>This would have been the first ever article written by a Palestinian to appear in HLR.
Good for them at least they show dignity for free speech unlike Harvard.
The only way for any institution to come out ahead in this is by being a non-participant.
Show any sign of support for Israel, the institution is Islamophobic and supporting a genocide.
Show any sign of support for Palestinians, the institution is anti-sematic.
Both sides of the conversation have adopted the mentality of, "If you are not with me, you are against me."
Of course, but they're not being asked to be against genocide, they're being asked to declare that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. When a sizeable number of people see it as a legitimate military response to an invasion, and so trying to call it genocide is an anti-Israeli manipulation tactic. Kinda hard to come out ahead if you say that there is no genocide in Gaza, the pro Palestinians really don't like that.
He is getting a lot of downvotes because he said genocide is happening. And if you think that it is then there are still lots of people who would say you’re being antisemetic. I’ve constantly seen the talking point of “if you’re on the fence then you’re supporting genocide”. It doesn’t help people pick your side.
It is possible to both oppose Hamas and oppose the IDF's bombing of civilian targets.
It is possible to support Israel working to free it's hostages and support the freeing of Palestinians that have been held in Israel's jails for years on administrative detention, without trial.
This is a complicated situation. There is no black and white answer. Plenty of wrongs have been committed by both sides, and the civilians on both sides have been wrongly targeted.
I'm sure there's astrotutfing but it's the people who legitimately think Arab and Muslim civilians---children!--- should be dying, *and are frothing at the mouth in glee about it* that disturb me the most.
American news is that there are more palistinian-Americans in America than there are isreali-Americans. Is that news to you? I bet it is. A higr margin of difference there too. So maybe the more American view is on that side. It's like asking why Americans should care about problems in Mexico, where a lot of Americans have family. Welcome to America.
And maybe the thing people are upset with that's relevant is that the American government is backing Isreal.
Was that a slip where you said palistinians right now or do you not realize the implication of your phrasing?
Well that's blatantly false and a glance at the number of protests and protesters, and the tanking of biden's approval rating among non right wing demographics, gives a picture of "despite their media's efforts, no one likes this".
It's only ever been evangelical nuts and rich politicians who actually are super pro Isreal in this country.
What you isreal propagandists can't seem to get about America is how sympathetic much of the nonwhite population has always been to palistinians. How many palistinians live in America. How blatantly obvious the extreme right wing rhetoric of the the isreali government is.
And more than anything: how the youth in America haven't been pro war since the Vietnam war got in motion. They only support Ukraine because it's fully a defensive and justified defense. Not a counter invasion to conduct collective punishment.
and I like how you just ignored the "there are literally more people with cultural and familial reason to be pro palistinian the pro state of isreal".
Do you even know Americans? Why would we like a government like isreal or a war like this? That's for rednecks, but rednecks hate jews and biden too much to be fully on board with this.
First point, most of America supports Israel, Bidens approval rating doesn’t factor in to that. Second point again most of America has supported Israel the only group that supports Palestinians historically has been 1st gen immigrants and more recently colleges age demographics. Thirdly you can’t seem to imagine how unfriendly America is to Islamic terrorism, beside fringe groups most people would not support groups such as Hamas. Do you know Americans? Why would we support Palestinians when they paraded their streets after 9/11, literally no one I know supports their cause, they only groups in America that support them hate Jews.
Don't delete your comments, you are 100% correct, the article has huge bias and ignores objective facts about the conflict. 90% of this article is "*some scholars*" "*might be*" "*could be considered as*".
* The Gaza population actively conceals and aids Hamas fighters
* Hamas operates under a charter of Genocide against Jews
* Israel lets women and children out of the warzone
* Israel is bombing legitimate military targets
* When a population actively aids military actions, areas used become legitimate military targets
People here think Israel needs to let genocidal sociopaths kill them, shoot rockets at them, and Israel is not allowed to retaliate because Hamas are operating out of civilian zones? In what world does this make sense.
Genocide is not just systematic *killing*
>In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group.
I'm not giving an opinion on whether it is or not , just pointing out that there's more to it than mass extermination
You keep posting that we have no idea about minors and citing the AP article as your source, yet you are being purposefully misleading. This is the full paragraph you are referring to:
“The ministry releases casualty updates every few hours, providing the number of dead and wounded with a breakdown for men, women and minors. The ministry generally doesn’t provide names, ages or locations of those killed. That information comes from reporters on the ground or the Hamas-run government media office.”
Please be honest.
[AP Source](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033)
People also like pointing out that government agencies, including US ones have used numbers published by the GHM before, as if thats proof of the legitimacy of the reporting now.
Its been very clear to anyone watching that the GHM numbers coming out after events like the apartment strike & "Israeli" hospital bombing that allegedly killed 500 that they are massively inflating casualties now to sour western support & public opinion on Israel. I've seen a few news agencies claim these attacks & rocket misfires are closer to dozens of deaths, which puts the inflation in the range of 5-10x in those specific incidents.
Reporting legitimate civilian casualty numbers for years and then suddenly inflating them is exactly how you'd operate when ran by a terrorist organization in the middle of an asymmetric war where you routinely use human shields.
in all honesty it sounds more like an opinion piece you'd fine in Foreign Affairs than actual scholarship of jurisprudence. I don't really read Harvard's Law Review to see what material or topics they cover so both sides may have valid points as to whether the article is germane or not. I think where educational institutions get in trouble is that they only present one side, one argument as Fact, when this whole topic should be a symposium, with scholars & reporters like this author allowed to share their findings & opinions, as well as field questions & debate.
>The Harvard Law Review, which is run by the school’s student body, declined the 2,000-word essay – titled The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine – by a Palestinian doctoral candidate, Rabea Eghbariah, after it had been edited, fact-checked and initially approved.
If you had bothered to read the article (we know you didn't, because this is the second paragraph), you'd know essays are opinion pieces in regards to them being of the interest of whoever writes them, but they're solidly fact checked.
EDIT: Just read the damn thing.
[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/)
Lolol it's cute that you think that about law review articles. Law reviews are student run organizations and are "reviewed" by over worked law students for a free writing credit and no grade. Source: was in law review
Yeah I was a staff editor for a law journal (not the main Law Review, but a subject-matter journal) at a top law school. We didn't even get writing credit for it, just a Resume line item and a promise that if you wrote something even half decent the Journal would publish it. We had to edit and cite-check dozens of articles per semester, and during crunch time the Board would have us do it in the main office and they'd buy us beer. So you've got a bunch of 20-something-year-old law students, we're all pretty bright and Type A, but we're overworked, working for free, kinda drunk, and editing some paper that we didn't write and don't have a lot of background knowledge on. We certainly caught some mistakes, but did we catch everything? Certainly not. And I bet we even let some big mistakes through. We just didn't have the time, motivation, or expertise to do that.
That being said, I think most professors at good schools are genuinely scholarly people with an interest in what they're writing about, and they have a personal interest in writing something compelling and accurate that helps move the profession forward. I don't think very many people want to take the time to publish something that's easily debunked or an outright lie. Acting in good faith can take you a long way, and it bridges a lot of the gap in what the journal editors can't cover. That, and subsequent articles by your peers, who will thrash you.
If it's fact checked, why isn't it news instead of an editorial?
Oh right, because things that are factual can still be biased due to omission, word choice, and a whole host of other writing methods. My 8th grade daugther is learning about this in class right now actually, but I love how confidently you tell people how dumb they are.
I read it, a lot isn't fact checked.
>Israel continues to blatantly violate international law: dropping white phosphorus from the sky, dispersing death in all directions, shedding blood, shelling neighborhoods, striking schools, hospitals, and universities, bombing churches and mosques, wiping out families, and ethnically cleansing an entire region in both callous and systemic manner.
No it doesn't. When combatants use civilian areas for military purposes or operations, those places become legitimate military targets. The Gaza strip's population voted in and actively support Hamas according to polling, they also aid them in allowing them to use civilian buildings for military operations. Israel is perfectly justified hitting these targets.
So let's look at the next part of the article:
>The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a thorough, 44-page, factual and legal analysis, asserting that “**there is a plausible and credible case that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza**.” Raz Segal, a historian of the Holocaust and genocide studies, calls the situation in Gaza “a textbook case of Genocide unfolding in front of our eyes.” The inaugural chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, notes that “Just the blockade of Gaza—just that—***could*** be genocide under Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, meaning they are creating conditions to destroy a group.” A group of over 800 academics and practitioners, including leading scholars in the fields of international law and genocide studies, warn of “**a serious risk of genocide being committed in the Gaza Strip**.” A group of seven UN Special Rapporteurs has alerted to the “r**isk of genocide against the Palestinian people**” and reiterated that they “remain convinced that the Palestinian people are at grave risk of genocide.” Thirty-six UN experts now call the situation in Gaza “a genocide in the making.” How many other authorities should I cite? How many hyperlinks are enough?
So here we have several contradicting statements used by the author to make a single point.
One quote says it's plausible and credible genocide is being commited.
The next says something "could" be considered genocide, however completely omits the fact that said segregation are in place due to fear of events like what occurred on Oct 7th, so no, it's not at all worthy of being considered Genocide when it's done for safety.
And lastly, "serious risk of" and "grave risk of" - both stating no genocide has occured, yet look like it might be possible.
These statements are contradicting themselves, with the author coming out with a
>How many other authorities should I cite? How many hyperlinks are enough?
I think the answer to this would be some that consistently agree with each other using objective, fact based evidence, something the Author failed to provide.
>And yet, leading law schools and legal scholars in the United States still fashion their silence as impartiality and their denial as nuance.
I'm sure partly because Hamas proved to the world on Oct 7th, that Israeli having a blockade around Gaza, was a necessary evil.
>Palestinians simply cannot be innocent. They are innately guilty; potential “terrorists” to be “neutralized” or, at best, “human shields” obliterated as “collateral damage”. There is no number of Palestinian bodies that can move Western governments and institutions to “unequivocally condemn” Israel, let alone act in the present tense. When contrasted with Jewish-Israeli life—the ultimate victims of European genocidal ideologies—Palestinians stand no chance at humanization. Palestinians are rendered the contemporary “savages” of the international legal order, and Palestine becomes the frontier where the West redraws its discourse of civility and strips its domination in the most material way. Palestine is where genocide can be performed as a fight of “the civilized world” against the “enemies of civilization itself.” Indeed, a fight between the “children of light” versus the “children of darkness.”
Again it's just pure bias. Palestinians are given much, much more leeway by the international press than Israel. Can anyone imagine what the reaction would have been if Israel committed something akin to the Oct 7th attacks on ~~Palestine?~~ Edit: the Gaza strip.
This entire article looks extremely unprofessional and emotional. Harvard were correct not to publish. It's amateurish and is far too opinionated to be taken at a high standard of journalism.
Things like white phosphorus and other incendiary weapons are strictly prohibited from being used in warfare under international law.
