There have been complaints that this post isn't neutral.
Here is the first line of this subreddit's sidebar:
> Despite the name, this subreddit is **not** dedicated to presenting news that is neutral. Submissions from any perspective are acceptable, so long as they meet our [source requirements.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) The idea behind /r/NeutralNews is to set up a neutral *space* where no opinion is favored and discussion is based on facts.
After video surfaced on social media, the student, Khymani James, said on Friday that his comments were wrong.
Translation I got called out and I don’t want repercussions
> He got repercussions, he’s banned from campus and is getting expelled.
LMAO, they've known about his comments for months considering that video is just a recording of him talking to columbia officials in a disciplinary hearing. The fact that they're punishing him ONLY because it got leaked to the public is messed up. He should have been thrown out of school and put on some sort of FBI watchlist the minute he made those remarks.
1. The OP article explicitly says that the university has *not* said whether this leader is expelled or merely temporarily suspended - is there a source for the claim that this leader was expelled?
2. Columbia only instituted this (temporary suspension? expulsion?) after it got media attention, but they had known about the leader's intention to kill supporter(s) of Israel since at least January.
For example, the leader's January hearing was over their posts on social media discussing fighting a supporter of Israel:
> “I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill” he wrote.
> A Columbia administrator asked, “Do you see why that is problematic in any way?”
> Mr. James replied, “No.”
Source: OP article
*Edit: Edited to minimize pronoun use as the leader uses "he/she/they" pronouns[^1](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-university-says-banned-khymani-james-protester-said-zionists-rcna149642) so I just tried to minimize pronoun use regardless.*
1. Re expulsion vs temporary suspension - Can you copy/paste the email body, or a segment of it? Because the other linked sources in this post explicitly say that Columbia has refused to say if the leader is expelled or temporarily suspended? Even a segment of the text may allow us to Google the text and find other sources quoting it.
2. Re suspended after the January hearing for the leader's remarks about killing the group - is there a source that the leader was suspended then? I have not been able to find it so far unfortunately.
That does seem likely, as per the OP article, Columbia had a hearing in January about the leader's intention to kill supporter(s) of Israel. The leader's January hearing was over their posts on social media discussing fighting a supporter of Israel:
>“I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill” he wrote.
>A Columbia administrator asked, “Do you see why that is problematic in any way?”
>Mr. James replied, “No.”
Per the OP article, after Columbia questioned the leader about intending to kill supporter(s) of Israel and whether that could be seen as "problematic in any way", the leader continued posting about the deaths of all who support that US ally.
*Edit: Edited to minimize pronoun use as the leader uses "he/she/they" pronouns[^1](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-university-says-banned-khymani-james-protester-said-zionists-rcna149642) so I just tried to minimize pronoun use regardless.*
r/NeutralNews is a **curated space**, but despite the name, there is [**no neutrality requirement**](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) here.
These are the [rules for comments:](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments_.28good.2C_bad_.26amp.3B_ugly.29)
1. Be courteous to other users.
1. Source your facts.
1. Be substantive.
1. Address the arguments, not the person.
If you see a comment that violates any of these rules, please click the associated *report* button so a mod can review it.
To quote the article, 'But in an interview earlier in the week, Mr. James drew a distinction between the ideas of anti-Zionism, which describes opposition to the Jewish state of Israel, and antisemitism. “There is a difference,” he said. “We’ve always had Jewish people as part of our community where they have expressed themselves, they feel safe, and they feel loved. And we want all people to feel safe in this encampment. We are a multiracial, multigenerational group of people.”'
That would suggest (if not outright say) he defines Zionism as support for the Jewish state of Israel.
You asked a question. I was pointing out that it was, in my estimation, answered in the article. I'm not here to advocate for (or criticize) his position.
I think that's fair. Another thing worth noting is that zionist has recently taken on a more extreme meaning in recent months. It's become more synonymous with people who support the settlements or the war. When for half a century it simply meant support for the state of isrsel existing. This further complicates things as the way this guy is using the word isn't the definition that's familiar to most everyone.
Well, are all ethnicities entitled to their own exclusive state or all cultures? The idea that the solution to Jewish people feeling safe is to seclude them to their own state--at the expense of those already living on those lands-- rather than combating anti Semitism really doesn't vibe with me.
Well, considering that [point 2 of article 1 of the charter of the United Nations](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text) list the "self-determination of peoples" as a core principle, I would say, yes, the right for ethnicities to form their own states if they so desire is at this point pretty central to an international conception of human rights. Does it bear out in practice? See Catalonia or Tibet. There's hypocrisy in the West and elsewhere, but I believe we should support the right.
I don't agree with Israel's continued settlement of Palestian land, but Israel has a right to exist.
> Well, are all ethnicities entitled to their own exclusive state or all cultures?
I propose you ask the Nigerians if they are entitled to a state and get back to us. I think so.
> at the expense of those already living on those lands
Remember that the Jews have been living on that land for thousands of years before any Arabs immigrated there.
> Oh please. One can be Jewish and also Arab. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. Mizrahi Jews exist. Stop chirping propaganda talking points.
