The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Campus Pro-Hamas Events on October 7: What Should be Done?
The groups holding these events are quite openly and publicly telling you who they are and what they believe, and that's important information to have.
At various universities around the country, Students for Justice in Palestine and other pro-Hamas groups are holding events on October 7. Some of these events celebrate Palestinian "resistance," while others, throwing in a blood libel for good measure, commemorate a non-existent genocide of Palestinians by Israel since the war in Gaza began.
Let's recall what happened on October 7, 2023. Thousands of Hamas terrorists, followed by "civilian" hangers-on, attacked border towns in southern Israel along with a music festival. The perpetrators recorded themselves gleefully murdering innocent people–peacenik kibbutznik and party-goers, children in front of their parents (there is one harrowing video you can find online of an eight-year-old girl asking, in vain, that the terrorists murder her), not the elderly, just everyone in their path. The murders were often undertaken in the most gruesome ways, including burning people alive. They also undertook an orgy of rape and torture, and kidnaped a few hundred Israelis, from a baby to an eighty-five year-old.
Let's also recall that on October 7, woefully underprepared Israeli forces struggled to repel the invasion. Not a single Israel soldier entered Gaza that day.
This tells us two things. First, those who see October 7 as anything but a day that should be devoted to the memory of the innocents brutally murdered, raped, tortured, and kidnaped that day at the very least are indifferent to that suffering, and at worst applaud the worst violence against Jews since the Holocaust. Unfortunately, many are in the latter category. As Seth Mandel writes, "American universities are full of psychopaths both in the student body and often in the professoriate (and sometimes administration)."
Second, there is no reason for anyone protesting the Israeli response in Gaza to the war Hamas started to use October 7 as a commemorative date, except to intentionally intrude on Jewish memory and commemorations of the atrocities of that day. To again quote Mandel, they choose October 7 "not despite the pain it causes Jews on campus but because of that pain." It's a form of emotional and political warfare, as if on September 11, 2002 students held events about a purported genocide by US forces fighting the Taliban.
So what should be done about morally repugnant university events to be held on October 7? If, as at Wake Forest, such events are sponsored by university academic departments, a university is well within its rights to shut them down, as Wake Forest did. Academic departments are subdivisions of the university, and the university may tell these departments that it refuses to allow its subdivisions, speaking as agents of the university, to sponsor events using October 7 for pro-Hamas propaganda.
For student events, however, the answer is that nothing should be done by university officials. At public universities, students have a First Amendment right to be as openly morally repugnant as they choose. Thus, a Maryland judge was correct in rebuffing the University of Maryland's attempt to stifle a pro-Hamas October 7 event. At private universities, if the university has a policy of not censoring student political events, it should not make an exception for these.
Yes, it's true that at many universities there would be a far stronger administrative reaction to an event celebrating the lynching of black people, or gay-bashing, or atrocities against Native Americans, and so on. And if students can prove that the university treats Jewish students' complaints and concerns differently than other groups', that is valid grounds for a lawsuit or Title VI complaint. And university officials certainly have no excuse not to denounce October 7 celebrations if (and only if) they regularly denounce other student events they find morally repugnant. (And of course, counter-demonstrations must also be permitted.)
Part of me wishes that I could make a principled argument for shutting these events down, but part of me does not. The groups holding these events are quite openly and publicly telling you who they are and what they believe in. To quote Mandel once more, their "leaders don't want to wait a day to hold the rally because while any other day could mark the war, no other day could mark the murder and mayhem of Oct. 7. The day is important to them because the massacre of Jews is important to them." And that's important information to have.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The proper response is for the state legislatures to cut the university funding and to make it clear that it does not support the teaching of the values that clearly are being taught.
The proper response is for a MAGA Congress to cut the largess of student financial aid -- there is no Constitutional right to a government handout...
Do you make the same case for schools that are transing and grooming little children?
It's disturbing that you would make such outrageous claims without providing evidence. Here and now would be a great place and time for you to show us your proof. We're waiting.
It's disturbing that you don't read much news and have never heard of such things. It would be more honest if you were to admit the news and downplay its frequency. To profess shock, shock at its mention is silly.
To repeat: Here and now would be a great place and time for you and JHBHBE to present your proof. We're still waiting.
"We"? Who do you represent? Do they know you represent them?
Thanks for confirming that you have no evidence. But don't let that stop you from making up stupid stuff.
The evidence is all over the news, unless you stay within your NYT/WaPo/CNN/MSNBC bubble. I've told you where to find it, and you wouldn't trust any link outside your bubble, so thanks for confirming you don't want to educate yourself, even if only to find out what stupid things half the country reads.
"I saw it on TV."
