israeli military?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"if what you’re saying is that even Israel’s war crimes are Hamas’s “responsibility,”

If you have any evidence of war crimes by Israel, feel free to show your work. But until then, there's to evidence to contradict Israel's claim that it's attacking legitimate targets.

If Hamas gives Israel a choice between letting Israeli civilians get killed and killing Palestinian civilians as collateral damage when attacking Hamas, Israel is quite right to choose the latter.

And if Hamas wants to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties, all it has to do is surrender, or fight openly and stop using civilians as human shields. But as long as they hide among civilians, the responsibility for the civilian casualties is on them.

[SimonP]

But until then, there’s [no] evidence to contradict Israel’s claim that it’s attacking legitimate targets.

No evidence that it's telling the truth, either.

Is there a reason we should treat Hamas's casualty claims as suspect, but Israel's claims as presumptively valid? Don't both sides have the same incentive to lie, at least to the media?

[Krayt]

Because Israel has a free press, and democracy, and Hamas is literally mass murderers, who, someday, if there is a Palestinian state, will become the latest kleptocracy dictstorship on the planet, and in the region?

[SimonP]

You realize you're talking about Israel, a nation whose Prime Minister is under indictment for corruption, a PM who was seeking to fundamentally reform the Israeli judiciary with the not-incidental purpose of shielding himself from prosecution for those crimes, after having run multiple contentious and destabilizing elections for the sole purposes of forming a Knesset majority capable of empowering him to do precisely that?

Netanyahu is a kleptocrat. Part of the deal with the Palestinian Authority was to make them kleptocrats. The whole region is full of kleptocrats. Hamas is a terroristic organization with even less concern for the well-being of Palestinians that Israel or Fatah. But to describe them as would-be kleptocrats seems... quaint.

Anyway, Israel lies, has always lied, will continue to lie, to the US. They have their own interests and will tell the truth only insofar as it suits their purposes. Same as us. You're an idiot for taking them at their word.

[Krayt]

If you can't see the difference between Israel and life in those dictatorial, kleptocratic hellholes, you have incredible self-blinders.

[Randal]

One can be shittier than the other and still both shitty.

[SimonP]

I can see the difference, now. Just like I can still see a difference between Turkey and those other "dictatorial, kleptocratic hellholes", even though Erdogan is further down the path than Netanyahu.

The question isn't whether Israel is a better place to live than Gaza or Saudi Arabia or wherever. The question is whether the current Israeli government is one that is prone to corruption and deceit in order to achieve narrow political or financial ends. Under Netanyahu, it quite clearly is.

[Nige]

'Because Israel has a free press'

What does that have to do with claims by the Israeli government and the IDF?

Israel is arresting people for making posts critical of the bombardment on social media. Just so you know.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Is there a reason we should treat Hamas’s casualty claims as suspect, but Israel’s claims as presumptively valid?

Yes: Hamas has already been caught fabricating these claims, and Israel has not.

Don’t both sides have the same incentive to lie, at least to the media?

No, they don’t. There’s another round of easy answers to dumb questions in the books.

[SimonP]

You don't think Israel has an interest in over-valuing the importance of various putative "military targets" to be found in Gaza, in order to justify whatever civilian harms might result from attacking them?

I think people more or less agree that Hamas initiated the attack on Israel in order to draw focus from Israel's efforts to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and other powers in the Middle East. Their attack was likely timed to create a new flash point, both to re-elevate the plight of Palestinians in a world that has moved on to other things, and perhaps to further Iran's interests in the region. If that's the case, a key part of their strategy is to exaggerate the impact that Israel's response will have on civilians in Gaza. Right?

And if you agree with that, wouldn't it follow that Israel has an interest in fighting any contention that it is acting rashly? They are taking steps to stifle dissent within Israel and cut off independent or hostile media access to Gaza. They have every incentive to create a competing narrative to the one preferred by Hamas. Theirs may hew closer to the truth - or so I would hope.

But - just so you understand the propaganda you're being fed. Within Israel, there is debate over the responsibility Netanyahu should bear for the initial attack killing so many Israelis. Where is that discussion happening, in American media?

[Publius]

Shameless excuses for the Hamas massive murder. Do you approve the 9/11 terrorist act, too?
Are Al Qaida, ISIS and Boko Haram your heroes?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is there a reason we should treat Hamas’s casualty claims as suspect, but Israel’s claims as presumptively valid?"

I don't need to give any credence to Israel's claims. Hamas streamed plenty of video of what they did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"less than ten Hamas commanders"

You know Hamas is not 100% "commanders".

They've been blowing up munitions dumps and rocket launchers too.

[SimonP]

If you have seen any reliable reporting at all that would help to support the conclusion that Israel has been causing only as much civilian death and destruction as reasonably necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives, please feel free to share.

Personally, I would not give Israel the benefit of the doubt, when it says that an apartment block must be destroyed without warning in order to get to a rocket launcher.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I would not give Israel the benefit of the doubt"

That is the least shocking statement ever.

[Bored Lawyer]

So basically, you don't know, but conclude that Israel has committed war crimes.

Kind of like in the old Soviet Union (remember that kids?) where first they would convict, and then hold a trial.
Have a nice day, Comrade.

[SimonP]

I am drawing reasonable conclusions based on what's being reported. No one - not a single one of you raving lunatics - has been able to describe to me, much less link a story reporting, the military objectives that Israel has so far achieved in Gaza by its attacks to date. The only case being made by any of you pointless dittoheads is that Israel is entitled to do whatever Israel decides it needs to do, without our second-guessing its judgment or even suggesting that it abide by the international law of war.

[Nige]

What, exactly, led you to a place where you would give any military body from any country the benefit of any doubt whatsoever?

[Don Nico]

"an unlimited massacre of innocent Palestinians,"
That is classic question begging. There is no Israeli massacre and we have no idea of how many of the casualties were Hamas enablers rather than "innocent.

[Nige]

Schrodinger's massacre.

[Don Nico]

Meaningless, but at least it is anodyne

[Nige]

That’s the point. It’s irresponsible to think that all those bombs and missiles have killed lots of civilians, not unless the IDF, the ones doing the bombing and missiling, say so.

[Don Nico]

Wow! That is a truly obtuse statement.