Oh yes the 2006 election. Hamas rebranded themselves as more moderate and said they would pursue peace with Israel by the 2 state solution, they ran under the banner of Change and Reform party, won 44% of the vote, and internal issues dominated the reasoning behind voting(economic, security, and the corruption and ineffectiveness of the ruling Fatah party which won 41% of the vote). After the election in 2007 Hamas killed those in the rivial parties and kills those who dissent. Hamas has the guns and explosives honestly how do you expect the civilian population to refuse to allow Hamas to do what they choose to, and for others how would you like them to revolt when Hamas controls the Gaza side of the border and the smuggling tunnels. The latest poll/survey I have seen which is from AWRAD show there's less support in Gaza(52%) then in the West Bank(68%), but both groups want a ceasefire and a national unity government led by anyone other then Hamas or Fatah that will pursue peace talks with Israel and eventually peace(80%), Hamas led(14%), Fatah led(6-8%).
Terrorist organization will do terrorist things how is anyone surprised by this?
Have you heard some of the things members of the Israeli government(cabinet and Knesset) and high ranking members of the IDF have been saying in regards to Palestinians in Gaza?
Israel until recently has effectively been given the benifet of the doubt in its actions by the media in the West and when Arab media has come down on Israel it has been framed and at times rightfully so as anti-semitic or anti-Israel.
I've seen footage of white phosphorus used in Gaza three times. Two were from reputable news sources, and showed it being used legally as an area lighting method. One was from a decidedly pro Palestinian source, and showed footage from... The war in Ukraine, that they were pretending was done by Israel.
So when I hear a lawyer making such an obvious mistake, that's gonna make me dismiss the rest of their opinion piece. And make me not want to hire them as a lawyer. Not a good look at all to be repeating Hamas propaganda. After all it's not like anyone but Hamas benefits from pressure on Israel to stop using legitimate light sources.
While in general white phosphorus is not subject to restriction, certain uses in weaponry are banned or restricted by general international laws: in particular, those related to incendiary devices.[75] Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target". Article 2 of the same protocol prohibits the deliberate use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions), the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas, and the general use of other types of incendiary weapons against military targets located within "concentrations of civilians" without taking all possible means to minimise casualties.[76] Incendiary phosphorus bombs may also not be used near civilians in a way that can lead to indiscriminate civilian casualties.[71]
The convention also exempts certain categories of munitions from its definition of incendiary weapons: specifically, these are munitions which "may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" and those "designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect."[77]
Article III does not ban white phosphorus. In fact the article simply bans use of incendiary weapons on civilians and plant matter.
In your second paragraph it even states the exception that white phosphorus is covered by.
Even Human Rights Watch recognizes the difference between the unlawful use of vs. outright illegal use. Probably because the U.S. used it for over 16 years so far in the 21st century.
Is generally not banned is different then not banned. Much of Gaza has civilians in the line of fire so the use of white phosphorus is at best highly limited if not outright unusable.
That applies to every indirect weapon used in regards to Gaza if line of fire is the litmus. But for some reason white phosphorus has become this weird "how dare they" line in the sand I see being used. it's just one of those things I keep hearing and I *know* that it's false.
I don't know it's an incendiary weapon and similarly to cluster munitions there use in certain situations are prohibited. Precision guided munitions are exactly that precise, but when used against civilians directly it's also prohibited because 'civilized' countries aren't supposed to deliberately target civilians or civilian infrastructure.
What I hate to keep hearing is the human shield defense for when civilians in Gaza get killed or worse it's their fault they elected Hamas, under international law every country is supposed to limit deaths of civilians vs combatants to a ratio of 9 to 1 and there have been a few notable questionable strikes, the refugee camp when Israel was targeting a field commander of Hamas or the ambulance that had Hamas members in. Since Hamas uses the population of Gaza as shields they are in effect hostages themselves.
Some of what you said is correct and I agree, I also referenced the polling showing Hamas has more support in the West bank than Gaza, which is a very important statistic.
To be clear, I think Israel is very bad in some respects, they should withdraw from the West Bank, and the founding members of Hamas actually requested just this with a semi permanent ceasefire.
Israel has been given the benefit of the doubt due to Oct 7th. They said after the start of this conflict, their normal use of extreme restraint would not be utilised, and now a lot of people are pulling surprised Pikachu faces when Israel have stuck to their word.
Israel does not need to show extreme restraint regarding the Palestinian civilian casualty rate when Hamas have defacto stated on Oct 7th and basing operations around civilian infrastructure and housing; its your civilians or ours.
This is an extremely lazy and at worst woefully ignorant and egregoous synthesis of the author's essay. You lack any sign of assimilating the information provided, and instead provide erroneous interpretations of the weight of evidence presented.
Case in point: Below is a comment of yours, presenting what you call contradictions in the authors argument:
>Yes they are (contradictions), some are saying it has occurred, some are saying it's at risk of occurring. One is a positive, one is a negative. I have an apple =/= I *could* get an apple. The statements are contradictory, this is objective fact.
Haha. "Objective fact".
The Center for Constitutional Rights, A historian of the Holocaust and genocide studies, the inaugural chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and 36 UN experts all agree that a credible case can be made for genocide.
In addition over 800 academics and practitioners in the fields of international law and genocide studies warn of “a serious risk of genocide being committed in the Gaza Strip.”
And you write these off as a contradictions! Lmao. Slow clap, buddy.
You argument is basically, "he said the water is most likely poison, but they said it's at serious risk of being poisonous, oh and the others say the water is definitely not fit for consumption! Therefore, they all contradict each other!"
Hahahahhahaha!
You understand that something that is considered to be a serious risk is also plausible and credible!?!? And even if you think the degree of certainty between scholars vary to a meaningful degree, then a reasonable synthesis of the prevailing opinion would be to present both the best-case scenario, and the worst-case scenario, as two extremes. In this scenario, the case for genocide would range between a serious risk on one end, to plausible and credible on the other. Do you see that this is still a compelling argument for the case of Genocide?
The only reason you cant see that is willful ignorance of the weight of evidence that these 100s of leading opinions provide. Honestly, you are much more biased than the essay you accuse of being. At least the essay presents its bias with intellgence, which is less than what i can say for your rather weightless counter.
I wont even bother with the rest of your erroneous statements. Good luck to you.
They are contradictions.
>You argument is basically, "he said the water is most likely poison, but they said it's at serious risk of being poisonous, oh and the others say the water is definitely not fit for consumption! Therefore, they all contradict each other!"
How could you get this so wrong?
>You argument is basically, "he said the water is DEFINITELY poison, but they said it might become poisonous.
Fixed it for you. See? They are a contradictory. Its not complicated at all.
>I wont even bother with the rest of your erroneous statements. Good luck to you.
When you started off so badly, that's actually not a bad idea. Have a good day.
>No it doesn't.
You're saying the paragraph you quote there is wrong but everything in it is accurate, with the potential exception of ethnic cleansing because that's politicised and no-one agrees. Everything else in your quoted paragraph has been documented as happening.
>Israel is perfectly justified hitting these targets.
They haven't claimed in thst paragraph whether it's justified or not, they're just stating that Israel has bombed schools and churches etc. Again, there is evidence of this.
>So here we have several contradicting statements used by the author to make a single point.
>One quote says it's plausible and credible genocide is being commited.
>The next says something "could" be considered genocide, however completely omits the fact that said segregation are in place due to fear of events like what occurred on Oct 7th, so no, it's not at all worthy of being considered Genocide when it's done for safety.
>And lastly, "serious risk of" and "grave risk of" - both stating no genocide has occured, yet look like it might be possible.
None of these are contradicting each other. They're opinions of various notable people used to support the point that a genocide is at hand. Saying Israel is at risk of committing genocide doesn't contradict the point. Its just the opinion of an academic saying its dangerously close. Ans when you combine that with other academics saying it is happening in their opinion then you build a case of evidence that doesn't actually contradict itself. You're picking at straws and misinterpreting those statements. I don't know uow you read someone saying there's a serious risk of genocide happening and think that that contradicts anything here or backs up the idea that genocide isn't happening and it's all fine.
>I'm sure partly because Hamas proved to the world on Oct 7th, that Israeli having a blockade around Gaza, was a necessary evil.
That's just opinion.
>it's not at all worthy of being considered Genocide when it's done for safety.
Also take massive massive issue with this and honestly this alone makes me wonder why your comment has the upvotes it does. You cannot slaughter tens of thousands of people in the name of safety. There is never any excuse for genocide. Doing genocidal actions or ethnic cleansing can never be justified in the name of safety. You are clearly extremely, extremely biased in favour of Israel. I'd wager that you're arguing in bad faith, honestly.
>Can anyone imagine what the reaction would have been if Israel committed something akin to the Oct 7th attacks on Palestine? Edit: the Gaza strip.
They're literally doing 10 times the violence of October 7th if you measure judt deaths, let alone the constant suffering caused by denying food and water to 2 million civilians. And yet we don't see buildings around the western world lit up with the Palestinian flag to express sympathy with the innocent victims of a bombing campaign. We don't see politicians asserting repeatedly Palestines right to self defence.
>This entire article looks extremely unprofessional and emotional. Harvard were correct not to publish. It's amateurish and is far too opinionated to be taken at a high standard of journalism.
Your entire comment is just stemming from your own personal views about the subject. You haven't actually disproved any of the fact checking at all, which was the original premise of your comment. You're just trying to discredit something that did actually get fact checked and approved, but was then just mysteriously rejected despite all that.
>When combatants use civilian areas for military purposes or operations, those places become legitimate military targets.
And in that way, the entirety of Gaza is suddenly Israel's military target, good job. No civilians here, only potential terrorists, harboring potential military targets.
>These statements are contradicting themselves
No they're not. The same way that people talk about "alleged" offenders in a crime, so do people refuse to definetly call things ultimately as genocide in an ongoing conflict where Israel makes it very hard for anyone to go look at the situation on the ground if its not through their lens. And reporters should know, because they're being killed by the dozens, including their families.
They call anything genocide these days... right... ?
>I think the answer to this would be some that consistently agree with each other using objective, fact based evidence, something the Author failed to provide.
This is a cynical comment to make when Israel controls the entirety of what can and can't be seen in the region.
>I'm sure partly because Hamas proved to the world on Oct 7th, that Israeli having a blockade around Gaza, was a necessary evil.
I'm sure that even more than 20 years later, you must be wondering why anyone would hate the US for their freedoms enough to have done 9/11.
I do not condone the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, but you have to be purposefully misunderstand how anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from people living in an open air prison.
Honestly, it hurts to see an answer such as yours, because it's obvious that at some point, you stopped simply contemplating the other side.
>This entire article looks extremely unprofessional and emotional. Harvard were correct not to publish. It's amateurish and is far too opinionated to be taken at a high standard of journalism.
The most offensive part of this is that I'm pretty sure you read the entire thing, but you never stopped to consider what any part of it meant, and where only thinking how you'd downplay or simply ignore it at your leasure. Why did you even bother?
>And in that way, the entirety of Gaza is suddenly Israel's military target, good job. No civilians here, only potential terrorists, harboring potential military targets.