Trump is even more stupid than that. It's not even that he "saw it on TV," he literally said "The people on television say." He saw someone on TV say something and ran with it as gospel truth. What a moron.
So let’s see if I understand you correctly: If I give up reading the Times, the Post, the Atlantic, and things like that (I don't watch TV news), I will be on the same intellectual level as you. Did I get that right?
State legislatures would be no more able to legally violate the First Amendment than the universities can. Students are allowed to be intolerant bigots. Evil as they are, it would be far more evil to allow government to decide who can and cannot speak.
Cutting off university funding from a university that officially sponsored such events might be allowable under the subsidiary entity rule (for public universities) or the ‘acceptance of funding implies consent’ fiction but it would still run afoul of academic freedom promises. And again, neither of those are allowable for student-sponsored events.
However, I would agree that government should get out of the business of the vast majority of student financial aid regardless of this latest mess.
Please show me where in the Constitution it mandates that the state must fund (or even HAVE) a state university.
40 years ago, states shut down their mental hospitals because they didn't like what was happening in them. (Google "Nurse Rached.") It was a mistake, but the states were well within their rights to do so.
And the states are equally within their rights to shut down their state universities because they don't want the AntiAmerican trash being taught.
It's not a question of funding in general, it's tailoring funding in violation of equal protection (of some sort; IANAL). Government can't pick and choose.
How that allows affirmative action, CRT, DEI, and all the rest is beyond me.
The federal constitution has no such mandate but several state constitutions do. Those states most definitely may not simply shut down their universities - not without first changing their state constitutions.
That misses the point, though. Regardless of the constitutional mandate (or lack of it), the legislature may not eliminate funding in retaliation for student activity.
Citations?
Most predate the Land Grant Acts, and while the Massachusetts Constitution mentions Harvard, it doesn't require we fund it, and we don't.
Well, I thought I'd have a chance to use that new State Constitution Comparitor tool that was advertised here recently. Unfortunately, "education" is not one of the topics they indexed. So please follow this reference instead.
The short version:
Alabama - public schools [for] ages of seven [thru] twenty-one
Arizona - which system shall include ... Universities
Colorado - public schools [for] ages of six [thru] twenty-one
Florida - institutions of higher learning
Hawaii - a state university
Massachusetts - the university at Cambridge
Missouri - all persons [up to] twenty-one
Nebraska - all persons ... five [thru] twenty-one
North Dakota - including schools of higher education
Utah - a higher education system
West Virginia - between the ages of 4 and 20
Wisconsin - between the ages of 4 and 20
multiple other states - public schools requirement not explicitly limited to just "children"
"The University.
Article I.
Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-six, laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great eminence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences, which qualified them for public employments, both in church and state: and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America -- it is declared, that the President and Fellows of Harvard College,in their corporate capacity, and their successors in that capacity, their officers and servants, shall have, hold, use, exercise and enjoy, all the powers, authorities, rights, liberties, privileges, immunities and franchises, which they now have or are entitled to have, hold, use, exercise and enjoy: and the same are hereby ratified and confirmed unto them, the said president and fellows of Harvard College, and to their successors, and to their officers and servants, respectively, forever.
Article II.
And whereas there have been at sundry times, by divers persons, gifts, grants, devises of houses, lands, tenements, goods, chattels, legacies and conveyances, heretofore made, either to Harvard College in Cambridge, in New England, or to the president and fellows of Harvard College, or to the said college, by some other description, under several charters successively: it is declared, that all the said gifts, grants, devises, legacies and conveyances, are hereby forever confirmed unto the president and fellows of Harvard College, and to their successors in the capacity aforesaid, according to the true intent and meaning of the donor or donors, grantor or grantors, devisor or devisors.
Article III.
[And whereas, by an act of the general court of the colony of Massachusetts Bay passed in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-two, the governor and deputy-governor, for the time being, and all the magistrates of that jurisdiction, were, with the president, and a number of the clergy in the said act described, constituted the overseers of Harvard College: and it being necessary, in this new constitution of government to ascertain who shall be deemed successors to the said governor, deputy-governor and magistrates; it is declared, that the governor, lieutenant governor, council and senate of this commonwealth, are and shall be deemed, their successors, who with the president of Harvard College, for the time being, together with the ministers of the congregational churches in the towns of Cambridge, Watertown, Charlestown, Boston, Roxbury, and Dorchester, mentioned in the said act, shall be, and hereby are, vested with all the powers and authority belonging, or in any way appertaining to the overseers of Harvard College; provided, that] nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the legislature of this commonwealth from making such alterations in the government of the said university, as shall be conducive to its advantage and the interest of the republic of letters, in as full a manner as might have been done by the legislature of the late Province of the Massachusetts Bay. "
Where does it say the legislature must fund it?
