Current Affairs Israel is an apartheid state

[Ming the merciless]

Even the Hamas run Gaza Health ministry dont fabricate numbers like you do.

When others were claiming (with no evidence or access) 33,000 people were killed, on April 6th it claimed the real number to be 21,720.

Thats HAMAS themselves and your number is DOUBLE ?

Of that number the IDF has stated 12,000 are Hamas terrorists.

That means for every 1 enemy combatant there are 0.8 civilians killed...

...but;

Of those 0.8 cilivilans, how many are from rockets falling short?

Of those 0.8 civilians how many have been killed by Hamas themselves?

Of those 0.8 civilians how many have died from natural causes?

Of those 0.8 civilians how many are false numbers from Hamas?

That figure of 0.8 compared with US in Iraq and Afganistan where the figure was far higher at 3 non combatants killed for every 1 combatant.

It totally goes against the brainwashed fools theory about the IDF committing mass slaughter or genocide as even Hamas' own numbers do not support this.

Simply amazing...posting double the amount that the terrorists have.

Why not post about the hostages these scum have taken?

Better still, GO TO GAZA.

Just a mere 21,720 ? Must try harder.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Hello

 

[DrEFC]

What the hell is super statto on about here? AIPAC took down Sigurdsson? Off his rocker this guy. AIPAC are utter bar stewards, but it's definitely an antisemitism to accuse them of this.

 

[tsubaki]

View attachment 255300
What the hell is super statto on about here? AIPAC took down Sigurdsson? Off his rocker this guy. AIPAC are utter bar stewards, but it's definitely an antisemitism to accuse them of this.

I’ll say this for “the Jews” - of all the diabolical plots that the antisemitic community have come up with these past two millennia, all the world-controlling web-spinning that “they” are alleged to conduct, making an average attacking midfielder fail at Everton in much the same way that he failed at Spurs is perhaps the most fiendishly clever. It’s 10d chess, thinking so far ahead that “they’ve” lapped the rest of us.

What revelations could be next? Will someone notice how Mark Ward’s career nosedived after peace negotiations started between the PLO and the then Israeli government?

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Have a great weekend @Zatara

 

[tsubaki]

Some reports suggesting Hamas may be about to accept a phased ceasefire deal.

Hope this is true, but the amount of faith that people should have in Netanyahu following the deal he will have agreed to is close to zero.

edit: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveb...za-after-all-phases-of-hostage-deal-complete/

 

[tsubaki]

Meanwhile, in a church in Jerusalem:

 

[kimonthemac_efc]

View attachment 255300
What the hell is super statto on about here? AIPAC took down Sigurdsson? Off his rocker this guy. AIPAC are utter bar stewards, but it's definitely an antisemitism to accuse them of this.

What exactly does super statto mean?

 

[NeilMorepies]

 

[GoldenToffee]

Jeez, the world is genuinely gonna stand by and watch them massacre hundreds of thousands in Rafah isn't it.

 

[Wizard]

 

[carolinablue232]

I've lived here for 16 years now,
The US/Israel relationship has always been a strange one to me.

The impression I get is that strong political support for Israel was always a political no brainer.
Years ago, it was easy to paint the PLO as the bad guys. Anything Clinton, Arafat and Rabin accomplished was a plus politically.
A generation of kids here have gone on what's called 'birth right'. Basically if you're Jewish, Israel will pay for you to come to Israel on an all expenses paid trip to learn about the country. I know a lot of people who have done it, not one has questioned the name.
Pretty much every federal politician is also brought on many trips to Israel and pampered. AIPAC has made sure to keep a tight reign on control of political donations where as the more liberal J Street get shoved aside.

Israeli support is the result of a huge, well thought out machine which really faced no opposition.
Basically, that was the way it'd been for years and there was nothing to be gained by bucking the trend.

That's changing now.
People over 30 are avoiding conversations about it as opposed to the usual staunch Israeli support.
People under 30 are vocally supporting Palestine which is a first in America.
The Muslim community, which can be quite disparate is uniting behind Palestine. They have political power.

The heavy handed approach to campus protests is the last thing Biden wanted.
After the way Claudine Gay was treated, colleges wanted to nip it in the bud. There's also huge pressure from Jewish mega doners. Robert Kraft withdrew financial support for Columbia this week.

