They were accused of being auti-semites for criticizing Isreael, despite the fact that some of the protestors who are part of the movement are Jewish themselves.
People like you are the problem. All this pointless violence and you just want more.
You think the pro Palestinian progressives in this country would shoot them if they had issued a statement criticizing Hamas?
Freedom of speech is strictly to prevent the government from harassing you. It has nothing to do with private entities. This is why you can lose your job for saying racist shit, or be persecuted if you say something your college doesn’t like.
While that is true in the legal sense, there has also been a historical expectation (more so than reality) that universities were also meant to be bastions of free speech. And irrespective of legal protections, it is entirely reasonable for people to still be upset that other entities disregard it. Especially in cases where there are potential lifelong consequences for the people involved.
More the case with public universities than private.
Not like the Ivy League has been known for their acceptance of criticism against their policies that wall off social advancement.
My dad had a fellowship at Harvard that he got kicked out of for not being supportive of Israel. This was decades ago, but that's how deeply rooted this shit is
Wasn't Harvard very antisemitic before world war 2?
This particular instance would have been about 30-40 years ago
If they were advocating, hypothetically, for the wiping out of Gaza, I'd have no problem with them being blacklist. I certainly wouldn't knowingly hire someone openly arguing for genocide to unclog my sink, much less for some corporate job.
I don't see what free speech has to do with that. Freedom of speech and association are a thing for all parties.
Companies who blacklist people for signing that letter should be named and shamed/boycotted.
They aren't being attacked for what they said, they are being slandered as terrorists sympathizers by a media and public that has not interest in critical thinking.
As of 2021, 35 states have passed bills and executive orders designed to discourage boycotts of Israel. Many of them have been passed with broad bipartisan support. Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel.
Harvard is a private institution so the first amendment doesn’t apply.
Stop taking away the freedom of speech of those who believe “freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences” by punishing them with your disagreement!
Then are you suggesting I should be compelled to consume your products or media to avoid punishing you for your bad opinion?
Criticizing Israel has become so difficult.
First you get the anti-Semite thing.
But ignoring that, you get the whataboutism regarding Hamas and other terrorists. “You’re criticizing Israel? What about the terrorists? Do you also criticize them?”
But here’s the thing with that. Israel is the only functioning adult in the conflict. The Palestinians are so ground down and disenfranchised that you cannot even hope for positive change from them. Their culture has degenerated into an entirely tribal jihad rage, and their leadership structure is the product of a pure jungle. Have arms? Have numbers? Have foreign money? Then you can be a leader.
If you want to have a discussion about morals, the only entity you can even talk with is Israel.
So really, by bothering to criticize Israel( you are elevating it to the status of an entity you can dialogue with and hope for better things from.
I don’t want to dehumanize the Palestinians and say they’re like animals you can’t reason with. What I’m saying is that their leadership structure has devolved into warlord factionalism, and that game plays by its own rules, period. They’re not even trying to be a member of the world community anymore. They are also so manipulated by and dependent on sponsors in the region that much of what they do is motivated by outside agendas. And those sponsors driving their proxy wars aren’t even in the room for you to negotiate with or criticize.
I am having a lot of trouble with this article.
Nothing seems to show the name of an author or editor to confirm that they verified this letter is actually from a Harvard Employee. Let alone what type of employee (Faculty, admin, adjunct, etc) which I think matters when considering an open letter and a person's expertise.
This article ends with self promotion of the website: "Lastly, to students, staff and faculty at Harvard and beyond: I have found the articles and statements published on the WSWS to be unparalleled in their political analysis and clarity. I urge you to consider the WSWS’s socialist perspective of uniting Jewish and Arab workers, and workers everywhere, against the capitalist nation-state system that has ultimately wrought this conflict. The following would be an excellent start"
This should not be upvoted and I question whether this violates the rules of this community and should be removed for:
"Israel is entirely to blame for this" is a completely different statement from "Israel's actions have led to this tragedy". Because, personally, I put the entire blame on the actual murderers. Geopolitically Israel created the conditions where the terrorists would emerge, but it's still the terrorists fault for commiting terrorism.
