Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[laughing dog]

Because anti-Israel is not the same as anti- Jewish.

When you hold Israel to standards dissimilar to any other country in the world, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should just roll over and not defend itself from attacks by Hamas and other Tehran vassals, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should be destroyed, you damn sure are an anti-semite.

In the world without nuanced thinking, I’d agree. But I live in the real world where I can understand that the call for destruction of a country may he a call for the destruction of it government but not its people.

Yes, but there certainly are plenty of people who call for both the destruction of Israel and the destruction of all Jews, not merely the toppling of Bibi.

Simple test--if you replace "Israel" with "Jews" does it still make just as much sense? If so then it's probably disguised antisemitism.

Of you replace "destruction of Hamas" with "destruction of Gazans" and it makes sense, does that mean it is probably disguised genocide?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because anti-Israel is not the same as anti- Jewish.

When you hold Israel to standards dissimilar to any other country in the world, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should just roll over and not defend itself from attacks by Hamas and other Tehran vassals, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should be destroyed, you damn sure are an anti-semite.

When you hold Israel to standards dissimilar to any other country in the world, you might be an anti-semite, or you might not be. Israel has significant differences from every other country in the world. Any standards by which it is judged should at the very least acknowledge them.

There is no if. There's nothing about Israel that warrants holding it to a higher standard than other developed nations.

When you think Israel should just roll over and not defend itself from attacks by Hamas and other Tehran vassals, you might be an anti-semite, or you might not be. There are some people with firm pacifist views who do not condone violence in any form, not even in self defense. And there are some who allow for self defense but not terrorism or the wholesale destruction of a community full of civilians, most of whom are children.

True, it could be extreme pacifism.

However, saying they can't harm civilians in defending themselves is de facto saying they should simply roll over and die.

When you think Israel should be destroyed, you damn sure are an anti-semite, or perhaps pro-Semitic if you think Semitic people in general will be safer without a religious ethno-state, Jewish or Muslim or Christian or whatever, fueling the fighting that is killing them.

When you think Israel should become a multi-ethnic secular state, you might not be an anti-Semite but you're almost guaranteed to be called one.

If you think Israel should become a multi-ethnic secular state you're not an antisemite, you're just delusional. That's not a possible endgame in the current situation. In the real world the options are:

1) War between Israel and at least one neighbor. So long as the money flows there will be somebody who accepts it to make war on Israel. And Israel is going to smash the military capability of said neighbor to the extent that they can in order to keel Israeli casualties down.

2) Genocide of Israel.

3) Remove the terror money. Realistically that could only be accomplished by a mushroom cloud on Tehran and Israel asking if anyone else wanted to continue the proxy war. Even that very well might not be an option anymore as Russia might step in.

All these choices are very ugly, it seems to me that #1 is the least bad.

4) Peaceful coexistence--impossible so long as the money flows. It's not actually an option no matter how many people want it to be. It takes one to make a war, not two.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anybody with any familiarity of the history would understand why Israeli folks won't allow that anytime in the foreseeable future.

And while I realize that a bunch of Americans have dumped fundamental American values (preferring to melt down the Statue of Liberty and make Wall sections out of it) I would be fine with a bunch of Gazans moving here. Easily a million Gazans could pass a minimal bit of vetting to avoid the most violent miscreants. I don't know about everywhere, but there's already a substantial Muslim population stretching from Chicago to suburban Detroit.

The majority support Hamas tactics. I seriously doubt you could select only the decent ones. If nothing else, Hamas would ensure they stay behind as human shields.

