The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Does a "More Honest" Discussion about Antisemitism on College Campuses Require an Honest and Unsanitized Account of October 7?
A recent blog post at AAUP's Academe is attracting notice for the way it characterizes the October 7 attack.
A recent post on the Academe blog, published by the American Association of University Professors, is attracting some notice--but perhaps not the sort of notice AAUP would prefer. The essay, "It's Not Too Late to Tell the Truth About Antisemitism on Campus" by Brooke Lober, Eli Meyerhoff, and Emily Schnieder, argues that claims of rampant antisemitism on college campuses are a variant of the "big lie" and "an effort to silence dissent and smear protesters."
Whether American college campuses have a serious antisemitism problem is a subject upon which reasonable people may disagree. There is also reasonable disagreement on when criticism of Israel is evidence of antisemitism, and many reasonable people are justifiably concerned that some universities have responded to anti-Israel protests with measures that unduly restrict free expression on college campuses.
What seems less reasonable is how the authors characterize the October 7 atrocities. Calling for a "more honest story about campus climate" that considers the "larger context" of the war in Gaza, they characterize October 7 as a "revolt" by "Palestinian militant groups" targeting "the infrastructure of occupation," and suggest that campus protest and activism did not arise until after Israel launched its offensive against Hamas in Gaza.
Here is the full passage:
A better model—and a more honest story about campus climate—would look at the larger context of the war and how it has increased tensions across the board. On October 7, 2023, Palestinian militant groups staged a revolt against the seventeen-year blockade. They attacked the infrastructure of occupation and kidnapped and killed Israelis, among others. As the US and Israeli media dehumanized Palestinian people and repeatedly characterized this politically motivated attack as "senseless violence" or motivated by "antisemitism," they paved the way for Israel's disproportionately harsh retaliation; unsurprisingly, harassment and violence toward Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims ensued. Israel responded to the attack with a genocidal campaign, while marking their conquered territory with holy Jewish symbols and justifying their assault in the name of collective Jewish safety. It is this violent instrumentalization of Jewish identity, a longstanding project of the Israeli state, that has provoked renewed harassment of Jews around the world. [Emphasis added.]
It seems to me that if the aim is a "more honest" discussion about the campus climate and antisemitism--and the related threat to free expression on college campuses--it might help to provide a more honest and less sanitized description of what occurred on October 7.
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
I for one praise them and their "honesty". This is exactly the kind of one sided retelling that makes me say "fuck them" as truth and honesty, even given a wider context, are revealed as just words used to cover for their hatred with no mooring in reality.
Amen.
Unfortunately, all too many people will see such crap and think there must be some kernel of truth in it, and what are those dirty Jews hiding anyway?
This story by the AAUP is just one more attempt to justify the Judeocidcal ambitions of the Palestinians–both Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas and the PLA–whose ambition have been for 75 years the eradication of Jews in Palestine and for the most part the entire Arabic speaking world.
Unfortunately, all too many people will see such crap and think there must be some kernel of truth in it, and what are those dirty Jews hiding anyway?
And just as unfortunately, all too many people will see such crap and assume that everyone that criticizes Israel's policies toward Palestinians thinks the same thing and feel even more justified in thinking that any criticism of the Israeli government's actions is just a thin disguise for antisemitism.
AAUP was stupid and wrong in this, and I refuse to accept that their words and views represent anything at all about what I think.
Seen in a larger context, the so-called “Tulsa race massacre” was a revolt by opponents of the Federal Government’s intwntional genocidal settler-colonialist suppression of the Five Nations of Oklahoma against settler-colonialist agents who had gone to Oklahoma specifically to colonize and settle stolen Native land after the Civil War specifically to help perpetuate that genocide.