All this -- and I suspect the other state constitutions -- says is that the institution has a right to officially exist. Remember that prior to WW-II, actually until the 1960s in some places, public education was only through the 8th Grade, with parents having to pay tuition to a private high school if desired. The "Age 21" was the one-room schoolhouse where some boys only attended in the winter months.
And even if it says "will fund", it doesn't say how much. $1 is "funding."
State court decisions requiring adequate education funding are not uncommon. See https://edlawcenter.org/school-finance-litigation-update-delawre-illinois-and-new-mexico/
Those are all K-12 decisions, various forms of property-poor towns suing on the grounds that the property rich towns have more money for their K-12 schools than they do. There are also often issues of discrimination because these poor towns are also often minority and high ESL/ELL.
Remember that FAPE does not apply to higher education.
I am very familiar with these suits -- on in NH and one in MA.
This is the ridiculousness of comments on the internet.
Rossami's claim was "The federal constitution has no such mandate but several state constitutions do."
Ed asked for citations.
Many were given.
Ed spends a great deal of time on one, ignoring the others (only three of which would make the claim of "several," which he contested, true).
From the source cited:
Georgia: "Public education for the citizens prior to the college or
postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation.”
Hawaii: "“The State shall provide for the establishment, support and control of a statewide system of public schools free from sectarian control, a state university, public libraries and such other educational institutions as may be deemed desirable, including physical facilities therefor.”
North Dakota: "“The legislative assembly shall provide for a uniform system of free public schools throughout the state, beginning with the primary and extending through all grades up to and including schools of higher education...”
Right here is where Ed loses. He should just acknowledge it. There would be more dignity in it. Picking one example offered and going down that rabbit hole instead is what's wrong with the internet.
Georgia: “Public education for the citizens prior to the college or
postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation.”
Prior to the college or postsecondary level -- that means K-12.
Hawaii: ““The State shall provide for the establishment, support and control of a statewide system of public schools free from sectarian control, a state university, public libraries and such other educational institutions as may be deemed desirable, including physical facilities therefor.”
As may be deemed desirable.
And "support" could be a $1 allocation.
North Dakota: ““The legislative assembly shall provide for a uniform system of free public schools throughout the state, beginning with the primary and extending through all grades up to and including schools of higher education…”
That was the normal school movement -- the uniform system.
It doesn't say how much money they have to allocate for it...
Right here is where Ed loses. He should just acknowledge it. There would be more dignity in it. Picking one example offered and going down that rabbit hole instead is what’s wrong with the internet.
ED HASN'T LOST!!!!
If what people allege were true, these state universities would be required to accept ALL applicants, and could not charge tuition.i
One more:
Texas -- Article 10 of Article 7: "Sec. 10. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS; AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT. The Legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, and styled, "The University of Texas", for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences, including an Agricultural, and Mechanical department."
Sections 11 through 20 provide in some detail how the state is to fund the University of Texas, Texas A&M University and various schools in their respective systems including among other things a grant of 1 million acres of land in addition to the huge swath of state land already dedicated to state universities.
This one actually involves higher education, the A& M language indicates the forming of a land grant college, probably under the third Morrill Act.
However "provide for" means whatever the legislature wants it to mean -- there is no specified dollar amounts.
Could there potentially be a lawsuit over this -- sure -- but (unlike the K-12 suits) I haven't seen one.
Without getting to the details, I'll posit that whether by routine legislation or constitutional amendment, every state could --if it really wanted to-- completely sever itself from any university it doesn't want to support anymore.
I will further posit that none of them will, for the same reason that the politicians whining that colleges are "indoctrination centers" turn around and send their own kids to supposedly be indoctrinated.
That is to say: they may find it politically beneficial to dunk on universities, but at the end of the day they still like the influence they have on future earnings.
I mean hell, look at Florida. Ron DeSantis is completetly hostile to higher education, but hasn't attempted to sever the state relationship with any universities in his state, he's just tried to take them over.
I would venture to say that's because he's NOT completely hostile to "higher education", but only to the details of how the universities are doing it.
"Without getting to the details, I’ll posit that whether by routine legislation or constitutional amendment, every state could –if it really wanted to– completely sever itself from any university it doesn’t want to support anymore."
They already ARE -- Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Maine are closing and/or consolidating campi due to declining enrollment.
How about we don't assume that Pro-Palistein is "Pro-Hamas" or "Anti-Jew"
Maybe it's just anti killing of 30,000 people as revenge for killing 2000.