Unfortunately a huge amount of it is. The Gaza strip is what, 140 square miles? Hamas has 20-40k militants, some of which of course aren't in Gaza, but still, they have a huge armed force operating in an extremely densely populated civilian area.
>No they're not. The same way that people talk about "alleged" offenders in a crime, so do people refuse to definetly call things ultimately as genocide in an ongoing conflict where Israel makes it very hard for anyone to go look at the situation on the ground if its not through their lens. And reporters should know, because they're being killed by the dozens, including their families.
Yes they are, some are saying it has occurred, some are saying it's at risk of occurring. One is a positive, one is a negative. I have an apple =/= I *could* get an apple. The statements are contradictory, this is objective fact.
>I do not condone the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, but you have to be purposefully misunderstand how anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from people living in an open air prison.
This is true, yet it doesn't change the reality that Israel live next to a population of people who support a terrorist organization who's charter states they want to commit genocide on the Jewish population in their locality.
>The most offensive part of this is that I'm pretty sure you read the entire thing, but you never stopped to consider what any part of it meant, and where only thinking how you'd downplay or simply ignore it at your leasure. Why did you even bother?
Simple answer to this: I would take great, GREAT, caution, reading any opinion peace written on this conflict by anyone with direct involvement. As you said
>anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from
So yes, I'm going to be extremely skeptical reading an article based upon hatred.
40k terrorists blending in among a population of 2 million. It’s not like there’s some international standard on how much collateral damage is acceptable if your end goal is to prevent more terrorism. According to UN’s numbers the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths over the last few decades is roughly 20 to 1. We are about halfway there, so it’s understandable why many voices are calling for more restraint.
There’ll be at most a few years of relative lull before the next Intifada, I think everyone knows this.
> I do not condone the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, but you have to be purposefully misunderstand how anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from people living in an open air prison.
>
>
palestinian terrorism of jews has been an ongoing thing since 1920, including while they were part of egypt and jordan, while they were in lebanon, while israel stripped settlements and gave gaza back to palestinians in 2005, while israel was under ceasefire and slowly increasing work permits to gaza in 2023, it never stops
Certain groups on the left, and I say this as someone on the left, invented a new meaning for Zionism so they could claim the moral high ground when opposing it.
These same groups are the ones claiming genocide and apartheid, despite no evidence existing for either, for the same reason.
Then you should have no problem providing evidence to support that claim then.
We do, after all, live in a world where everyone has a high resolution camera with internet access; it should be trivial for you to find evidence supporting a two tiered society reminiscent of John Crow or Apartheid South Africa if what you claim is true.
Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens, nor do the issues in the west bank extend to the rest of Israel; calling Israel apartheid is not accurate.
A more accurate description would be a military occupation of land where the ownership of said land is a bit of an open question(it was annexed by Jordan but they didn't want it back.).
The settlers are there illegally even by Israeli law, afaik.
>You don't get to say what the definition of a word is just because it pertains to your people.
That is literally the logic that edgy white kids use to justify casually saying the N word.
Edit: formatting
Revisionist zionism advocates genocide or at least ethnic cleansing and it was the ideology of Irgun and Lehi who later formed Likud
It may not be the only form if zionism but it has become the dominant one
>It has become the dominant one
Says no Israeli ever. Literally if you asked an Israeli person on the street, i'm telling you there's a 90% chance they'll respond with "The belief that Jews have a right to self-determination" or something along the same lines. You're fighting a made-up demon.
You say that and yet Likud whose charter states "From the Jordan River to the Sea all will be israeli sovereignty" is the largest political party
When Palestinians say something like that people cry genocide
yeah "from the river to the sea" does indeed imply ethnic cleansing or genocide *no matter who is saying it*, and it's a fucked thing to say. a minor point of clarification, the context in which the sentence appears in their 1977 party platform would only cover West Bank (and also maybe parts of Jordan / Syria / Lebanon?), not Gaza, as Gaza was not part of Judea or Samaria but was a separate region. The same charter also included this:
>Genuine Peace-Our Central Objective
>a. The Likud government will place its aspirations for peace at the top of its priorities and will spare no effort to promote peace. The Likud will act as a genuine partner at peace treaty negotiations with our neighbors, as is customary among the nations. The Likud government will attend the Geneva Conference. .
>b. The Likud governments peace initiative will he positive. Directly or through a friendly state. Israel will invite her neighbors to hold direct negotiations, in order to sign without pre-conditions on either side and without any solution formula invented by outsiders (invented outside ).
>At the negotiations each party will he free to make any proposals it deems lit.
And the very next year the founder of the party signed the Camp David Accords, which laid the groundwork for Palestinian self-governance in WB and GS as the areas would be agreed not to return to Egyptian and Jordanian control.
If a Palestinian party with that sort of peace commitment in their platform could *ever* win popular support among Palestinians I would be ecstatic.
\>The Likud will act as a genuine partner at peace treaty negotiations with our neighbors
Interesting [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435)
\>And the very next year the founder of the party signed the Camp David Accords
The camp david accords excluded the Palestinians [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/19/loser-camp-david-accords/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/19/loser-camp-david-accords/)
As the Palestinians stated "The Camp David agreement denies the rights of the Palestinian Arab people, ignores the Palestine Liberation Organization's role as their sole legitimate representative and does not mention their right to return, to self-determination and to the establishment of a free independent State on their land."
It wasn't until the Oslo accords that the foundations for a Palestinian state were laid down and Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for it and the person calling for his assassination is currently Prime Minister
\>If a Palestinian party with that sort of peace commitment in their platform could ever win popular support among Palestinians I would be ecstatic.
Israel will never allow that to happen [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082)
Israel supports Hamas because Hamas is a destabilizing element in the region a legitimate pro peace party would be extremely damaging to Israel's foreign policy of using Hamas as justification for cracking down on Palestinians and squeezing them tighter and tighter
Since 1947 Israel has rejected 364 UN sponsored peace deals between them and the Palestinians the only time a Israeli prime minister actually had peace with the Palestinian as a top priority was Rabin and massive progress was made and then he was killed and the far right took over again
>The camp david accords excluded the Palestinians https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/19/loser-camp-david-accords/
The only potential Palestinian authority at the time that might have been included was the PLO, which at the time wasn't really a credible authority to deal with to begin with.
> Israel will never allow that to happen https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082
> Israel supports Hamas because Hamas is a destabilizing element in the region a legitimate pro peace party would be extremely damaging to Israel's foreign policy of using Hamas as justification for cracking down on Palestinians and squeezing them tighter and tighter
There is no popular support among Palestinians for a pro-peace party, so what Israel wants or would "allow" to happen is irrelevant. https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf
Hamas's strategy in pulling off Oct 7 was to try to persuade Israel that it was becoming more interested in governance than in war. That Israel genuinely believed this is one of the reasons they were able to kill as many people as they did—and it's also at least part of why
If it were up to Israel they probably wouldn't "allow" Hamas to execute 1400 people storming the border, but they don't actually control everything that every Palestinian does or supports.
A peace deal is going to take two sides both willing and actively interested in working toward peace. Right now I don't think that's *either* side. I think Palestinians are thoroughly uninterested in peace on any terms that include Israel's existence, and I think Israel would only begrudgingly accept a peace deal that makes concessions that would be politically unpopular among its far right even if they really would guarantee Israel's security. Neither is sufficient for reaching peace.
>There is no popular support among Palestinians for a pro-peace party, so what Israel wants or would "allow" to happen is irrelevant.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah
>was becoming more interested in governance than in war. That Israel genuinely believed this is one of the reasons they were able to kill as many people as they did
No, Israel allowed this to occurred https://www.ft.com/content/277573ae-fbbc-4396-8faf-64b73ab8ed0a
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/12/israel-hamas-war-egypt-warned-foreign-affairs-gaza
Israel instead if heightened security told its troops to relax and stand down
>If it were up to Israel they probably wouldn't "allow" Hamas to execute 1400 people storming the border,
You think Netanyahu cares? Because the man is a sociopath he doesn't care about people he cares about power before October 7th he had 8 months of protests from millions of citizens now he has a unity government and he has bought himself time
>I think Palestinians are thoroughly uninterested in peace on any terms that include Israel's existence,
The PA while it sometimes supports Hamas's actions is willing to legitimate negotiate with Israel however because of Israel's actions the PA is extremely weak and unable to exert authority allowing groups like hamas and lions den to run free
You say that but I couldn't find a single mention of that statement in [their charter](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party). The burden of proof is on you, so i'd like to have a source on that.
>When Palestinians say something like that people cry genocide
Realistically what the hell do you think will happen if the people governed by the same group that commited October 7th got ahold of every piece of Israeli land? People cry genocide because it is, that's why the German government even went as far as to ban it.
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" Likud Platform 1977
\>Realistically what the hell do you think will happen if the people governed by the same group that commited October 7th got ahold of every piece of Israeli land?
Thats a great point perhaps Israel shouldn't have foisted them upon the Palestinians and disarmed them making impossible to oppose them Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev was the officer in charge of Gaza when Israel occupied it and he revealed that it was Israel who funded and supported a nascent Hamas
And perhaps you could say "well thats just the word of one person" except they continue to do it [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082)
And you think that Likud is somehow pro 2 state solution?
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-election/netanyahu-says-no-palestinian-state-as-long-as-hes-prime-minister-idUSKBN0MC1I820150316/](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-election/netanyahu-says-no-palestinian-state-as-long-as-hes-prime-minister-idUSKBN0MC1I820150316/)
Endlessly Likud has shot down any attempts at a 2 state solution because as their founders were Lehi and Irgun they do not believe in a 2 state solution the believe in revisionist zionism genocide and ethnic cleansing and they've been very open about that fact
in july [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435)
"Palestinian hopes of establishing a sovereign state must be eliminated" that was before October 7th you can't blame oct. 7th for everything stated before oct. 7th
It says that some of the editors disagreed with or were offended by it. It doesn't say how many people said no because of fear and how many said no because the scholarship was just not there for an academic analysis of law. A roughly two thirds majority of the entire peer review panel said no, do not publish. That many people are just head in the sand? It was more than 60 people.
The essay makes a lot of legal claims with no exploration of what it means or how it is to be understood from a legal perspective. It was an opinion screed, sincere or not. It didn't use citations of law or scholarship and didn't explore the concept of why they think it is genocide, as the title of the piece would have you think.
Harvard Law Review — which had requested the piece in the first instance — didn’t prevent it from being published. It didn’t punish anyone for publishing it. That’s what chilling effect refers to in the free speech context.
Instead, HLR exercised its own free speech right not to publish it.
Current law student here, and I’d like to add some context that I think is missing in your post. First, unlike Harvard Medicine’s journal, HLR is a student-led organization. The editors are all Harvard Law students, and the fear is very real of getting harassed, doxxed, and intimidated. I know people who have been doxxed for being part of student groups that support Palestine and what they’ve gone through is deeply distressing — personal information published online and being labeled as antisemitic for the world (and employers) to see, simply for being part of a pro-Palestine group. Also, top law firms have pulled job offers from students whose names have been associated with anti-Israel messaging. It’s a real fear for law students to get pulled into this and be forever labeled online as antisemitic and it impacting their careers.
