Universities Face Congressional Inquiry and Angry Donors Over Handling of Antise

[jimbogumbo]

So, a hypothetical question. What if I were a student or professor at Penn, or anywhere, and pointed out that Gaza was essentially a part of Egypt prior to the Six Day War? And that Israel began the Six Day War with preemptive air strikes on Egypt and other Arab air fields?

[Ruralguy]

if you are asking whether or not such a comment is antisemitic or even generally anti-Israel on the face of it I'd have to say no. Of course, there may be motivations behind the remark that are impure, but maybe not. So, I'd say that an old fashioned conversation in normal tones would be necessary to find out.

[Ruralguy]

As far as the precise facts stated, I'd have to go back and read up on the Six Day War.

[dismalist]

This is pretty good on the origins of the Six Day War:

Origins of the Six Day War

The article claims that recent scholarship shows that nobody wanted this war. Might have elements of the beginning of WW I. Whatever. The other side mobilizes, you don't wanna be caught flat footed.

[jimbogumbo]

I think in the current climate Rep. Stefanik and others would demand a university take action.

Note: anti-Semitism is awful, and clearly things in the US and around the world have grown worse in the past eight years. We worry every day for our grandson's and in-laws safety.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There are rules in international law that limit the extent to which civilians can be killed as collateral damage. Whether Israel is breaking those rules, particularly proportionality, is difficult to say, but it is not necessarily the case that Israel has the right (under international law) to kill as many people as it wishes in pursuit of eradicating Hamas.

[dismalist]

The issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There are rules in international law that limit the extent to which civilians can be killed as collateral damage. Whether Israel is breaking those rules, particularly proportionality, is difficult to say, but it is not necessarily the case that Israel has the right (under international law) to kill as many people as it wishes in pursuit of eradicating Hamas.

Never said it did, and more important, does Israel do it?

Right now, the killings are about two civilians for each Hamas operative. That is surely legal, for it's an extremely small number historically.

[jimbogumbo]

Right now, the killings are about two civilians for each Hamas operative. That is surely legal, for it's an extremely small number historically.

I'm really dubious of this claim. That would mean around 6,000 Hamas operatives. And how would one know anyway in most cases?

[Wahoo Redux]

It's not like you are going to find a good guy in this scenario.  It is not like Russia or Ukraine, or any other political / cultural conflict anywhere.  It is tragic and full of atrocity and ugly, ugly, ugly.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There are rules in international law that limit the extent to which civilians can be killed as collateral damage. Whether Israel is breaking those rules, particularly proportionality, is difficult to say, but it is not necessarily the case that Israel has the right (under international law) to kill as many people as it wishes in pursuit of eradicating Hamas.

Never said it did, and more important, does Israel do it?

Right now, the killings are about two civilians for each Hamas operative. That is surely legal, for it's an extremely small number historically.

I don't know where you are getting those numbers or how Israel could possible measure that in a credible way, or what makes it an "extremely small number" - small compared to what?

According to the UN, 2/3rds of the ~18000 people that have been killed in Gaza are women and children. 1.8 of the 2.2 million people in the territory have been displaced. The place was already a humanitarian disaster - more densely packed than Hong Kong and with very little potable water - and it is considerably worse now. Of course, it is Hamas that started this particular conflict, in a brutal and awful way, but Israeli leadership had quite a hand in contributing to the situation in Gaza and even in supporting Hamas long before October 7th (not to mention encouraging settlement and settler violence in the West Bank).

None of this necessarily means that Israel is violating international law or rules of war, not that those things particularly matter anyway. But it does raise significant questions about the ethics of their approach and about whether the US government should be helping them to carry out this assault in this manner.

[dismalist]

Taking the conflict as given, and taking a calculus of total lives saved, or fewest lives lost in total, where one doesn't distinguish between the opponents, as the moral objective, my evaluation is that the IDF is acting in a morally desirable way. That's likely the intention of the rules of war, even if that's not explicit.

[Hegemony]

My impression is that when countries or entities go to war, nobody in control of things says, "Let's see, what are the rules of war? We must make sure to abide by them."

[ciao_yall]

The issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There is a difference between fighting Hamas when they cross your borders, versus bombing schools and hospitals to kill 1,000 civilians hoping there might be a terrorist hiding in the basement.

Context matters.

[marshwiggle]

The issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There is a difference between fighting Hamas when they cross your borders, versus bombing schools and hospitals to kill 1,000 civilians hoping there might be a terrorist hiding in the basement.

Context matters.

I'm not totally comfortable with everything the IDF is doing, (who is???), but this is ridiculously hyperbolic. The tunnels Hamas has all through Gaza are pretty clearly apparent, and Israel has warned ahead of time about where they were going to bomb.  (And yes, there is a big problem with there being very little choice in where people can go instead. But it's definitely not the case of intentionally bombing civilians and hoping to hit a terrorist.)

[ciao_yall]

The issue is that people conflate anti-Semitism with criticism over the government of Israel.

Bombing innocent citizens in Gaza is not defending Israel's right to exist.

Alas, bombing innocent civilians is in accord with the rules of war, as contained in the various Geneva Conventions from and after 1949. What you can't do is just kill civilians. But you can kill civilians if they are collateral damage to a worthwhile military target.

Given Hamas' human shield strategy, not killing civilians would be tantamount to not allowing Israel to exist.

There is a difference between fighting Hamas when they cross your borders, versus bombing schools and hospitals to kill 1,000 civilians hoping there might be a terrorist hiding in the basement.

Context matters.

I'm not totally comfortable with everything the IDF is doing, (who is???), but this is ridiculously hyperbolic. The tunnels Hamas has all through Gaza are pretty clearly apparent, and Israel has warned ahead of time about where they were going to bomb.  (And yes, there is a big problem with there being very little choice in where people can go instead. But it's definitely not the case of intentionally bombing civilians and hoping to hit a terrorist.)

Still, not a winning strategy for future global support and regional stability.