It was, from an intersectionalist perspective, clearly a revolt by opponents of the white US government’s confiscation of Native land and suppression of Native culture - that is, opponents of white supremacy - against settler-colonialist agents brought in specifically to implement that confiscation and suppression - that is, white supremacists. Seen in this larger context, this was clearly an open-and-shut the case of right standing up to wrong. I mean, the settler-colonialists had stolen Native land to build their white supremacist so-called “Wall Street” even more clearly and directly than the Israelis, who purchased the land on which to build Tel Aviv. Surely all their wealth was stolen and it was just to repatriate it to the Native people and their allies.
So my question to Lober, Meyerhoff, and Schnieder is, what do you folks do to celebrate the Tulsa Lineration? Surely the greatest example of liberation from settler-colonialism on the American continent, indeed the one most directly analogous to the Gaza liberation, deserves celebration on your part. Surely you must be doing something to commemorate it positively as a shining example of everything just and right in America. You are, aren’t you? Surely you don’t believe the Big Lie that’s been told anout it by the genocidal settler-colonialist white supremacists.
Decent satire.
Yeah, brilliant, hilarious, if one happens to be a supporter of the Hamas nazis, just like the old nazis but without the nifty black uniforms and cross bone insignia.
Not in my mind. I can barely follow what he is even trying to say, since he uses such convoluted language.
That is part of the satire; the needless jargon can get deep.
Lineration was pretty funny. 'Intersectionalist perspective' was also a good bit of meaningless qualification.
Well, the quoted part of the AAUP statement isn't so verbose as to be something to satirize, from my point of view. I see one word choice that would be "jargon": "It is this violent instrumentalization of Jewish identity..." Everything else is stated plainly, to me.
I was taking it as satirizing more an academic paper than the statement.
If it's just a roast of the AAUP statement, I would agree it's off point.
I actually think the opposite, what would help would be to describe the horrible murders, rapes and kidnappings by Hamas in detail.
On this I will heartily agree with you. Bravo!
I think that's the point Prof. Adler was trying to make.
The rapes and murders are important, but so is the fact that they were provoked by a 17-year blockade (and decades of occupation before that, and an unprovoked invasion before that). Both sides seem to want to sanitize away their own atrocities not surprisingly.
Both sides seem to want to sanitize away their own atrocities not surprisingly.
The cycle of violence will not stop until two conditions are true:
1.) Both sides want peace more than they want to point their fingers at the atrocities committed by the other side.
2.) Both sides will accept the other's right to self-determination within their own nation.
I don't think you can plausibly expect Israel to accept the Palestinians' right to self-determination as long as it's a determination to keep launching rockets into residential neighborhoods. So the Palestinians have to plausibly abandon their genocidal ambitions before they can hope to get that self-determination.
The situation is, fundamentally, not symmetric, in the sense that Israel has vastly more military capacity than the Palestinians. If Israel wanted the Palestinians dead, they'd BE dead. So we know that the Israelis don't want genocide.
Unfortunately, we don't know that of the Palestinians. Indeed, all the evidence we have on that score is that the only reason there are any Jews left alive in Israel is that the Palestinians lack the capacity to kill them all.
This is you saying the cycle of violence will not stop, if you can help it.
I'm not doing anything one way or the other, frankly. I'm observing that if Arnie has Don Knots in a full Nelson because every time he lets him go Don picks up a knife and tries to gut him, it's Don who needs to adjust his attitude. Because Arnie simply isn't going to volunteer to be repeatedly knifed, even if Don IS a bit of a wimp.
The Palestinians literally teach their children genocide starting in kindergarten. Can't say that of Israel.
The palestinians in Israel want to kill the Jews; all of them. Just ask them. Poll after poll after poll make crystal clear there will never be two states living side by side in peace. The palestinians live in a toxic brew of Judeocide from cradle, antisemitism and Judeocide are in their mothers milk.
I don't think you can plausibly expect Israel to accept the Palestinians' right to self-determination as long as it's a determination to keep launching rockets into residential neighborhoods. So the Palestinians have to plausibly abandon their genocidal ambitions before they can hope to get that self-determination.
This contains a false premise. Hamas and Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel routinely because they are practically sociopaths that wanted a heavy-handed Israeli response that they could use to recruit more members. But attributing the "genocidal ambitions," to use your words, to all Palestinians is exactly the kind of dehumanization that some will continue to use to justify denying Palestinians any right to self-determination.