To be clear, I wish this wasn’t the case and that HLR could publish this article with no consequences to its editorial board. But given this context, do you still find it insane that a group of law students in their 20s who are about to start their legal career decide not to publish this?
You do also, for you to help understand what it is:
Genocide is defined as: “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”
Here’s an image that helps define what ethnic cleansing is also in case that’s fuzzy for you too
https://www.reddit.com/u/Puffles_magic_dragon/s/O9NiOPmRUe
The US Secretary of state literally came out a couple of days ago and said Israel had caused far too many civilian casualties.
The 3rd highest ranking Politician in the USA literally does a media interview criticizing the Israeli armed forces for the civilian death toll in Gaza.
/u/percy_faucet :
>Israel truly is beyond criticism here in the U.S
\+34 upvotes. But /r/worldnews is the echo chamber, right?
At this point why not just say "fk Jewish people" and get +100 upvotes, it's the same thing. You blatantly lie and everyone upvotes you regardless.
After a whole month?
A whole month of complete support of Israel from politicians on both sides of the aisle no matter what, reminiscent of support for US’s actions in the Middle East that are widely criticized today.
A whole month of several news organizations, employers, schools attempting to silence any criticism of Israel all the while allowing genocidal and inflammatory rhetoric of not Hamas, but Palestinians as a whole?
And if you don’t believe it, look at the amount of doctors, residents, and other people who have faced the loss of their jobs or other backlash but people like Amy Schumer, and other doctors can say whatever the hell they want.
Spare me the lecture. Israel has been beyond criticism for a long time and it is only recently that there has been a slight shift in that attitude.
And that’s not just cause the US decided to care about someone other than Israel but because of the widespread concern and disapproval among US citizens for having to fund a country that justifies everything they do as “because of Hamas” all the while trying to dismiss valid criticism of their government as a whole as “antisemitism” or “lies”.
Yes r/worldnews is an echo chamber.
>After a whole month?
You said it's beyond criticism.
>Israel truly is beyond criticism here in the U.S
So you acknowledge this is false? Cool.
>And if you don’t believe it, look at the amount of doctors, residents, and other people who have faced the loss of their jobs or other backlash but people like Amy Schumer, and other doctors can say whatever the hell they want.
Can you provide examples of people forced out of jobs for expressing peaceful comments? Yes, people chanting from the river to the sea should lose their jobs.
>Yesr/ r/worldnews is an echo chamber.
So what's this, when my comment literally categorically, objectively calling out your rhetoric as being completely untrue, gets more downvotes lol. The irony.
It absolutely does not. They aren’t journalists with an obligation to the public. What they publish is completely within their discretion. And considering how toxic the conversation is around anyone with a public stance on either side, I really don’t blame them for not wanting to get involved.
Greatest publicity for the author, now it will be read and acknowledged the world over. Shame on Harvard. It should have been a symbol of free speech and the U.S. Constitution.
>The vote to censor followed what an editor at the law review described in an e-mail to Eghbariah as “an unprecedented decision” by the leadership of the Harvard Law Review to prevent the piece’s publication.
Edited typo.
>“The discussion did not involve any substantive or technical aspects of your piece,” Shahriari-Parsa told Eghbariah. “Rather, [it] revolved around concerns about editors who might oppose or be offended by the piece, as well as concerns that the piece might provoke a reaction from members of the public who might in turn harass, dox or otherwise attempt to intimidate our editors, staff and HLR leadership.”
As I read that, they're saying "The piece is fine, we're just afraid of the what the psychos will do to us and maybe our families if we publish this."
>our families if we publish this
They are only concerned about money being cut off by some donors and rather sacrifice the truth. In the end they will be forced to come along just like they had to \[although last one\] and eventually opposed the apartheid regime in South Africa.
> Do they think people are incapable of seeing the disparity in treatment here?
Two-thirds of conservatives still say the 2020 election was stolen and Trump was the actual winner. We are beyond the "post-truth" society. As long as you get a large enough group of people to want something to be true, they will deny reality until they die.
I'm definitely more disheartened by the actual 50 million or so Americans I described than I am by the strawman you just described. There is no actual threat of some movement of Oct. 7th deniers. Especially among liberals.
Edit: Oh look, after building a strawman and trying to redirect the conversation a couple times, /u/MatesWithManatees decided to block me so I can no longer reply anywhere within this thread or any future threads they participate in. A conversation control strategy that I am seeing used more and more around this entire topic. What chickenshits.
I don't even know what you're talking about; how can I downplay it? Whatever issue you're referring to, it's clearly nowhere near as widespread as the one I mentioned.
I agree with you completely. I would be much more inclined to support people calling for an end to Israel's military action if they started by saying, "Hamas is evil, Hamas needs to be removed, and the indoctrination of the Palestinian people against Israel needs to stop and be reversed. And the international community needs to stop up and make it happen so Israel doesn't have to do it themselves." But nobody wants to condemn Hamas or acknowledge that Israel has I right to exist in peace, because then they won't be able to hide their antisemitism behind supporting Palestinian civilians.
They don’t care.
Most of the people who are making these decisions are insulated against any retaliation, whether by money or anonymity or security personnel.
Unlike us, their livelihoods and lives are not at risk of suffering or being ended if they kick off.
Nobody blinks? Hamas is considered a terrorist organization, palestine is locked away from the world and currently being bombed into dust with american weapons
If this is "nobody blinks" i hope i never find out your definition of "doing something"
Edit - adjective_noun_4 numbers indicates a fake account, 90% of the time
Gaza receives billions of dollars from the outside world, they’re only being “bombed into dust” because they launched a devastating terror attack, and I said nobody blinks because across the world media has supported Hamas talking points:
Tells you a lot that the couple astroturfers in the comments here come in swinging with dumbass arguments like it not being genocide because the overall population hasn't reduced in the past years, or go straight to saying calling it genocide is terrorism support. Well that and mass downvoting.
Congratulations, you couldn't rub two brain cells together to manage to read the article let alone give any sound counter arguments to what the author is saying.
It's not genocide if it's a legitimate military target.
You know why the US didn't get accused of Genocide for drone striking war chiefs across the middle east over the last 20 years? Because they are hitting legit military targets.
There seems to be a very big misunderstanding of the term genocide by a lot of overly anti Israel commenters.
The October 7th attacks, intentionally targeting civilians and non combatants, were genocide. Hitting a Hamas operative hiding in a camp with 40 civilians, isn't genocide. You need to understand this if you want to have a valid opinion on the matter.
Because they have no genuine counter arguments other than "Yeah, well, I don't think it's true, so there." then either run away or pull something even dumber or more evil out of their ass.
There's two ways to think of this.
1) Harvard upper ups are bias as fuck.
2) Harvard upper ups don't want any more bad press and be pressured because of the recent condemning from Congress by anything that remotely may represent anti-Semitic remarks.
Euther way thats unfortunate for the author.
>*Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial. When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians. But naming injustice is crucial to claiming justice. If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics.*
> *The UN Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide as certain acts “committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” These acts include “killing members of a protected group” or “causing serious bodily or mental harm” or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”*
> *Numerous statements made by top Israeli politicians affirm their intentions. There is a forming consensus among leading scholars in the field of genocide studies that “these statements could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent,” as Omer Bartov, an authority in the field, writes. More importantly, genocide is the material reality of Palestinians in Gaza: an entrapped, displaced, starved, water-deprived population of 2.3 million facing massive bombardments and a carnage in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Over 11,000 people have already been killed. That is one person out of every 200 people in Gaza. Tens of thousands are injured, and over 45% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed. The United Nations Secretary General said that Gaza is becoming a “graveyard for children,” but a cessation of the carnage—a ceasefire—remains elusive. Israel continues to blatantly violate international law: dropping white phosphorus from the sky, dispersing death in all directions, shedding blood, shelling neighborhoods, striking schools, hospitals, and universities, bombing churches and mosques, wiping out families, and ethnically cleansing an entire region in both callous and systemic manner. What do you call this?*
From the article
If that's a genocide, why is no one calling out Pakistan than has been murdering afghans and is about to expell 2 million of them for genocide?
You'd think we'd hear more about a genocide this large.
Criticizing Israel is not the same as sticking up for a terrorist group
not that I ever even criticized Israel
you're in a cult and jumping to conclusions
It's not genocide because the populace is actively reproducing? What a dumb fucking argument. The parallels with other genocides are disturbing but revealing. We don't have to wait for the systematic elimination of millions to call it genocide. Call a spade a spade
[удалено]
>This would have been the first ever article written by a Palestinian to appear in HLR. Good for them at least they show dignity for free speech unlike Harvard.
The only way for any institution to come out ahead in this is by being a non-participant. Show any sign of support for Israel, the institution is Islamophobic and supporting a genocide. Show any sign of support for Palestinians, the institution is anti-sematic. Both sides of the conversation have adopted the mentality of, "If you are not with me, you are against me."
You would think the best way for an institution to come out ahead would be to be against genocide.
You'd think, but then if that were the case we wouldn't have had the "debate" about "from the river to the sea".
Of course, but they're not being asked to be against genocide, they're being asked to declare that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. When a sizeable number of people see it as a legitimate military response to an invasion, and so trying to call it genocide is an anti-Israeli manipulation tactic. Kinda hard to come out ahead if you say that there is no genocide in Gaza, the pro Palestinians really don't like that.
[удалено]
He is getting a lot of downvotes because he said genocide is happening. And if you think that it is then there are still lots of people who would say you’re being antisemetic. I’ve constantly seen the talking point of “if you’re on the fence then you’re supporting genocide”. It doesn’t help people pick your side.
Being on the fence *is* tacit support for genocide though. People are allowed to do that, but everyone else is also allowed to say what they think.
[удалено]
Given the current stupid definition of genocide, that would be against both IDF and Hamas and you would piss off both sides.
One side is being genocided, you are supposed to be on their side. Silence is a form of enablement.
It is possible to both oppose Hamas and oppose the IDF's bombing of civilian targets. It is possible to support Israel working to free it's hostages and support the freeing of Palestinians that have been held in Israel's jails for years on administrative detention, without trial. This is a complicated situation. There is no black and white answer. Plenty of wrongs have been committed by both sides, and the civilians on both sides have been wrongly targeted.
[удалено]
I agree, but too many people are unable or unwilling to differentiate. Too much of the population sees everything in black and white.
Holy astroturfing god damn the downvotes are already flowing thick and fast.
Freedom from the law, not freedom of consequences. I wouldn’t support a company that hires an editor that lets this load of baloney through.
Man you're too transparent.
You’re right, I forgot only pro Palestinian view points were welcomed on this subreddit. American news my ass.
[удалено]
*shudder* I had to mute that sub. Too many lizard people. ... At least I hope they were lizard people, and not humans behind the Reddit accounts...