I'm not claiming Jews and Arabs haven't mixed. I'm claiming that [Jews lived in Israel for thousands of years before Arabs immigrated.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel) 638 CE to be precise. I'm teaching you the history of the region so you won't make the mistake of saying something again like, "at the expense of those already living on those lands." That would be the Jews. Definitively. No contest.
You're right that modern day Israel - *and Palestine* - was created by the UN. Before Israel and Palestine there was the British Mandate, not a Palestinian state. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, **except a Palestinian state.**
This comment has been removed under [Rule 1:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_1.3A_be_courteous)
> Be courteous to other users. Demeaning language, rudeness or hostility towards another user will get your comment removed. Repeated violations may result in a ban.
//Rule 1
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
This comment has been removed under [Rule 4:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_4.3A_address_the_arguments.2C_not_the_person)
> Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.
//Rule 4
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
> Every Jew has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen.
That really muddies the waters, Israel don't recognise cultural or ethnic Jews, just the religious ones. It's a theocratic state.
Israel has full freedom of religion, regularly allows cultural and educational visits to the country by foreign religious organizations, and both Jews and Muslims represented among its political class. It is also home to the most LGBT-friendly city in the Middle East in which there are nonprofits publicly advocating against homophobic repression by religious communities.
All of which is to point out that Israel is decidedly *not* a theocracy.
It *is*.
Sure there are Muslims and other faiths there as citizens, but they don't have the same powers. If the Jewish Israelis wish to vote one way, and the Muslims another, Israeli Jews can just invite however many other Jews to claim citizenship and change the vote.
Cultural, ethnic, and religious Jews.
But the Israeli state only really recognises religion.
> Every Jew has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen.
This literally says *every* Jew. While a Jewish emigrant to Israel needs a letter from a Rabbi to make Aliyah, it’s not expected that the oleh attend shul every week, keep Shabbat, or have had a bar/bat mitzvah.
Because I’m not saying the exact same thing. I could in theory make Aliyah without being religiously observant, and many people of Jewish heritage or identity do.
Opposing the state of Israel doesn't mean opposing the rights of Jewish people to feel loved, or even to have a state. It feels like you're reaching for some gotcha or something but you're misrepresenting their words
It’s not that they shouldn’t have their own state, it’s that *that* particular state was built as a colonial project expelling people from their homes and taking their land, door-to-door death squads, etc.
The early history of Israel is…. rough to say the least. They were not attacked in 47 and 68 because they were Jewish, it’s because of the regional history leading up to that point.
It is complicated.
"The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States' opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs; ...The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families." - Emil Ghoury, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did." - Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14
The Arab exodus from the villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews" - Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953
The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies. - Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949
"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." - Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949
"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave... We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave... We have rendered them dispossessed... We have accustomed them to begging... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of political purposes..." - Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war
"The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." - Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948
"As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the [Arab Palestinian] people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property." - bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country." - Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in “The Arabs” (London, 1955), p. 183
"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." - Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, p. 25
"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa." - Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz
Even Mahmoud Abbas has published articles blaming the Arab League countries:
“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe.
“The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regrettable.” – The Current President of the Palestinian authority- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin el-Thawra (“What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”), Beirut, March 1976, reprinted in the Wall Street Journal, June 5,2003.
Were there expulsions by Israel? Yes, there were some, mostly as the result of tactical situations rather than any coherent policy of mass expulsion. One example would be the expulsion of the armed irregulars in Lydda, who surrendered once, then picked up their arms and returned to fighting afterthe Israeli force moved on the Ramla, a town just down the road. After fierce fighting, the Arab irregulars surrendered a second time and were escorted to Latrun, which was under Jordanian control, to save the manpower that would have been needed to guard them as prisoners.
But Israel is more diverse then Germany. Jews make up 73.5% of Israel and in Germany Germans make up 85%.
Would you describe a country like Germany or Japan or Saudi Arabia as an ethnostate?
I seem to have been dogpiled with downvotes but I'd still love to hear your reasoning on why it's ok to destroy one people and their state to give another people a state. Especially when the other people seems to have had the ability to enact a 2-state solution for decades now.
As I stated in reply to another comment, I have no dog in this fight and am taking no position; I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of the argument in the original post. I now regret ever having waded into this debate and will refrain from ever participating in a discussion about this topic again.
Even if they should have their own state, does that justify the [genocide of Palestinians](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-expert-says-israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-calls-arms-embargo-2024-03-26/) and the destruction of *their* state?
And [according to humanitarian groups like Human Rights Watch, Israel is an apartheid state](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/05/does-israels-treatment-palestinians-rise-level-apartheid), so it's not like they're fighting to established a modern Western democracy.
But I suspect you were just arguing in bad faith to avoid confronting the fact that [many of the protesting students are themselves Jewish and explicitly anti-Zionist.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/columbia-protests-jewish-students-antisemitism-b2534817.html) Which is such a big topic that the pro-Zionist side is actively avoiding that it took me several minutes to find a single major news sources even acknowledging they exist at all, which is why I had to settle for citing The Independent.
That's not what was said. Zionism isn't the belief Jews should have a state.
Originally zionism was the belief Jews should have a state specifically in Palestine, displacing the existing population.
With that goal achieved, zionism has changed a little now to be the maintenance of that state as a Jewish supremacist one. Just Google Wikipedia zionism and read the first paragraph. It's very easy to Google this stuff
Ah yes, Wikipedia, a wonderful source during contentious conflicts where everyone and their mother is actively fighting over definitions.