Biden is trying to thread a political needle here. He's trying for a ceasefire which is the only thing that makes sense for him politically. The republicans want that to fall on its face so they'll do everything they can to stop it, including ranting about the ICC.

It doesnt help that all this is in an election year but Bibi has done untold damage to Israeli support here.
What was unequivocal a year ago is now hugely questionable.

Bit of a rambly post there.

This is probably off topic but I’ve seen it a couple times from you I think. How exactly was she mistreated? I’ll admit I’ve only seen the congressional hearing recordings, but to be honest any higher education leader that can’t or won’t say they denounce genocice of any people is someone I would not want in charge of leading youth. I think I’m missing something as you’re likely more educated on the situation being in that area of the country.

 

[Ruairi77]

This is probably off topic but I’ve seen it a couple times from you I think. How exactly was she mistreated? I’ll admit I’ve only seen the congressional hearing recordings, but to be honest any higher education leader that can’t or won’t say they denounce genocice of any people is someone I would not want in charge of leading youth. I think I’m missing something as you’re likely more educated on the situation being in that area of the country.

I wonder why there needed to be a congressional hearing at all.
She was clearly poorly advised by her legal team and, I feel, was trapped by political hawks simply looking for blood.
Christopher Rufo almost spelled that much out.


Stefanik asked her "Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules on bullying and harassment?"

She said "The rules around bullying and harassment are quite specific and if the context in which that language is used amounts to bullying and harassment, then we take, we take action against it."

After her testimony she said "There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students."

"Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard," she said, adding, "Those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account."

Stefanik asked if students on campus using the term "intifada" or "from the river to the sea" would be punished. I can totally understand why gray wouldnt automatically say yes when such a complex first amendment precedent is at stake.

So yea, I think she was trapped in a congressional hearing where there was no way out. The likes of Stefanik (a harvard grad) knew she could make a name for herself by putting Gray in a no win situation. It was pretty clear major Harvard donors would not be happy with Gray no matter how she responded.

Then the republicans immediately turned it in to a DEI talking point showing that they were just using the oct.7 massacre for political theatre.

Could Gray have handled it better, yes. Should she have been forced out, no.
That's why I think she was mistreated.

 

[carolinablue232]

I wonder why there needed to be a congressional hearing at all.
She was clearly poorly advised by her legal team and, I feel, was trapped by political hawks simply looking for blood.
Christopher Rufo almost spelled that much out.


Stefanik asked her "Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules on bullying and harassment?"

She said "The rules around bullying and harassment are quite specific and if the context in which that language is used amounts to bullying and harassment, then we take, we take action against it."

After her testimony she said "There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students."

"Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard," she said, adding, "Those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account."

Stefanik asked if students on campus using the term "intifada" or "from the river to the sea" would be punished. I can totally understand why gray wouldnt automatically say yes when such a complex first amendment precedent is at stake.

So yea, I think she was trapped in a congressional hearing where there was no way out. The likes of Stefanik (a harvard grad) knew she could make a name for herself by putting Gray in a no win situation. It was pretty clear major Harvard donors would not be happy with Gray no matter how she responded.

Then the republicans immediately turned it in to a DEI talking point showing that they were just using the oct.7 massacre for political theatre.

Could Gray have handled it better, yes. Should she have been forced out, no.
That's why I think she was mistreated.

Fair and thanks for clarifying. I do think answering the question, "Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules on bullying and harassment?" should be an easy and straightforward, “Yes.”

 

[Martin Alvito]

Fair and thanks for clarifying. I do think answering the question, "Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules on bullying and harassment?" should be an easy and straightforward, “Yes.”

She gave a lawyer's response to a politician's question. It's a problem of relative risks. Fail to hedge, and sooner or later some student sues the university over conduct policies. Hedge, and give a hostile politician an opening.

She needed to see that the bigger fish to fry was public perception, accept that Stefanik had her in a no-win, defuse the bomb and apologize to legal afterward.

That wasn't a fatal mistake, but add in the plagiarism and it gets hard to see how she belongs in the office of president. If she can't conduct her own research in a manner beyond reproach, and she can't navigate treacherous political shoals, then she's bringing the wrong kind of publicity to a university notorious for being fussy about that sort of thing.