The Presidents of Harvard, MIT, Penn, Columbia should be forced to resign

Yet, it seems like that is exactly what you are trying to say.

 

the Palestinians, and their Arab enablers, built that, starting in 1936, again in 1948, 1967, 1973, and throughout the various intifadas. They have been offered a state, along side Israel, for nearly 100 years, but to the Palestinians (a made up people btw, they bedouin Arabs) it's a zero sum game.

they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

This has to be satire:

 

Cornell President Pollack to Retire After Seven Years of Leadership

https://cornellsun.com/2024/05/09/b...ck-to-retire-after-seven-years-of-leadership/

 

Didn't mean to try to start another interminable debate on who did what. Just saying the moral outcome cannot be millions of people locked in a hopeless ghetto. If you can explain how that's a just outcome.... well, it should be some entertaining reading. So far we have (1) the Arabs did it to them, not the Israelis, (2) they chose this for themselves, (3) they don't actually exist, and (4) they deserve it. Good efficiency for a short post.

 

The Israeli cause is just and moral.

the Palestinians are not without agency. they have simply chosen poorly. now, Israel has to clean up the mess they have made, and perhaps they can have a better life once that job is complete.

if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, there never would have been Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Likewise, had Hitler stopped in the Sudetenland, Dresden and Hamburg would never have been firebombed.

 

LOL Twitter was a lot slower back then, you have to excuse the Romans for being slow on Twitter 2,500 years ago, they really didn't get the technology.

Only when the English committed apartheid did the world care.... sheesh so unfair.

 

I know many people feel this way. Sometimes the people of your community make bad choices and now others are totally justified in locking you up, starving you, bombing you, and then telling you it's your own damn fault they have to do all those things to you.

But surely you can at least see and appreciate the point of view of some, like college protesters, who see suffering like this and say there is no sin big enough that this could be a justifiable punishment (cue hellfire post from k9).

Is it ironic or fitting that you choose what are probably two of the biggest moral debates from America's 20th century warmaking history as your examples?

 

Yup - it is only a small number of young people and an even smaller number of Americans in general. Some of those protesting/counter protesting are Palestinian or Zionist Jews - so it is a directly important issue to them. However, a lot of those protesting, are just inclined to either protesting or ripping the protesters. We will see these same people protesting other things as well...... and a lot of these people that are taking a strong opinion of this either on social media or on the ground are NOT students, they are extreme antigovernment types or fascists.

 

College kids can protest all they want. what they can't do is threaten and intimidate other students.

not ironic at all.

 

Also a lot of the World even then did care when the crusaders went into the Holy Land and also when Muslims took it back.

 

who owned prior to the muslims?

 

It's good to see that students still mostly care about: Healthcare reform, education access, economic opportunity and fairness, and climate change.

It's bad to see how Republicans and the right-wing players are again successful at manipulating the media on what is, while an important issue, a distraction and much lower in priority than other issues.


Also Republicans: How Republicans Echo Antisemitic Tropes Despite Declaring Support for Israel - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Prominent Republicans have seized on campus protests to assail what they say is antisemitism on the left. But for years they have mainstreamed anti-Jewish rhetoric.

The Times identified antisemitic rhetoric throughout years of Trump campaign emails and lawmakers’ press releases, tweets and newsletters.Credit...The New York Times

But far less attention has been paid to a trend on the right: For all of their rhetoric of the moment, increasingly through the Trump era many Republicans have helped inject into the mainstream thinly veiled anti-Jewish messages with deep historical roots.

The conspiracy theory taking on fresh currency is one that dates back hundreds of years and has perennially bubbled into view: that a shady cabal of wealthy Jews secretly controls events and institutions contrary to the national interest of whatever country it is operating in.

The current formulation of the trope taps into the populist loathing of an elite “ruling class.” “Globalists” or “globalist elites” are blamed for everything from Black Lives Matter to the influx of migrants across the southern border, often described as a plot to replace native-born Americans with foreigners who will vote for Democrats. The favored personification of the globalist enemy is George Soros, the 93-year-old Hungarian American Jewish financier and Holocaust survivor who has spent billions in support of liberal causes and democratic institutions.