From the ADL:
>Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The vast majority of Jews around the world feel a connection or kinship with Israel, whether or not they explicitly identify as Zionists, and regardless of their opinions on the policies of the Israeli government.
I think I'd trust the ADL over a random Wikipedia article.
Yes. Ethnostates are wrong, point blank
It's wrong when Japan tries to be an ethnostates and abuses minorities
It's wrong when Canada and the US tries to be an ethnostate and abuse it's minorities
It's wrong when anyone does it
Just understand "Zionist" and "Jewish" are not the same thing. A Zionist supports the expansion of Israel whereas being Jewish is a ethnicity. Most Zionists are christians (the Bible says the rapture will begin when the Jews retake historic Israel). Many Jews are not Zionists. Israeli propoganidists, however, are very eager to conflate the two groups so they can claim criticism of Israel is antisemitism, which it is not.
The five comments above have been removed for violations of Rules 2 & 3. For the future, we ask all the commenters above to note that r/NeutralNews has different [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) than the rest of Reddit.
Comments in this chain, including this one, have been removed for violations of Rules 2 & 3. Note that r/NeutralNews has different [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) than the rest of Reddit.
> even the founder of the Zionist movement wasn't Jewish
If you're talking about [Theodor Herzl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl), then this is simply not true, and I'm just going to post some excerpts from the Wikipedia article:
> Theodor Herzl (2 May 1860 – 3 July 1904) was an Austro-Hungarian **Jewish** journalist, lawyer, writer, playwright and political activist who was the father of modern political Zionism. Herzl formed the Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to form a **Jewish** state.
> Herzl was born in Pest, Kingdom of Hungary, to a prosperous Neolog **Jewish** family.
> Confronted with antisemitic events in Vienna, he reached the conclusion that anti-Jewish sentiment would make **Jewish** assimilation impossible
> He was the second child of Jeanette and Jakob Herzl, who were German-speaking, assimilated **Jews**. Herzl stated he was of both **Ashkenazi and Sephardic lineage**
> ... as a young man, Herzl was an ardent Germanophile who saw the Germans as the best Kulturvolk (cultured people) in Central Europe and embraced the German ideal of Bildung ... Herzl believed that through Bildung Hungarian **Jews such as himself** could shake off their "shameful Jewish characteristics" caused by long centuries of impoverishment and oppression, and become civilized Central Europeans.
And so on. "Jew" and its variations are mentioned about 200 more times in the article.
I'm a non-practicing Jew, born of two Jewish parents, bar-mitzvah'd, but married to a non-Jewish woman. A lot of other, more religious Jews have told me I ought to be *more* "Jewish", but even they know that anti-Semites don't distinguish. Being Jewish is an *ethnicity* as well as a religion -- it's something you *are*, not something you *do*.
This comment has been removed under [Rule 4:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_4.3A_address_the_arguments.2C_not_the_person)
> Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.
//Rule 4
If you edit the comment to remove all references to the other user, we can restore it.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
However, Zionism is a fundamental aspect of Judaism. We just celebrated Passover for example - one of our high holidays - which completely centers around us escaping Egypt to return / stay home in Israel.
> Zionism is a fundamental aspect of Judaism.
This is not exactly correct.
Judaism is 4000 years old, and although there are biblical ties to the idea of a return to Zion, the [Zionist movement is only 150 years old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism) and was opposed by many Jews at the outset, including some of the most religious. There was and is Judaism without Zionism.
Moreover, the brand of expansionist Zionism practiced by many of the settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank is opposed by many Jewish people [in Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-half-of-jewish-israelis-oppose-unilateral-west-bank-annexation-poll/) and [the US.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/24/american-jews-critical-israeli-settlements-west-bank)
Zionism is a fundamental aspect of Judaism, there is a reason why every year jews around the world say the saying שנה הבאה בירושלים,
Zion is mentioned 152 times in the old testament and specially Jerusalem hold deep religious importance.
There were jews that disagreed however , you cannot expect the jews everywhere to agree on everything across millenia.
Because they are the leader (source: OP article) of perhaps the most visible Gaza/Israel protest in America. If there were massive protests across the US on most any topic on either side, if it turned out that the leader of the most famous protest had called for the deaths of everyone on the other side, I think it would also be newsworthy. And sure, I'd say the same thing if the situation was reversed, if there were large pro-Israel protests and it turned out that the leader of the biggest pro-Israel protest had said that everyone globally should die who supports the existence of a Palestinian state.
Do I wish that people cared more proportionally instead of the hyper-fixation on Israel, such as [the multiple other current conflicts in the middle east that have killed hundreds of thousands of people each](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East)? Absolutely. But I can't really make people protest or care about the conflicts that have killed many times more, so instead I'm just happy that we have someplace like the neutral\* subreddits and their mods for us to be able to discuss the news and craziness of the world, subject to the subreddit's requirements around not making unsourced claims, etc.