[Nige]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought stating outright that the IDF have probably killed thousands was a bit too on the nose. Which is it?

[Don Nico]

O course you are not sorry. Obviously the bombing has led to civilian casualties. That is obvious. That is what happens in war, especially when civilians are used as human shields. Why don't you condemn the people who use them as such.

[David Nieporent]

Because, literally speaking, Hamas isn’t killing Palestinians. Israel is

Guy who claims he wasn't fooled by reporting about hospital incident still fooled by reporting about hospital incident.

[SimonP]

Precisely speaking, the hospital blast was apparently caused by Islamic Jihad, a separate militant group.

But, sure - if you want to make the point that Palestinian civilians are being hurt by Hamas's own guns and rockets, I would acknowledge that. Ditto if you were to suggest that Hamas may be killing Palestinians extrajudicially, for whatever reason. I have every reason to believe that Hamas would not be above that sort of thing.

But is your point, then, that the thousands of deaths and injuries being reported in Gaza are significantly attributable to intentional and accidental attacks from Hamas, IJ, and other criminal groups within Gaza? Or are you just mocking me for not speaking in qualified-enough terms?

[Drewski]

"Because, literally speaking, Hamas isn’t killing Palestinians. Israel is."

Hamas is literally killing innocent Palestinians. They shot their own hospital and killed people on the evac route, and that's only what we know publicly.

[Don Nico]

“The United States on Tuesday rejected growing calls to support a cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hamas because such a move would only benefit Hamas, a White House spokesman said.”
What is becoming clear is that Hamas will survive this period of conflict. Intense negotiations for hostage release will keep the IDF sidelined. Pressures on the US will grow from more and more countries and gradually the US will warn Israel more and more forcefully that an invasion is unwise. Iran and its clients will make threatening noises in the north. And eventually Israel ill decide that the reservists are better off on the job keeping the economy humming along.
Thus Gazan casualties are converting a threatened extermination of Hamas into just another mowing of the grass,

[Scooter]

It's weird how none of the "pro-Palestinian" folks can make an unqualified statement condemning Hamas' murder of over 1000 Israeli civilians.

[SimonP]

And it's weird that the people who care so much about Hamas's terrorism can't make an unqualified statement about condemning Israel's war crimes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Have you produced any evidence of war crimes?

[SimonP]

Does a statement against interest count?

Israel has directed Gazans living in the north to relocate south, and has cut off all water, food, and electricity to the territory. The former, at the risk of being presumed to be allied with the terrorists, the latter, until Israeli hostages are released. These are war crimes, not tied to any legitimate military purpose, and it's not even close.

Whether the loss of life and destruction of civilian infrastructure is worth collapsing a few tunnels and blowing up a few munitions factories is something we won't know for a while.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and just why after 17 years of Hamas rule and hundreds of millions of dollars in aid is Gaza entirely dependent on Israel for food, water and electricity?

[Jerry B.]

Make that billions of dollars. The U.S. alone has been giving the Palestinians half a billion in humanitarian aid each year for at least the past decade.

[Frank Drackman]

Well, Gaza is “land locked” (Mediterranean’s overrated) and doesn’t share any borders with friendly A-rab nations that could help them out.

[Michael P]

Egypt considers itself Arabic, and Gaza definitely has a land border with Egypt.

[Frank Drackman]

I said "With Friendly A-rab nations that could help them out"
Egypt certainly isn't "Helping them out"

Frank

[Michael P]

Egypt could help them. Egypt largely chooses not to. I think that's an important difference.

[SimonP]

Mr. Bumble, if you were paying any attention, you would understand that there are multiple factors at play here.

Gaza was capable of producing some of its own water and electricity. Israel cut off that capability, by cutting off fuel. Hamas diverted humanitarian aid and resources to further its own terrorist efforts. Israel has limited Gaza's ability to develop self-sufficiency, by limiting its ability to trade or engage in commerce and by restricting the import of equipment that could be used by Hamas to further its own terrorist efforts.

Whatever the reason, cutting off supplies to punish a population is a war crime.

[Bob from Ohio]

"These are war crimes,"

No they are not.

Point to the provision in a treaty that says so. Be specific.

[SimonP]

The Geneva Convention on Civilians, to which Israel is a party, contain multiple provisions that either prohibit Israel's actions, or include exceptions that Israel is not complying with.

To be clear - Hamas is also violating several of these provisions. They're not party to the Geneva Conventions, but I would acknowledge they are engaged in "war crimes" even so.

[Armchair]

Link to the specific provision and specific "crime" linked to such a provision.

I'm unaware of any provision in the Geneva Convention which requires a hostile power to provide electricity to civilians on the other side.

[Harvey Mosley]

It is not Israel's responsibility to provide water, power, food, etc. to an area they are at war with. And yes, Hamas is the government of Gaza, so Israel is at war with Gaza.

And your demands that others "show their work" while you show none of yours is dishonest.

[SimonP]

Is it? I'm just trying to save time. I can't write a dissertation every time a moron decides that they've got just the talking point to put me in my place.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Citing the relevant statute might help your case, though, you waste of carbon molecules.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Warning civilians of an imminent attack, and thereby not only reducing its effectiveness but actively increasing the danger for your own soldiers, is a war crime?

[SimonP]

It's a forcible displacement of people living in a large chunk of Gaza, including entire cities and surrounding less-urban areas. We're not talking about "roof knocks" here (not that Israel has been using those, either).

[Don Nico]

"These are war crimes, not tied to any legitimate military purpose, and it’s not even close. "
ipse dixit and that's all.

[David Nieporent]

and has cut off all water, food, and electricity to the territory.

Second aid convoy enters Gaza Strip from Egypt - UN official

[SimonP]

David, it's really interesting to me that, as one of the few commenters here who can coherently disagree with me, you're so reluctant to read anything you bother to cite. In some ways, you're no different from the rest of this rabble.

The need for relief is on the order of about 100 trucks a day. Allowing a second "convoy" of fewer than 20 trucks through is not nearly sufficient. (Nor is it consistent with Israel's obligations under the law of war.)

Israel has been pressured by the US (and perhaps other western countries) to do the bare minimum when it comes to permitting humanitarian relief, lest we start seeing war photos of people dead of dehydration. But it would have been better if they had permitted Gaza's desalination and power plants to continue running in the first place.