Not to mention that terrorist attacks on civilians isn't the only kind of resistance that Palestinians could use against Israeli occupation.
I think about it this way: Imagine an alternate reality where Palestinian resistance to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza never included terror attacks, or any kind of violence directed at Israeli civilians. Would Israel's policies of control and settlement of the West Bank be justifiable under those circumstances? Would responding to any violent assaults on Israeli government personnel and facilities with bombs that killed more civilians than militants be acceptable 'collateral damage'? I would say clearly not.
This shows me just how important it is for arguments like yours to attribute the goals and methods of Hamas to all Palestinians. Israel's actions are obviously human rights violations if Palestinians are human beings that have the same human rights as anyone else. But if they are all terrorists or enthusiastic supporters of terrorism? Hmm, maybe they don't have those same rights...
We saw those Gazan civilians as they beat the dead bodies of israeli women kidnapped and paraded by Hamas in the streets if Gaza.
It's a little late for these fantasies about the supposedly non-genociadl innocent civilians.
Would you be happier if the term "vast majority" was used instead of "all" regarding how many Palestinians desire genocide?
Imagine an alternate reality where Arafat agrees to accept Israel's right to exist at the Camp David Summit in 2000.
“The rapes and murders are important, but so is the fact that they were provoked by a 17-year blockade”
She was wearing a short skirt, plush she was a member of a race that engaged in a blockade…
Ok wait. Your theory is that Oct 7 was wholly unconnected from the decades-long Conflict in the Middle East and is best understood as a gang-related crime spree?
That's a fresh take! Not a smart take tho.
When Hamas launches a rape, decapitation, and kidnapping spree against largely civilians in Egypt you might have a point. You know, the other country that has a blockaded border with the Gaza Strip.
Until then Hamas' attack on Israel will be seen rightly as yet another of their decade's long attempts to fulfill their own charter which states: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it".
Surely nobody thinks the Palestinians are that stupid, not even you.
No, my take is that your view that Jewish girls provoked their own rape and murder makes you an antisemec rape apologist.
"Provoked" doesn't imply "justified" silly. Almost every crime and atrocity is provoked somehow. It's worth understanding how, if you have a desire to reduce crime and atrocities.
""Provoked" doesn't imply "justified" silly. Almost every crime and atrocity is provoked somehow."
At least that's what apologists claim. Many people claim that women wearing short skirts provoke rape, for example. I suppose you think that understanding how short skirts effect the male libido is important to reducing rape.
And does the holocaust fit into "almost every crime and atrocity" or is that an exception? Tell us, in your view, what is worth understanding about how the Jews provoked the holocaust?
To the extent that women wearing short skirts get raped more than women wearing long skirts do, that's a fact worth knowing. If I were a woman wanting to reduce rapes of myself, I'd be very interested in such things. Pointing out facts by itself doesn't make someone an apologist.
I agree that apologists especially enjoy pointing out such facts, but you need more evidence that that's what I'm doing before your snarky attacks are gonna land.
I'm not an Hamas apologist if it helps, and yes, there are exceptions such as the Holocaust and many hate crimes in which the victim isn't really an element of the cause. Oct 7 is obviously not one of those cases. Or, again, are we back to your theory that Oct 7 was wholly unconnected from the decades-long Conflict in the Middle East and is best understood as a gang-related crime spree?
"there are exceptions such as the Holocaust and many hate crimes in which the victim isn't really an element of the cause. Oct 7 is obviously not one of those cases."
So the Jewish women who were raped and murdered on Oct 7 were "an element of the cause"? You truly are an apologist.
Yes. There's a reason it was Jewish women and not Egyptian women. Your failure to understand that will be your undoing.
Dang, you tricked me at last! Still, my mistake -- I meant Israeli of course.
No, the rapes an murders were provoked by 100 years of not wanting Jews to live in Palestine
Sure. I don't see a qualitative difference.