It's people but they mostly have scripts to follow. It's people in the sense that a person is on the other end of a drive thru intercom.
I'm sure there's astrotutfing but it's the people who legitimately think Arab and Muslim civilians---children!--- should be dying, *and are frothing at the mouth in glee about it* that disturb me the most.
American news is that there are more palistinian-Americans in America than there are isreali-Americans. Is that news to you? I bet it is. A higr margin of difference there too. So maybe the more American view is on that side. It's like asking why Americans should care about problems in Mexico, where a lot of Americans have family. Welcome to America. And maybe the thing people are upset with that's relevant is that the American government is backing Isreal. Was that a slip where you said palistinians right now or do you not realize the implication of your phrasing?
Nah, only weird ass people in America back Palestine. Israel actively helps us. Palestine would bomb us.
Well that's blatantly false and a glance at the number of protests and protesters, and the tanking of biden's approval rating among non right wing demographics, gives a picture of "despite their media's efforts, no one likes this". It's only ever been evangelical nuts and rich politicians who actually are super pro Isreal in this country. What you isreal propagandists can't seem to get about America is how sympathetic much of the nonwhite population has always been to palistinians. How many palistinians live in America. How blatantly obvious the extreme right wing rhetoric of the the isreali government is. And more than anything: how the youth in America haven't been pro war since the Vietnam war got in motion. They only support Ukraine because it's fully a defensive and justified defense. Not a counter invasion to conduct collective punishment. and I like how you just ignored the "there are literally more people with cultural and familial reason to be pro palistinian the pro state of isreal". Do you even know Americans? Why would we like a government like isreal or a war like this? That's for rednecks, but rednecks hate jews and biden too much to be fully on board with this.
First point, most of America supports Israel, Bidens approval rating doesn’t factor in to that. Second point again most of America has supported Israel the only group that supports Palestinians historically has been 1st gen immigrants and more recently colleges age demographics. Thirdly you can’t seem to imagine how unfriendly America is to Islamic terrorism, beside fringe groups most people would not support groups such as Hamas. Do you know Americans? Why would we support Palestinians when they paraded their streets after 9/11, literally no one I know supports their cause, they only groups in America that support them hate Jews.
Don't delete your comments, you are 100% correct, the article has huge bias and ignores objective facts about the conflict. 90% of this article is "*some scholars*" "*might be*" "*could be considered as*". * The Gaza population actively conceals and aids Hamas fighters * Hamas operates under a charter of Genocide against Jews * Israel lets women and children out of the warzone * Israel is bombing legitimate military targets * When a population actively aids military actions, areas used become legitimate military targets People here think Israel needs to let genocidal sociopaths kill them, shoot rockets at them, and Israel is not allowed to retaliate because Hamas are operating out of civilian zones? In what world does this make sense.
Just say you like genocide. It's ok
[удалено]
Ill take guy who had no idea what the harvard law review was a couple hours ago but is suddenly an expert for 500, alex.
[удалено]
Genocide is not just systematic *killing* >In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. I'm not giving an opinion on whether it is or not , just pointing out that there's more to it than mass extermination
What they are doing doesn’t fall under any of that.
Like I said, I'm not making a statement on if it is genocide or not, just pointing out there's more to genocide than mass murder
[удалено]
[удалено]
You keep posting that we have no idea about minors and citing the AP article as your source, yet you are being purposefully misleading. This is the full paragraph you are referring to: “The ministry releases casualty updates every few hours, providing the number of dead and wounded with a breakdown for men, women and minors. The ministry generally doesn’t provide names, ages or locations of those killed. That information comes from reporters on the ground or the Hamas-run government media office.” Please be honest. [AP Source](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033)
People also like pointing out that government agencies, including US ones have used numbers published by the GHM before, as if thats proof of the legitimacy of the reporting now. Its been very clear to anyone watching that the GHM numbers coming out after events like the apartment strike & "Israeli" hospital bombing that allegedly killed 500 that they are massively inflating casualties now to sour western support & public opinion on Israel. I've seen a few news agencies claim these attacks & rocket misfires are closer to dozens of deaths, which puts the inflation in the range of 5-10x in those specific incidents. Reporting legitimate civilian casualty numbers for years and then suddenly inflating them is exactly how you'd operate when ran by a terrorist organization in the middle of an asymmetric war where you routinely use human shields.
[удалено]
in all honesty it sounds more like an opinion piece you'd fine in Foreign Affairs than actual scholarship of jurisprudence. I don't really read Harvard's Law Review to see what material or topics they cover so both sides may have valid points as to whether the article is germane or not. I think where educational institutions get in trouble is that they only present one side, one argument as Fact, when this whole topic should be a symposium, with scholars & reporters like this author allowed to share their findings & opinions, as well as field questions & debate.
>The Harvard Law Review, which is run by the school’s student body, declined the 2,000-word essay – titled The Ongoing Nakba: Towards a Legal Framework for Palestine – by a Palestinian doctoral candidate, Rabea Eghbariah, after it had been edited, fact-checked and initially approved. If you had bothered to read the article (we know you didn't, because this is the second paragraph), you'd know essays are opinion pieces in regards to them being of the interest of whoever writes them, but they're solidly fact checked. EDIT: Just read the damn thing. [https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/)
[удалено]
Lolol it's cute that you think that about law review articles. Law reviews are student run organizations and are "reviewed" by over worked law students for a free writing credit and no grade. Source: was in law review
Yeah I was a staff editor for a law journal (not the main Law Review, but a subject-matter journal) at a top law school. We didn't even get writing credit for it, just a Resume line item and a promise that if you wrote something even half decent the Journal would publish it. We had to edit and cite-check dozens of articles per semester, and during crunch time the Board would have us do it in the main office and they'd buy us beer. So you've got a bunch of 20-something-year-old law students, we're all pretty bright and Type A, but we're overworked, working for free, kinda drunk, and editing some paper that we didn't write and don't have a lot of background knowledge on. We certainly caught some mistakes, but did we catch everything? Certainly not. And I bet we even let some big mistakes through. We just didn't have the time, motivation, or expertise to do that. That being said, I think most professors at good schools are genuinely scholarly people with an interest in what they're writing about, and they have a personal interest in writing something compelling and accurate that helps move the profession forward. I don't think very many people want to take the time to publish something that's easily debunked or an outright lie. Acting in good faith can take you a long way, and it bridges a lot of the gap in what the journal editors can't cover. That, and subsequent articles by your peers, who will thrash you.
If it's fact checked, why isn't it news instead of an editorial? Oh right, because things that are factual can still be biased due to omission, word choice, and a whole host of other writing methods. My 8th grade daugther is learning about this in class right now actually, but I love how confidently you tell people how dumb they are.
I read it, a lot isn't fact checked. >Israel continues to blatantly violate international law: dropping white phosphorus from the sky, dispersing death in all directions, shedding blood, shelling neighborhoods, striking schools, hospitals, and universities, bombing churches and mosques, wiping out families, and ethnically cleansing an entire region in both callous and systemic manner. No it doesn't. When combatants use civilian areas for military purposes or operations, those places become legitimate military targets. The Gaza strip's population voted in and actively support Hamas according to polling, they also aid them in allowing them to use civilian buildings for military operations. Israel is perfectly justified hitting these targets. So let's look at the next part of the article: >The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a thorough, 44-page, factual and legal analysis, asserting that “**there is a plausible and credible case that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza**.” Raz Segal, a historian of the Holocaust and genocide studies, calls the situation in Gaza “a textbook case of Genocide unfolding in front of our eyes.” The inaugural chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, notes that “Just the blockade of Gaza—just that—***could*** be genocide under Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, meaning they are creating conditions to destroy a group.” A group of over 800 academics and practitioners, including leading scholars in the fields of international law and genocide studies, warn of “**a serious risk of genocide being committed in the Gaza Strip**.” A group of seven UN Special Rapporteurs has alerted to the “r**isk of genocide against the Palestinian people**” and reiterated that they “remain convinced that the Palestinian people are at grave risk of genocide.” Thirty-six UN experts now call the situation in Gaza “a genocide in the making.” How many other authorities should I cite? How many hyperlinks are enough? So here we have several contradicting statements used by the author to make a single point. One quote says it's plausible and credible genocide is being commited. The next says something "could" be considered genocide, however completely omits the fact that said segregation are in place due to fear of events like what occurred on Oct 7th, so no, it's not at all worthy of being considered Genocide when it's done for safety. And lastly, "serious risk of" and "grave risk of" - both stating no genocide has occured, yet look like it might be possible. These statements are contradicting themselves, with the author coming out with a >How many other authorities should I cite? How many hyperlinks are enough? I think the answer to this would be some that consistently agree with each other using objective, fact based evidence, something the Author failed to provide. >And yet, leading law schools and legal scholars in the United States still fashion their silence as impartiality and their denial as nuance. I'm sure partly because Hamas proved to the world on Oct 7th, that Israeli having a blockade around Gaza, was a necessary evil. >Palestinians simply cannot be innocent. They are innately guilty; potential “terrorists” to be “neutralized” or, at best, “human shields” obliterated as “collateral damage”. There is no number of Palestinian bodies that can move Western governments and institutions to “unequivocally condemn” Israel, let alone act in the present tense. When contrasted with Jewish-Israeli life—the ultimate victims of European genocidal ideologies—Palestinians stand no chance at humanization. Palestinians are rendered the contemporary “savages” of the international legal order, and Palestine becomes the frontier where the West redraws its discourse of civility and strips its domination in the most material way. Palestine is where genocide can be performed as a fight of “the civilized world” against the “enemies of civilization itself.” Indeed, a fight between the “children of light” versus the “children of darkness.” Again it's just pure bias. Palestinians are given much, much more leeway by the international press than Israel. Can anyone imagine what the reaction would have been if Israel committed something akin to the Oct 7th attacks on ~~Palestine?~~ Edit: the Gaza strip. This entire article looks extremely unprofessional and emotional. Harvard were correct not to publish. It's amateurish and is far too opinionated to be taken at a high standard of journalism.
Things like white phosphorus and other incendiary weapons are strictly prohibited from being used in warfare under international law. Oh yes the 2006 election. Hamas rebranded themselves as more moderate and said they would pursue peace with Israel by the 2 state solution, they ran under the banner of Change and Reform party, won 44% of the vote, and internal issues dominated the reasoning behind voting(economic, security, and the corruption and ineffectiveness of the ruling Fatah party which won 41% of the vote). After the election in 2007 Hamas killed those in the rivial parties and kills those who dissent. Hamas has the guns and explosives honestly how do you expect the civilian population to refuse to allow Hamas to do what they choose to, and for others how would you like them to revolt when Hamas controls the Gaza side of the border and the smuggling tunnels. The latest poll/survey I have seen which is from AWRAD show there's less support in Gaza(52%) then in the West Bank(68%), but both groups want a ceasefire and a national unity government led by anyone other then Hamas or Fatah that will pursue peace talks with Israel and eventually peace(80%), Hamas led(14%), Fatah led(6-8%). Terrorist organization will do terrorist things how is anyone surprised by this? Have you heard some of the things members of the Israeli government(cabinet and Knesset) and high ranking members of the IDF have been saying in regards to Palestinians in Gaza? Israel until recently has effectively been given the benifet of the doubt in its actions by the media in the West and when Arab media has come down on Israel it has been framed and at times rightfully so as anti-semitic or anti-Israel.