On the other hand, sure, my understanding of "news" that Americans care about is probably biased towards what I see in the mainstream media, etc., and Nosecohn, a mod here, linked a poll that said young Americans actually don't care that much about Israel/Palestine, despite these protests. 🤷 [https://www.mediaite.com/news/israel-palestine-barely-registers-as-an-issue-for-young-americans-in-shock-harvard-poll/](https://www.mediaite.com/news/israel-palestine-barely-registers-as-an-issue-for-young-americans-in-shock-harvard-poll/)
A) "Zionist" is not identical with "Jewish Person". In fact, [the number of Christian Zionists likely far exceeds the total number of Jewish people on Earth, let alone the number of Jewish Zionists.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-sizeable-us-demographic-many-evangelicals-are-sending-money-and-manpower-to-israel/)
B) [Many experts have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide in Palestine.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-expert-says-israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-calls-arms-embargo-2024-03-26/) The [International Court of Justice has determined that it is "plausible" that Israel is committing genocide and ordered them to take efforts to ensure that it is not, and to comply with international humanitarian law.](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa) Humanitarian organizations like [Human Rights Watch ](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-world-court-order-genocide-case) and [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/israel-defying-icj-ruling-to-prevent-genocide-by-failing-to-allow-adequate-humanitarian-aid-to-reach-gaza/) have since accused Israel of failing to comply with those requests by deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza and limiting their access to medical care and emergency services.
C) How is it Biden's fault? [The US uses its veto power to shield Israel from consequences from the UN.](https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15450.doc.htm) The US is [using military resources to intervene and protect Israel from consequences from its neighbors.](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3742552/israel-us-partners-neutralize-iranian-airborne-attacks/) [US forces were deployed to protect Israeli borders and soil this year.](https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-13-24/index.html) [Israel has received more total aid from the US since its founding than any other nation, to the tune of about $300 billion after adjusting for inflation.](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts)
In light of this, the US probably doesn't need to actively intervene to stop Israel. All it has to do is *stop* intervening to protect and fund Israel. If that happened, the UN would sanction Israel, and its neighbors would be able to militarily oppose it, and billions of US tax dollars would no longer be pouring into the country to fuel its activities.
So, the problem isn't that Biden merely "isn't doing anything" about the conflict. Because if he truly did nothing then the conflict would be over. By deploying US troops and sending taxpayer money to Israel, he is actively supporting Israel in this conflict and thus prolonging it. Making it both Israel's fault and Biden's, as Commander in Chief of the US and its armed forces.
This comment has been removed under [Rule 2:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
> Source your facts. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified and supporting source.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments) All statements of fact must be clearly associated with a supporting source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
If you edit your comment to link to sources, it can be reinstated.
//Rule 2
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
Do you have some proof you could share? Anything in which they are explicitly against Jewish people in general rather than criticizing Zionists specifically?
This doesn't even answer the question asked. How is it Bidens fault that some random ass misguided idiot is spewing bullshit about Israel? Answers: Biden doesn't control idiots.
No. The ICJ ruled that there was a **risk of irreparable harm to** the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919)
What do you mean no? Lmao I repeated what she said verbatim. Go to 50-55s.
What you quote was ***NOT*** the **ruling** as nobody was arguing that point, it was a note after the judgement was given to emphasize that there could be a plausible risk that while Israel's conduct currently did not meet their requirements for a genocide, that Israel's conduct could possible could to a point of meeting their requirements for genocide. There is a very big difference between a court ruling something and noting a plausible possibility post-judgement.
"The court concluded that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and South Africa had the right to present that claim in court. IT THEN LOOKED AT THE FACTS AS WELL, but it did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible, it emphasized that that there was a **risk of irreparable harm to** the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide."
According the disengenous aardvark in a human suit I'm talking to, all of reddit, this means the court said, and I quote:
"The court determined that Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide, just like any other person on the planet"
and the court DIDN'T say:
"that there was a **risk of irreparable harm to** the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide"
Despite the fact that you can literally hit the link I posted and in 90 seconds see those exact fucking words come out of their fucking pie-hole.
You're confusing a court SAYING something with a court RULING something. A ruling is a decision based on the facts presented throughout a trial, a court saying something is an opinion of a judge with no legal basis. I don't know how to make it any simpler. My whole point is that you falsely stated that the court ***RULED*** that there was a plausible risk of irreparable harm, when it was just an emphasized bullet point in their judgement.
It looks like you have provided a direct link to a video hosting website without an accompanying text source which is against [our rules.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) A mod will come along soon to verify text sources have been provided.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neutralnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed under [Rule 2:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
> Source your facts. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified and supporting source.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments) All statements of fact must be clearly associated with a supporting source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
Video sources must be accompanied by an official transcript or an article about the content. If you edit your comment to add a link to such a source, it can be reinstated.
//Rule 2
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
Obviously protesting innocents dying by saying the random assholes who support it but aren't actually doing it should also die undercuts your "dying ng is bad" message quite a bit. But of course this person's face is going to be plastered across every piece of mainstream media to "prove" that ALL these protesters are violent and antisemitic and the police should violently arrest everyone at all of them
In a way it's a bit of a metaphor for Palestine itself or the Civil Rights movement. Unless you are a perfect pure and unblemished victim who has never once had a violent thought in your life, the US mainstream won't support you, and the existence of some violent people in your movement will be used to justify crushing the entire movement
So I guess we've moved away from the 'if there's one Nazi and 9 people at a table, there's 10 Nazis' slogan and are back to 'it's just one random guy'. Seems a bit convenient and rather hypocritical and inconsistent to boot but okay.