Oh look, antisemitic left wing association of college professors issues statement that sanitizes antisemitic acts and pretends campus antisemitism is overblown.
“Israel responded to the attack with a genocidal campaign, while marking their conquered territory with holy Jewish symbols and justifying their assault in the name of collective Jewish safety.”
This could be reworded as, “Islam attacked with a genocidal campaign, while marking their conquered territory with holy Muslim symbols and justifying their assault in the name of collective Muslim righteousness,” and you’d have an accurate statement of Islam’s founding era. Why was it okay for them to conquer and subjugate millions of people, but no one is ever allowed to do likewise to them?
Conquest is just part of history, of course. Pretty much everyone either did it or died off. But there are very few Jews in the world, and billions of Muslims. One small Jewish state but numerous Muslim nations. And while the number of Jewish states will almost certainly remain one, Islamic states may continue to grow in number. So, I don’t really want to hear about the big bad Jews defending themselves against a never-ending onslaught of attacks by people trying to kill them. If anything, Israel would be justified in being more aggressive than they already have been. Maybe they can emulate Islam and “liberate” lands and people from Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Middle Asia, and East Asia.
Ahh yes, the return of the unified Islamic Monster.
A bigoted and reductive narrative thought dead after 20 years of Middle East adventurism, I see some assholes want to bring that shit back.
Because that class of civilizations bullshit worked so well last time!
You can think Israel has a right to exist and October 07 was bad without going for a bigoted All Is Permitted for the Cirtuous Last Western Bulwark Against Muhammideanism.
It's obviously not the case that Muslims are all one united bloc-- they fight and kill each other all the time. But they all share a pedophile death cult ideology, notwithstanding their differences amongst themselves. Both of those things can be true at the same time. "We should defend ourselves from wolves" remains true even if sometimes wolves kill other wolves.
Way to suck.
Man inside glass house busily throws stones.
What exactly are you accusing me of?
Sucking generically, was my read.
You can always depend on Pichael to outdo the Bee for lack of substance.
I am accusing you of your usual straw-man-based namecalling and un-self-consciously ironic shitposting.
And even more so the self-owns.
This is the basic problem with 'multiculturalism', the belief that in the vast diversity of cultures on Earth, none of them could possibly be bad cultures. So, if you identify a problem with Islam, for instance, you MUST be wrong, because no culture actually has problems, save maybe our own.
This is not to say that Islam is a monolith. There are different sects, and some of them aren't terrible. The problem is that the worst of them happened to have oil under their feet, and could afford to spread.
Cato looked at the Freedom scores of Muslim countries. They weren't ALL terrible. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Burkina Faso, and the Kyrgyz Republic are above the world average. (The world average, it should be noted, is not great.)
The problem is that almost all Muslims live in the countries that have abysmally bad freedom scores, these four are outliers.
Cato concluded that having a secular legal system was a requirement for freedom in the Muslim world, but only got you that if the government wasn't repressive; Repressive secular governments ARE a thing, but basically every country with a Muslim legal system was unfree.
This is kind of a problem, because separation of church and state is contrary to Islamic religious doctrine. In fact, that's part of the reason for the repression in secular Islamic states: To stave off a religious takeover of government!
This probably explains why they found that in the non-Islamic world, freedom is highly correlated with democracy, but in the Islamic world, there's practically no correlation at all. Because, bluntly put, Muslims tend to vote to install Muslim legal systems, which are uniformly repressive.
This is the basic problem with 'multiculturalism', the belief that in the vast diversity of cultures on Earth, none of them could possibly be bad cultures.
That is not, in any sense, a premise (or implication) of multiculturalism.
Rolling up Islam into a single culture is dumb, and I don't care how often you say "almost all."
So reductive it's about the same as pointing to Africa and saying there's something about black people.
It's also profoundly insulting to Americans of Muslim faith.
Apart from as Randal noted just making up your own definition of multiculturalism to rail at.
"Rolling up Islam into a single culture is dumb, and I don't care how often you say "almost all.""