But I would honestly think that most would prefer Muslim majority Egypt or Jordan. For some reason, those governments won't allow that.
Tom

Of course they won't. It's a population that has been subjected to a lifetime of propaganda to be used as weapons. They would need cult deprogrammers to be safe in any society and the world simply doesn't have anywhere near the capability. I don't believe there is anything that can be done about the current situation other than to stop throwing gas on the fire (terror money.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nowadays it's for the same reasons, using the Hamas boogeyman to frighten people susceptible to racist propaganda into refusing to allow children to find refuge from starvation and bombing in Israel. It's like when the racists and religious bigots refused to allow Jewish refugees trying to escape from the Nazis into the United States in the 1930s. We all know what 'those people' are like right from birth, they'll bite the hand that feeds them, amirite?

Bogeyman?

Hamas has already done this long ago--said that Palestinians entering Gaza from Israel would be killed. You let them in Israel, they're never returning to Gaza. And Hamas would ensure they're the radical ones, the ones we should be helping would be kept at home as human shields.

I would be perfectly fine with admitting Gazans into my own home. It wouldn't be the first time my family has helped people who need a bit of support when they move to Alaska, and it wouldn't be the first time we've had Muslims in the house.

I would be ok with it if I could be confident that they truly were the innocent ones (and I would expect the exact opposite) and that they didn't have the Muslim view of women.

As for the average American citizen, I think that might break along generational lines. Boomers like myself were fed a steady diet of pro-Zionist talking points for most of our lives and only some of us looked beyond the surface. But it appears that the younger generations have a broader approach to the topic. I think attitudes are changing. However, I think racism and religious bigotry will still be powerful influences on America's immigration policies. We have welcomed white Christians from Ukraine with open arms, brown Christians from Central American with stinginess, and Muslims from anywhere in the world with suspicion. Some of the more liberal communities would welcome Gazans while the more Trumpy ones won't.

Ukraine--it's obvious what they are fleeing. The need for help is apparent and stay and fix it isn't an option.

Central America--the problem here is there has long been a considerable flow of economic migrants from the area. This leaves us very suspicious of motives. Yes, many are fleeing real threats but they are basically society-wide threats--helping people will actually make the problems in those areas worse as it drains off the ones that could help fix it. Note that any area that suffers heavy emigration ends up wrecked.

Muslims--the problem here is separating the moderates from the radicals. The radicals are very dangerous and hard to separate out.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Emerson (Boston)

108 protesters arrested, 4 police officers injured as pro-Palestinian encampment cleared at Emerson

One student who was at the demonstration and left the area said he watched the incident unfold from his dorm window and said he saw officers dragging away some people who resisted arrest.

www.wcvb.com

"Peaceful" and "one serious injury" to a police officer do not make sense together. Somebody fought.

Something is bound to happen with the arrest of hundreds of students across multiple universities. One can clearly see that if that is the only thing that happened, the intent is non-violence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

I disagree that Gaza and Hamas are synonyms. Saying one is with Hamas is very ugly. It means they support violence against Israel. It can mean nothing else in the context of someone in America saying it. Much like defending someone who says they are with Mussolini potentially meaning they like the train schedule working out.

I don't think it is a threat, but it can easily cross the line into the territory of anti-Israel / anti-Semitic.

As you say, they are not synonyms even though from a political standpoint they are effectively interchangeable.

*spit take*

When you are talking about the actions of the group they are the same thing. The pseudo-country Gaza and Hamas are interchangeable terms as we typically do not distinguish the actions of the government of a country from the actions of the country. We say "Russia" invaded Ukraine even though it's obviously the direction of Putin and says nothing about how the people stand on it. "Gazan" and "Hamas" are not as not all individuals support the actions of their country.

 

[Playball40]

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

I disagree that Gaza and Hamas are synonyms. Saying one is with Hamas is very ugly. It means they support violence against Israel. It can mean nothing else in the context of someone in America saying it. Much like defending someone who says they are with Mussolini potentially meaning they like the train schedule working out.

I don't think it is a threat, but it can easily cross the line into the territory of anti-Israel / anti-Semitic.

As you say, they are not synonyms even though from a political standpoint they are effectively interchangeable.