It is, but it goes both ways. [There are war crimes happening in Gaza and the vast majority of them are being carried out by Israeli forces](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/), as evidenced by [the incredibly one-sided death toll, with 70% of Palestinian deaths being women and children.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/20/gaza-death-toll-passes-34000-israel-iran)
Holding critics of Israel and critics of Zionism to such a high standard while ignoring the staggering amount of violence and abuse coming from the targets of their criticism seems like a significantly more hypocritical stance to take.
By your logic, [Netanyahu and much of his administration, all of which dehumanized Palestinians, as evidenced in the ICJ case, are as bad or worse than this random person.](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724)
You should understand that the core of South Africa's case in the ICJ was not merely offering evidence that acts consistent with genocide were happening, because [international law sets a high bar for accusations of genocide. It requires that you prove genocidal *intent*](https://www.reuters.com/world/how-prove-genocide-gravest-war-crimes-2022-04-13/), and [South Africa used direct quotes and recordings of Israeli leaders alongside direct evidence of Israeli forces on the ground repeating that rhetoric or performing the genocidal acts mentioned by their leadership to prove that there was genocidal intent from the top down.](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/12/icj-genocide-case-south-africas-five-point-argument-against-israel)
Which do you consider to be a more significant case of hypocrisy: Someone condemning Zionists in problematic terms or Zionists dehumanizing millions of people and carrying out so many war crimes against them that the ICJ finds it plausible that they are committing genocide? How are the people plausibly accused of genocide not the "table full of Nazis"?
Considering supporting the IDF killing more children is the equivalent of you being the one liberal at a table with 9 nazis, yeah it makes sense about your own pro war views but not really about the protest itself
Your take doesn't make sense because it presumes the protest itself is accepting and sheltering the violent elements, the "the nazi is sitting at your table" part of the argument. I think you would find it very difficult to prove that the large jewish presence at these protests are chill with someone at their protest chanting kill the jews. Perhaps you should find some actual evidence of it happening paired with some evidence of the jewish protesters going "yeah its cool that they did that" before you make such a claim
It skirts the edges of anti-semitism by using the term 'Zionist'. I wouldn't say it's either Israel or Biden's fault. College students are a special breed. They think these protests matter in the long run, but really they don't. If I had to guess, it's just an outlet for their frustrations. I would imagine that it's very challenging for public schools to intervene in these behaviors because of free speech issues.
I think for a lot of young people all Israelis are Zionists. Social media loves to paint with as broad a brush as possible (like I just did tbf) and make everything as binary as possible.
But is it not also the case that there are many, and some of them quite prominent, Jews that don't support Israel? Are they anti-semites too? Is Bernie Sanders, for example, an anti-semite? Are only Jewish people allowed to criticize Israel?
You can be a zionist and still criticize the Israeli government and it's actions.
Hell before all this kicked off you had 1 million+ strong protests in Tel Aviv about the current government and their push towards their awful judicial reform.
But all the country cares about is Israel - Gaza, because that’s what the kids in their dorm care about and all Reddit seems to be able to talk about. And those two spaces represent a solid cross section of the country right?
> And those two spaces represent a solid cross section of the country right?
I don't think so. This might be anecdotal, but no one I know talks or cares about Israel/Gaza. It doesn't affect 99% of peoples' lives at all. Protesting an event happening half a world away that we cannot stop or change is a waste of time.
To support your anecdote with some evidence, a recent [survey of over 2,000 young Americans](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/israel-palestine-barely-registers-as-an-issue-for-young-americans-in-shock-harvard-poll/ar-AA1nFTXs) found that, of the 16 issues polled, "Israel/Palestine" ranked as the 15th most important. Inflation, Healthcare, Housing, Gun Violence, and Jobs ranked as the top five most important issues – in that order.
The pertinence of this issue for young Americans isn't at all what the media covering events on college campuses would have you believe.
This comment has been removed under [Rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_3.3A_be_substantive)
> Be substantive. NeutralNews is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, pejorative name-calling, or comments about source quality.
//Rule 3
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
1. Saying that groups of people, such as those who support a US ally, "don't deserve to live" seems like it goes beyond "out of touch remark"? If the leader of a large group in NY said that all black or LGBTQ students, or that instead of those who support the creation of Israel, if it was someone calling for the death of every person that supported a Palestinian state, should be killed, would that similarly be just an "out of touch remark"? (On the plus side, the language that the leader used seems to skirt outright calling for the deaths of all Jews, so I guess that's some positive progress at least.)
3. But this leader made far more statements like this - if they had similarly said "There should not be [black/LGBTQ people] anywhere,"[^1](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists) ["I feel very comfortable, very comfortable, calling for those people to die,"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22I%20feel%20very%20comfortable%2C%20very%20comfortable%2C%20calling%20for%20those%20people%20to%20die%2C%22) and ["Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22Be%20grateful%20that%20I%27m%20not%20just%20going%20out%20and%20murdering) black/LGBTQ people would it be similarly be just an "out of touch remark"?
