Hamas Attacks, Israel Responds

47% is within the margin of error of 50%, which is significantly higher than I would have guessed.

 

Are you skeptical that Harvard president Claudine Gay, who is paid over $1 million per year, was not chosen based on merit, but rather on her race and gender? pic.twitter.com/MYG4jhxYRz

— National Conservative (@NatCon2022) December 6, 2023

The most predictable line of attack in the world.
Almost like clockwork.

I kind of feel like not all of her critics are truly anti-bigotry champions.

 

Posted proudly by Bibi-affiliated journalist Yinon Magal:
"I'm coming to occupy Gaza / and beat Hezbollah / I stick by one mitzvah / to wipe off the seed of Amalek / I left home behind me / won't come back until victory / we know our slogan / there are no "uninvolved civilians" pic.twitter.com/hzN9Bd8M3D

— B.M. (@ireallyhateyou) December 7, 2023

Well I would say I'm appalled by then the last bit is not that far removed from what some people in this very topic seem to believe.

 

Your posts say otherwise.

 

... where they were be met by left-wing people, trades unionists, socialists and communists who were already there.

 

Your comprehension is biased.

 

Well, I absolutely agree about the matter of education, (although I'd be interested to see the details of the polling they did), but, regarding the 'grilling' of the heads of universities... I think the grilling should consist of asking genuine questions. Not idiotic gotcha ones meant for a tiktok or twitter meme to raise money from the rubes.

 

Fair comment... but you accept Stefanik's a two-faced lying sack of shit though, right?

 

He believes dog whistles by conservative elites aren't a concern but college kids those are the anti-semites. Even tearing down a flyer is a problem (ftr, it would be smarter to cover it over with another flyer.)

 

Says the guy who can't think of when there will be too much innocent Palestinian civilian casualties to say enough because 10/7. But you are not biased at all.

 

There were too many on day 1. I have said that repeatedly.

But I am also a realist that understands what is going on past the emotional level that you obviously cant see beyond.

 

Of course there have.

But if university presidents had been brought up before Congress and asked similar questions about events like that to what was asked about Jews, there's no way they would have answered in such a mealy-mouthed, over lawyered way.

 

If it's merely a case of an emotional response then I don't think you'd see the U.S. Secretary of Defense expressing concern in a public setting.

 

This whole line of discussion is absurd without identification of concrete examples: what calls for genocide have been made?

Keep in mind that Universities have instituted massive crackdowns on pro-Palestinian events in the last two months, so the proponents of these bad faith attempts to shut down criticism of Israel have very little credibility.

 

Political interests are different from military interests. And the US Defense Secretary is a political position that gets direction from a President that is getting push back politically.

The IDF is fighting to win, politics be damned.

And for the mouth-breathers that don't understand, I am NOT advocating for what the IDF is doing regardless of how badly you want to rip on opposing viewpoints.

 

Is there really a need for that?

As for the broader point, I was pushing back against the idea that it's merely a purely emotional and personal response to object to the huge number of civilian casualties when it has actually been a cause for concern even for Israel's closest ally.

 

I apologize for that but I have been accused of advocating for the death of women and children by multiple people despite explicitly stating the opposite.

I'll refrain from responding like that in the future.

 

Yeah, it's an example of two different issues being conflated.

1. Was her question genuine and an attempt to obtain formation about an important issue, (obviously not), and,
2. Should the university leaders have answered differently and just stated that such talk would be unacceptable to the university, (obviously they should as many democratic politicians, and others, have said).

 

Can you explain/expand on that?

 

Israel has claimed it has created shelters with aid organisations in al Mawasi, a 'safe zone' in the south of Gaza.

A Sky News team visited and found no aid, no food kitchens and no help.https://t.co/4AaV5xBc8O pic.twitter.com/ey7gWxTpzR

— Sky News (@SkyNews) December 6, 2023

Like @Naughtius Maximus said, perhaps it wasn't such a smart idea for them to specify where the safe zones were supposed to be located.