This language is hardly new — Mr. Soros became a boogeyman of the American far right long before the ascendancy of Mr. Trump. And the elected officials now invoking him or the globalists rarely, if ever, directly mention Jews or blame them outright. Some of them may not immediately understand the antisemitic resonance of the meme, and in some cases its use may simply be reflexive political rhetoric. But its rising ubiquity reflects the breaking down of old guardrails on all types of degrading speech, and the cross-pollination with the raw, sometimes hate-filled speech of the extreme right, in a party under the sway of the norm-defying former, and perhaps future, president.

In a July 2023 email to supporters, the Trump campaign employed an image that bears striking resemblance to a Nazi-era cartoon of a hook-nosed puppet master manipulating world figures: Mr. Soros as puppet master, pulling the strings controlling President Biden.

To take a measure of the drumbeat of the cabal conspiracy theory among elected officials, The New York Times reviewed about five years of campaign emails from Mr. Trump, as well as press releases, tweets and newsletters of members of Congress over the last decade.

The review found that last year at least 790 emails from Mr. Trump to his supporters invoked Mr. Soros or globalists conspiratorially, a meteoric rise from prior years. The Times also found that House and Senate Republicans increasingly used “Soros” and “globalist” in ways that evoked the historical tropes, from just a handful of messages in 2013 to more than 300 messages from 79 members in 2023.

Mr. Trump frequently referred to Mr. Soros as “shadowy” and “the man behind the curtain who’s destroying our country.” He linked Mr. Soros and other enemies to a “globalist cabal,” echoing the trope that Jews secretly control the world’s financial and political systems — an idea espoused in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a fraudulent document used by Stalin and the Nazis as a rationale for targeting Jews. Republican members of Congress repeatedly made incendiary and conspiratorial claims about Mr. Soros and globalists — that they were “evil,” that they “hate America” and that they wanted the American people to be “humiliated or destroyed and replaced or dead.” Republicans blamed them for leading people to “forget about God and family values,” for controlling the media, for allowing “violent criminals and rapists to get off scot-free” and more.

Conservative lawmakers dispute the notion that invoking Mr. Soros and globalists is antisemitic. “Not every criticism of Mr. Soros is antisemitic,” said Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida. “Every criticism of Mr. Soros that I have levied is directed specifically at his flawed policy goals.” What’s more, he said, “I regularly criticize globalists of all faiths.”

Republican elected officials also point to their longstanding support for Israel. “Jewish Americans and Jewish leaders around the world recognize that President Trump did more for them and the State of Israel than any president in history,” said a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump. She added, “Joe Biden can’t stand up to antisemitism in his own Democrat Party — primarily because his biggest donors like George Soros help fund it.”

Dov Waxman, a professor of Israel studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that Mr. Trump and other Republicans “are presenting themselves as committed to fighting antisemitism, but they’re actually mainstreaming some of the most antisemitic ideas in circulation today.”

That duality was encapsulated on the day the House speaker visited Columbia. Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters that evening at the Manhattan courthouse where he is on trial, amped up his criticism of the campus protests — and added a twist: He compared them to the violent 2017 march in Charlottesville, Va., where torch-bearing white supremacists chanted, “Jews will not replace us.” At the time, he sought to minimize the deadly Charlottesville rally by saying there were “very fine people on both sides.” Now, he called it “a little peanut,” adding: “The hate wasn’t the kind of hate that you have here. This is tremendous hate.”

Code Words
Across the centuries, the conspiracy theory of the manipulative, avaricious Jew has worn many faces, from Judas to Shylock to the Rothschilds. Under Stalin, accusations of “rootless cosmopolitanism” echoed Hitler’s charges about a “poison injected by the international and cosmopolitan Jews,” to destroy the Aryan race.

After the Cold War, the code words “internationalist” and “cosmopolitan” were largely replaced by “globalist” and “Soros,” according to Pamela Nadell, a professor of history and Jewish studies at American University. Mr. Soros became a target of Hungary’s right-wing nationalist prime minister, Viktor Orban, who is something of a hero on the American right.

