Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Just perusing the Wikipedia page, I gather they are for Palestinian solidarity, frame the Israel-Palestinian conflict in a way that I don't think I fully embrace (full scale assymetric occupation, worthy of full resistance) and are working to push Boycott, Divest and Sanction.  While I think some of their sit-in on campus are disruptive - I can't find evidence that they support violence against Jews.  Nor have they encouraged or been involved in attacks.  

 

Here's something on BDS:

NPR Discussion on Open Air Prison

 

When I talk about the censorship, I am characterizing what I am seeing from Twitter and interpreting media narratives.  Look at the way Bill Ackman reacted to the initial letters from the student organizations. Blacklist anyone who supports Palestines.   Any support of Palestinians gets conflated to support of Hamas/terrorism.  So, you also think they wear masks because people who provide solidarty/aid and comfort to Palestine are automatically terrorists and terrorist supporters?  Why are they being treated that way?  

 

We are in America, a place where we welcome Jews and Palestinians to become part of our American culture. 

 

If you look at their initial letter (the national organizations) after the attack, it did very much celebrate the initial attacks.  I find that hard to reconcile with the idea that they don't support violence against Jews at least Jew/groups of Jews.  Support here being broad in definition not necessarily specifically financially or anything like that.

 

I also think it is likely that some people are misrepresenting/misunderstanding their views.  But they could also afford to do a better job of communicating things.  I don't think as an organization from top to bottom (national and local chapters) it is likely that they were ready for the spot light that this has pushed them into.

 

And I'll pretty much guarantee you that in some cases the extent and broadness of the backlash is moving some people closer to Hamas with our side vs. your side mind set and language some people are using and the way the human mind works.

Edited December 7, 2023 by PeterMP

[Fergasun]

Looks like the UPENN president may lose her job over the Congressional hearing.  Strong message sent. I listened to the first hour and it was clear the Presidents were expecting to give testimony in an academic/educational context, and they were wholly unprepared to be thrust into the political realm.  Context-based indeed... 

[PeterMP]

@Larry asked for a transcript before.  It appears that we don't put out transcripts for Congressional hearings like this.

 

But here's a video.  The exchange between Grothman and the MIT President starts at about 1hr and 48mins.  She starts by asking her a question about the mass murder of African Americans and her response is the same as it is from genocide of Jews.  Though I don't think the genocide of Jews question is ever directly individually asked

 

It is clear they were extremely unprepared for what they were walking into.  They should have just given a legalistic no comment to every question.  Something like "I'm sorry but due to on going investigations and potential disciplinary actions I can't answer that question at this time as it may appear to bias those investigations and disciplinary actions.  The appearance of any bias could give people that have violated our policies a basis to appeal or sue any punishments issued to those potential disciplinary actions."

Edited December 8, 2023 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

@Larry asked for a transcript before.  It appears that we don't put out transcripts for Congressional hearings like this.

 

But here's a video.  The exchange between Grothman and the MIT President starts at about 1hr and 48mins.  She starts by asking her a question about the mass murder of African Americans and her response is the same as it is from genocide of Jews.  Though I don't think the genocide of Jews question is ever directly individually asked

 

It is clear they were extremely unprepared for what they were walking into.

Just by listening to the clip and her responses it was clear she was unprepared, but please, don’t make it sound like they are some lamb being thrown to lion.  They couldn’t answer the question because they didn’t want to answer it from their own perspective, but whatever perspective would keep the most people happy with them. Well that didn’t ****ing work.

 

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Just by listening to the clip and her responses it was clear she was unprepared, but please, don’t make it sound like they are some lamb being thrown to lion.  They couldn’t answer the question because they didn’t want to answer it from their own perspective, but whatever perspective would keep the most people happy with them. Well that didn’t ****ing work.

 

How do you know that?  How do you know her perspective on answering that question?  What do you know about her that you can so confidently conclude how she feels about the situation?

 

Had you even heard of her before last week?

 

They have an issue that there are limits to what a University can do in terms of free speech and due process.  Harvard being private has more latitude than many other universities but universities get sued and lose for things like violating a student's right to due process.  The fact of the matter is that the language being used is protected by the 1st Amendment.  They have to worry about anything they say from a larger institutional and legal perspective.  They don't get to give their opinion or perspective on things.  She is the President of the University, but she doesn't really make the rules or the decisions on things like that.