And I don't care how many times you insist on ignoring the qualifications in what I said, I'll continue to hold a more nuanced position than you're willing to acknowledge.
If the truth is insulting, I'll insult. Practically every majority Muslim country is a human rights horror show, and that's not by coincidence. It has to do with the precepts of Islam. It would be an awfully shallow religion that DIDN'T have any influence on how people behaved...
You don't seem to know about the precepts of Islam. You certainly haven't talked to a Muslim about them.
You point to a correlation, ignore history, and go off.
Simplifies the world to have good guys and bad guys. It's just stupid and bigoted.
And collectivist.
We can see how they live out the precepts of Islam. Just go online, or watch the news.
“ Rolling up Islam into a single culture is dumb, and I don't care how often you say "almost all."”
Says the guy who claims that black people have their own culture.
Nope.
Lots of African Americans share some subcultures.
Even if they call it black twitter, blacks do not have a culture.
African immigrants and African Americans are really different groups.
I tend to go along with Sherman on the subject:
"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over"
Dr Samuel P. Huntington was not wrong when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order". We are in a civilizational clash between fundamentally incompatible world views and one must eventually destroy the other. Francis Fukuyama was a naive fool.
So you have learned no lessons since 9-11.
You sound like you wanna nuke Mecca. Start some pogrums. Get this inevitable struggle over with would be the most merciful thing, eh?
You really do not understand the persistent ideology that has driven the Arabs to reject every offer of a Arab and Jewish state living side by side.
The answer is always go to war against Israel. And the result is always the same, the Arab Palestinians control less land after the war than before they started it.
The problem, Mr. Man, is that Israel isn't doing a conquest. The point of a conquest is to annex some territory. But Israel hasn't properly annexed Gaza or the West Bank. Why? Because they want to continue to pretend to be a Jewish Democracy. If they annex, they'd have to give up either the Jewish part or the pretense of democracy.
In other words, it's not a conquest, it's a very slow-motion ethnic cleansing.
I totally agree that it would be best for Israel to just finish it. Their choices are to complete the ethnic cleansing, annex the territory but abandon democracy, annex the territory but abandon the concept of a Jewish state, or abandon the territory and let the Palestinians have it.
Their choices are to complete the ethnic cleansing, annex the territory but abandon democracy, annex the territory but abandon the concept of a Jewish state, or abandon the territory and let the Palestinians have it.
Or, they can keep the status quo and the cycle of violence will continue indefinitely.
Not to mention millions of people continuing to live horrible lives in occupied lands. Any option is better, including finishing up the ethnic cleansing (which really is the only other viable option for Israel probably).
There may be a middle-ground where Israel gives (or foists) some of the West Bank / Gaza to Jordan and Egypt respectively and annexes the rest.
That isn't happening. = Israel foisting Area C to Jordan. Open up a map.
What will happen; annexation of Judea and Samaria. And incentivized, voluntary emigration for palestinians within Israel.
There isn't a middle ground when one side is dedicated to the extinction of the other. I know you're confused by that sentence, so to be clear; Israel does not engage in genocide.
If you think they do, then how is it the palestinian population is increasing annually?
What's your damage. I didn't say "genocide" or "Area C." Who are you even talking to?
And if you could read, the "middle ground" was between Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians vs. their endless occupation of the Palestinians. Not between the Israel and Palestine.
In other words, as far as I can tell, you agree with me entirely but just want to jerk out for no reason?
"millions of people continuing to live horrible lives in occupied lands. "
You've bought the jihadi propaganda hook, line and sinker. The West and other Arab states gave the Gaza administration more than enough money to build a prosperous mini-state. To the extent people in Gaza live miserable lives it is because they chose that rather than building a state living in peace with Israel.
What the f is a mini-state? The fact that you felt the need to invent that euphamism is proof that you're full of s.
