Universities Face Congressional Inquiry and Angry Donors Over Handling of Antise

[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.)

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

Absolutely. And the same goes for continued settlers on the West Bank.
The whole situation is analogous to the O.J Simpson trial, where Hamas is like O.J. and Israel is like Mark Fuhrman.

[Ruralguy]

I think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

[Sun_Worshiper]

I think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

The Israelis feel like they made a few decent offers over the years, but the Palestinians did not want to play ball. In the meantime, Israel has been thriving economically, making progress on normalizing relations with Arab nations, and it has essentially neutralized threats from Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian issue has thus been on the backburner politically, with no particular interest in attempting to alter what seemed like a stable status quo. Whatever flack Israel was taking on the PR side, it did not seem to be affecting things all that much.

Maybe the events of the last two months change all that, whether by prompting a shift in Israel's domestic politics or by leading Arab states to demand some concessions to the Palestinians as a condition for normalizing relations. I'm skeptical that either of these things will happen, but certainly we could be at a critical juncture.

[Ruralguy]

I don't think this will lead to much.

Oslo led to less than a year of real peace (terroristic acts by Israelis and Palestinians, and the assassination of Rabin by a Jewish Israeli).

I think the Wye summit was the last time a real offer was served up by Israel to the Palestinians, but it was rejected. That was about 25 years ago.

There have been a number of wars with Palestinians since, but no follow on peace making activity of significance.

Peace is dead. Practically speaking, the war will have to end, but I doubt that will lead to real peace, unfortunately,

[dismalist]

Israel and Saudi have had some touchy feely relations, but including intelligence exchange for some years. This budding relationship ensued because the two sides understood they had a common enemy -- Iran. The October 7th attack was intended and timed to end that peace process. The parties fighting Israel are all Iranian proxies. These must be defeated for any peace process to flourish.

[Ruralguy]

I heard Dennis Ross say this morning something along the lines of "never underestimate the ability for your enemy's enemy to just also be your enemy in the Middle East."

Along these lines, I'd be wary of seeing the elimination of one enemy as the magic bullet. Or rounding up one entity as an ally.

[dismalist]

Israel and Saudi have had some touchy feely relations, but including intelligence exchange for some years. This budding relationship ensued because the two sides understood they had a common enemy -- Iran. The October 7th attack was intended and timed to end that peace process. The parties fighting Israel are all Iranian proxies. These must be defeated for any peace process to flourish.

I heard Dennis Ross say this morning something along the lines of "never underestimate the ability for your enemy's enemy to just also be your enemy in the Middle East."

Along these lines, I'd be wary of seeing the elimination of one enemy as the magic bullet. Or rounding up one entity as an ally.

Nailing Iran's proxies is a necessary condition, not necessarily a sufficient condition for peace.

[I had never heard of Ross before. Judging from the Wikipedia entry on him, Ross believes he himself, and only he himself, is predestined to consummate Middle East peace. :-)]

[Sun_Worshiper]

Saudi was, by all accounts, on the verge of joining the Abraham Accords. That has been paused for the moment, but I imagine that talks will get back on track once this dies down. Rich countries in the region want to do business.

Is this the reason that Hamas attacked Israel? I doubt it is the primary reason. Certainly there is a deep sense of betrayal among Palestinians aimed at the Arab states that, it turns out, don't care so much about Palestinian statehood after all, yet Hamas was launching attacks on Israel since long before Israel and Saudi started normalizing relations. I think they saw a window of opportunity* and seized it. Was Iran involved? They do provide weapons and funding to Hamas, but then again Qatar gives money to Hamas as well, with the encouragement of Israel. More generally, it is hard to imagine that Hamas put their own lives and the lives of many thousands of Gazans in jeopardy just to appease the Iranians.

It is also very questionable that Hamas can be eliminated and even more so that PA could be installed to govern Gaza. More likely is that Hamas will regroup or will be replaced with some other radical group, and this will all play out again in ten years or so.

* Israel was facing internal turmoil and focusing its military attention on the West Bank.

[Langue_doc]

See the BBC news for updates and also background information on the situation.

The sad part is that hostages don't seem to be a priority. Most governments would have negotiated the release of all the hostages before bombing territory that is "suspected" of housing them. It was also surprising that the Palestinians released in the first two negotiated release of some of the hostages were mostly women and children who had not been convicted of any crimes, but merely accused of throwing stones at settlers, many of them illegaly occupying or trying to occupy territory.

Heavy rain adds to Gazans' misery as Israeli bombardment continues

Israel Gaza: UN General Assembly demands immediate ceasefire

As Israel presses its military offensive across Gaza, the army has been repeatedly advising some two million civilians to move to a "humanitarian zone" smaller than London's Heathrow Airport

Israel-Gaza war: Half of Gaza's population is starving, warns UN

The latest from the UN:

U.N. General Assembly Votes for Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire, Countering U.S. Veto
About three-quarters of the body's members voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution. The result underscored the isolation of Israel and the United States.

Exerpts from the article:

The U.N. General Assembly demanded an immediate cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war in an overwhelming vote on Tuesday that highlighted much of the world's desire to bring the bloody conflict to an end.

About three-quarters of the body's members voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution, underscoring the isolation of Israel and the United States, which last week blocked a cease-fire resolution in the Security Council.