[David Nieporent]

you’re so reluctant to read anything you bother to cite.

Maybe, but at least I can tell the difference between "cut off all water, food, and electricity" and "not nearly sufficient."

[SimonP]

So, to be clear, you agree that Israel is intentionally starving Gaza of resources? You just disagree as to whether it is doing so via a total blockade, vs. a near-total blockade?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You might claim to tell the difference, yet you're also blatantly ignoring the two weeks where supplies were being blockaded entirely.

[Toranth]

Israel does not, has not, and cannot "blockade" the Egyptian border.

[bernard11]

I disagree, Simon.

I agree with David that the basic meaning of Zionism is the idea that there should exist a Jewish state. I think that when someone says "there is no room for Zionism," they are saying there is not and never was a good reason to establish such a state, which demonstrates a massive ignorance of history, which certainly proved Herzl right.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm with bernard.

[JasonT20]

when someone says “there is no room for Zionism,” they are saying there is not and never was a good reason to establish such a state, which demonstrates a massive ignorance of history, which certainly proved Herzl right.

At the time Herzl chaired the First Zionist Congress in 1897, the Jewish population of the area that would become Mandatory Palestine seems to be quite small. (~10% - With this text being the reference for that)

Thinking about this from the perspective of those living in 1900: The goal of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine at the turn into the 20th Century would seem to require the displacement of the existing population, greatly outpacing their population growth through migration, or a combination of the two. Also, the area was part of the Ottoman Empire in 1900, so any Jewish state in Palestine was going to require their approval.

Once the British were looking toward the end of the War being in their favor, there were negotiations taking place and then the Balfour Declaration:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour

I note how this was worded to avoid stating that a Jewish state would be created and that the existing population's rights would be respected. Given how events played out over the following century, I don't see how those rights were upheld.

Now, stating basic facts like this shouldn't require it, but I will state clearly anyway that none of this history remotely justifies terrorism of any kind in the present, let alone how far Hamas went two weeks ago.

The goal of my response here is what I have tried to say in other comments on this topic. The creation of the state of Israel was accomplished in a manner that I can't imagine any people would accept being imposed on them in their own lands. I mean, I scoff at anti-immigrant fervor and "replacement theory" conspiracies, but what were Arab Palestinians in the early 20th century supposed to think was happening? What are they supposed to think about that history now?

Israel's right to exist peacefully now is unquestioned by me, but I do not see it as something in any way unquestionable when the Zionist movement started.

[SimonP]

I agree with David that the basic meaning of Zionism is the idea that there should exist a Jewish state.

You can be wrong. I'm fine with that.

I think that when someone says “there is no room for Zionism,” they are saying there is not and never was a good reason to establish such a state, which demonstrates a massive ignorance of history, which certainly proved Herzl right.

And all I am suggesting is that some Wellesley RAs probably did not intend to say that their college should be pro-genocide. I gather that you find that a reasonable intent to attribute to them (as apparently does David). I think there are more plausible explanations for what they were trying to say, as laid out in my comment.

[David Nieporent]

And all I am suggesting is that some Wellesley RAs probably did not intend to say that their college should be pro-genocide.

I agree. But that's just a statement that they're so stupid that they don't even understand what they're advocating, not a statement that they don't oppose the existence of the state of Israel. They want Israel destroyed; they haven't bothered to think through what that means for the Jews.

[Randal]

I think you can believe all four of these things:

a) Israel was a bad idea 100 years ago, so if we could go back in time we might consider doing things differently

b) The Jewish people have no God-given or inherent right to Palestinian lands

c) The fact that many people believe that the Jewish people have a God-given or inherent right to Palestinian lands continues to cause problems to this day in the form of overly-entitled Israeli policies like settlements (which some have taken to calling 'apartheid' for better or worse)

d) The Palestinians also have no God-given or inherent right to Palestinian lands, and Israel has been there for 100 years now, so their claim is good and Israel should continue to exist and has the right to defend itself

[bernard11]

I'll buy 2,3,and 4.

But you can't make a case for #1 unless you say what a viable, possible alternative would have been.

[Randal]

Oklahoma. It's good enough for the Indians. It's also already got a Jerusalem.

But I take your point and would maybe rephrase that one as

a) The Jewish people have no God-given or inherent right to Palestinian lands, so the original decision to seize those lands for Israel was problematic and has led entirely predictably to long-term regional conflict

[JasonT20]

Randal is making largely the same point I tried to make above that no one replied to. However great the need for the Jewish diaspora to have a homeland where their human rights were fully protected, it did not justify creating that homeland in an already occupied area without the full consent and cooperation of the people already there. From what I can find, the Ottomans rejected proposals from the Zionist movement c.1900, and it was the British that started to support it once they had control of the region. The Palestinian Arabs never had self-determination over the question. The Jewish homeland created in Palestine was imposed upon them from outside. I repeat my observation that no one that supports Israel in the present would accept any such thing happening where they live.

[David Nieporent]

However great the need for the Jewish diaspora to have a homeland where their human rights were fully protected, it did not justify creating that homeland in an already occupied area without the full consent and cooperation of the people already there.

So, in other words, you grudgingly acknowledge that maybe there was a practical need for a Jewish homeland, but you don't think it should actually have been created anywhere on earth. Except maybe in Antarctica.

[Absaroka]

Well, if in 1945 Bavaria had been picked instead of Palestine, my sympathy for the displaced Bavarians would be quite a bit less - approximately zero, in fact - than my sympathy for the displaced Palestinians.

(and to be clear, getting a raw deal in 1945 doesn't justify deliberately killing infants, in 1945 or 2023)

[Randal]

Antarctica or Oklahoma.

[JasonT20]

So, in other words, you grudgingly acknowledge that maybe there was a practical need for a Jewish homeland, but you don’t think it should actually have been created anywhere on earth. Except maybe in Antarctica.

If "in other words" is meant to indicate that you are about to create a straw man out of my statements, sure.

The practical need for a Jewish homeland, as established in this thread of comments, was due to even the countries somewhat sympathetic to their plight not being willing to open themselves up to Jewish migration on a large enough scale. So, they instead supported imposing that burden on someplace unconnected to the oppression that Jews were experiencing in Europe and Russia.