I'm willing to say that providing context for Palestinian motivations isn't unreasonable (although there are reducto ad absurdum arguments that could suggest that "context" goes back to the Balfour Declaration and beyond). However, I agree that, if we're providing that context, we also have to recognize that "attacking the infrastructures of occupation" that "kidnapped and killed Israelis among others" doesn't come close to providing a full picture of those events.
Finally, a sane comment.
I can understand why critics of Israel have a hard time acknowledging any wrongdoing on the part of Palestinians, but it doesn't help their cause. They consistently go beyond merely contextualizing Palestinian actions to denial and justification of grotesque atrocities, and that undercuts their own arguments. Someone who won't admit that Hamas committed atrocities can't be trusted as a rational critic of Israel.
It resembles in a lot of ways the post-9/11 debate in the US where a lot of people were "US had it coming", with the more nuanced point that foreign policy has blowback getting lost under the torrent of gross anti-Americanism.
I assume they didn't mention the raping because they consider Jewish women to be part of the "infrastructure of occupation" and such rapes to be political attacks against said infrastructure.
Hamas are not freedom fighters. They are dictatorship-kleptocracy fighters, who want to be the en-palaced ones once a proper Palestine starts up.
I have zero doubt when that day comes, I will not be proven wrong.
Likely it won't come because Israel will exterminate them first.
Likely it won't come because Israel will exterminate them first.
They've been trying for a year and a half. Hamas won't be 'exterminated' short of Israel fully occupying all of Gaza and going door to door. I don't know that they have the manpower or the political support from their voters for that.
Or, they could abandon any pretense of allowing the Palestinians to live there and force them all out and into Egypt, Jordan, or somewhere else. Assuming that those countries would allow that.
They won't, because they've seen what happened when Lebanon permitted that, and it wasn't pretty.
They've been making progress for a year and a half. They killed the heads of Hamas, their political and military leaders. Israeli occupied territory continues to increase. And American support is 100% assured under Trump. He wants to expel them - but he won't blink at killing as many as necessary to get at Hamas. So yeah, I sort of do expect occupying all of Gaza and going door to door. It might take a while, but they've got a whole four years.
Do not take this to mean I think it's morally right. It's just what I think is the most likely outcome.
"Assuming that those countries would allow that."
Yup. Next explain why none of those countries have been willing to do that for 70 years.
when that day comes
It's been almost 60 years by the most conservative possible accounting, and you still think that day is gonna come? Ain't never gonna happen.
Oct 7 was a particularly nasty tribal raid against a rival tribe - not a heroic revolt of any kind. It was "senseless" to the degree that all such raids are senseless, and "motivated by antisemitism" to the extent that such raids are usually motivated by hatred of the victims.
If Hamas was within its rights to stage such a raid then Israel is within its rights to retaliate.
I think Israel made a serious PR error by not announcing that its objectives were to bring the raiders, i.e. violent criminals, and their commanders to justice and freeing all the hostages.
Yeah, I think many westerners discount the extent to which the language of justice and oppression is merely being instrumentalized on the part of what is really an ancient tribal/religious grudge. Hamas does NOT believe in "human rights" in the Western sense. They're just using that to argue westerners are hypocrites, that the west doesn't "really" believe those things, which in turn justifies their more ethno-religious-centric mission. All that human rights stuff is BS, therefore follow our Islamist-purist philosophy and kill the Jews and Christians. Kill them in the most vicious way possible so they will be terrorized into submission.
"among others"
Filipino caregivers of elderly people and Thai visiting workers.
Talk about people being "dehumanized". I guess Asians are below Arabs in the oppression Olympics.
The honest conversation is rather difficult as the scope is so large that most folks won't want to touch it. On top of that it is full of trigger words which means most folks won't want to touch it. Here are a few thoughts to flesh that out a bit:
1 Islam is an increasing problem for the west
2 Islam is an increasing problem for Arab world
3 Iran is not likely to remain a manageable threat for the middle-east (Saudi, Israel, anyone who doesn't align against Israel)
4 Poverty is rampant in the unstable nations in the ME and Africa - this has and will continue to build hate against the West and can be directed readily at the US, the European colonizers of the previous eras, and of course the Jews who control the world (sarcasm)
I think as religious violence (and terrorism) continues to increase in Europe and soon in the US (in addition to the increase in domestic terrorism driven by divisive political tacts and a growing Gini factor) the focus on Israel and Jews will subside in those aiming for secular democratic governance and will likely increase in those disaligned there-with along with anti-Christian feelings while on the other side tolerance for Islam will decrease.
