Comment by rendall | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rendall | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Except... Here is an open letter from the Jewish students at Columbia. Their experience there sounds pretty terrifying. Imagine yourself going through these experiences:

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRQgyDhIjZup...

Do leftists who call for Israelis to "return to Europe" not know the A) centuries of stark, genocidal oppression against Jews in Europe nor B) that many Israeli Jews are in Israel because they have been expelled from Arab and Middle-East countries where their ancestors have lived for centuries? There is no "back home" to go to for these people.

One could argue these Western leftists earnestly care for Palestinians, but why? Why do they care about these particular Arabs and not the 1M+ other deaths of Muslims in current conflicts? What is the difference?

When I look back at the literally genocidal pograms by Levantine Arabs against Levantine Jews in an unbroken timeline of violence from 1850s, continuing through the 1920s and al-Husseini's agreements with Hitler in WW2, and the continuing violence right now, the repeated rejections of compromise and peace, the insistence on "all the land or death", is super clear to me that the "pro-Palestine" movement is and has always been genocidal. It is not and has never been about sovereignty or self-determination. Do Western leftists not know this? Do they not care? They certainly don't want to hear about it.

I don't know about "terrifying". "Uncomfortable", or, probably more accurately, "supremely irritating", sure. Zeynep Tufekci has been writing for a couple weeks --- I don't agree with everything she's saying, but I take anything she says seriously --- about how physically small and limited the protests have been.

If there were white power protests happening on campus at the University of Chicago, we'd all be up in arms; we are not when SJP, an organization that formally endorses the Al-Qassam Brigades, protests instead. There's for sure a blind spot. I see why people are pissed. It is not at all clear to me that anyone's safety was threatened at Columbia, though.

The comment you are replying to is ridiculous. Frankly by engaging I perpetuate ridiculousness and I should know better.

That said, to some reasonable approximation even the most militant pro Palestinian campus protests didn’t threaten any ones safety. In nearly every case the danger came from reactionary protests. Which is completely predictable if you are a campus safety officer!

I think I agree with all of this, including the ridiculousness. We all have a problem.

We only have a problem if we agree with the contention that kids protesting genocide are some sort of chaos agent. They aren’t! They’re just college kids. Sleeping rough. Temporarily.

I don't know what "chaos agent" means, but the problem I'm referring to is us all commenting on this thread. I'm confident we agree more than we disagree about all of this stuff.

This is the second time today I hear this word used, and it is only 07:45 here.

The other time was House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries describing Marjory Taylor Greene and “extreme MAGA Republicans” as “Chaos Agents”.

> I'm confident we agree more than we disagree about all of this stuff.

I do think we all want Palestinians to live peaceful and prosperous lives. Despite what many anti-Zionists believe, Israel would like that for Palestinians too.

The fundamental question is, does Israel get to exist as a state? If you believe yes, then congratulations, you are a Zionist!

If you believe no, and if you're not struggling intellectually with the practical consequences of the end of the Israeli state to the Israeli people, really walking through it with concern, then you court genocide. There isn't really much leeway, there.

> We only have a problem if we agree with the contention that kids protesting genocide are some sort of chaos agent.

Logically, they are, though. They are impervious to logical argument that it is not a genocide. Their only evidence, ultimately, is Hamas' "trust me, bro" and their own presumption that Israel is evil. If people throw the word "genocide" around without second thought out question and cannot accept any mitigating argument, they are not helping. So, yes, chaos agents and no, not just "college students sleeping rough".

> The comment you are replying to is ridiculous. Frankly by engaging I perpetuate ridiculousness and I should know better.

This is against the community guidelines. With over 13k karma points, you know better.

I hesitate to ask, but pretend for a moment that I am an earnest rationalist who respects logical arguments and lets truth lead to conclusions even if I am not happy with those conclusions.

Can you, striving to minimize emotionalism or logical fallacy, walk through in concise points what specifically is "ridiculous"?

I took zero offense from his comment; its spirit was clear. I agree with him: it is ridiculous that were are frolicking in this rotted carcass of a thread.

I dunno. I feel like these Israel-Palestine threads always get more thoughtful after the first few rounds of tribal chest-beating.

That's not what he was doing. If it came across that way to you, that's an illustration of how cursed these threads are.

There have been numerous disturbing / idiotic / arguably antisemitic episodes originating from certain elements of the protestors' side, to be sure.

Unfortunately the letter presents certain regrettable factual distortions. For example:

We felt helpless when we watched students and faculty physically block Jewish students from entering parts of the campus we share, or even when they turned their faces away in silence.

The protest movement, especially at Columbia, has a highly visible Jewish contingent (especially within its leadership). If people were blocked from the protest encampments, it was plainly not because they were Jewish. And it is intellectually dishonest to claim that this is the reason they were excluded.