Maybe it's just pointing out that Israel as the only real power in the region is unwilling to solve the issue (well, unless ethnic cleansing is an acceptable solution).
Maybe you are in 7th grade and need to study history?
Because that's a really stupid remark and has nothing to do with reality.
Huh? Why can't people be pro-Palestinian?
IF Israel had wanted to ethnic cleanse, they could have accomplished it long before now.
Bernstein avoids the fact that the Hamas attack on 10/7 targeted Israeli military bases, overrunning many of them and that active duty IDF, Police and Shin Bet security forces made up more than 1/3 of the victims. Perhaps the anti-Israeli government students are celebrating Hamas and other Palestinian nationalist militant groups tactical victory and not the massacre of civilians?
Many Americans (who hold a "passionate attachment" for the majority-Jewish State) and Israelis celebrate the IDF's reprisal against the militants while dismissing (or even celebrating) the killing of Gazan civilian non-combatants in much greater numbers and at a significantly higher ratio than the 10/7 operation.
I had no idea the Israel military hosted music festivals. Where do I sign up?
Yes, and child care centers, too...
The ultimate irony here is that -- from what I understand -- is that the music festival was actual ANTI military,.
I use the term "hippies" because I think it is fair -- I think it is what they would have been called circa Woodstock.
A lot of them were affiliated with the IDF -- Israel has universal military service so EVERYONE of that age group is. But my take is that they were more of the "99 Red Balloons" than the "Nuke Gaza" philosophy.
And because it is reflective of the times I reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiwgOWo7mDc
Here's the original German version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu5a0Bl8eY&ab_channel=NENA
Do you have a link to the original German version of SIV’s comment?
First, the reason security forces made up a bit less than (not more than) 1/3 of the victims was because security forces rushed to the scenes of the ongoing civilian massacres, and most of those killed lost their lives in those battles, not because Hamas primarily targeted military.
Second, the fact that you can't morally distinguish between singling out civilians to be murdered and civilians being killed when targeting the murderous terrorists, precisely because the terrorists have such contempt for human life that they hide behind their own civilians, suggests that you share the moral incapacity of the pro-Hamas demonstrators.
^^^This
Also a lot of the hippies were also were off-duty IDF.
Even if they were IDF, there was no way for Hamas to know they were, they were murdered because they were considered Jewish civilians.
Now if they had been carry uzis, it both would have been a different situation AND a different outcome....
It has been suggest that after the cave of the patriarchs massacre, Hamas no long distinguished the difference between civilians and military.
The real problem that each side justifies its murders based on something that happened in the past... no matter how long ago in the past that was.
SIV makes up facts. Anything to minimize Jewish lives.
What is made up? Bernstein doesn't admit that military bases were a primary target. I'm not making up lies about burned beheaded babies baked in ovens or "pelvises crushed by rape".
1. Everyone in Gaza is a civilian, including Hamas.
2. Hell ya Israel is taking out Hamas in large numbers.
3. Hamas puts their assets in residential areas, thus any non-Hamas casualties are on them.
Yeah, besides, Israel needs LebensRaum
It could have accomplished LebensRaum decades ago if that is what it wanted -- starting with never having withdrawn from Gaza.
There is no doubt that people protesting the “Israeli response in Gaza to the war Hamas started” (i.e., the series of war crimes that some have taken to summarizing as a “genocide”) have chosen “to use October 7 as a commemorative date,” with the intention of intruding upon “commemorations of the atrocities of that day.” Which surely will be in not be short in supply.
But just as describing the criticism of Israel as a “blood libel” is lazy and pointlessly inflammatory, describing these protests as “pro-Hamas” is hard to credit. They have chosen the historically significant day of October 7th to draw attention to the mass civilian casualties in Gaza – which are now numerically genocidal in scope – and the rapidly increasing number of dead and displaced in southern Lebanon – now blowing past Israeli’s own dead from 10/7. The choice is provocative, but the point is not to celebrate terrorism.
Israel is engaged in war crimes. Full stop. Some we know, some we can only guess at. So are Hamas and Hezbollah. Unfortunately for Lebanese civilians and Gazans, Israel is proving far more efficient and effective at it. If there is any moral justice in the world, maybe some day we’ll use 10/7 to remember all of those killed by Netanyahu’s ambition, Trump’s and Biden's mismanagement, Arafat’s short-sighted corruption, and the profoundly evil indifference of the Americans who could have put a stop to much of it by shutting down the flow of weapons.
But until then I guess we’re taking a break from our high holy days to issue some nasty invective, dismissing the significance of tens of thousands of dead women and children, that won’t fit into a simple tweet. Shana tovah, David.
Some of us do use a lot of nasty invective when it comes to gang rape and burning children alive.