 

Her perspective, like many free speech issues in this country, is likely the situation is complicated and context matters.  And at a place like Harvard, there will be a whole process in place (because universities have to give students due process) that will determine if you've violated their code of conduct.  Where I'll pretty much guarantee you she's at best a small part of that process.

 

And that's probably her honest perspective because it's the truth.  There's a process that determines whether you've violated the rules.  She doesn't individually lay down decisions.  And the out come of any case will depend on who is involved (there is almost certainly a panel/jury involved) and the exact details.

 

(And if the boards aren't happy with their code of conducts and how the processes that determine if somebody is violating that code of conduct are carried out, they should look at themselves.  Because I'll pretty much guarantee you, they've approved the processes that control those things.  Many of the people sitting on these boards have been associated with the university longer than the people that are Presidents have been, especially at Harvard, and she can't just come in and rewrite the code of conduct or the processes that are used to determine if somebody has violated that code of conduct because there are rules in place that are approved by the board that control how those things are set.  And they are very legalistic to protect the university from lawsuits.)

Edited December 8, 2023 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

34 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

How do you know that?  How do you know her perspective on answering that question?  What do you know about her that you can so confidently conclude how she feels about the situation?

 

Probably because she spent most of the time bumbling about. If you are speaking from the heart you just speak. If you are worried about who is listening to you, you act like she did.

[Larry]

33 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If you are worried about who is listening to you, you act like she did

 

Well, that, or if you realize that you've been intentionally ambushed by politicians, for the specific purpose of trying to generate - videos exactly like you posted. On a topic which lawyers spend months trying to come up with carefully phrased statements. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Well, that, or if you realize that you've been intentionally ambushed by politicians, for the specific purpose of trying to generate - videos exactly like you posted. On a topic which lawyers spend months trying to come up with carefully phrased statements. 

I didn’t post the video 🤷‍♂️ She isn’t some high school grade teacher up on stage for the first time. She is the dean of a major university. 
 

She should have been better prepared. The fact that she wasn’t is on her. 
 

I don’t think she should be fired for her performance but let’s be real, it was a terrible performance and she is responsible for it. She could have just said “we make decisions on a case by case basis but as a general policy we do not condone hate speach of any form” and then just moved on with a “I already answered the question” 

 

It isn’t that hard of a question to answer.

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

It isn’t that hard of a question to answer.

 

Then what's the answer.  Are the comments given a violation of Harvard's code of conduct?

 

If it isn't hard and you know that, you can tell us the answer, right?

Edited December 8, 2023 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

In politics the best answer isn’t the specific answer to the question but the answer to the question you want to answer. I’ve already posted what my response would have been.

[Spearfeather]

This is from 2017:

 

Harvard Rescinds Acceptances for At Least Ten Students for Obscene Memes

 

Quote

In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children, 

 

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/6/5/2021-offers-rescinded-memes/

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

In politics the best answer isn’t the specific answer to the question but the answer to the question you want to answer. I’ve already posted what my response would have been.

 

And I suspect if she had done that, people would still be complaining how she couldn't say that genocide against Jews was a violation of their policies.  And that's not something that is necessarily easy to come up with off the top of your head sitting in front of a Congressional committee.

[Jabbyrwock]

[Fergasun]

Ok - I downloaded and transcribed Part 1 of the hearing for myself (don't worry, I used an open source transcribing tool on downloaded video from C-SPAN).  Going to pull out some direct quotes. 

 

It's clear that the University President's had been talking about balancing freedom of speech and expression; protests; and student safety.  And the GOP came in and just wanted to attack university's -- I believe Foxx also used the word infestation, poison and  characterize it like 

 

This is from Rep. Foxx in her opening statements.  I want to point out that she's not Jewish (listed as Roman Catholic).  So how would she know that Schumer "hasn't put the pieces together"?   

Quote

Senator Schumer hasn't put the pieces together, but the picture is far too clear now to American Jews.  Institutional anti-Semitism and hate are among the poison fruits of your institution's cultures.  The buck for what has happened must stop on the president's  desk, along with the responsibility for making never again true on campus.  Do you have the courage to truly confront and condemn  the ideology driving anti-Semitism?  Or will you offer weak, blame-shifting excuses in yet another responsibility-dodging task force?  That's ultimately the most important question  for you to confront in this hearing.