There have also been numerous disturbing / idiotic episodes on the part of the counter-protest movement, as I'm sure you know. Except unfortunately these have been notably more violent than most of what's been happening from the protestors' side. Just the other day for example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/nyregion/columbia-driver-...

Imagine being 55 years old and getting hit by a car that just so happens to have been driven by a cousin of one of one of Israel's most famous convicted terrorists (celebrated by none other than the country's current Finance Minister). Or being attacked with military-grade crowd control chemicals:

https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/01/22/protesters...

This isn't whataboutism. In order to understand this situation, it necessary the consider the whole playing field. And the simple fact that there's many profoundly disturbing episodes originating in both camps.

I'll just close with one more particularly revealing snippet from the letter:

If the last six months on campus have taught us anything, it is that a large and vocal population of the Columbia community does not understand the meaning of Zionism, and subsequently does not understand the essence of the Jewish People.

Again, no one buys the "Zionism = Judaism" equivalence. Outside the ideological bubble world that the signatories of the letter (and the driver of that car which nearly killed a 55 year-old woman for expressing her political beliefs the other day) choose to live in.

Why is it plain to you that people weren't blocked because they were Jewish? The contention of Jewish people who see antisemitism in these protests is that Jewish participation is allowed only for Jewish people who disavow substantial parts of their identity. This gets into the whole JVP thing; activists have held JVP up as a demonstration of Jewish support --- to the point where College Democrats of America claimed that JVP was more representative of Jewish Democrats than the CDA Jewish Caucus (a risible claim) --- and we just saw the JVP Peace Seder, where the labels on the plate were written front-to-back; JVP has also (very recently!) posted a Houthi endorsement on their Insta (it's since been deleted).

Don't get me started on counter-protesters. No matter who's protesting, the counter-protest will always be worse. At least some subset of protesters have an intrinsic motivation aligned with the cause. Virtually all the counter-protesters will be there to stir the pot.

I know I'm a wet blanket here but I'm going to keep mentioning that we're all necroposting on a long-dead threat, bloated with corpse-gases, that just 3-4 people are reading. HN is bigger and better than this.

Why is it plain to you that people weren't blocked because they were Jewish?

Because the encampments contained many Jewish organizers / participants (likely equal to or greater than their proportion across the student body as a whole).

The contention [is that] Jewish participation is allowed only for Jewish people who disavow substantial parts of their identity.

I see what you're driving at, but overall it seems to be a weak and ancillary argument. It basically gets into the whole "if you reject / insult Zionism (or even the military campaign in Gaza itself) then you're insulting my religious/ethnic identity" line, which I just don't buy (neither do many Jews in fact, and in fact they find it rather insulting that one should presume that all Jews should automatically feel that way).

I don't speak for JVP, so you'll have to take up issues about their dining plates / ephemeral Houthi endorsements with them.

Yeah, I don't know. If you're protesting the broad concept of Zionism, of the legitimacy of a Jewish homeland, then not allowing the participation of the majority of Jewish people who are (in that broad sense) Zionist makes sense. On the other hand, you can't be blocking their entrance to buildings, or singling them out for verbal harassment due solely to religious signifiers coupled with the fact that they're not echoing your chants, right? This doesn't seem all that complicated. Everybody is a little bit right, everybody is a little bit wrong, and a few people on both sides (SJP, Shai Davidai) are luridly wrong.

Blocking them from buildings doesn't seem to be happening.

As I've acknowledged there's been a fair amount of verbal harassment (and obnoxious signage), some of it arguably antisemitic. Deplorable thought it is, it gets into a different topic (from the issue of people being supposedly blocked from campus areas due to their perceived ethnic classification).

It's also not been a feature of the encampments as such that I'm aware of (but I could be wrong of course). More like a feature of spontaneous confrontations / street actions.

Addendum (edit): To the extent that some of these people protest Israel specifically (as no doubt many of them do) -- it's usually against Israel in its current (effectively Revisionist) Zionist configuration, aka "Israel as a rigidly defined ethnostate", built on as much territory as it can reasonably hold onto and with a supremacist attitude towards non-Jewish inhabitants. Not the "legitimacy of a Jewish homeland" in principle, which can mean a lot of things (such as the idea of a "Jewish homeland" that is genuinely democratic and not determined by the fact of a Jewish supermajority).

I've seen videos with people being blocked out of spaces, but like, those spaces presumably have like 9 other entrances that aren't being blocked, and people are challenging the protesters to make a point. Who knows? To the extent it isn't happening at all, it doesn't matter.

None of these are big issues for me, but there's a whole "the Good Jews" phenomenon that American Jewish people are keyed in on (which I hear about from friends, who all revile Netanyahu and oppose the Gaza invasion --- ironic that I'm disclaiming that!), and you said something that pricked my ears up about that. That's all. I'm not rebutting you.