You and others keep doing everything you can to avoid dealing with the fact that the people of Palestine in the early 20th century had no real say in this. Nor with the fact that such an imposition against a people's self-determination would be wholly unacceptable to you in regards to where you live.

None of the horrors inflicted upon Jews in Europe and farther east into Russia lay at the feet of the Palestinian Arabs of ~1920-1947. Even the horrors inflicted on Israelis in the present by Palestinian terrorists don't retroactively make them responsible for giving up their living space to create a Jewish homeland. Nor do I see how half a million Israelis living in West Bank settlements was necessary for Israel's security. Rather, it has all the appearance of an attempt to secure more of ancient Samaria and Judea to eventually become part of Israel.

[David Nieporent]

I am not sure what the Wellesley RAs thought they meant by the term,

Sure you are; you're just pretending you're not.

[SimonP]

Oh, enlighten me, rotund one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh really, Simon...

Read Stephen King's Children of the Corn to understand these animals, they are no longer quite human.

[Randal]

Wait what sort of apology would've satisfied you, DB? "We were wrong, we think all Palestinians should be thrown into a sarlac pit, and the King of Israel is the true ruler of the Universe!" probably.

[Armchair]

How about just "we were wrong, we apologize"

They don't actually do that. Best you got was an apology for "We overstepped our roles"

As school employees, they're creating a hostile environment with such statements, and opening up the college to lawsuits.

[Randal]

But isn't "we overstepped our roles, we apologize" exactly right?

"We were wrong, actually it's the Palestinians who deserve to die" doesn't really work, does it.

[Michael P]

They didn’t apologize for what they said. They barely apologized for pretending to speak for the entire residence hall. They didn’t apologize for rejecting Zionism or invoking antisemitic tropes. They said they were sorry IF what they said undermined their roles as RAs.

In short, an actual apology was in order, not that second thing that they wrote.

[Randal]

They didn’t apologize for rejecting Zionism or invoking antisemitic tropes.

What antisemitic tropes?

They obviously don't need to apologize for having rejected Zionism as a personal belief, and they did apologize for foisting that belief onto the entire residence hall. Seems right to me.

As I hypothesized above, you and David seem to want them to repudiate their beliefs. That's obviously not going to happen nor is it necessary here... unless you can point me to some coded antisemitic phraseology or something that I missed.

[Michael P]

Most notable was the conflation of Israeli self-defense with a "Zionism" that they explicitly rejected as illegitimate.

Most of their original letter was full of arguments that Israel should not defend its citizens. Sure, they don't explicitly SAY that's because Israelis are Jews, but that's what they mean.

[Randal]

Sure, they don’t explicitly SAY that’s because Israelis are Jews, but that’s what they mean.

No, it's not.

If y'all keep misdiagnosing the problem, you’ll never be able to fix it.

[Nige]

They have NO INTEREST in fixing the problem. Eternal bloody war is apparently all they want.

[Michael P]

Sure, champ. Look at the update and decide which of us was right about whether the apology was in earnest.

[Randal]

Huh? Nobody thought they had changed their mind about Zionism, and that's not what the apology was about. Still not seeing any antisemitic tropes. And you’re still misdiagnosing the disease.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And they still are going to donate the mandatory fee money to Hamas...

[Frank Drackman]

Anti-Semite much
It's Smegma stains like you that erected a Parkinsonian Rube to the Oval Orifice, and what the fucks up with his chin? Looks like friggin Peter Griffin.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that Prof. Bernstein is overreacting (not to the substance, which is awful, but because college kids do a lot of dumb awful things), but surely even you can see how that’s not an actual apology?

[Randal]

We are also truly sorry... and apologize...

It's literally an apology. It doesn't read to me at all like a fake apology.

[David Bernstein]

The issue here is less with the "college kids" and more with the reaction of the college president, who tried to paper over the whole thing because, again, the students were speaking as university employees.

[Social Justice is neither]

So no consequences for bad behavior? Demanding expulsion or firing would be too much but demanding they step back from pro-genocidal rhetoric as university employees is too much for you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

but because college kids do a lot of dumb awful things

Excusing shitty behavior by college students because they're "kids" has been old for a long time now. But if you do want to take that position, then surely you favor repealing Amendment XXVI?

[bernard11]

I can't speak for David, but I don't much care for the apology either.

Look at the original letter:

Munger Hall stands in strong condemnation of Israel's actions and those who have supported their actions against Palestinians. We firmly believe that there should be no space, no consideration, and no support for Zionism within the Wellesley College community

Then they apologize:

We want our residents to know that while we never intended so, we understand how making this statement has caused hurt to specific populations in our community. We as a staff are committed to rebuilding trust and repairing relationships in the Munger community.

It never occurred to them that many Jewish students would be offended or hurt by that statement? That they had zero authority to make political pronouncements on behalf of Munger Hall? When were they elected to do that?

About 10% of Wellesley's enrollment is Jewish, some of are quite possibly Israelis, so there are maybe 15 Jewish Munger residents. Now they want to rebuild trust. How do they propose to do that?

[Sarcastr0]

Noscitur has it right - these are kids with more passion than sense who got in over their head and don't know how to get out.

Hopefully they learn something.

[bernard11]

these are kids with more passion than sense who got in over their head and don’t know how to get out.

Aren't RA's typically graduate students - hence 22-25 years old, roughly? By that age I think they should have learned that when you step in the shit you can't just pretend it doesn't stink.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, you are watching people justify that which cannot be justified, or rationalized in civil society. Open your eyes.

[Sarcastr0]

Open your eyes.

Do you think Wellesley College is pro-Hamas?

[David Nieporent]

In my experience — which does not involve Wellesley, to be clear — they're mostly upperclassmen, not graduate students. We know the lead RA author of this is Class of 24, for example, which makes her a senior. But explaining it away as "passion" is pretty lame. First, it's pretty telling that there was evidently no comparable "passion" when the attacks on 10/7 happened, Second, this was not a spontaneous verbal outburst. The RAs evidently met to formulate a formal position and then sat down to compose an email laying it out.

But speaking of the "overstepping," what's really bizarre is that they thought it was their business to take any position on this issue. RAs are supposed to make sure that roommate conflicts are resolved and nobody is playing music too loudly and perhaps that there's food and drink at some organized study break events held from time to time. But not to give away student money to random causes and not to attempt to resolve geopolitical conflicts. (I don't want my RAs endorsing Zionism any more than I want them opposing it.) If they notice students are upset about the events, they can (as they indeed did) refer those students to appropriate campus resources.