It's incredibly disappointing that college students at Harvard are incapable of grasping this nuance. It's also incredibly disappointing that Harvard's administration does not grasp this nuance, and used it as a teachable moment -- and also used it as a moment to tell the far right to fuck off.
Criticizing the Israeli State of Apartheid is welcome.
“the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,”
A patently false statement, loaded with implications.
Netanyahu and his political allies assassinated Israeli pm Rabin and stalled out the nearly completed peace talks in the mid 90s. Then they funded Hamas to oppose the secular organization in Palestine named Fatah, the other that had gotten the closest to peace when negotiating with Rabin.
Right wing zionists in Israel literally created the background setting for shit like this to happen. It’s entirely accurate. You just have been primed to associate criticism with bigotry.
It’s been demonstrated that Netanyahu has actively sabotaged peace over decades because it benefits him politically for there to be conflict.
That's ironic since this conflict is tanking him politically for it happening in the first place. But even if your statement is true, that is does not change that is is false to state “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence."
Nobody said it was a smart strategy, just that it was his strategy
To a racist exterminationist, picking your main enemy to represent your "other" as rabid religious fundamentalist terrorists is a pretty solid choice.
Problem is that the security security security rhetoric worked a little too well as a dog whistle and now Israelis are turning on him because the attack he has wanted to provoke all along turned out to look more contradictory to security than like an opportunity to rally around the flag.
It'd be like if all those conspiracy theories about Roosevelt letting Pearl Harbor happen were actually more or less true.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying it's ironic. I don't understand how folks are reading into this as being a statement of for or against any position. It's just pointing out that there is going to be reckoning for this attack (which a lot of new sources have alluded to from interviews with other officials). So it is ironic that a guy who allegedly sabotaged peace to hang onto power will end up having it be his downfall to lose power. That is ironic. I am not saying it is either good or bad, or justifiable or unjustifiable. Just ironic.
He wanted conflict, not an attack on home soil.
That doesn't make it unironic.
This isn’t being objected to on the grounds of freedom of speech purism. So your tired little catchphrase isn’t even applicable here. No, the question is what should the consequences actually be for this speech? Jesus. Get it right.
Indeed, if it is not objectionable, there should be no punishment, in which case if they could trust this there would be no issue with them signing their names to their statement.
You are right, they likely do not sign their names because they fear retribution. In other words: They do not trust that there will be no punishment. The demands to unmask them show that this risk is real. It does not follow from this that this is something that warrants punishment.
See how that works: Someone can believe - whether or not they are right - that there is nothing in it warranting punishment, and at the same time believe that there will be punishment anyway.
That is a logically consistent position to hold, and sufficient to warrant not disclosing their names, and so it is not valid to try to infer from this that they belief that they've done something wrong, nor is it reasonable to expect everyone who believes in a cause to consider it so important to them personally that they are willing to risk their future careers over it.
Unless you yourself have taken greater risks in the name of this cause, you have no basis for demanding of them risks you are unwilling to take yourself.
LOL you think your logic is so watertight that disagreeing with you can only be bad faith or trolling. I’ll explain this again slowly.
We can allow that it’s fair to have consequences but also ask whether the consequences are appropriate and proportional. I said the question is what should the consequences be. The consequences right now are censure and sanction: economic retribution, as you put it. That’s allowed under the law and all, but totally chilling for a learning institution, because there is a legitimate humanitarian case to be made for Palestinian freedom.
AND SO:
There are negative consequences for supporting Palestinians.
There should not be negative consequences for supporting Palestinians.
Not out of free speech absolutism, but because Palestinian support is not tantamount to racist terrorism.
People are getting Nazi-level consequences for saying that an organized military shouldn’t be attacking a civilian town.
So let’s turn to another question: can you follow this or can’t you? It’s not looking good…
Anonymous speech is valid speech. There is no requirement for what you say, moral or ethical.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
lol now take on Neo Nazis and note how your opinion suddenly shifts
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Is that a thing? Where did freedom of speech go?
save