Perhaps ordinary Gazans had nothing to do with storing guns, ammunition and explosives under and IN schools, mosques, and hospitals- which is CLEARLY a war crime, even had October 7 never happened. They were warned by the IDF forces to leave the areas they were clearing. And by the way, all Hamas or anyone not looking to be shot or killed had to do was release the hostages.
Anyone blaming Israel for those losses is nothing but a stone hearted psychopath crying crocodile tears.
There is an analytical framework for evaluating whether intentionally causing the deaths of civilians, while pursuing legitimate military targets, is permitted under the law of war. "They were warned on pain of death" is not part of that framework.
The kinds of idiocy I sometimes get in response to my comments is a kind of vindication. You would serve your cause better if you just kept your mouth shut.
The analytical framework does take into account if the attacks have a legitimate military objective. Taking out Hamas and their assets is a legitimate military objective.
That's only one part of it.
How does that jive with shooting hostages that had escaped and were attempting to surrender, waving white flag and shouting in Hebrew?
How about the one shot in the back?
Bottomline, Israel seems blinded by anger and thirst for revenge and can no longer be trusted when they attempt to justify their actions.
Ever hear of "fog of war"?
It IS real....
Actually "warning civilians in the area" is part of that analytical framework. And it factors very strongly in favor of finding your subsequent act not a war crime. "You might get hurt" or even "you will be assumed to be a combatent if you don't leave" does not invalidate the warning. In combat operations, no other kind of warning is even possible.
On the other hand, intentionally hiding combatents and military supplies behind and among unwilling civilian populations, on the other hand, factors very strongly in favor of finding that you've committed war crimes.
Before you start insulting the people you're talking with, maybe you should do some basic homework.
Actually “warning civilians in the area” is part of that analytical framework.
Only if you beg the question.
The law of war requires distinguishing between civilians and combatants, and taking steps to minimize civilian casualties. Issuing broad warnings to all civilians living in apartment blocks or regions that they are about to be bombed if they do not leave immediately is, shall we say, an interesting interpretation of that obligation. It invites the question whether Hamas’s attack on 10/7 might have been less outrageous had they warned the kibbutzniks and music festival attendants that they were coming for Israel’s military outposts in the area, and anyone they come across will be presumed to be combatants.
As for Hamas’s own tactics – not that I am inclined to believe Israel’s constant, self-serving, and unsupported assertions that every attack on civilian infrastructure and civilians is really motivated by a “tunnel” or “commander” or “arms cache” or what have you – I thought I made it quite clear that Hamas and Hezbollah are apparently guilty of war crimes, as well. They’re terrorists who are willfully using the civilians living within their territory as a “crumple zone” in furtherance of Iran’s regional interests. I have zero objection to targeting their leadership (apart from the tactical short-sightedness of assassinating the people who could agree to a ceasefire and direct fighters to stand down) or their military infrastructure.
The only point I am making is that Israel is clearly engaged in war crimes of its own, resulting in massive civilian casualties and unprecedented destruction that Israel is unlikely ever to willingly take responsibility for. In ten years we will all see that and wonder how we let it all happen.
" It invites the question whether Hamas’s attack on 10/7 might have been less outrageous had they warned the kibbutzniks and music festival attendants that they were coming for Israel’s military outposts in the area, and anyone they come across will be presumed to be combatants. "
It absolutely would have been "less" outrageous. Still fairly high on that scale as Hamas was the aggressor, and Israel is simply responding to their aggression, but "less"? Sure.
So a Hamas attack on military infrastructure in Israeli territory could have been framed as a just and appropriate response to Israel’s near-total blockade of Gaza, periodic assassinations and cross-border attacks, and ongoing “grass-cutting” operations – if they had the foresight to drop some leaflets on the people at the music festival?
Only to useful idiots like SimonP.
I see. So Palestinians are the ones who are expected to lay down and die, not Israelis?
Yes, all those Jews getting on busses and blowing themselves and everyone else up! Plus sneaking into the Olympic quarters and murdering Palestinians while they slept. And flying planes into buildings - they do that all the time.
I can't imagine how Gaza was nearly totally blockade but they managed to outbox those Jews and have hu dress of missles that they send into Israel, as well as building hundreds of miles of tunnels to hide in, and still find the time to store weapons, grenades, explosives, ammunition, in and under hospitals, mosques, and schools!
You sound like a psychopath. Why aren't you in prison?
You seem a bit confused, gramps.
No, just less outrageous than an attack on a music festival. Even evil has graduations.
Why? Just because you said so?
It would serve your cause better if you hadn't sold out your humanity.
But probably you never had any.