*spit take*

When you are talking about the actions of the group they are the same thing. The pseudo-country Gaza and Hamas are interchangeable terms as we typically do not distinguish the actions of the government of a country from the actions of the country. We say "Russia" invaded Ukraine even though it's obviously the direction of Putin and says nothing about how the people stand on it. "Gazan" and "Hamas" are not as not all individuals support the actions of their country.

And yet we don't blame all Russian people for the actions of Putin. And I think it's untrue that Hamas cannot be separated from innocent Gazan citizens.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Look at her standing there, making everyone around her feel unsafe.

 

[Politesse]

Look at her standing there, making everyone around her feel unsafe.

Don't worry, over on our side the LAPD has "safety" covered:



You rarely see so many safeties in one place!

 

[laughing dog]

Look at her standing there, making everyone around her feel unsafe.

I must say, the look on her face is world class.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The batons are definitely better than guns, but is the gear really needed? Can't we have those guys on backup in case things do go poorly?

 

[Derec]

I must say, the look on her face is world class.

I wonder what face she would make if she was stuck in a place governed by the kinds of theocrats she supports here.

 

[Derec]

The batons are definitely better than guns, but is the gear really needed? Can't we have those guys on backup in case things do go poorly?

Would you prefer pepper spray?

It's aerosolized hot sauce, essentially.

 

[Derec]

I didn't realize the only property of a sign was its color. Thank you for enlightening me.

So why did you bring up the signs' color then?

 

[laughing dog]

I must say, the look on her face is world class.

I wonder what face she would make if she was stuck in a place governed by the kinds of theocrats she supports here.

I understand that in the authoritarian-worshipping world of the excluded middle, there is no other reason to be at such a protest than to support Hamas, but in the real world where people differ and have multiple motivating factors, it is quite possible that young woman does not support any theocrats.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn't realize the only property of a sign was its color. Thank you for enlightening me.

So why did you bring up the signs' color then?

I did not merely bring up the sign's color. Reading comprehension fail. I included the sign's color as a way to reference THE particular sign(s) using the definite article "the" to point out the signs in the video(s) included by you and later myself.

I wrote the following:
"Note the yellow signs. They [the yellow signs] are used by various NYC political groups."

Emphasis added.

You read it as:
"Note yellow signs. They [yellow signs] are used by various NYC political groups."

The particular signs with particular messaging in combination from your video can be observed in other videos of local militant liberation group(s), but not Columbia and this was further context provided later with links to photos and or videos.

Even so, you chose to ignore the word "the" and its meaning as a definite article, taking the commentary and follow-up both out of context into the world of reading comprehension fail.

Finally, to add-- Derec, I do not need to prove the Columbia students are innocent. You need to prove they are guilty. You have failed to do so.

 

[Politesse]

Look at her standing there, making everyone around her feel unsafe.

I must say, the look on her face is world class.

Got a healthy dose of that "Greta" energy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I must say, the look on her face is world class.

I wonder what face she would make if she was stuck in a place governed by the kinds of theocrats she supports here.

Well, Dobbs is leading us there, so maybe you'll get to find out.

The batons are definitely better than guns, but is the gear really needed? Can't we have those guys on backup in case things do go poorly?

Would you prefer pepper spray?

It's aerosolized hot sauce, essentially.

Yeah, that'd indicate you didn't really read my post.

 

[Jarhyn]

I must say, the look on her face is world class.

I wonder what face she would make if she was stuck in a place governed by the kinds of theocrats she supports here.

I understand that in the authoritarian-worshipping world of the excluded middle, there is no other reason to be at such a protest than to support Hamas, but in the real world where people differ and have multiple motivating factors, it is quite possible that young woman does not support any theocrats.

I like to state my position thusly: I stand and support the young Jews of Isreal who protest the actions of their government against the civilians of Gaza.

 

[Derec]

Got a healthy dose of that "Greta" energy.

So, somebody very immature whose self-righteous indignation ("how dare you?") far exceeds her grasp of the issues.