Resounding applause and cheers erupted after the vote was announced: 153 in favor, 10 against and 23 abstentions. The resolution required two-thirds majority for passage.

More than 15,000 people, many of them women and children, have been killed in Gaza, according to local health officials, since Israel declared war on Hamas after the militant group launched a terrorist attack on Oct. 7, killing more than 1,200 people and taking 240 others hostage.

General Assembly resolutions are never legally binding, but they carry political weight and are a symbolic reflection of the wider perspective among the U.N.'s 193 members.

The countries that joined the U.S. and Israel in rejecting the cease-fire resolution on Tuesday were Austria, the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Liberia, Micronesia, Paraguay and Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Among the countries that abstained were Britain, Hungary, South Sudan and Germany.

[marshwiggle]

It is also very questionable that Hamas can be eliminated

This is the issue. If Hamas would release all of the remaining hostages, there'd be very little international support for Israel's continuing offensive. That's the one tangible reason they have for continuing.

But clearly, Hamas doesn't care about, (or is actually in favour of), civilian casualties in Gaza since that is all just bad publicity for Israel.

Unless and until the hostages are released, it's hard to see any realistic endgame for Israel. The elimination of Hamas, as stated above, is unlikely, and more importantly, impossible to prove even if it it were possible to achieve.

[ciao_yall]

I think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

The Israelis feel like they made a few decent offers over the years, but the Palestinians did not want to play ball. In the meantime, Israel has been thriving economically, making progress on normalizing relations with Arab nations, and it has essentially neutralized threats from Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian issue has thus been on the backburner politically, with no particular interest in attempting to alter what seemed like a stable status quo. Whatever flack Israel was taking on the PR side, it did not seem to be affecting things all that much.

Maybe the events of the last two months change all that, whether by prompting a shift in Israel's domestic politics or by leading Arab states to demand some concessions to the Palestinians as a condition for normalizing relations. I'm skeptical that either of these things will happen, but certainly we could be at a critical juncture.

None of the "offers" made to the Palestinians involved economic, legal and social equality.

Oppressing others does not create "Jewish safety."

[Ruralguy]

I think that might be an oversimplification, Ciao. However, the main issue, at least regarding long term prospects for peace,  is that nothing realistic has even been presented or negotiated in 25 years, even during relatively peaceful interludes. Peace (between Israel and the Palestinians) is caput. I don't know about the Abraham Accords.
On one head, I agree its all about the bucks, or mostly. I am sure a number of Sheiks would like to own an Israeli soccer team or a condo on the beach near Tel Aviv. But just after a conflict of this magnitude? I don't see it. Not for a few years. Though it sends chills up my spine saying it, a Trump administration might give a bit more hope to that, but that also depends on the rest of the world as well.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I think since about 1982, Israel has decided that they don't really care about winning the PR war. The one exception, which in reality only lasted a year at most, was the hubbub surrounding the Oslo accords. I suggest that they act in their interests and we act in ours, and that the two countries have some discussions regarding the intersecton of those interests

The Israelis feel like they made a few decent offers over the years, but the Palestinians did not want to play ball. In the meantime, Israel has been thriving economically, making progress on normalizing relations with Arab nations, and it has essentially neutralized threats from Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian issue has thus been on the backburner politically, with no particular interest in attempting to alter what seemed like a stable status quo. Whatever flack Israel was taking on the PR side, it did not seem to be affecting things all that much.

Maybe the events of the last two months change all that, whether by prompting a shift in Israel's domestic politics or by leading Arab states to demand some concessions to the Palestinians as a condition for normalizing relations. I'm skeptical that either of these things will happen, but certainly we could be at a critical juncture.

None of the "offers" made to the Palestinians involved economic, legal and social equality.

Oppressing others does not create "Jewish safety."

Maybe. But I'm just saying what the perception of many Israelis is. They have, by and large, moved on from the Palestinian issue and if you ask people in Israel about it, many will say some variation of "we offered them deals, but they said no."

I think that might be an oversimplification, Ciao. However, the main issue, at least regarding long term prospects for peace,  is that nothing realistic has even been presented or negotiated in 25 years, even during relatively peaceful interludes. Peace (between Israel and the Palestinians) is caput. I don't know about the Abraham Accords.
On one head, I agree its all about the bucks, or mostly. I am sure a number of Sheiks would like to own an Israeli soccer team or a condo on the beach near Tel Aviv. But just after a conflict of this magnitude? I don't see it. Not for a few years. Though it sends chills up my spine saying it, a Trump administration might give a bit more hope to that, but that also depends on the rest of the world as well.

I think a few years is right. This will delay, but not derail the Accords. The Arab leaders don't care that much about Palestinian statehood, it seems, but they may care enough about the demands of their own citizens to work in some concessions for the Palestinians. I can't imagine that those concessions will include anything so bold as a two-state solution, but maybe something like additional aid to Gaza - but clearly this is not going to happen right now.

[Diogenes]

I highly recommend everyone listen to The Daily from the NYT for today. So much of the outrage around this comes from out-of-context soundbites and unaired attempts from lawmakers to try and conflate other culture war issues with the Israel-Hamas war. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736

[Ruralguy]

I don't think that flew over any of our heads, Diogenes, but I will definitely listen.

Thanks!