A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her
2 years ago by ToastedPlanet to c/politics
To everyone not reading this article title: "A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her"
BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.
Reread the title, it does not say that.
She refused to work with a person who contributed to the genocide against her own people. He chose to be complicit in genocide. IDF soldiers are monsters and can fuck off. We should hand this guy over to the Hague. edit: typo
Is the title implying or not implying that her suspension is related to the fact that objected to working alongside IDF?
Explain to me how being a student is considered "working alongside" with a professor simply because they are both at the same school?
Is the title implying or not implying that her suspension is related to the fact that objected to working alongside IDF?
A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her
The title says working alongside IDF soldiers. It's not implying anything.
Explain to me how being a student is considered “working alongside” with a professor simply because they are both at the same school?
At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.
Because she is a medical student and he is a professor of medicine.
So I had a teacher in HS that worked at NASA. Was I working alongside NASA scientists when I was 15?
Furthermore, the article never specified that she was HIS student. They may have never interacted at all.
I can accept she doesn't want to be affiliated in any way with Israel (good luck with that), but the title puts two sentences together where the first is false and the second is unrelated.
A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her
The title says working alongside IDF soldiers. It's not implying anything.
I like how you ignore the second sentence though to make a false point
Death to them all, the satanic scum on Earth.
I was debating whether this rhetoric was effective or to easily misconstrued as antisemitic and then this other user writes:
In the end, she’s discriminating against a protected class: national-origin.
Dude, you don't go hard enough with your rhetoric. People unironically believe that if a fascist government drafts you into the military you simply have no choice but to genocide as many people as possible.
Fuck me, I am Jewish. Not in my name! The IDF is committing genocide. Fuck the IDF. Do not let them slide because they were just following orders. Holy shit!
Discriminating against "National origin"? We're all from somewhere aren't we? If I refused to work with a KKK member do I get fired because he's "American" and the KKK is an American hate group?
According to users in this thread apparently. This national origin rhetoric is absurd. Fuck that and fuck the KKK.
It's most certainly not effective, it was something I wrote in anger. Calling for the death of anyone is generally not advisable, and I usually don't, but reading this made my blood boil more than normal.
Israel has conscription/compulsory military-service. There are exceptions for certain super-religious cases, etc., but pretty much if they were born and raised in Israel (i.e. an "Israeli National"), you can say they were probably required to be "IDF soldiers" without really having a choice in the matter. but "Palestinian-American medical student objected to working alongside Israeli-national. The university suspended her" doesn't induce as much rage. In the end, she's discriminating against a protected class: national-origin.
So your argument is that Israeli nationals should be absolved from any war crimes and/or genocide they participate in because they were just following orders?
Using national origin as an excuse for participating in genocide is peak genocide denial.
In the end, she’s discriminating against a protected class: national-origin.
This is the same as equating protesting Russia's invasion of Ukraine as xenophobia against Russians.
I highly recommend reassessing your world view. Your arguments are a one to one match with fascists arguments.
Uh, no. No it's not. If someone refused to work with anyone who was Russian, or who took on a non-combatant role when conscripted in the current war (such as a Medic), then it would be comparable.
I'm glad she was suspended. Bye bye!
This professor of medicine chose to volunteer. Anyone actively contributing to genocide is at fault regardless of their role. Patching someone up so they can butcher more civilians is deplorable. The most heinous Nazis ordered mass killings from behind desks.
I’m glad she was suspended. Bye bye!
What an awful opinion. Why would you support silencing people who speak out against genocide? Do you support Israel's genocide?
Four years into her studies, 7 October happened. After watching Israel’s deadly retaliation on Gaza in horror from afar, in January 2024, Mohammad sent an email to the entire medical school with the subject: “Palestinian blood stains your hands, Emory University and School of Medicine.” She railed against her fellow students and the school’s faculty for being “silent about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians”.
10/7 being an attempted ethnic cleansing of her side against Jews.
When Mohammad went into the Democracy Now! interview in April, she was already upset about what she saw as an immoral double standard. Months earlier, an Emory medical school professor, Abeer N AbouYabis, had been fired after posting on Facebook in support of Palestinians after the events of 7 October. Her post included the phrase: “They got walls, we got gliders / Glory to all resistance fighters,” a reference to the way members of Hamas glided over walls in Gaza to enter Israel and stage their attack. According to a report on AbouYabis’s firing by Emory’s committee for open expression, her post was seen as “glorifying” the group.
At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.
She's an unhinged hate-filled Jew-hater. I'm glad she was suspended.
The only one unhinged is that professor. He directly committed to a genocide. He should be in prison.
The penalty for refusing the serve in the IDF is around 1-2 months of prison time. For the people who refuse to engage in ethnic cleansing, doing 30-60 days of prison time instead is far far more ethical
Lol, okay. Whatever you say. 10/7 happened and Israel had a right to defend itself. Netanyahu has DEFINITELY gone way too far at this point, but that's another discussion. The response to Arabs trying (once again) to ethnically cleanse Jews, whereby Gaza wasn't completely wiped off the map (which would have been VERY EASY), is proof that this wasn't an "ethnic cleansing". At least, it wasn't at the beginning. It sure does seem to be turning into one though, thanks largely to folks like you who enabled the rise of Trump by witholding your votes over "Genocide Joe". LOL
Whatever, I don't even care. The leopards have many faces to eat, and such little time.
Jesus, what a way to justify generations of Settler Colonialism, Apartheid, and Ethnic Cleansing. Well at least you think genocide is "too far," I'd fucking hope so.
Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing and has never stopped being an Apartheid. Zionism has always been a fascist ideology. Zionism is not Judaism. The leaders of other Arab or Muslim nations do not represent Palestine or Palestinians. There is no point to conflate either of those other than to justify Israel's Settler Colonialism. Land grabbing is antithetical to peace. Peace requires the end of the Apartheid. Unless the violence of supremacy and Settler-Colonialism ends, anti-colonialist violence is inevitable as people fight by any means possible for their survival, humanity, and human rights.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities - Simha Flapan
10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book
Ethnic Cleansing prior to 1948:
- Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.
Planned occupation and the beginnings of systemic apartheid:
Israel Martial Law and Defence (Emergency) Regulations practiced in the occupied territories after 1967
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades.
Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
(Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ).
The settlements have created hundreds of isolated bantustans within the West Bank, preventing any two-state solution that may have been possible before the Israeli occupation in 1967
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Historian Works on the History
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
To everyone not reading this article: "working along side IDF soldiers" in this case means being a student at a university where one professor had volunteered for a short stint to be a medic for the IDF (because, you know, Oct 7 happened)
She got suspended because she outed him (though not by name directly) in an interview and opened him up to possible harassment. The suspension is questionable and we can debate the limits of free speech in this case.
BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.
save