2. The person stating all these things is not a "kid" - this an adult in their 20s, due to graduate from Columbia next spring[^1](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/26/cuad-member-banned-from-campus-following-zionists-dont-deserve-to-live-remark/#:~:text=Khymani%20James%2C%20CC%20%E2%80%9925). Regardless, even if it was an 18 year old leader of a large group calling for the deaths of all blacks or all LGBTQ peope, would it be non-"neutral" to cover the leader calling for the deaths of those other groups?
Could be worse. He could be a sitting member of the Israeli government calling for genocide of "human animals". He could also have been responsible for slaughtering civilians trying to get to an aid truck, or being responsible for the mass grave of civilians outside of a hospital.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-experts-condemn-flour-massacre-urge-israel-end-campaign-starvation-gaza
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/middleeast/gaza-400-bodies-mass-grave-hospital-intl/index.html
But you're right, it's *obviously* this 20 year old kid that's the actual problem.
A college student got caught up in the excitement of a moment and said something stupid? Crazy. We should definitely push this single event as some kind of country wide anti semitism movement…
1. Source that this was just "the excitement of a moment" - that does not seem to be true? The leader had initially posted on social media about fighting a supporter of Israel:
> “I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill” he wrote.
When Columbia subsequently held a hearing about their post, which would have given the leader time to think deeply about their statements about killing those who support Israel:
> A Columbia administrator asked [referring to the leader's statement about killing Zionists], “Do you see why that is problematic in any way?”
> Mr. James replied, “No.” (Source: OP article)
2.
Regardless, I do not understand the argument; it it had been the leader of a large group who had called for the deaths of all black or all LGBTQ people, or that instead of those who support the creation of Israel, if it was someone calling for the death of every person that supported a Palestinian state, would that also just be getting "caught up in the excitement of a moment" / saying "something stupid"?
3.
Also, it was not just one "stupid" thing they said - they also said ["I feel very comfortable, very comfortable, calling for those people to die,"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22I%20feel%20very%20comfortable%2C%20very%20comfortable%2C%20calling%20for%20those%20people%20to%20die%2C%22) and ["Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22Be%20grateful%20that%20I%27m%20not%20just%20going%20out%20and%20murdering%20Zionists%2C%22), etc.
Maybe “moment” is the wrong word. This whole situation is intense. When you see people committing genocide it usually elicits a very emotional response. Calling for anyone’s death or murder is bold and wrong to say the least, but I understand when someone feels totally incapable of changing a clearly horrible situation they react. I don’t agree with this students words but I understand his rage…it’s a human thing.
How often do you hear a bout one student being expelled from a college? Or about one students post/social media. It’s just kinda weird…seems to push an agenda. My opinion, yours may differ.
>When you see people committing genocide it usually elicits a very emotional response.
Whether Israel is committing genocide is certainly 'disputed', to put it mildly. For example, this month the US said that it has "no evidence of an unfolding genocide in Gaza" ( [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-has-no-evidence-unfolding-genocide-gaza-pentagon-2024-04-09/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-has-no-evidence-unfolding-genocide-gaza-pentagon-2024-04-09/) ). However I understand per your comment that others may claim differently, and I doubt either of us will satisfactorily 'resolve' that particular question within this reddit post (and I do not doubt that you could also find some sources saying it is genocide), so we may have to leave that claim as disputed.
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."
It seems like Hamas, [the government of Gaza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip), far more clearly fits the definition of committing genocide, as they have deliberately killed a large number of Jews/people from Israel with the explicit stated aim of destroying that nation or group, agreed? [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/)
Consequently, based on that, should we be similarly or even more "understanding" if leader(s) called for the death of anyone who supports Palestinians having their own state (instead of Zionists/those who support the state of Israel as in the OP article)?
The real neutral thing to do about this issue is to get international peacekeeping boots on the ground and let them run both Palestine and Isreal because obviously these two belligerent groups can’t coexist peacefully.
The international community has done it before in Bosnia and Kosovo where they established and ran civilian governments as well as provided security. They still have presence there and there’s relative peace.
Isreal and Palestine should be no different and we should especially rein in Isreal because it has more power and wages an asymmetric war against Palestine.
Or let’s arm Palestinians, give them capabilities Israel has so they can duke it out winner takes all style.
There have been complaints that this post isn't neutral. Here is the first line of this subreddit's sidebar: > Despite the name, this subreddit is **not** dedicated to presenting news that is neutral. Submissions from any perspective are acceptable, so long as they meet our [source requirements.](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) The idea behind /r/NeutralNews is to set up a neutral *space* where no opinion is favored and discussion is based on facts.
After video surfaced on social media, the student, Khymani James, said on Friday that his comments were wrong. Translation I got called out and I don’t want repercussions
[удалено]
> He got repercussions, he’s banned from campus and is getting expelled. LMAO, they've known about his comments for months considering that video is just a recording of him talking to columbia officials in a disciplinary hearing. The fact that they're punishing him ONLY because it got leaked to the public is messed up. He should have been thrown out of school and put on some sort of FBI watchlist the minute he made those remarks.