Simple Simon, the Nazi pie-man, just wants those darn Jews to die. Allowed to fight back? He says, that's whack. And then he continues to lie.
Dude what are you smoking? Of course they chose Oct 7 to celebrate terrorism. And yes, they are pro-Hamas. How do we know? They dress like Hamas, take their talking points from Hamas, and call for the destruction of Israel.
And of course there is no genocide. Not even close. However these protesters do advocate actual genocide against the Jews.
Please, enough with the proportionality. Should the US have stopped at 2400 Japanese casualties after Pearl Harbor? Casualties continue until enemy combatant capitulation. There is a difference between targeting civilians and targeting enemy fighters operating under cover of sympathetic civilians.
Sure, in much the same way that the U.S. commemorates the attack on Pearl Harbor on August 6.
What's next, Pro-Japanese events on December 7?
It's true that the Japanese commemorate those killed by the US's nuclear bombs on August 6 and 9, rather than choosing a date with weight for American victims of Japan's aggression.
Simon, have you ever calculated the JAPANESE death toll from an invasion?
The Japanese race would have been exterminated...
No, not even close. But ---
* The invasion plans estimated a year to occupy all of Japan. But that wouldn't have done squat to all the Japanese in China, Korea, Indonesia, and elsewhere, with their own factories.
* The Japanese military killed 200,000 enemies in each of the last four months of the war. That's 2.4 million over a year.
* The casualty rates on Iwo Jima and Okinawa led to estimates of 1 million American dead and injured, and 5-10 million Japanese mostly dead and some injured.
* That's not counting mass starvation.
* US invasion plans at one point planned to use 5-10 atom bombs to clear the Kyushu plains, to be occupied by American forces in the next few days. That's how ignorant everyone was about atom bombs.
There are two recent excellent books on the US invasion plans, with a whole lot more detail. I do not remember their names right now.
Japan was also trying to develop its own nuclear weapon, as were Germany and the USSR.
Is there any doubt they'd have used them if they had them?
You are leaving out a major point. During the invasion of Saipan and Okinawa there were mass suicides of Japanese civilians. Factor that in.
On a personal note, my Father was a 19 year old Marine. He was just finishing training when Japan surrendered.
Actually no -- there wasn't that much fallout from the nukes because they were detonated high enough to not suck up dirt from the ground.
US troops marched through Hiroshima a week or so after it was nuked, I knew someone who did, he died of old age in his 80s. What killed people with those small nukes was the IMMEDIATE exposure to the radiation, which behaved like light.
Of course we didn't HAVE 5-10 more nukes and wouldn't for some time.
200k dead civilians in the space of a few days, Ed.
To put that in perspective – in today’s U.S., scaling for the per capita loss, that’s around 939k. You’re saying here that it’s not a war crime to kill 939k civilians in order to avoid some larger, similarly-criminal number civilian deaths here on American soil – as long as the attacker has some “legitimate” military purpose.
Scaling for Gaza’s pre-war population, that’s about 5,633 dead civilians. That means that, even if we assume that all dead men in Gaza were Hamas combatants, and even if we assume that the released figures aren’t a serious undercount of actual deaths (due to bodies not being found, or deaths due to starvation or preventable causes resulting from the lack of medical care), Israel has so far inflicted around four times as many civilian deaths on Gaza, as the U.S. did on Japan, which we did by dropping two atom bombs on population centers.
Eight atom bombs.
"Before we're through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell." – Admiral Halsey
Fortunately that result was not necessary. My generation grew up on cheap, high quality Japanese gadgets.
I believe in Freedom of Speech so I'd say let the loonies demonstrate.
But zero tolerance for law breaking, which would include property damage and threats, assaults and/or harassment of students or others going about their business.
How to address the pro-Hamas protests?
1. Take names.
2. Take pictures.
3. Record the protests.
4. Identify the protestors and hangers-on.
They'll be useful in 5, 10, 20 years when these thugs are acting like they are responsible adults deserving of some high-powered job governing. Or even sooner, when they have a job interview or have to go before the Committee on Character so they can have careers.
And yet the kid who brought the guns into Cornell went on to head TIAA/CREF.
Don’t forget…
5. Make sure they are well supplied with cellphones, pagers and walkie-talkies.
Nothing.
Nothing should be done about these cretins, as long as its on a college campus.
These administrations helped create and foster these batshit crazies. Let them live with the consequences.
But document it. I'm thinking photos and 90 second .mpeg clips sent to donors and key legislators will be effective.
I'd like to see Heels Up talk her way out of this.
The correct response to pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses is to press the administrations to issue strong pro-free-speech policies, which can be used against them when they attempt to suppress speech with which they disagree.
