Palestine college student protest megathread

[HisGrace]

If after six months of indiscriminately bombing a region with one of the highest population densities in the world and Israel has only killed 34,000 people then either the Israeli military sucks or they're not indiscriminately bombing people.

Well, on October 7th Hamas terrorists killed around 400 "legitimate targets" and 800 civilians and this was generally recognized as a brutal act of terror. In contrast, the most charitable estimate of the IDF's civilian-terrorist casualty ratio using their own numbers is no better than 2-1 and realistically is likely far worse than that.

So either the IDF are also terrorists or October 7th was actually a military operation conducted to the rigorous ethical standards of the "world's most moral army". The only real difference in conduct at this point is the scale of the brutality, and that point doesn't favour the IDF.

The difference is that Hamas started the conflict and is thus the aggressor. None of this would be happening if Hamas cared more about the wellbeing of Palestinians than killing Jews. The US and British inflicted 30x the number of civilian casualties on the Germany and Japan than what they took, never once in my life heard anyone suggest that was unjustified because the Axis started the war. The person who hits second doesn't have to be proportionate.

[HisGrace]

Biden's comments today are proof these college kids are rocking and shaking the world. The president of the most powerful empire the world has ever known is shifting. These kids and others have to keep it up until Israel is forced by overwhelming international pressure to come back to the negotiating table.

Israel did not leave the negotiating table until Hamas tried to propose a deal that would allow them to shoot all the hostages before returning them without violating the deal.

At this point I don't think there are that many actual hostages left, Hamas has probably just been killing them which is why they've been dragging their feet about returning them this whole time. There's no one to return.

[HisGrace]

While I don't want to deport anyone based on political opinions either, gotta love Atlas red avs only caring about free speech when it comes to defending terrorists. If this was deporting a European immigrant for being a white nationalist and using the n word on social media or something none of you would have a problem with it. The issue is that you like Hamas, not that you care about free speech for the first time ever.

[HisGrace]

If after six months of indiscriminately bombing a region with one of the highest population densities in the world and Israel has only killed 34,000 people then either the Israeli military sucks or they're not indiscriminately bombing people.

Well, on October 7th Hamas terrorists killed around 400 "legitimate targets" and 800 civilians and this was generally recognized as a brutal act of terror. In contrast, the most charitable estimate of the IDF's civilian-terrorist casualty ratio using their own numbers is no better than 2-1 and realistically is likely far worse than that.

So either the IDF are also terrorists or October 7th was actually a military operation conducted to the rigorous ethical standards of the "world's most moral army". The only real difference in conduct at this point is the scale of the brutality, and that point doesn't favour the IDF.

The difference is that Hamas started the conflict and is thus the aggressor. None of this would be happening if Hamas cared more about the wellbeing of Palestinians than killing Jews. The US and British inflicted 30x the number of civilian casualties on the Germany and Japan than what they took, never once in my life heard anyone suggest that was unjustified because the Axis started the war. The person who hits second doesn't have to be proportionate.

Hamas only "started the conflict" in the sense that prior to October 7th there was no "conflict", the Israelis killed Palestinians in a one sided manner and nobody cared. Calling them "the aggressor" and drawing comparisons to WW2 is a bit like calling the Lakota Sioux "the aggressor" because of Little Bighorn and then justifying WW2 levels of devastation against them. If we're going to use WW2 as the standard then Hamas is hardly any worse than the Soviets in East Prussia, certainly nowhere near the level of brutality of the Nazis or Japanese. But WW2 is not the standard, hence why nearly all of the countries that have started wars since WW2 haven't been obliterated the way Germany and Japan were and you have to reach back almost a hundred years to find a comparison that doesn't make the IDF look like murderous war criminals.

Also, I notice that people who use this "the person who gets hit second doesn't have to be proportionate" logic never apply it towards themselves. America hit Vietnam and Iraq first, would they have been justified in indiscriminately slaughtering American civilians with bombs? I thought Osama Bin Laden was a brutal terrorist but it turns out he was simply applying a disproportionate but justified response as the person who hits second.

There was no level where Hamas randomly killing and raping civilians could be considered "provoked" unless you're going to say Jews existing in their vicinity was provocation. Which you seem to be doing this with the Native American comparison despite Jews living in the region unceasingly for thousands of years, as long as Arabs have been there.

WWII was the chosen comparison because it's the most extreme and highlights the ridiculousness of the "Israel killed civilians so therefore they're the wrong side of the war" argument that seems to be the full extent of most of the left's thoughts on this. The civilian casualties in Gaza are completely within the realm of "normal" for what you would expect in a modern war in an area with that high population density. If Israel wanted to commit a "genocide" in Gaza they could do it inside of an hour and not have to go to all this trouble.

If the US government went out of its way to start a war with a country capable of launching a strike on US soil I would be mad at our own government for being dumb enough to do that. As for Bin Laden his list of demands for the US included no longer "letting" women have jobs and "removing" every gay person in the country so I'm not sure why his not being able to dictate another country's domestic policy is a legitimate reason to start a conflict. He should have been thanking us for helping chase the Soviets out in fact.

[HisGrace]

The above discussion is like someone showing up to a white nationalist rally in a Nazi style brown shirt or with a white sheet and people being like "Well people wear brown shirts or white hoods for other reasons, I'm going to need more information here". Context matters guys. It looks like an entire crowd of student protestors wearing the same thing the overwhelming majority of whom I'm going to guess are not from the middle east so whether it's a normal thing to wear in the ME is not the point.

[HisGrace]

I'm against all this stuff but it's still hilarious to see it get turned around on them. Which everyone warned them would happen but they dismissed it as "bad faith" and "concern trolling".

Also gotta love Red avs supporting FIRE all of a sudden on page 34.

[HisGrace]

Most leftist/liberals would say these two events validate their beliefs that the right was engaging in bad faith from the start of these “free speech” and that it was always about defending reactionary/bigoted statements that the right agreed with or at the minimum defended out of political tribalism.

Doesn't that mean they're engaging in bad faith now when they bring up free speech then? If I ran my own university I wouldn't have rules like this about speech but I didn't make the rules at these places, the far left sensitivity police did. Blaming this on "conservatives" is completely baseless. They're just mad that they have to follow their own rules.

[HisGrace]

they don't know if they are supposed to be mad that colleges don't allow due process when punishing students.  Most of them don't care when it's just men (often minority men and occasionally a lesbian, but they can overlook that) getting screwed by such things.  We'll have to wait until their handlers tell them which way to think on this issue.  My guess is that it's too confusing and they will mostly ignore it.

The left doesn't believe that certain types of "criminals" (and that's in quotes because frequently these guys aren't actually accused of breaking the law) should not be entitled to a fair trial. Sexual misconduct is one, obviously. At the height of the MeToo moral panic you could get fired simply for suggesting that accused men should get a real trial before having their lives ruined. The other big one is any kind of allegation of bigotry, which is the issue here.

I'm opposed to this, obviously, but I find it borderline impossible to feel bad for people who are just now realizing that this is a problem because it's suddenly affecting people they care about.

Here's an analogy- I'm against the war on drugs, but if a guy who works for the DEA gets caught dealing crack I'm not doing to feel the least bit sorry for him if they throw the book at him. These people decided that anyone who makes any ethnic minority uncomfortable for two seconds has to get cancelled. Well, turns out chanting "intifada" and "there is one solution" makes Jewish people uncomfortable, so I guess they're cancelled now, buh-bye, see you later. I expect everyone to follow their own rules whether I agree with them or not.