[Randal]

I can only assume that they thought their anti-Zionist position was so universally held within the community that an explicit statement of it was benign, like offering thoughts and prayers after a mass shooting. Who could possibly be offended by thought and prayers, or by casual anti-Zionism?

That should be a big red flag for those of us who support Israel. But David prefers to pretend like it's just a bunch of antisemitism. It isn't. People are choosing sides in a war, and they're not siding with Israel.

[bernard11]

In my experience, also not at Wellesley, RA's were graduate/law/medical students. A lot of what they did was shepherd drunks back to their rooms.

I'm not sure it matters. If you claim to be qualified to serve as an RA you should have some common sense about this sort of thing.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I can understand why Israeli students would be offended or hurt by the statement. But not other Jews. Perhaps they disagree with the statement, but why would it offend them? Other than the fact that the RA's have no business making such a statement under their authority as RA's.

[Sarcastr0]

You ever talked to a Jew about Israel? There’s a cultural identity there even if they don’t live there.

Birthright trips, etc.

[bernard11]

OK. I’m not an Israeli.

I have lots of relatives in Israel. All of them are there because they are descendants of post-WWII refugees and Holocaust survivors. Maybe you or some of the others could explain to me where exactly these people should have gone after the war.

Maybe the pious Europeans, who criticize Zionism but refused, by and large, to admit many of these people – as did the US for years – could answer that question.

Here’s a suggestion. Try reading The Last Million to get a clue, and maybe drop the “colonialist” shtick.

[JasonT20]

Well, that was part of the historical problem, wasn’t it? There were countries that certainly had the capacity to provide refuge to Jews fleeing persecution throughout the first half of the 20th century that instead refused many of them. And it was many of those same countries that were instrumental in advancing the cause of those Jews to migrate to Palestine, regardless of what the existing population was willing to accept.

[bernard11]

Yes. Of course. And this was true after WWII as well, wrt Jewish survivors.

No "anti-Zionist" yet has dealt with this issue. I suspect the anti-Zionists are not entirely familiar with the history.

[JasonT20]

What Zionists have dealt with the fact that the existing population of Palestine during the British Mandate did not have control over immigration to their homeland? Palestinian Arabs seem to have refused to participate in the UN Partition planning out of a belief that it was favoring the recent increase in the Jewish population and promise of an even larger influx. And the plan that did come out of it (never implemented because hostilities and eventually war broke out first) could be argued to have proved them right.

[Randal]

Sounds more like you don't care for the original letter than that you don't care for the apology.

[bernard11]

Well, I think an apology should be appropriate to the offense, so I want to view them in relation to one another.

If I accidentally bump into you gently on the bus, then a simple, "Oh, I'm sorry," is fine. If I knock you down I think something stronger is called for.

BTW, among other things, why are the RA's using the students' email addresses to blast political screeds? Shouldn't they reserve mass emails for administrative matters?

[Randal]

The apology reads to me as being fulsome, and they explicitly apologize for what you pointed out of misusing their megaphone.

What would you've liked to have seen in the apology?

[bernard11]

Try this:

We would like to apologize to Munger residents and staff for the email we sent you last night. While we do not retract the opinions we expressed, we recognize that both the tone of our message and the manner in which we disseminated it, were wrong.

First, it was wrong for us to issue a political statement purportedly representing the stance of Munger Hall. We should not have ascribed views we hold as individuals to the entire dormitory. We have no authority to do so, it is far ouside of our responsibilities as RA’s, and we had no basis for thinking we were entitled to express, or were expressing, the stance of Munger as opposed to our personal opinions.

We understand that there are residents who disagree with our statement, many as passionately as we support it. There are also those whose disagreement is mild. They too are part of Munger Hall. Overlooking this obvious fact was negligent on our part. To them we apologize for trying to commandeer them, as well as neutrals, to our cause, and for saying there is no space for them at Wellesley.

Second, it was inappropriately intrusive to use residents’ email addresses for this purpose. These addresses are provided to us to use for administrative matters, or to handle governance issues, not to use as a vehicle for expressing our political opinions.

Third, while criticizing Israel harshly, we made no mention of atrocities committed by Hamas, or its genocidal rhetoric, either during the recent events or in the past. At a minimum this presented an incomplete picture of the situation. At worst it dehumanizes the Israeli victims of these atrocities.

To those who are from Israel, or have family and friends there, let us say that we understand our sentiments are very hurtful, and even threatening, to you. It was not our intention to inflict pain or fear, but we did so, and should have known we would. For this, again, we apologize.

Have at it.

[Randal]

I think that’s better, although I don’t think the “Third” paragraph is necessary. I don’t think they need to apologize for not being “fair and balanced” any more than they need to retract their expressed opinions.

I also doubt that the “Second” paragraph is necessary. I don’t know for sure, but if they’re anything like my college, I suspect they (and probably regular students too) use the email list for all sorts of social and informal communication, not just administrative announcements. In other words, if Moi had sent an uncontroversial rant to everyone, I don't think the RAs would need to be apologizing for misuse of emails.

So yes, minus paragraphs two and three it’s better than what they wrote. I’m trying to see though if it’s qualitatively better or just an incremental improvement because you’re a better writer. Let’s see… they covered your “First” paragraph with this:

We overstepped our roles as reslife staff in making this statement and apologize for that.

They covered your concluding mea culpa with this:

We want our residents to know that while we never intended so, we understand how making this statement has caused hurt to specific populations in our community.

Again, yours is better written and less ham-handed but same gist.

The one thing that I think is missing from their apology that really was necessary was a version of this:

To them we apologize for … saying there is no space for them at Wellesley.

I think that particular sentiment, that there’s no space for Zionists, deserved a specific apology. So yes, in that sense your rewrite includes a key element missing from the RA letter.

[Scooter]

Can't for the life of me understand why ANYONE would thing that the current Left is Anti-semitic.

Weird

[Jerry B.]

Consider who the audience for the Washington Post is, then read all the anti-Israel and antisemitic comments there, and it becomes clear.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not denying there are antisemites on the left via going overboard on support for Palestinians, but who said 'The Jews will not Replace Us?'