It’d be a mistake for Jewish students to make the “speech is violence” argument, or to insist that pro-Hamas expression should be prohibited because it creates an uncongenial environment for them.
Rather, we should push administrations to declare officially that even hateful-hurtful-hostile speech should be fully protected, so that those protections are available for speech that offends the leftists and identitarians whose causes the adminstrators favor.
What David is inviting people to do, and what he has in fact in the past done himself, is to “doxx” the protesters using any means available, so as to cause them trouble in their non-public lives, including in particular their employers. There’s a fair amount of conservative money behind those efforts these days.
Cue “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences” rhetoric. Query whether intentionally trying to get someone fired constitutes tortious conduct. Rinse, repeat.
So do you not know what doxxing means, or are you just lying?
If what you mean to say, David, is that you have never personally “doxxed” anyone you’ve used the VC to smear, with the intention of causing them trouble in their career, then I would concede that you haven’t “doxxed” anyone. You have used only the information they have put out there about themselves, and the public statements they’ve signed onto.
But I would continue to maintain that the implicit invitation of the OP – “Will no one rid me of these troublesome protesters?” – is for the online mob to take matters into its own hands. As one of the comments here has suggested, and as your Twitter audience would be all too happy to do.
I am too savvy to be fooled by this evasive equivocation, and you are too savvy to truly believe that I would be. Stop the nonsense and own what you’re doing, like a man who stands up for what he believes in.
So, you were lying.
I was not.
The use of quotation marks in my original comment was intended to describe your behavior as "doxxing" in an informal and imprecise sense. The informal and imprecise sense was used to group under one heading what you have done (and do not here deny doing) with other examples of "doxxing" (precisely speaking). The grouping is appropriate because your behavior and "doxxing" (precisely speaking) are relevantly similar in their most noxious aspects, insofar as real-life details are used to intentionally harm others. The fact that it took you no particular effort to get those details just makes you lazy; it doesn't make the broad, informal description inaccurate, or a "lie."
But I'm happy to have clarified things for you. I know how difficult it is for you to stick to an actual line of debate, with Twitter having evidently eroded your cognitive abilities.
Anyway, like I said: stop the nonsense and own what you’re doing, like a man who stands up for what he believes in.
If you think that a law professor can appropriately call upon a horde of internet trolls to identify people protesting on behalf of the Palestinians on October 7, so that those trolls can then cause the protesters real-life distress and harm, because no official action can legally or constitutionally be taken to stop those protests, then say it outright. Don't hide behind this veil of plausible deniability and fight with commenters over the meaning of "doxxing." Fucking own it.
Doxxing means revealing private information about someone. I've never done that intentionally. Which despite your verbiage and fulminations, means you were lying.
SimonP is one of the smarter, if not one of the smartest commenters on this blog, and he absolutely nailed precisely what your purpose and motivation has been with these posts. Doxxing is an actual word, and does not require any quotation marks around it unless it is being used in a non-standard way. Simon's explanation is believable and consistent. He's also one of the few commenters around here who hasn't sacrificed his own integrity.
Your rebuttal is nothing more than "nuh-uh!" because you got caught red-handed and you don't have the testicular fortitude to simply admit it.
Whomever the hell Seth Mendel is and whatever authority you think he has to simply declare something to be true without evidence (I thought law professors would do better than lazy appeals to imaginary authorities), he seems to be correct in saying that universities have psychopaths.
He wasn't lying. He was "lying."
And though he's not saying you're right, he is admitting you're "right."
Didn’t you threaten to call my boss?
David, what you are doing in these comments is a bit like contending that you didn't literally "rob a bank" when you were just acting as the getaway driver.
I'll take your responses as an admission that the OP is designed to invite readers to doxx protesters and cause them real-life trouble.
In the olden days the US has a simple and effective way of dealing with international terrorists. Coddling them on college campuses was not part of it.
Most of them are here on student visas -- which we should revoke.
Wanna bet the rest haven't registered for the draft? Isn't that a felony?
The statutory maximum is five years in prison. 18 USC 3811. The statute of limitations for failure to register runs out at age 31. Campus protesters would have a plausible claim of selective prosecution.
More of a claim than the Jan 6th folk?
There is no draft.
There has been registration for it since Jimmy Carter.
Selective Service is not the draft, because there is no draft.
Have the CIA arm them and point them at a democratically elected government in order to promote a tyrant that will open their newly stolen country's mineral wealth to the US?
What needs to be said is that this is like having a "Fuck Mohammed" rally during Ramadan. What would be the response to that?
At a public civilian university, the only response should be increased security.
Dream on....