> Deplorable though it is, it gets into a different topic

I am going to argue something different, and I would like you to seriously entertain the idea. The argument is: anti-Semitic harassment and anti-Zionism are part-and-parcel.

Consider: imagine for the sake of argument a universe that is exactly like ours, except in that universe, Israel is prosecuting the war in Gaza reasonably well, as perfectly as it is possible to prosecute any war. They actually do minimize civilian deaths, not commit any war crimes or genocide, ensure that aid gets where it needs to go. They simply want to get rid of Hamas. In that universe, the war is actually a measured and rational response to the Hamas provocations of that universe, October 7th actually happened, etc.

Please answer honestly: in that universe, how do you think the world responds? Does Hamas still claim genocide? Does the "Gazan Ministry of Health" still issue a daily death toll that is strangely absent of combatants? Does the BBC and al-Jazeera, et. al. still quote those statistics with neither qualification nor caveat? Does South Africa still take Israel to ICJ? Does the UN security council still issue resolutions against Israel without reference to Hamas or the hostages?

I believe that the answer to those questions would be identical to this universe. Would you agree? If not, what is the mechanism by which the world could tell the difference? What trustworthy organization would impartially inform us all that there is no genocide in a way that you yourself would believe it?

I believe most anti-Zionists would behave quite the same in that universe, because for them, Israel's existence is a problem, and the accusation of genocide is a tool in its dismantling.

I’d like to answer that question, and I think you’re not gonna like the answer.

I believe the response would be similar but not identical. There would be mass protests, just like there were in 2021, 2018, 2014, etc. I also participated in these protests. These protests would be smaller but still loud. Student movements would also call out their universities and demand boycott, just like in 2021, 2018, etc. But we probably wouldn’t see as many students participating, nor would it spread to as many school.

We would still see an ICJ case, however it wouldn’t be South Africa charging Israel of genocide. It would be the General Assembly charging Israel of apartheid. This case is also ongoing in our universe, and and was agreed to before Oct 7. Delegations would use that case to voice discontent with that universe’s version of the Gaza atrocities, no matter how scaled back it would be. But I think they would stop short of calling it a genocide (assuming Israel wouldn’t be committing one in that Universe). The security council would vote on a ceasefire and the US would veto it, just like in 2021, 2018, etc. The general assembly would also vote on and agree to to a ceasefire.

The BBC and Al Jazeera would quote statistics straight from the Hamas run Gaza health ministry, the BBC would say Hamas run, but Al Jazeera wouldn’t, just like in our universe. People would criticize BBC for that from both the left and the right (just like in our universe).

The truth about this universe is that Israel has been braking international humanitarian laws for a very long time, and the world is tired of it. In this alternative universe, the world would be equally tired of it, and would condemn Israel for it. Settler policies, apartheid, constant bombing campaigns in Gaza, constant raids on the West Bank, etc. all of that would be the reason the world would condemn Israel in your alternative universe. Israel’s settler colonial and apartheid policies would be a problem. And the accusations there of would be just.

> The truth about this universe is that Israel has been braking international humanitarian laws...

What laws?

Usually when people answer that question, they just refer to a law ("look up the Geneva Conventions") and then disappear. If you could, please actually quote the relevant paragraphs and, even better, an actual court ruling.

Some of them are listed here:

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186

You literally just sent a link without reading it as I asked you not to do. Please do the work of actually understanding what it is that you're linking and then explaining it. You will see that this is not whatever you seem to think it is.

This link is to the ICJ case 186: Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem

It was submitted to the court after the UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/247 was approved by a majority vote of 98 approved vs. 17 against and 52 absent. Here is a summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_consequences_arising_fro...

This link contains all written and spoken testimonies, as well as related documents and news from the UN. In it you will find several examples of international humanitarian law broken by Israel without consequences. You will find several UN resolutions ignored by Israel without consequences. This case seeks to establish which consequences Israel should face from decades of this behavior. The ICJ accepted this case, and proclaims jurisdiction.

During the oral testimonies you will find statements and conclusions such as this from South Africa:

> The available evidence indicates that Israel is responsible for inhuman acts which fall within the ambit of Article 2(a), (c), (d) and (f) of the Apartheid Convention. [1] (Paragraph 115)

Here is another example from the same oral testimony:

> The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories is considered as illegal by the international community as they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. t therefore follows that any legislation authorising settlements or the extension of settlements “adopted by Israel to facilitate or set up settlements would be in violation of Article 43

I gave you this link because it is full of legal experts from all over the world citing humanitarian law and explaining how Israel is breaking them. This case would have been ongoing today even without Oct 7 and without the Gaza genocide. This case and the number of written and oral testimonies, and the content of these testimonies, is proof that the world is fed up with Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinians.

1: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186...