An analysis of right-wing extremist media in the United States — including neo-Nazi sites like The Daily Stormer and an A.D.L. database of the transcripts of more than 50,000 episodes of extremist and conspiracy-oriented podcasts — revealed a flood of bluntly antisemitic iterations of the globalist and Soros tropes.

In a June 2022 podcast, for example, Harry Vox, a self-described investigative journalist, railed against “every scumbag who uses the word ‘globalist’ because he’s afraid to use ‘Jewish banking cartel,’ which is the real definition for the term ‘globalist.’”

While people like Mr. Vox operate largely out of sight of mainstream politics, some purveyors of blatantly antisemitic rhetoric have become woven into Mr. Trump’s Republican Party.


ps. For some reason, @AroundTheWorld anti-Semitic crusade is blind to the above

 

Hahahahahahahahabahaha

this is like woke people at an alligator petting zoo

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-...ral-judge-8ced4529?mod=hp_opin_pos_6#cxrecs_s

Why Judges Are Boycotting Law Clerks From Columbia
The reputational costs from our boycott ought to provoke some soul-searching at the school.


I joined a dozen of my colleagues on the federal bench this week in signing a letter stating that we won’t hire law clerks who matriculate at Columbia University beginning this fall. We have received criticism for our choice to punish an institution rather than target the individuals responsible for miring it in anti-American and antisemitic radicalism. I want to explain that choice.

The purpose of any boycott is to change the behavior of the target. To be effective, a boycott must rally a critical mass of the target’s customers. Hardly anyone thinks Columbia’s behavior is acceptable. The only question is whether we are being so overinclusive that we will punish the wrong people. I had this concern but ultimately decided that it is a criticism of boycotts per se, not of this particular one.

Boycotts naturally have wide-ranging effects. Those advocating boycotts of Israel know they will hurt not only the country’s hawks and elites but poor and working-class Arabs, black Israelis, dissidents, peace activists—you name it. Boycotts are naturally limited. The anti-Israel boycotters know they aren’t targeting all regimes they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as unjust. Yet they proceed anyway because they have a goal in mind. Everyone who decides to boycott has to decide how legitimate the goal is and how important it is to achieve.

We think it’s important to force Columbia and its peer institutions to change. Our boycott is prospective only, which means everyone is on notice. High-school guidance counselors should warn students who want to enroll at Columbia that they would likely be closing some doors for themselves. Law-school applicants should be smart enough to figure out that while some schools place many alumni in clerkships, others have the opposite reputation. Our boycott may make a difference in those considerations only on the margins, but other judges may be moved to join us. I hope the reputational costs of being shunned by federal judges will give Columbia’s leaders reason to search their souls and change course before the boycott even begins. I signed the letter not to inflict punishment on students but to send a clear message to Columbia that its approach to campus antisemitism and anti-Americanism is unacceptable.

If federal judges found out there was a school tolerating or fostering a hostile and threatening environment for black students, all of us would boycott that school. We would do so because that’s the tool available to us to enforce the basic norms of decency that undergird our constitutional system. In the process, we’d probably hurt the careers of a righteous majority of students at that school. But no one would lose sleep over that—it would be a small price to pay to do the right thing. Why are we now expected to sit idly by instead of doing what we can when a school has revealed the extent of its corruption?

Our position is no different in spirit from the remedy available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Congressional Research Service summarizes this way: “Agencies also have at their disposal a uniquely powerful tool: the termination or refusal to provide federal financial support to an institution.” Would such a funding termination, even in a proper case, punish professors and students who aren’t part of the problem? Yes. Does that undermine, in some moral sense, the goal of inducing compliance and change? No.

Every elite university asks employers to make collective judgments about their alumni. Graduates of Columbia have been viewed as among the most capable young people in the country. Recent events have made clear that Columbia deserves a very different reputation.

I don’t begrudge judges who choose not to join us in this effort, but I continue to believe that we who have chosen to boycott are justified in using the tools at our disposal—prestigious clerkship slots—as a force for good.

Judge Solomson serves on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.​

 

A lot of other people.

Anyway what is your argument? that Columbia students weren’t protesting when the Babylonians conquered Judea?