This is Dr. Kornbluth (MIT) - she is Jewish, from her opening statement: 

Quote

In addition to fighting anti-Semitism, it will address Islamophobia also on the rise and also underreported.  MIT will take on both, not lumped together,  but with equal energy and in parallel. Importantly, as is clearly visible on campus, we have increased the police presence.  Safety has been our primary concern.  Nonetheless, I know some Israeli and Jewish students feel unsafe on campus.  As they bear the horror of the Hamas attacks and the history of anti-Semitism, these students have been pained by chants in recent demonstrations. I strongly believe that there is a difference between what we can say to each other, that is what we have a right to say, and what we should say as members of one community. Yet as president of MIT, in addition to my duties to keep the campus safe and to maintain the functioning of this national asset, I must at the same time ensure that we protect speech and viewpoint diversity for everyone.  This is in keeping with the Institute's principles on free expression.  Meeting those three goals is challenging,  and the results can be terribly uncomfortable.

Quote

But it is essential to how we operate in the United States.  Those who want us to shut down protest language are, in effect, arguing for a speech code. But in practice, speech codes do not work. Problematic speech needs to be countered with other speech and with education. And we are doing that.  However, the right to free speech does not extend to harassment, discrimination, or incitement to violence in our community. MIT policies are clear on this. To keep the campus functioning, we also have policies to regulate the time, manner, and place of demonstrations.

From Stefanik to Dr. Gay in her first round of questioning: 

Quote

 

Dr. Gail, a Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African-Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?

 

Our commitment to free speech--

 

It's a yes or no question. Is that corrected?  Is that OK for students to call for the mass murder of African-Americans at Harvard?  Is that protected free speech?

 

Our commitment to free speech extends--

 

It's a yes or no question.  Let me ask you this.

 

...

More from Stefanik and Dr. Gay

Quote

 

So based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct? I will say again, that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me. Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard's code of conduct, or is it allowed at Harvard? 

 

It is at odds with the values of Harvard.

 

Can you not say here that it is against the code of conduct at Harvard?

 

We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It's when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment--

 

Does that speech not cross that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel? You testify that you understand that as the definition of intifada. Is that speech according to the code of conduct or not?

 

We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a wide berth to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, outrageous, and offensive

.

You and I both know that's not the case. You are aware that Harvard ranked dead last when it came to free speech. Are you not aware of that report?

 

As I observed earlier, I reject that characterization of our campus.

 

Dr. Gay was given a chance to respond further to that exchange (after Stefanik time is up): 
 

Quote

Thank you for the opportunity. But I'm satisfied that I've conveyed our deep commitment to free expression, recognizing that it's uncomfortable.

I don't know who is asking the question, but here's another one to the UPENN President (again, this all happened before the exchange that got all the media attention): 

Quote

 

And I'm going to ask President McGill from my home state of Pennsylvania-- you saw a video at the beginning of this. And to the extent that the protests at Penn were referenced, did you see that video as an example of hate speech or speech that would incite violence?

 

I appreciate the question from the representative from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I mean, that video, just as a human being, was very hard to watch. The chanting, I think, calling for Intifada global revolution, very, very disturbing. And I can imagine many people's reaction to that would be one of fear. So I believe at a minimum that is hateful speech that has been and should be condemned. Whether it rises to the level of incitement to violence under the policies that Penn and the city of Philadelphia follow, which are guided by the United States Constitution, I think is a much more difficult question. The incitement to violence is a very narrow category.

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

There’s a lot to unpack here.

 

 

[Fergasun]

The Student Groups have responded, via Instagram:

Quote

In light of the [hearing], we the undersigned,  wholly reject the assertion that calls for Palestinian liberation are antisemitic.  While we applaud all efforts to combat the present and rising dangers of antisemitism, this hearing was not such an effort.  We see through the hearing for what it was: a diversionary charade meant to distract from the ongoing genecide in Palestine by targetting students of color. 

 

[bearrock]

@Fergasun appreciate the transcribing and had a quick question.  Did the Harvard president ever get to answer whether calling for mass murder of African Americans at Harvard was protected speech?