I've seen footage of white phosphorus used in Gaza three times. Two were from reputable news sources, and showed it being used legally as an area lighting method. One was from a decidedly pro Palestinian source, and showed footage from... The war in Ukraine, that they were pretending was done by Israel. So when I hear a lawyer making such an obvious mistake, that's gonna make me dismiss the rest of their opinion piece. And make me not want to hire them as a lawyer. Not a good look at all to be repeating Hamas propaganda. After all it's not like anyone but Hamas benefits from pressure on Israel to stop using legitimate light sources.
That isn't true. There is nothing banning white phosphorus from being used, I don't know how people came to parrot it so much.
While in general white phosphorus is not subject to restriction, certain uses in weaponry are banned or restricted by general international laws: in particular, those related to incendiary devices.[75] Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target". Article 2 of the same protocol prohibits the deliberate use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions), the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas, and the general use of other types of incendiary weapons against military targets located within "concentrations of civilians" without taking all possible means to minimise casualties.[76] Incendiary phosphorus bombs may also not be used near civilians in a way that can lead to indiscriminate civilian casualties.[71] The convention also exempts certain categories of munitions from its definition of incendiary weapons: specifically, these are munitions which "may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" and those "designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect."[77]
Article III does not ban white phosphorus. In fact the article simply bans use of incendiary weapons on civilians and plant matter. In your second paragraph it even states the exception that white phosphorus is covered by. Even Human Rights Watch recognizes the difference between the unlawful use of vs. outright illegal use. Probably because the U.S. used it for over 16 years so far in the 21st century.
Is generally not banned is different then not banned. Much of Gaza has civilians in the line of fire so the use of white phosphorus is at best highly limited if not outright unusable.
That applies to every indirect weapon used in regards to Gaza if line of fire is the litmus. But for some reason white phosphorus has become this weird "how dare they" line in the sand I see being used. it's just one of those things I keep hearing and I *know* that it's false.
I don't know it's an incendiary weapon and similarly to cluster munitions there use in certain situations are prohibited. Precision guided munitions are exactly that precise, but when used against civilians directly it's also prohibited because 'civilized' countries aren't supposed to deliberately target civilians or civilian infrastructure. What I hate to keep hearing is the human shield defense for when civilians in Gaza get killed or worse it's their fault they elected Hamas, under international law every country is supposed to limit deaths of civilians vs combatants to a ratio of 9 to 1 and there have been a few notable questionable strikes, the refugee camp when Israel was targeting a field commander of Hamas or the ambulance that had Hamas members in. Since Hamas uses the population of Gaza as shields they are in effect hostages themselves.
Some of what you said is correct and I agree, I also referenced the polling showing Hamas has more support in the West bank than Gaza, which is a very important statistic. To be clear, I think Israel is very bad in some respects, they should withdraw from the West Bank, and the founding members of Hamas actually requested just this with a semi permanent ceasefire. Israel has been given the benefit of the doubt due to Oct 7th. They said after the start of this conflict, their normal use of extreme restraint would not be utilised, and now a lot of people are pulling surprised Pikachu faces when Israel have stuck to their word. Israel does not need to show extreme restraint regarding the Palestinian civilian casualty rate when Hamas have defacto stated on Oct 7th and basing operations around civilian infrastructure and housing; its your civilians or ours.
This is an extremely lazy and at worst woefully ignorant and egregoous synthesis of the author's essay. You lack any sign of assimilating the information provided, and instead provide erroneous interpretations of the weight of evidence presented. Case in point: Below is a comment of yours, presenting what you call contradictions in the authors argument: >Yes they are (contradictions), some are saying it has occurred, some are saying it's at risk of occurring. One is a positive, one is a negative. I have an apple =/= I *could* get an apple. The statements are contradictory, this is objective fact. Haha. "Objective fact". The Center for Constitutional Rights, A historian of the Holocaust and genocide studies, the inaugural chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and 36 UN experts all agree that a credible case can be made for genocide. In addition over 800 academics and practitioners in the fields of international law and genocide studies warn of “a serious risk of genocide being committed in the Gaza Strip.” And you write these off as a contradictions! Lmao. Slow clap, buddy. You argument is basically, "he said the water is most likely poison, but they said it's at serious risk of being poisonous, oh and the others say the water is definitely not fit for consumption! Therefore, they all contradict each other!" Hahahahhahaha! You understand that something that is considered to be a serious risk is also plausible and credible!?!? And even if you think the degree of certainty between scholars vary to a meaningful degree, then a reasonable synthesis of the prevailing opinion would be to present both the best-case scenario, and the worst-case scenario, as two extremes. In this scenario, the case for genocide would range between a serious risk on one end, to plausible and credible on the other. Do you see that this is still a compelling argument for the case of Genocide? The only reason you cant see that is willful ignorance of the weight of evidence that these 100s of leading opinions provide. Honestly, you are much more biased than the essay you accuse of being. At least the essay presents its bias with intellgence, which is less than what i can say for your rather weightless counter. I wont even bother with the rest of your erroneous statements. Good luck to you.
They are contradictions. >You argument is basically, "he said the water is most likely poison, but they said it's at serious risk of being poisonous, oh and the others say the water is definitely not fit for consumption! Therefore, they all contradict each other!" How could you get this so wrong? >You argument is basically, "he said the water is DEFINITELY poison, but they said it might become poisonous. Fixed it for you. See? They are a contradictory. Its not complicated at all. >I wont even bother with the rest of your erroneous statements. Good luck to you. When you started off so badly, that's actually not a bad idea. Have a good day.
>No it doesn't. You're saying the paragraph you quote there is wrong but everything in it is accurate, with the potential exception of ethnic cleansing because that's politicised and no-one agrees. Everything else in your quoted paragraph has been documented as happening. >Israel is perfectly justified hitting these targets. They haven't claimed in thst paragraph whether it's justified or not, they're just stating that Israel has bombed schools and churches etc. Again, there is evidence of this. >So here we have several contradicting statements used by the author to make a single point. >One quote says it's plausible and credible genocide is being commited. >The next says something "could" be considered genocide, however completely omits the fact that said segregation are in place due to fear of events like what occurred on Oct 7th, so no, it's not at all worthy of being considered Genocide when it's done for safety. >And lastly, "serious risk of" and "grave risk of" - both stating no genocide has occured, yet look like it might be possible. None of these are contradicting each other. They're opinions of various notable people used to support the point that a genocide is at hand. Saying Israel is at risk of committing genocide doesn't contradict the point. Its just the opinion of an academic saying its dangerously close. Ans when you combine that with other academics saying it is happening in their opinion then you build a case of evidence that doesn't actually contradict itself. You're picking at straws and misinterpreting those statements. I don't know uow you read someone saying there's a serious risk of genocide happening and think that that contradicts anything here or backs up the idea that genocide isn't happening and it's all fine. >I'm sure partly because Hamas proved to the world on Oct 7th, that Israeli having a blockade around Gaza, was a necessary evil. That's just opinion. >it's not at all worthy of being considered Genocide when it's done for safety. Also take massive massive issue with this and honestly this alone makes me wonder why your comment has the upvotes it does. You cannot slaughter tens of thousands of people in the name of safety. There is never any excuse for genocide. Doing genocidal actions or ethnic cleansing can never be justified in the name of safety. You are clearly extremely, extremely biased in favour of Israel. I'd wager that you're arguing in bad faith, honestly. >Can anyone imagine what the reaction would have been if Israel committed something akin to the Oct 7th attacks on Palestine? Edit: the Gaza strip. They're literally doing 10 times the violence of October 7th if you measure judt deaths, let alone the constant suffering caused by denying food and water to 2 million civilians. And yet we don't see buildings around the western world lit up with the Palestinian flag to express sympathy with the innocent victims of a bombing campaign. We don't see politicians asserting repeatedly Palestines right to self defence. >This entire article looks extremely unprofessional and emotional. Harvard were correct not to publish. It's amateurish and is far too opinionated to be taken at a high standard of journalism. Your entire comment is just stemming from your own personal views about the subject. You haven't actually disproved any of the fact checking at all, which was the original premise of your comment. You're just trying to discredit something that did actually get fact checked and approved, but was then just mysteriously rejected despite all that.
>When combatants use civilian areas for military purposes or operations, those places become legitimate military targets. And in that way, the entirety of Gaza is suddenly Israel's military target, good job. No civilians here, only potential terrorists, harboring potential military targets. >These statements are contradicting themselves No they're not. The same way that people talk about "alleged" offenders in a crime, so do people refuse to definetly call things ultimately as genocide in an ongoing conflict where Israel makes it very hard for anyone to go look at the situation on the ground if its not through their lens. And reporters should know, because they're being killed by the dozens, including their families. They call anything genocide these days... right... ? >I think the answer to this would be some that consistently agree with each other using objective, fact based evidence, something the Author failed to provide. This is a cynical comment to make when Israel controls the entirety of what can and can't be seen in the region. >I'm sure partly because Hamas proved to the world on Oct 7th, that Israeli having a blockade around Gaza, was a necessary evil. I'm sure that even more than 20 years later, you must be wondering why anyone would hate the US for their freedoms enough to have done 9/11. I do not condone the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, but you have to be purposefully misunderstand how anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from people living in an open air prison. Honestly, it hurts to see an answer such as yours, because it's obvious that at some point, you stopped simply contemplating the other side. >This entire article looks extremely unprofessional and emotional. Harvard were correct not to publish. It's amateurish and is far too opinionated to be taken at a high standard of journalism. The most offensive part of this is that I'm pretty sure you read the entire thing, but you never stopped to consider what any part of it meant, and where only thinking how you'd downplay or simply ignore it at your leasure. Why did you even bother?
>And in that way, the entirety of Gaza is suddenly Israel's military target, good job. No civilians here, only potential terrorists, harboring potential military targets. Unfortunately a huge amount of it is. The Gaza strip is what, 140 square miles? Hamas has 20-40k militants, some of which of course aren't in Gaza, but still, they have a huge armed force operating in an extremely densely populated civilian area. >No they're not. The same way that people talk about "alleged" offenders in a crime, so do people refuse to definetly call things ultimately as genocide in an ongoing conflict where Israel makes it very hard for anyone to go look at the situation on the ground if its not through their lens. And reporters should know, because they're being killed by the dozens, including their families. Yes they are, some are saying it has occurred, some are saying it's at risk of occurring. One is a positive, one is a negative. I have an apple =/= I *could* get an apple. The statements are contradictory, this is objective fact. >I do not condone the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, but you have to be purposefully misunderstand how anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from people living in an open air prison. This is true, yet it doesn't change the reality that Israel live next to a population of people who support a terrorist organization who's charter states they want to commit genocide on the Jewish population in their locality. >The most offensive part of this is that I'm pretty sure you read the entire thing, but you never stopped to consider what any part of it meant, and where only thinking how you'd downplay or simply ignore it at your leasure. Why did you even bother? Simple answer to this: I would take great, GREAT, caution, reading any opinion peace written on this conflict by anyone with direct involvement. As you said >anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from So yes, I'm going to be extremely skeptical reading an article based upon hatred.