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And "going overboard on support for Palestinians" by itself does not make one antisemitic.

[Sarcastr0]

It does not, but it can be a rout to that place.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And “going overboard on support for Palestinians” by itself does not make one antisemitic.

It does when the Palestinians you're supporting are beheading and burning Jewish children, gang-raping Jewish women, etc.

[Publius]

This folks do not have groups on US campuses, friendly media and are not represented in the US House.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the media is totally friendly to folks like those in the OP.

The right has an antisemitism problem the left is way far away from catching up to.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Israeli Harvard Business School Student Accosted and Harassed Amid Gaza ‘Die-In’ on Campus"

https://freebeacon.com/campus/israeli-harvard-business-school-student-accosted-and-harassed-amid-gaza-die-in-on-campus/

Yes, the rot runs deep in academia. And the spineless administration will do nothing.

[Jonathan Affleck]

An Israeli student seems to have been trying to take pictures up close of students at a B-School die-in. They wanted him to leave, and there was some unwelcome contact.

Unwelcome contact can be assault if there is mens rea (criminal intent).

However Massachusetts law also recognizes the taking a picture without consent can be intimidation under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Again the issue is intent. Because of the doxxing truck craziness, which might be a different sort of violation, it's worthwhile to be aware of some of the laws.

[Frank Drackman]

Aren't there some minors you should be diddling in a Madrassa??

[Longtobefree]

Dear Munger Res Staff,
We are sorry you were offended when we fired you Jew hating asses for bigotry to the point of hate crimes.
Sincerely, the Administration.

(note: this is from an alternate universe)

[Jonathan Affleck]

I object to calling a Zionist a Jew. A Zionist is post-Judaism. Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can see why—unlike you, many zionists are actually Jewish.

[Drewski]

Now wait just a darn minute. Affleck is such a deranged pice of shit that it's hard to tell where mental illness ends and evil begins, but if he's a Jew, he's a Jew. We aren't immune from being. . . that, and we don't have an impeachment process.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not impossible, but he's said a lot to make me question anything he says.

[David Bernstein]

He's not a Jew. He's an antisemitic troll using an alias, you can google it if you have time to waste.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No excommunication?

[VinniUSMC]

I don’t know you, so I’ll take at face value that you’re Jewish. But, you’re also a Nazi, so fuck off Nazi scum.

[Frank Drackman]

I object to you contributing to Global Warming, do everyone a favor and pull a Moe-hammad Atta.

[ReaderY]

One could imagine how black students would feel with dorm residence leaders had sent a letter expressing not just that integrationism has no place at Wellesley, but expressing solidarity with and collecting funds for the victims of the illegal occupation of White territory, especially the victims savagely murdered by the barbaric soldiers Eisenhower and Kennedy called in to enforce the illegal occupation.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I’m not a military strategist even though unlike the vast majority here, I’ve got a Combat Action Ribbon (not “Medal”, it’s ass-umed you’ll get shot at in Combat, so it’s just a pretty colored ribbon, unlike the Pistol/Rifle Expert awards, which are actual “Medals) And, even though I’m a Jew, been to Israel, and still have my Meir Kahane/Baruch Goldstein Trading Cards, until October 7, I spent as much time worrying about Gaza as I do the Global Warming which isn’t happening, would be nice if it was, and we can’t do shit about it anyway, Buttt. What did the Palestinians THINK Israel was gonna do after you murder 2,000 unarmed Civilians?? Israel’s actually going easy on them, I wouldn’t only cut off their food, water, electricity, I’d do something Biblical, like parachute in thousands of hungry King Cobras, Nile Crocodiles, maybe even something really horrific, like Pete Booty-Judge or those annoying Harpies from "The View"

Frank

[Jerry B.]

Get medieval on their asses, perhaps ?

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Mid-Evil" but yes

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd be happy with one battleship and its nine 16" guns.

[Frank Drackman]

While they look cool and yes, I released more than a few inner tensions watching that Cher Video on the USS Missouri, Battleship guns are designed to sink other Battleships, not for attacking shore targets, the trajectory is too flat, which is why they were all eventually retired, as their whole rai·son d'ê·tre went away.

Frank

[jimc5499]

I don't know about that. They were also designed for shore bombardment. It also depends on the type of shell being fired. I saw the USS New Jersey shoot off Lebanon in the early 80's.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Battleships (and destroyers as well) have been used quite often for coastal bombardment.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has any Volokh Conspirator addressed the incessant bigotry, or calls for violence, that have become a signature element of the Volokh Conspiracy?

A single one?

Concerning the racial slurs and vivid racism;

the calls for liberals to be gassed;

the transphobia that afflicts this blog from top to bottom;

the calls for liberals to be shot in the face;

the calls for liberals to be placed face-down in landfills;

the old-timey misogyny;

the calls for liberals to be sent to Zyklon showers;

the superstition-heavy gay-bashing;

the Islamophobia and right-wing antisemitism;

the calls for liberals to be pushed through woodchippers . . .

the backwater hatred of immigrants, with overtones of white nationalism and white supremacy;

the calls for liberals to be raped . . .

the strange fixation on drag queens, Black crime, lesbians, Muslims, white grievance, transgender this and transgender that;

etc. etc. etc.?

Carry on, clingers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What a bunch of character-deprived cowards . . . and prominent Federalist Society leaders and members!

[Kazinski]

Well I have to say I'm not really a Zionist as a matter of philosophical belief.

But I certainly have no problem with the idea of Israel having the right to defend itself. That's where I part company with the resident advisors, that and the idea that they would have any moral or practical authority to declaring the residences Zionist free zones.

But it's a far cry from questioning the Balfour declaration, or the UN partition in 1947, and saying that Israel isn't a country now with every right of self defense that every other country has.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So many minor, non-representative isolated incidents.

[M L]

The fringe is big. It's a big fringe.

[Mike Adamson]

Sorry to interrupt the bunfight but as far as apologies go, I thought it was pretty good. Too often they follow a "sorry if you were offended" template but I thought this one covered the bases appropriately.

[Michael P]

Look at the update. Do you feel even a tiny bit of shame for being suckered? Will you learn anything from this incident?

[Randal]

No apology of this kind is ever sincere. Its lack of sincerity was never in doubt. I don't even think the RAs wrote it.