[Fergasun]

@bearrock

She only got to, "Our committment to free speech extends" and then was cut off. I didn't listen to the audio.  

[Spearfeather]

36 minutes ago, bearrock said:

@Fergasun appreciate the transcribing and had a quick question.  Did the Harvard president ever get to answer whether calling for mass murder of African Americans at Harvard was protected speech?

 

 

 

[bearrock]

I really would like to have heard whether mass murder of African Americans would have received the same speech into conduct qualifier.  Generally not in favor when congress members cuts off the answers.

 

I am generally for free speech on campus.  I think it becomes difficult for universities to police ideas and that's also antithetical to ideals of higher learning and academic discourse in my view.  But I don't think it's all that difficult to draw a consistent bright line at calling for indiscriminate violence against a particular group.  Also, I don't really see a good faith way to distinguish between genocide of Jews, genocide of Arabs, mass murder of blacks, etc.  Either they are all acceptable or they are all unacceptable.

 

I also think these presidents were really ill-prepared for the hearing.  They didn't think campus protests and the more controversial chants would become an issue?  Did they not have discussions and internal preparations honing their positions?  I mean it seems like lot of them came out within a day or two after the hearing and universally condemned calling for genocide of Jews.  That really shouldn't have been that difficult a question to prep for and answer.

[Spearfeather]

Quote

Rabbi David Wolpe resigns from Harvard’s antisemitism advisory group

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/business/david-wolpe-harvard-antisemitism/index.html

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Spearfeather

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

@Fergasun appreciate the transcribing and had a quick question.  Did the Harvard president ever get to answer whether calling for mass murder of African Americans at Harvard was protected speech?

 

I messed up and somehow didn't post the video in before.

 

Here it is:

 

https://www.congress.gov/committees/video/house-education-and-the-workforce/hsed00/3J0Nu9BN5Qk

 

That part starts just after the 1 hr. and 48 min. part.  And no she doesn't.

[Spearfeather]

The first time she's asked the question she starts with " Our commitment to free speech extends ..." before Stefanik starts repeating the question again, to which she responds " Our commitment to free speech extends ... " and Stefanik moves on to the next question. 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Spearfeather

[Fergasun]

Didn't realize this was happening, but US is the only Security Council member who voted against a UN ceasefire.  October 7, I may have been like "meh".  But now, with 80% of Gazans displaced, 20,000+ killed.   

 

UN Blurb on Resolution:

Quote

 

The UN chief began this latest meeting on the crisis with a stark warning that “the conditions for the effective delivery of humanitarian aid no longer exist.”

 

He said “the eyes of the world - and the eyes of history - are watching", demanding that the international community "do everything possible" to end the ordeal of the people of Gaza.

 

Mr. Guterres said “the UN is totally committed to stay and deliver for the people of Gaza.”
The resolution which failed to pass took note of the Secretary-General’s invocation of Article 99, expressed grave concern over the “catastrophic situation” in Gaza, and emphasized that both Palestinian and Israeli civilians must be protected.

 

It demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of hostages as well as humanitarian access.

 

It did not condemn the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October.

 

 

 

 

US Response:

Quote

 

The US engaged in good faith on the text, said Deputy Permanent Representative Robert A. Wood, that would increase opportunities for hostage release and more aid to reach Gaza.

“Unfortunately, nearly all of our recommendations were ignored” leading to an “imbalanced resolution that was divorced from reality that would not move the needle forward on the ground in any concrete way. And so, we regretfully could not support it."

He said the US still could not understand why the resolution’s authors declined to include language condemning “Hamas’s horrific terrorist attack” on Israel, of 7 October. It killed people from a range of nationalities, subjecting many to “obscene sexual violence.”

He said he had explained earlier in the day why an unconditional ceasefire would simply be “dangerous” and leave Hamas in place, able to attack again.

It was “a recipe for disaster for Israel, for Palestinians and for the entire region”.

Any ceasefire leaving Hamas in control would also deny Palestinians the chance to build something better for themselves, he added.

 

Who cares about blaming the attacks.  Once you bring in the Oct 7 attacks, the Palestinian side will want to talk about illegal settlements.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

The US response sounds reasonable, however I imagine even if the resolution condemned Hamas explicitly there would have been a veto.

 

Without a peace keeping force in Gaza Hamas won’t ever be defeated…