I don't always agree with DB but he's just right here. Choosing to protest on the 7th is psychopathic. Yes, they should be allowed to speak, he's right about that too, but let's all recognize that speech for what it is.
The appropriate day to protest in support of Palestinians is May 15, aka "Nakba day". October 7 would be a good day for anti-Hamas protests.
If you can't distinguish between pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas, you're an idiot.
It's as stupid as not being able to distinguish between anti-Israel and antisemitic.
The main organizations running these events, in particular Students for Justice in Palestine, are both pro-Hamas in general and support the Oct. 7 massacre in particular. And holding a "Pro-Palestine" event on Oct. 7 would in any event lead to a very reasonable inference that you are both pro-Hamas in general and support the Oct. 7 massacre in particular.
Dude, you've claimed that every single journalist that Israel has killed in Gaza was actually Hamas. You aren't credible.
Sadly, being a journalist in Gaza is somewhat like being a journalist in any totalitarian state: If you're free to be one, you ARE working for the state. Your presence wouldn't be tolerated otherwise. Journalists start by cooperating so that they can do their job, and end up coopted by the state.
This phenomenon is universal in areas controlled by violent regimes, whether officially states, or just locally dominant terrorist organizations.
There were AP stringers embedded in Hamas forces on October 8th, for crying out loud! Reuters, too! You think those organizations weren't aware of their side gigs?
You know how you identify journalists in such areas who haven't been coopted? They spend a lot of time in hospitals. And jails. And eventually you read their obituaries.
And remember what happened to Ernie Pyle.
If you're embedded with front-line troops, you are also at risk.
Brett, you seem to have made a mistake. You've linked the wikipedia page for Andy Ngo, which contains ample reason too disbelieve your characterization as a non-coopted "journalist." Are you sure you couldn't find a more flattering profile in the outrage media you consume, somewhere?
Conveniently, citing Ngo also gives us an example of "journalists" publicizing the details of protesters with the apparent intention that others cause them real-life trouble - such as death threats.
I'm quite sure I never said that, though I likely said that the obvious: that many of the "journalists" killed in Gaza also were Hamas combatants, and being a stringer journalist for Reuters or whatever was a side gig; and that the rest of the local "journalists" also were only able to report at the sufferance of Hamas, so they were either tied to Hamas or served as conduits for Hamas propaganda, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to function.
Is this sentence missing a "not" before "murder her" and have an extra "not" before "the elder"?
"... (there is one harrowing video you can find online of an eight-year-old girl asking, in vain, that the terrorists [not?] murder her), not the elderly, just everyone in their path."
This is unimaginably macabre, but:
Maybe this isn’t a typo. What if the little girl had just seen her parents murdered in front of her? Might she have been asking the terrorists to kill her too?!
Compare:
source: https://unherd.com/2023/10/i-watched-hamas-unleash-hell/
My concern is that celebrating this (beyond being macabre) might push someone in mourning over the edge. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one of these Team Hamas celebrations lead to a mass shooting -- with a high body count because all of their barricades would also prevent them from fleeing.
Monday should be interesting...
The proper response is to enforce anti-masking laws.
These laws were created to stop terrorists.
So, if you want to publicly support terrorism. I won't stop you.
But I want you to stand up, say your name, and I want to everyone in the world to know that you are a monster.
Make them unemployable pariahs.
Bad idea. You might like to think of pro-Hamas demonstrators being doxxed and rendered unemployable; but consider the many, many cases in which the same tactic was practiced against those who’d expressed anti- or insufficiently-woke sentiments.
Moreover, there’ve been lots and lots of accounts in “Reason” of people being persecuted for getting on the wrong side of this or that government official or administrator. A mask ban would have to include lots of room for prosecutorial discretion—was that mask for concealment, or for legitimate health protection or expressive purposes?—and, all too often, prosecutorial discretion means “discretion to prosecute people whom we don’t like, while giving a pass to people with whom we agree.”
Rather, I’d suggest that concealment of one’s face be treated as a factor in sentencing people who’re actually convicted of crimes. If I’m wearing a kaffiyeh while punching people who attempt to access a public area of campus, charge me with assault, just as if I were doing it unmasked; but increase the sentence because of the attempt to conceal my identity. That would protect the rights of people to be anonymous so long as their behavior was peaceful and legal, while adding to the danger for perpetrators of masked violence.
"but consider the many, many cases in which the same tactic was practiced against those who’d expressed anti- or insufficiently-woke sentiments."
I'm not familiar with those many, many cases, unless you're talking about Aryan nation and the like, in which case screw them.
Brett -- it happened to me, back before I became radical, it's part of *why* I became so radical.
But I think we should play by the same rules they do.