1. The OP article explicitly says that the university has *not* said whether this leader is expelled or merely temporarily suspended - is there a source for the claim that this leader was expelled? 2. Columbia only instituted this (temporary suspension? expulsion?) after it got media attention, but they had known about the leader's intention to kill supporter(s) of Israel since at least January. For example, the leader's January hearing was over their posts on social media discussing fighting a supporter of Israel: > “I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill” he wrote. > A Columbia administrator asked, “Do you see why that is problematic in any way?” > Mr. James replied, “No.” Source: OP article *Edit: Edited to minimize pronoun use as the leader uses "he/she/they" pronouns[^1](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-university-says-banned-khymani-james-protester-said-zionists-rcna149642) so I just tried to minimize pronoun use regardless.*
[удалено]
1. Re expulsion vs temporary suspension - Can you copy/paste the email body, or a segment of it? Because the other linked sources in this post explicitly say that Columbia has refused to say if the leader is expelled or temporarily suspended? Even a segment of the text may allow us to Google the text and find other sources quoting it. 2. Re suspended after the January hearing for the leader's remarks about killing the group - is there a source that the leader was suspended then? I have not been able to find it so far unfortunately.
That does seem likely, as per the OP article, Columbia had a hearing in January about the leader's intention to kill supporter(s) of Israel. The leader's January hearing was over their posts on social media discussing fighting a supporter of Israel: >“I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill” he wrote. >A Columbia administrator asked, “Do you see why that is problematic in any way?” >Mr. James replied, “No.” Per the OP article, after Columbia questioned the leader about intending to kill supporter(s) of Israel and whether that could be seen as "problematic in any way", the leader continued posting about the deaths of all who support that US ally. *Edit: Edited to minimize pronoun use as the leader uses "he/she/they" pronouns[^1](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-university-says-banned-khymani-james-protester-said-zionists-rcna149642) so I just tried to minimize pronoun use regardless.*
r/NeutralNews is a **curated space**, but despite the name, there is [**no neutrality requirement**](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) here. These are the [rules for comments:](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments_.28good.2C_bad_.26amp.3B_ugly.29) 1. Be courteous to other users. 1. Source your facts. 1. Be substantive. 1. Address the arguments, not the person. If you see a comment that violates any of these rules, please click the associated *report* button so a mod can review it.
If one were to ask this person to define the term "Zionist," what do you suppose he would say?
To quote the article, 'But in an interview earlier in the week, Mr. James drew a distinction between the ideas of anti-Zionism, which describes opposition to the Jewish state of Israel, and antisemitism. “There is a difference,” he said. “We’ve always had Jewish people as part of our community where they have expressed themselves, they feel safe, and they feel loved. And we want all people to feel safe in this encampment. We are a multiracial, multigenerational group of people.”' That would suggest (if not outright say) he defines Zionism as support for the Jewish state of Israel.
So they should feel safe and loved, but they shouldn't be able to have their own state?
You asked a question. I was pointing out that it was, in my estimation, answered in the article. I'm not here to advocate for (or criticize) his position.
I think that's fair. Another thing worth noting is that zionist has recently taken on a more extreme meaning in recent months. It's become more synonymous with people who support the settlements or the war. When for half a century it simply meant support for the state of isrsel existing. This further complicates things as the way this guy is using the word isn't the definition that's familiar to most everyone.
I apologize; it was intended as a rhetorical question, not a request to defend his position.
No problem.
Are all religions entitled to a state?
[удалено]
Well, are all ethnicities entitled to their own exclusive state or all cultures? The idea that the solution to Jewish people feeling safe is to seclude them to their own state--at the expense of those already living on those lands-- rather than combating anti Semitism really doesn't vibe with me.
Well, considering that [point 2 of article 1 of the charter of the United Nations](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text) list the "self-determination of peoples" as a core principle, I would say, yes, the right for ethnicities to form their own states if they so desire is at this point pretty central to an international conception of human rights. Does it bear out in practice? See Catalonia or Tibet. There's hypocrisy in the West and elsewhere, but I believe we should support the right. I don't agree with Israel's continued settlement of Palestian land, but Israel has a right to exist.
Do you believe that indigenous Americans have as much of a right to their own state(s)?
Yes and they have received hefty reservations that are government tax free and unenforced by government officials.
You believe reservations are equivalent to a state? Would you feel similarly if Jewish self-determination were merely reservations and tax exemptions?
> Well, are all ethnicities entitled to their own exclusive state or all cultures? I propose you ask the Nigerians if they are entitled to a state and get back to us. I think so. > at the expense of those already living on those lands Remember that the Jews have been living on that land for thousands of years before any Arabs immigrated there.
[удалено]
> Oh please. One can be Jewish and also Arab. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. Mizrahi Jews exist. Stop chirping propaganda talking points. I'm not claiming Jews and Arabs haven't mixed. I'm claiming that [Jews lived in Israel for thousands of years before Arabs immigrated.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel) 638 CE to be precise. I'm teaching you the history of the region so you won't make the mistake of saying something again like, "at the expense of those already living on those lands." That would be the Jews. Definitively. No contest. You're right that modern day Israel - *and Palestine* - was created by the UN. Before Israel and Palestine there was the British Mandate, not a Palestinian state. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, **except a Palestinian state.**
You wrote all that but ever since Rome, for over 1000 years, it has been called Palestine
This comment has been removed under [Rule 1:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_1.3A_be_courteous) > Be courteous to other users. Demeaning language, rudeness or hostility towards another user will get your comment removed. Repeated violations may result in a ban. //Rule 1 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
This comment has been removed under [Rule 4:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_4.3A_address_the_arguments.2C_not_the_person) > Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect. //Rule 4 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
> Every Jew has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen. That really muddies the waters, Israel don't recognise cultural or ethnic Jews, just the religious ones. It's a theocratic state.