The only metric you can use to gauge a public apology is itself. As Mike Adamson said, this one is pretty good (although I do think it's missing one thing which I mentioned elsewhere).

The purpose of the apology, really, is to make the perpetrator regret their original action (with notice to the victims of the action). This one did that.

If you could make a case that the RAs still would've sent that first email knowing that they'd be forced to apologize for it, that would be a different story... and a good justification for firing them.

If the RAs had never sent the original email, they'd have nothing to apologize for, but they'd still be anti-Zionists.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Indeed, if I can find the time, I will personally file the former.

Hollow threat. Prof. Bernstein is completely occupied by ignoring the right-wing antisemitism and other bigotry that saturates his white, male, right-wing, faux libertarian blog.

[SimonP]

It seems that David, at least, is not as confident as he used to be that he can use the VC to call for students to be fired for their statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict. For a brief second, his updated post included a comment that the student RA in question was still trying to get herself fired. That comment disappeared, strangely...

[Longtobefree]

"We want our residents to know that while we never intended so, we understand how making this statement has caused hurt to specific populations in our community."

This is a direct, bald-faced lie. They intended to "hurt" a very specific population in the community. They understand exactly how that statement could hurt, which is why they made it. If they are not fired, then expelled, we will know the administration is also lying.

[SimonP]

Hey, uh, David - these Instagram screenshots that you're posting, which cannot be independently verified as of now - how sure are you that they're authentic?

Separately - are your "sources" friends of the RA in question who are concerned about her actions, or are they conservative sleuths online, whose harassment campaign you're facilitating here?

[David Bernstein]

Just FYI, I'm tired of you and your constant vitriol, so you can feel free to comment all you want, but I'm muting you and thus won't see them, joining Rev. Kirkland.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I can see SimonP's comments.

Get an education.

[Randal]

Ha turns out Simon's "vitriol" was right and DB was forced to recant and apologize.

Probably ought to apologize to Simon specifically... and Moi.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Those questions are too tough for you to answer?

Another 1.5C of global warming and you're likely to melt.

[SimonP]

It's interesting to me that, over all the years where I've contested David's pro-Israel screeds, it is not my criticisms of his pro-Israel, anti-Palestine attacks that causes him the most consternation, but the ones where I point out that he is a law professor who is actively trying to blacklist college and law students using Twitter and this platform.

He has never even tried to defend that behavior. He has deleted my comments, he has responded only to tell me he's not going to respond, now he has responded to tell me that he's never going to respond again. It's almost like he understands that, on some level, what he's doing is not really defensible.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I saw what you saw as well.

I thought your comments were reasonable ones, and your questions deserved better responses from a law professor. I was pleased to see that you called out his excuse of not providing evidence in the comments to prevent 'drawing attention,' but then blogging with the aim of doing precisely that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This dumbass is flailing in a blind rage, and he was a fringe player to begin with. The taxpayers of Virginia deserve better . . . and may eventually decide that a guy who hides behind tenure while posting shit like this at a bigot-hugging blog doesn't deserve to be subsidized by those taxpayers.

Bring it on, clingers!

[Estragon]

“Vitriol”

Wow, heal thyself. Have you re-read anything you’ve written over the last 2 weeks?

[Estragon]

Additionally, given your behavior on these boards recently, I highly doubt you actually mute anyone, including RAK. You seem just a tad too thin-skinned for that.

[SimonP]

See also: Josh's claims that he doesn't use Twitter or read the comments here.

[Estragon]

Oh compeltely. Didn’t he say he was muting or ignoring you last week?

Anyways, you have to admire the spirit behind it. I’m sure his attitude is very effective in a pedagogical setting. Are there any ASS LAW admins following along here?

[David Bernstein]

Tell you what. I'll give you the email address of my supervisors, and you can send them whatever you want. In return, you give me the address of your supervisors or partners, and I will send them your juvenile comment above, which, assuming your employed, was sent during working hours. Deal?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Once that's over, perhaps you can challenge him to a fight on the playground too.

[JasonT20]

When I first saw your reply to Estragon, it said that Estragon’s post was made “18 hours ago”. This was around noon Eastern time. So, it's possible it was made during normal business hours, if he lives in the Mountain or Pacific time zones in the U.S.

[Estragon]

Wow. I am honestly stunned by the tone and substance of this reply.

Ps- I think I’m on the money with “thin skinned” for starters…

[David Bernstein]

You wrote, "I’m sure his attitude is very effective in a pedagogical setting. Are there any ASS LAW admins following along here?" I offered a deal, you contact my employer and say whatever your want. I in return contact yours, and just give them your one post. I'll take this response as a "no, ha ha, I was just kidding about wanting you to get in trouble with your employer" (which I wouldn't but it's the thought that counts).

[Estragon]

“I offered a deal, you contact my employer and say whatever your want. I in return contact yours, and just give them your one post.”

What would you write to my employer, exactly?

“Dear Sir/Madam: I am a published author and professor of con law at George Mason. I just wanted you to know that your employee made a comment on a message board I frequent referring to the Antonin Scalia School of Law as ASS LAW! And this definitely happened during working hours, even though I have no idea where this person lives. I am not a crackpot. -David Bernstein”

You know, now that I think about it, maybe I should take this deal. You go ahead and email my supervisors whatever you like, and I’ll send THAT email to your dean. Say whatever you like, I’m sure you’ll come off as a reasonable and well adjusted person (posting during working hours in the time zone George Mason is located in!!) who should definitely be teaching students.

On the other hand, maybe I don’t have time to be the object of your personal vendetta this week. Plus, the joke’s on you; on the internet nobody knows you’re a dog :-).

[Estragon]

Also, just to remind ourselves what this sub thread was about: Simon questioned some of your sourcing here, and you responded that you were going to ignore him. Now that his concerns have been at least partially vindicated, per your update, do you have anything further to say?

Maybe after reflection you’ve come to see that unauthenticated social media screenshots from dubious sources are not the best basis for posts? Or maybe learned that posting on emotionally charged topics should lead you to be more deliberate and careful about what and when you post? How close are we to the line on defamation here? Any lessons learned at all?

See, that’s the pedagogical attitude one might expect. Instead we’re flinging insults and shitposting and threatening to call people’s bosses.