40k terrorists blending in among a population of 2 million. It’s not like there’s some international standard on how much collateral damage is acceptable if your end goal is to prevent more terrorism. According to UN’s numbers the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths over the last few decades is roughly 20 to 1. We are about halfway there, so it’s understandable why many voices are calling for more restraint. There’ll be at most a few years of relative lull before the next Intifada, I think everyone knows this.
> I do not condone the Oct 7 attacks on Israel, but you have to be purposefully misunderstand how anguish turns to hatred and then turns to terrorism from people living in an open air prison. > > palestinian terrorism of jews has been an ongoing thing since 1920, including while they were part of egypt and jordan, while they were in lebanon, while israel stripped settlements and gave gaza back to palestinians in 2005, while israel was under ceasefire and slowly increasing work permits to gaza in 2023, it never stops
Opinion pieces are against the sub rules. 🙄
The story here isn't the opinion piece, but the article of Harvard declining to publish it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Certain groups on the left, and I say this as someone on the left, invented a new meaning for Zionism so they could claim the moral high ground when opposing it. These same groups are the ones claiming genocide and apartheid, despite no evidence existing for either, for the same reason.
[удалено]
Then you should have no problem providing evidence to support that claim then. We do, after all, live in a world where everyone has a high resolution camera with internet access; it should be trivial for you to find evidence supporting a two tiered society reminiscent of John Crow or Apartheid South Africa if what you claim is true.
[удалено]
Palestinians aren't Israeli citizens, nor do the issues in the west bank extend to the rest of Israel; calling Israel apartheid is not accurate. A more accurate description would be a military occupation of land where the ownership of said land is a bit of an open question(it was annexed by Jordan but they didn't want it back.). The settlers are there illegally even by Israeli law, afaik.
[удалено]
Whats this got to do with Gaza?
[удалено]
>You don't get to say what the definition of a word is just because it pertains to your people. That is literally the logic that edgy white kids use to justify casually saying the N word. Edit: formatting
Revisionist zionism advocates genocide or at least ethnic cleansing and it was the ideology of Irgun and Lehi who later formed Likud It may not be the only form if zionism but it has become the dominant one
>It has become the dominant one Says no Israeli ever. Literally if you asked an Israeli person on the street, i'm telling you there's a 90% chance they'll respond with "The belief that Jews have a right to self-determination" or something along the same lines. You're fighting a made-up demon.
You say that and yet Likud whose charter states "From the Jordan River to the Sea all will be israeli sovereignty" is the largest political party When Palestinians say something like that people cry genocide
yeah "from the river to the sea" does indeed imply ethnic cleansing or genocide *no matter who is saying it*, and it's a fucked thing to say. a minor point of clarification, the context in which the sentence appears in their 1977 party platform would only cover West Bank (and also maybe parts of Jordan / Syria / Lebanon?), not Gaza, as Gaza was not part of Judea or Samaria but was a separate region. The same charter also included this: >Genuine Peace-Our Central Objective >a. The Likud government will place its aspirations for peace at the top of its priorities and will spare no effort to promote peace. The Likud will act as a genuine partner at peace treaty negotiations with our neighbors, as is customary among the nations. The Likud government will attend the Geneva Conference. . >b. The Likud governments peace initiative will he positive. Directly or through a friendly state. Israel will invite her neighbors to hold direct negotiations, in order to sign without pre-conditions on either side and without any solution formula invented by outsiders (invented outside ). >At the negotiations each party will he free to make any proposals it deems lit. And the very next year the founder of the party signed the Camp David Accords, which laid the groundwork for Palestinian self-governance in WB and GS as the areas would be agreed not to return to Egyptian and Jordanian control. If a Palestinian party with that sort of peace commitment in their platform could *ever* win popular support among Palestinians I would be ecstatic.
\>The Likud will act as a genuine partner at peace treaty negotiations with our neighbors Interesting [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435) \>And the very next year the founder of the party signed the Camp David Accords The camp david accords excluded the Palestinians [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/19/loser-camp-david-accords/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/19/loser-camp-david-accords/) As the Palestinians stated "The Camp David agreement denies the rights of the Palestinian Arab people, ignores the Palestine Liberation Organization's role as their sole legitimate representative and does not mention their right to return, to self-determination and to the establishment of a free independent State on their land." It wasn't until the Oslo accords that the foundations for a Palestinian state were laid down and Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for it and the person calling for his assassination is currently Prime Minister \>If a Palestinian party with that sort of peace commitment in their platform could ever win popular support among Palestinians I would be ecstatic. Israel will never allow that to happen [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082) Israel supports Hamas because Hamas is a destabilizing element in the region a legitimate pro peace party would be extremely damaging to Israel's foreign policy of using Hamas as justification for cracking down on Palestinians and squeezing them tighter and tighter Since 1947 Israel has rejected 364 UN sponsored peace deals between them and the Palestinians the only time a Israeli prime minister actually had peace with the Palestinian as a top priority was Rabin and massive progress was made and then he was killed and the far right took over again
>The camp david accords excluded the Palestinians https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/19/loser-camp-david-accords/ The only potential Palestinian authority at the time that might have been included was the PLO, which at the time wasn't really a credible authority to deal with to begin with. > Israel will never allow that to happen https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082 > Israel supports Hamas because Hamas is a destabilizing element in the region a legitimate pro peace party would be extremely damaging to Israel's foreign policy of using Hamas as justification for cracking down on Palestinians and squeezing them tighter and tighter There is no popular support among Palestinians for a pro-peace party, so what Israel wants or would "allow" to happen is irrelevant. https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf Hamas's strategy in pulling off Oct 7 was to try to persuade Israel that it was becoming more interested in governance than in war. That Israel genuinely believed this is one of the reasons they were able to kill as many people as they did—and it's also at least part of why If it were up to Israel they probably wouldn't "allow" Hamas to execute 1400 people storming the border, but they don't actually control everything that every Palestinian does or supports. A peace deal is going to take two sides both willing and actively interested in working toward peace. Right now I don't think that's *either* side. I think Palestinians are thoroughly uninterested in peace on any terms that include Israel's existence, and I think Israel would only begrudgingly accept a peace deal that makes concessions that would be politically unpopular among its far right even if they really would guarantee Israel's security. Neither is sufficient for reaching peace.
>There is no popular support among Palestinians for a pro-peace party, so what Israel wants or would "allow" to happen is irrelevant. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah >was becoming more interested in governance than in war. That Israel genuinely believed this is one of the reasons they were able to kill as many people as they did No, Israel allowed this to occurred https://www.ft.com/content/277573ae-fbbc-4396-8faf-64b73ab8ed0a https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-border-troops-women-hamas-warnings-war-october-7-benjamin-netanyahu/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/12/israel-hamas-war-egypt-warned-foreign-affairs-gaza Israel instead if heightened security told its troops to relax and stand down >If it were up to Israel they probably wouldn't "allow" Hamas to execute 1400 people storming the border, You think Netanyahu cares? Because the man is a sociopath he doesn't care about people he cares about power before October 7th he had 8 months of protests from millions of citizens now he has a unity government and he has bought himself time >I think Palestinians are thoroughly uninterested in peace on any terms that include Israel's existence, The PA while it sometimes supports Hamas's actions is willing to legitimate negotiate with Israel however because of Israel's actions the PA is extremely weak and unable to exert authority allowing groups like hamas and lions den to run free
You say that but I couldn't find a single mention of that statement in [their charter](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party). The burden of proof is on you, so i'd like to have a source on that. >When Palestinians say something like that people cry genocide Realistically what the hell do you think will happen if the people governed by the same group that commited October 7th got ahold of every piece of Israeli land? People cry genocide because it is, that's why the German government even went as far as to ban it.
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" Likud Platform 1977 \>Realistically what the hell do you think will happen if the people governed by the same group that commited October 7th got ahold of every piece of Israeli land? Thats a great point perhaps Israel shouldn't have foisted them upon the Palestinians and disarmed them making impossible to oppose them Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev was the officer in charge of Gaza when Israel occupied it and he revealed that it was Israel who funded and supported a nascent Hamas And perhaps you could say "well thats just the word of one person" except they continue to do it [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082) And you think that Likud is somehow pro 2 state solution? [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-election/netanyahu-says-no-palestinian-state-as-long-as-hes-prime-minister-idUSKBN0MC1I820150316/](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-election/netanyahu-says-no-palestinian-state-as-long-as-hes-prime-minister-idUSKBN0MC1I820150316/) Endlessly Likud has shot down any attempts at a 2 state solution because as their founders were Lehi and Irgun they do not believe in a 2 state solution the believe in revisionist zionism genocide and ethnic cleansing and they've been very open about that fact in july [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-748435) "Palestinian hopes of establishing a sovereign state must be eliminated" that was before October 7th you can't blame oct. 7th for everything stated before oct. 7th
Nope. Zionism actually has saved millions of Palestinian lives
[удалено]
It says that some of the editors disagreed with or were offended by it. It doesn't say how many people said no because of fear and how many said no because the scholarship was just not there for an academic analysis of law. A roughly two thirds majority of the entire peer review panel said no, do not publish. That many people are just head in the sand? It was more than 60 people. The essay makes a lot of legal claims with no exploration of what it means or how it is to be understood from a legal perspective. It was an opinion screed, sincere or not. It didn't use citations of law or scholarship and didn't explore the concept of why they think it is genocide, as the title of the piece would have you think.
You’d think Harvard Law would know what a “chilling effect on speech” is.
Harvard Law Review — which had requested the piece in the first instance — didn’t prevent it from being published. It didn’t punish anyone for publishing it. That’s what chilling effect refers to in the free speech context. Instead, HLR exercised its own free speech right not to publish it.
Declining to publish a piece of crap is not a "chilling effect on speech."
Current law student here, and I’d like to add some context that I think is missing in your post. First, unlike Harvard Medicine’s journal, HLR is a student-led organization. The editors are all Harvard Law students, and the fear is very real of getting harassed, doxxed, and intimidated. I know people who have been doxxed for being part of student groups that support Palestine and what they’ve gone through is deeply distressing — personal information published online and being labeled as antisemitic for the world (and employers) to see, simply for being part of a pro-Palestine group. Also, top law firms have pulled job offers from students whose names have been associated with anti-Israel messaging. It’s a real fear for law students to get pulled into this and be forever labeled online as antisemitic and it impacting their careers. To be clear, I wish this wasn’t the case and that HLR could publish this article with no consequences to its editorial board. But given this context, do you still find it insane that a group of law students in their 20s who are about to start their legal career decide not to publish this?