This is not a judgment. It's an accusation by South Africa. Neither more nor less. The ICJ has not rendered any decision yet.

Ok, I've tried to get a coherent argument out of you and I have just about given up. If you'd like to have the final word, feel free. I'll read whatever you have to say, but probably will not respond.

My point was that the world is fed up with Israel’s behavior, and I gave this ICJ case as an example of how fed up the world is. This case is an action the world has taken in the hopes that Israel will finally have to face consequences for their violations of international humanitarian laws. You asked which ones, and the answer is in the case, as described by experts.

> The ICJ has not rendered any decision yet.

I know, however the world believes Israel has violated several UN orders, and is taking action based on that belief.

> It's an accusation by South Africa.

It is not. I cited two paragraphs from the written statement given by South Africa. This is more like a witness statement than accusations. South Africa gave Oral Testimonies reflecting this written statement[1] (page 10)

The accusations were done by the General assembly back in December 2022 (read the actual accusations here[2]). 87 countries votes in favor of these accusations, 26 against, and 53 abstentions

The reason I’m citing these is that actual legal experts formed a consensus about these and submitted them to the world’s highest court, which accepted the case. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of several legal experts spanning most of the world. Like I said, you may not like it, but the world is taking actions against Israel’s human rights violations. This would have happened even without the Gaza Genocide being a part of this reality.

[1]: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186...

[2]: https://www.undocs.org/A/RES/77/247

EDIT: And if you want examples of specific laws which Israel has definetly broken, with an ICJ judgement to prove it. Then read case 131 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131 which ruled Israel to be in violation of certain International Humanitarian Law by building the border wall, which still stands today and is cited in the resolution I cited above https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n04/419/86/pdf/n04419...

This is just one of many examples of international human rights violations of Israel, some of which have the backing of an ICJ court behind it.

In this purely hypothetical universe -- in which the Israeli government was acting in an at least arguably rational fashion in regard to securing a timely release of the hostages, and protecting the security of citizens otherwise; in which it wasn't concurrently stepping up its rampage in the West Bank because it thinks the world will be distracted by the much greater number of bodies piling up in Gaza; in which there was no Dahiya Doctrine --

What we have here is the "They're just going to criticize / hate Israel no matter what it does" defense which has been raised as a blanket response to pretty much any robust criticism of what Israel does, for several decades. Or to paraphrase only slightly how you put it: "Israel's existence is the problem, serious criticisms about what it does are tools for its dismantling."

So to answer your question - of course no, I don't buy it. And yes, fundamentally the current response would be very different. There wouldn't be an ICJ case; there wouldn't be calls for sanctions against units like Netzah Yehuda for doing what they're currently doing out here in the real, actual world; etc.

If not, what is the mechanism by which the world could tell the difference? What trustworthy organization would impartially inform us all that there is no genocide in a way that you yourself would believe it?

The same organizations that are the obvious answer to this question (independent journalists and human rights groups in and outside of Israel; UN bodies; forensic analysis teams, etc).

In short, yes - in this science fiction universe, it would be a very different response. You're not going to agree of course, and that's fine.

Your other bullet points seem to be ancillary: no one is acting on what Hamas is claiming about the ongoing genocide, for example. And the Gaza Health Ministry numbers are a huge red herring (even Israeli military intelligence considers them to be generally reliable and uses them in their briefings; US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc).

> Your other bullet points seem to be ancillary: no one is acting on what Hamas is claiming about the ongoing genocide, for example. And Gaza Health Ministry numbers are a huge red herring (even Israeli military intelligence considers them to be generally reliable and uses them in their briefings; US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc).

Far from being "ancillary" or a "red herring", the Gaza Health Ministry statistics are central to the accusations against Israel of genocide. Weird you would even say that.

And, no, neither Israel nor "Israeli intelligence" considers Gazan Health Ministry statistics accurate [1]. That's another weird thing to say. As for "US officials believe the real numbers may be even higher, etc" I only found a single quote from a single US official, from one Barbara Leaf, Assistant Secretary of State, implying this [2]. I also found a quote from the same Voice of America article that "President Joe Biden has openly questioned figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas, which the U.S. classifies as a terrorist group" so...

It's odd that you made so many hrm... exaggerations in such a short response. It's almost like you don't care about the accuracy of your statements? Surely that cannot be true.

> etc

Etc? What is the etc? You wouldn't have only two things to say and then write "etc" to imply there's more, would you? I refuse to believe it.

[1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fat...

[2] https://www.voanews.com/a/us-stands-firm-with-israel-amid-co...

The key part of Leaf's acknowledgment (which came some weeks after what Biden said) is where she added that the US has sources from a "variety of folks who are on the ground". Meaning they had independent confirmation that had been vetted by internal analysts.

Lol. Noo... you have no more context than I do. You're just making shit up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com