ASS LAW, are you listening? (Oops I did it again)

[Estragon]

Upon second thought, maybe you should post a few times today. I think it’d be better for you if this train wreck of a post and your ridiculous performance in the comments got pushed off the first page.

[Michael P]

What vitriol do you think he has posted?

Hint: Highlighting the intolerance of your buddies isn't vitriol.

[SimonP]

You're tired of my pointing out that you're abusing this platform to attack students, you mean. Because that is the only point that you've never tried to refute.

But go on ahead. Get yourself sued for defamation, for all I care.

[Ed Grinberg]

shorter SimonP: "Hamas didn't attack anyone. But Prof. Bernstein did!"

[CJColucci]

I remember my RA’s from back when the language of instruction was Latin. I never gave a rat’s ass about them and don’t remember anyone who did. Their politics was of no conceivable interest to us or, unless they did something more than talk, to the administration.

[Publius]

This anti-semitic letter is a product of Osama bin Laden's ideology.
Compare it with his "letter to America", published by The Guardian in Nov 2002:

"Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

Ignorant students wrote their own letter based on the slogans of the fundamental Islamists and teachings of neo-marxist ideology. They are not familiar with the history of the conflict and are too blinded by their anti-semitism to make rational judgements.

[zztop8970]

Maybe because they figure the readers are knowledgeable , intelligent and know how to use Google.
Since you aren't and don't https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

[Snowman]

So here’s the real issue. Zionism is the belief that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. About 90% of Jews agree with that. The RAs, who have authority over life in the dorm, put out a statement, identified as being in their official capacity, saying Zionists are not welcome. Therefore they stated that 90% of Jews are not welcome in the dorm they manage, which almost certainly includes people currently living there. That is housing discrimination. But more importantly, since RAs typically are the first line in dealing with some of the most sensitive issues in a young person’s college life, how could any Jewish student feel comfortable or even safe continuing to live there? If my daughter was in that dorm I would go to the administration and insist that they either replace the RAs or move her to another dorm immediately. Those arguing arcane legal issues here miss the much bigger point- Jews are being physically threatened, and are fearful like never before in the U.S.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Should any school -- including religious schools -- employ RAs who are superstitious gay-bashers? Should any school be required to continue to employ an RA who is discovered to be a gay-hating bigot?

Or are gays different in this context, at least in the eyes of gullible right-wing jerks?

[Snowman]

Well, if the RAs had sent out an email to all the residents saying “We firmly believe there should be no space, no consideration and no support for gay rights within the Wellesley College community” in their role as Residence Life employees they would have been instantly fired, and likely brought up on honor code charges for expulsion from the college. They would not still be in their roles with authority over gay students in that dorm, and the President of the college would not have sent out a letter saying she was proud of them for learning from their mistakes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Oh, here's an amusing little article:

Hamas leader - “The entire 510 million square kilometers of Planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity and no killings and crimes like those being committed against the Palestinians, and against the Arabs in all the Arab countries, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries,"

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-765304

[mydisplayname]

It is ironic that the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is now "Midway Across Atlantic, En Route to the Middle East" (quoting a USNI News report at https://news.usni.org/2023/10/23/uss-dwight-d-eisenhower-midway-across-atlantic-en-route-to-the-middle-east).

In his book _The White House Years: Waging Peace 1956-1961_, President Eisenhower recalls once (in 1957) posing a question to his staff when contemplating “a resolution which would call on all United Nations members to suspend not just governmental but private assistance to Israel”: Ike's question was “Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal?”

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Before Israel was founded, you could identify Zionists as people who wanted a Jewish state.

Nowadays, with Israel already existing, are you a Zionist if you merely say Israel has as much right to defend itself as the United States, Peru, or Mali?

If you said Peru was entitled to defend itself, would that make you a Peruvian nationalist?

Are the anti-zionists drawing fine distinctions?

[Randal]

I was asking this the other day and didn't get an answer. Or maybe this is the answer, the question being: is there only Zionist and anti-Zionist, or is there a middle ground option?

If there's a middle ground, then the answer to all your questions is no.

I'm not a Zionist. It's probably better if you don't tell me that I have to be an anti-Zionist in that case.

[SimonP]

Hm... curiouser and curiouser... that Instagram screenshot of uncertain provenance seems to have disappeared! Not so sure of your sources any more, David? Worried that repeatedly updating this post with more details intended to facilitate harassment of the RA in question might not turn out as well for you as you had hoped? Did Eugene come give you a spanking?

[loki13]

To be clear, Professor Bernstein wrote the following-

[UPDATE: I removed a section of this post that included an Instagram post for which my sources apparently provided incorrect sourcing. Apologies.]

So, he relied on “sources” in order to call attention to a college student (ahem, “call attention” is one way to put it). When you questioned him on this issue in a reasonable manner, he attacked you personally.

And Prof. Bernstein ended up having to retract it because … it was wrong. With something that wasn’t a real apology to the person he was trying to harm. And puts the blame on other people, and not using an ounce of self-reflection as to his own role. Which puts this whole post into perspective. It's ironic that he attacks some people for an apology, and yet posts his own "mistakes were made" update.

Oh, as a bonus, he also engaged in playground-level taunts to another commenter (telling them that he’d report them for, perhaps, commenting during work hours).

I get that emotions are running high. For good reason. But maybe Prof. Bernstein should be devoting a little less time trying to cancel college kids, and engaging in Dr. Ed level discourse in the comments.

(Then again, maybe he’s trying out for a position on the 5th. Who knows?)

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.cato.org/books/you-cant-say-growing-threat-civil-liberties-antidiscrimination-laws

In a misguided attempt to eradicate every vestige of “discrimination” in our society, activists and courts are using antidiscrimination laws to erode civil liberties such as free speech, the free exercise of religion, and freedom of association. Civil rights laws today are being applied in ways that threaten free speech on campus and in the workplace, the right of local community activists to speak out against government policies, the rights of private associations such as the Boy Scouts to determine their membership policies, and even the rights of individuals to choose their roommates.

This book is not about "cancel culture." It's about speech-suppressing laws. (The book's title says so, for God's sake...)

[Frank Drackman]

Ha! Spook uses "Links" in a sentence and doesn't get the Irony.
Hint, what is a chain made of?? A series of........

Frank "Martin Lucifer King, Malcolm the Xth, and Medgar Evers walk into a Gun Store......"