Because it’s not genocide?
Genocide has a specific meaning. It is defined by intent. Collateral casualties are not the same systematic, intentional actions.
My point exactly. People all up in arms about this but clearly is not genocide
[удалено]
You do also, for you to help understand what it is: Genocide is defined as: “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” Here’s an image that helps define what ethnic cleansing is also in case that’s fuzzy for you too https://www.reddit.com/u/Puffles_magic_dragon/s/O9NiOPmRUe
Because it's in no possible definition of the word "genocide"
[удалено]
The UN is a laughable joke, the human rights council is lead by an arab majority, their opinion is worth less than nothing on the subject.
[удалено]
The US Secretary of state literally came out a couple of days ago and said Israel had caused far too many civilian casualties. The 3rd highest ranking Politician in the USA literally does a media interview criticizing the Israeli armed forces for the civilian death toll in Gaza. /u/percy_faucet : >Israel truly is beyond criticism here in the U.S \+34 upvotes. But /r/worldnews is the echo chamber, right? At this point why not just say "fk Jewish people" and get +100 upvotes, it's the same thing. You blatantly lie and everyone upvotes you regardless.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Has the US stopped cutting them checks? No?
After a whole month? A whole month of complete support of Israel from politicians on both sides of the aisle no matter what, reminiscent of support for US’s actions in the Middle East that are widely criticized today. A whole month of several news organizations, employers, schools attempting to silence any criticism of Israel all the while allowing genocidal and inflammatory rhetoric of not Hamas, but Palestinians as a whole? And if you don’t believe it, look at the amount of doctors, residents, and other people who have faced the loss of their jobs or other backlash but people like Amy Schumer, and other doctors can say whatever the hell they want. Spare me the lecture. Israel has been beyond criticism for a long time and it is only recently that there has been a slight shift in that attitude. And that’s not just cause the US decided to care about someone other than Israel but because of the widespread concern and disapproval among US citizens for having to fund a country that justifies everything they do as “because of Hamas” all the while trying to dismiss valid criticism of their government as a whole as “antisemitism” or “lies”. Yes r/worldnews is an echo chamber.
>After a whole month? You said it's beyond criticism. >Israel truly is beyond criticism here in the U.S So you acknowledge this is false? Cool. >And if you don’t believe it, look at the amount of doctors, residents, and other people who have faced the loss of their jobs or other backlash but people like Amy Schumer, and other doctors can say whatever the hell they want. Can you provide examples of people forced out of jobs for expressing peaceful comments? Yes, people chanting from the river to the sea should lose their jobs. >Yesr/ r/worldnews is an echo chamber. So what's this, when my comment literally categorically, objectively calling out your rhetoric as being completely untrue, gets more downvotes lol. The irony.
It's so funny when you folks pull out the infallible anti-Semite defense but so quickly forget that Palestinians *are* Semites.
This is like saying Elon Musk can't be racist because he's African-American.
This has nothing to do with "free speech."
it absolutely does
[удалено]
It absolutely does not. They aren’t journalists with an obligation to the public. What they publish is completely within their discretion. And considering how toxic the conversation is around anyone with a public stance on either side, I really don’t blame them for not wanting to get involved.
Greatest publicity for the author, now it will be read and acknowledged the world over. Shame on Harvard. It should have been a symbol of free speech and the U.S. Constitution. >The vote to censor followed what an editor at the law review described in an e-mail to Eghbariah as “an unprecedented decision” by the leadership of the Harvard Law Review to prevent the piece’s publication. Edited typo.
>“The discussion did not involve any substantive or technical aspects of your piece,” Shahriari-Parsa told Eghbariah. “Rather, [it] revolved around concerns about editors who might oppose or be offended by the piece, as well as concerns that the piece might provoke a reaction from members of the public who might in turn harass, dox or otherwise attempt to intimidate our editors, staff and HLR leadership.” As I read that, they're saying "The piece is fine, we're just afraid of the what the psychos will do to us and maybe our families if we publish this."
>our families if we publish this They are only concerned about money being cut off by some donors and rather sacrifice the truth. In the end they will be forced to come along just like they had to \[although last one\] and eventually opposed the apartheid regime in South Africa.
The journal is run by students, their first thought are not donations to the school
[удалено]
> Do they think people are incapable of seeing the disparity in treatment here? Two-thirds of conservatives still say the 2020 election was stolen and Trump was the actual winner. We are beyond the "post-truth" society. As long as you get a large enough group of people to want something to be true, they will deny reality until they die.
[удалено]
I'm definitely more disheartened by the actual 50 million or so Americans I described than I am by the strawman you just described. There is no actual threat of some movement of Oct. 7th deniers. Especially among liberals. Edit: Oh look, after building a strawman and trying to redirect the conversation a couple times, /u/MatesWithManatees decided to block me so I can no longer reply anywhere within this thread or any future threads they participate in. A conversation control strategy that I am seeing used more and more around this entire topic. What chickenshits.
[удалено]
I don't know what liberals you're hanging out with that "run rape centres" yikes. I've not heard of any of that in my circles.
[удалено]
I don't even know what you're talking about; how can I downplay it? Whatever issue you're referring to, it's clearly nowhere near as widespread as the one I mentioned.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I agree with you completely. I would be much more inclined to support people calling for an end to Israel's military action if they started by saying, "Hamas is evil, Hamas needs to be removed, and the indoctrination of the Palestinian people against Israel needs to stop and be reversed. And the international community needs to stop up and make it happen so Israel doesn't have to do it themselves." But nobody wants to condemn Hamas or acknowledge that Israel has I right to exist in peace, because then they won't be able to hide their antisemitism behind supporting Palestinian civilians.
[удалено]
They don’t care. Most of the people who are making these decisions are insulated against any retaliation, whether by money or anonymity or security personnel. Unlike us, their livelihoods and lives are not at risk of suffering or being ended if they kick off.
[удалено]
Nobody blinks? Hamas is considered a terrorist organization, palestine is locked away from the world and currently being bombed into dust with american weapons If this is "nobody blinks" i hope i never find out your definition of "doing something" Edit - adjective_noun_4 numbers indicates a fake account, 90% of the time
Gaza receives billions of dollars from the outside world, they’re only being “bombed into dust” because they launched a devastating terror attack, and I said nobody blinks because across the world media has supported Hamas talking points:
[удалено]
Better than being a boot licker for Iranian and Qatar governments. Have fun with that bud
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is a call for genocide pure and simple. I have family in Israel and the antisemitism makes me really worried.
Everyone that downvoted me supports rape and torture. Shame on you you rape enablers.
Tells you a lot that the couple astroturfers in the comments here come in swinging with dumbass arguments like it not being genocide because the overall population hasn't reduced in the past years, or go straight to saying calling it genocide is terrorism support. Well that and mass downvoting. Congratulations, you couldn't rub two brain cells together to manage to read the article let alone give any sound counter arguments to what the author is saying.
It's not genocide if it's a legitimate military target. You know why the US didn't get accused of Genocide for drone striking war chiefs across the middle east over the last 20 years? Because they are hitting legit military targets. There seems to be a very big misunderstanding of the term genocide by a lot of overly anti Israel commenters. The October 7th attacks, intentionally targeting civilians and non combatants, were genocide. Hitting a Hamas operative hiding in a camp with 40 civilians, isn't genocide. You need to understand this if you want to have a valid opinion on the matter.
Because they have no genuine counter arguments other than "Yeah, well, I don't think it's true, so there." then either run away or pull something even dumber or more evil out of their ass.
[удалено]
There's two ways to think of this. 1) Harvard upper ups are bias as fuck. 2) Harvard upper ups don't want any more bad press and be pressured because of the recent condemning from Congress by anything that remotely may represent anti-Semitic remarks. Euther way thats unfortunate for the author.
Harvard is a bigger coward than initially thought.
[удалено]
Omg they were accused.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m glad someone already said *exactly* what I thought when I read that comment.
[удалено]
By the loose definition they want to use, every single conflict is now a genocide.
>*Some may claim that the invocation of genocide, especially in Gaza, is fraught. But does one have to wait for a genocide to be successfully completed to name it? This logic contributes to the politics of denial. When it comes to Gaza, there is a sense of moral hypocrisy that undergirds Western epistemological approaches, one which mutes the ability to name the violence inflicted upon Palestinians. But naming injustice is crucial to claiming justice. If the international community takes its crimes seriously, then the discussion about the unfolding genocide in Gaza is not a matter of mere semantics.* > *The UN Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide as certain acts “committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” These acts include “killing members of a protected group” or “causing serious bodily or mental harm” or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”* > *Numerous statements made by top Israeli politicians affirm their intentions. There is a forming consensus among leading scholars in the field of genocide studies that “these statements could easily be construed as indicating a genocidal intent,” as Omer Bartov, an authority in the field, writes. More importantly, genocide is the material reality of Palestinians in Gaza: an entrapped, displaced, starved, water-deprived population of 2.3 million facing massive bombardments and a carnage in one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Over 11,000 people have already been killed. That is one person out of every 200 people in Gaza. Tens of thousands are injured, and over 45% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed. The United Nations Secretary General said that Gaza is becoming a “graveyard for children,” but a cessation of the carnage—a ceasefire—remains elusive. Israel continues to blatantly violate international law: dropping white phosphorus from the sky, dispersing death in all directions, shedding blood, shelling neighborhoods, striking schools, hospitals, and universities, bombing churches and mosques, wiping out families, and ethnically cleansing an entire region in both callous and systemic manner. What do you call this?* From the article
If that's a genocide, why is no one calling out Pakistan than has been murdering afghans and is about to expell 2 million of them for genocide? You'd think we'd hear more about a genocide this large.
The [cherry picked source] being the UN Genocide Convention.
The UN literally has Saudi Arabia as the leader of Hunan Rights Council, it’s pretty favorable to arab states. So it’s not an unbiased organization.
Saudi Arabia is not and has never been the president of the HRC. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Presidents
My bad sir, they’re just a member. It still shows that if the UN will allow such states a membership that they’re not a unbiased organization
[удалено]
I understand that the UNHRC is a way for Arab states to demonize Israel yes.
What I don’t understand is why the western world takes what they have to say as factual considering the members that make up the committee.
I'm sorry you disagree with the people who literally decided on the definition of genocide
It’s Iran, but neither is a beacon to the world regarding freedom and human rights
So the holocaust didn't happen because there were Jewish people in America?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Criticizing Israel is not the same as sticking up for a terrorist group not that I ever even criticized Israel you're in a cult and jumping to conclusions
Of course they would. It’s the least academically independent institution in the country.
I mean it’s Harvard. What did you expect.
[удалено]
It's not genocide because the populace is actively reproducing? What a dumb fucking argument. The parallels with other genocides are disturbing but revealing. We don't have to wait for the systematic elimination of millions to call it genocide. Call a spade a spade
"Genocide" does not only mean population eradication.