I expect that rather than WW III we will see massive increase in violence across the connected globe for at least a few generations.
1. Discussion of antisemitism is independent of Oct 7.
2. Lies about Jews is antisemitic. As is calls to murder them.
3. I really don't like Trump pretending to care about antisemitism in order to go after universities he does not like. That has a high chance of breeding antisemitism.
You do know that Trump daughter Ivanka, and his son in law Jared Kushner, are both Jewish, right? So maybe you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as pretense.
“you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as pretense”
We can revisit this comment after Harvard gets some discovery!
Discovery works two ways, E. Do keep that in mind.
Harvard’s letter to DOJ re: preservation.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.283718/gov.uscourts.mad.283718.21.1.pdf
And? So what. It is a letter. Lawyers send lots of letters.
I was posting it for your edification. I presume you hadn’t read it. Lays out some ideas about where discovery might go. When viewed in conjunction with the letter “mistakenly” sent to Harvard, it paints an interesting picture, I think. I wouldn’t want to be the DOJ lawyer appearing on this.
I wouldn't want to be HU, knowing that the DOJ (and others) will assign teams of people to pore over their records.
Who knows what they will find. 🙂
I really don't like Trump pretending to care about antisemitism in order to go after universities he does not like. That has a high chance of breeding antisemitism.
Anyone who seizes on Trump doing something they don't like as a reason to hate Jews was an anti-Semite to begin with.
“pretending to care about antisemitism”
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else.”
Wars aren't over until at least one side gives up. Even if the outcome is obvious to everyone else.
What counts as giving up, though? Unconditional surrender, as the Allies of WWII sought, would be to allow Allied forces to take control without opposition and be the government for an indefinite period of time.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one where neither side would ever accept that. Israel, rather obviously, would never surrender to Islamists, since those groups want to eliminate all Jews from the Holy Land entirely. Surrender is an end to Israel's existence as a state.
On the other side, even if Hamas and other Islamist militant groups among the Palestinians are eliminated, Palestinians that are moderate (at least in comparison with Islamist terror groups) are never going to accept a surrender where Israel has 100% control over all of their homes, because it is clear that Israel wouldn't treat them as equal citizens, ever.
To whatever extent non-Jewish citizens of Israel have equal rights, they also aren't numerous enough to be viable politically in opposition on particular issues if Jewish voters are fairly united on that issue. (Jews are ~75% of Israel's population, with Muslims being ~18%; Combining the populations of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, Muslim Arabs are close in numbers to Israeli Jews.) To me, that is the obvious reason that Israel never simply annexed the West Bank and Gaza. As Randal pointed out, and with my full agreement, Israel doesn't want to lose being an overwhelmingly Jewish democratic state. Thus, it can't give equal citizenship to over 5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza without having to share political power almost 50-50 with them. Yet, annexing the territory, without giving those Palestinians living there equal citizenship, would make accusations of apartheid completely accurate.
Neither side has any incentive whatsoever to "give up, " if giving up means full and complete surrender. But, fortunately, that isn't the only option. I wrote above -
The cycle of violence will not stop until two conditions are true:
1.) Both sides want peace more than they want to point their fingers at the atrocities committed by the other side.
2.) Both sides will accept the other's right to self-determination within their own nation.
The only route out of this I see is that Israel takes over Gaza, completely, without incorporating it into their own territory. And then puts a complete stop to Jihadi indoctrination of school children for a whole generation.
Palestinian children are indoctrinated into genocide from an early age. So long as that continues, there can be no end to the conflict.
And you can't trust the UN to do it, they actually originated a lot of the antisemitic materials the Palestinians schools used.
The only route out of this I see is that Israel takes over Gaza, completely, without incorporating it into their own territory. And then puts a complete stop to Jihadi indoctrination of school children for a whole generation.
So, you think that Israel should take over Gaza and deny all Palestinians living there basic liberty in order to turn the whole area into one giant re-education camp?
No, relocate them. It is clear that gaza will be an uninhabitable wasteland when Israel is done. Rafah has been razed to rubble. Khan Yunis is next (it has been largely destroyed, but Israel will 'bounce the rubble' to make sure), then Gaza City.
Unless and until the hostages are released, gaza will be continue to be systematically destroyed, and made uninhabitable. No aid will enter. And hamas will be hunted down and killed like the human animals they are.
When the war ends, the gazans will leave. It is already largely uninhabitable. Just clearing the ordinance will take 2-3 years. You can't have people milling about while that happens. Then laying down new infrastructure, and obliterating the tunnels so reconstruction can occur. Probably another 2 years, maybe three. Can't have people milling about while that happens.
I foresee gaza becoming an Israeli protectorate, for an indeterminate period of time. And remaining in gaza militarily.
Gazans who want to accept to be peaceful members of Israeli society should be given the chance. There are 2 million Arabs who accept being Israeli citizens.
Gazans who want to accept to be peaceful members of Israeli society should be given the chance.
Would Jewish Israelis want to give them that chance? And risk losing their status as an overwhelming majority of the voting population? That would seem to run completely counter to everything they've sought to achieve since the British controlled Mandatory Palestine.
"it is clear that Israel wouldn't treat them as equal citizens, ever. "
Just one more slander that Hamas and the PLA have screamed for decades.
As for your point 2) it has been offered several times. Israel has agree each time. The Palestinian Arabs have walked away each time.
The two-state "solution" never was a solution. It is time for Israel to annex Judea and Sameria. Gaza can be offered back to Egypt (one more time).
Just one more slander that Hamas and the PLA have screamed for decades.
How is it slander to point out how the very nature of the Jewish state of Israel is dependent on Jews being the overwhelming majority of the population? I have never once in my life heard any Israeli politician support accepting large numbers of Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza as full Israeli citizens. If you have heard such proposals with significant support from Israeli voters, I'd love to see it and be proven wrong. Of course, I've heard many times about Israel's far right support for "relocating" them outside of both Israel and the West Bank and Gaza like Commenter_XY suggests.
As for your point 2) it has been offered several times. Israel has agree each time. The Palestinian Arabs have walked away each time.
I don't think that is accurate. I'd like to see further explanation of that claim, even though I have been seeing that exact claim stated for many years without the specifics that would show it to be true.
Palestinians will say, with justification that I can see, that the two state solution has been made impossible to achieve due to Israel's support for Jewish settlement of the West Bank. To the extent that it is true that the two-state solution is not viable, this would be a major reason for that. Find a map that you'd accept (that isn't made by groups critical of Israel) of the settlements and which areas are under Israeli control and which are under PA control. Jewish settlements (legal and illegal under Israeli law) are spread out all over the West Bank. That could not possibly become a contiguous Palestinian state without major land swaps between the two sides. It seems obvious to me that it was a major goal of expanding settlements to make it more difficult to establish a sovereign Palestinian state.
Some here seem to want a conversation that includes telling Muslim students they are part of an evil faith at war with the West.
Good luck with that.
Their imams already tell them that (just leaving out the word "evil")
Let's publish an account of every single one of the 1,200 deaths and all the rapes as a starting point for this "honest discussion."
There's probably a middle ground between the whitewash in the OP and exhaustively poisoning the well.
Phrasing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_poisoning#As_libel_against_Jews
Medieval blood libels against the Jews were false and horrible propaganda and attempts to justify persecution of a hated minority.
That doesn't excuse this though:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00263206.2022.2122448
Gee, and everything before October 7 was just butterflies and rainbows.
Some people did something.