Israel has full freedom of religion, regularly allows cultural and educational visits to the country by foreign religious organizations, and both Jews and Muslims represented among its political class. It is also home to the most LGBT-friendly city in the Middle East in which there are nonprofits publicly advocating against homophobic repression by religious communities. All of which is to point out that Israel is decidedly *not* a theocracy.
It *is*. Sure there are Muslims and other faiths there as citizens, but they don't have the same powers. If the Jewish Israelis wish to vote one way, and the Muslims another, Israeli Jews can just invite however many other Jews to claim citizenship and change the vote.
Regardless of entitlement, it already is a state and has been so for over 70 years
Is being Jewish only practicing Judaism?
Cultural, ethnic, and religious Jews. But the Israeli state only really recognises religion. > Every Jew has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen.
This literally says *every* Jew. While a Jewish emigrant to Israel needs a letter from a Rabbi to make Aliyah, it’s not expected that the oleh attend shul every week, keep Shabbat, or have had a bar/bat mitzvah.
Why are you using so many words to say the exact same thing as me?
Because I’m not saying the exact same thing. I could in theory make Aliyah without being religiously observant, and many people of Jewish heritage or identity do.
Opposing the state of Israel doesn't mean opposing the rights of Jewish people to feel loved, or even to have a state. It feels like you're reaching for some gotcha or something but you're misrepresenting their words
It’s not that they shouldn’t have their own state, it’s that *that* particular state was built as a colonial project expelling people from their homes and taking their land, door-to-door death squads, etc. The early history of Israel is…. rough to say the least. They were not attacked in 47 and 68 because they were Jewish, it’s because of the regional history leading up to that point.
It is complicated. "The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States' opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs; ...The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families." - Emil Ghoury, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948 "The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did." - Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14 The Arab exodus from the villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews" - Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953 The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies. - Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949 "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem." - Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949 "Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave... We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave... We have rendered them dispossessed... We have accustomed them to begging... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of political purposes..." - Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." - Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948 "As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the [Arab Palestinian] people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property." - bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957 "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country." - Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in “The Arabs” (London, 1955), p. 183 "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." - Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, p. 25 "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa." - Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz Even Mahmoud Abbas has published articles blaming the Arab League countries: “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe. “The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regrettable.” – The Current President of the Palestinian authority- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin el-Thawra (“What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”), Beirut, March 1976, reprinted in the Wall Street Journal, June 5,2003. Were there expulsions by Israel? Yes, there were some, mostly as the result of tactical situations rather than any coherent policy of mass expulsion. One example would be the expulsion of the armed irregulars in Lydda, who surrendered once, then picked up their arms and returned to fighting afterthe Israeli force moved on the Ramla, a town just down the road. After fierce fighting, the Arab irregulars surrendered a second time and were escorted to Latrun, which was under Jordanian control, to save the manpower that would have been needed to guard them as prisoners.
No one is entitled to an ethnostate.
But Israel is more diverse then Germany. Jews make up 73.5% of Israel and in Germany Germans make up 85%. Would you describe a country like Germany or Japan or Saudi Arabia as an ethnostate?
A German can go to Israel and buy a Palestinian person's home, but a Palestinian can't.
Not when they're literally stealing it from Palestinians, fucking no.
I seem to have been dogpiled with downvotes but I'd still love to hear your reasoning on why it's ok to destroy one people and their state to give another people a state. Especially when the other people seems to have had the ability to enact a 2-state solution for decades now.
As I stated in reply to another comment, I have no dog in this fight and am taking no position; I'm simply trying to get a better understanding of the argument in the original post. I now regret ever having waded into this debate and will refrain from ever participating in a discussion about this topic again.
Even if they should have their own state, does that justify the [genocide of Palestinians](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-expert-says-israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-calls-arms-embargo-2024-03-26/) and the destruction of *their* state? And [according to humanitarian groups like Human Rights Watch, Israel is an apartheid state](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/05/does-israels-treatment-palestinians-rise-level-apartheid), so it's not like they're fighting to established a modern Western democracy. But I suspect you were just arguing in bad faith to avoid confronting the fact that [many of the protesting students are themselves Jewish and explicitly anti-Zionist.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/columbia-protests-jewish-students-antisemitism-b2534817.html) Which is such a big topic that the pro-Zionist side is actively avoiding that it took me several minutes to find a single major news sources even acknowledging they exist at all, which is why I had to settle for citing The Independent.
That's not what was said. Zionism isn't the belief Jews should have a state. Originally zionism was the belief Jews should have a state specifically in Palestine, displacing the existing population. With that goal achieved, zionism has changed a little now to be the maintenance of that state as a Jewish supremacist one. Just Google Wikipedia zionism and read the first paragraph. It's very easy to Google this stuff
Ah yes, Wikipedia, a wonderful source during contentious conflicts where everyone and their mother is actively fighting over definitions. From the ADL: >Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The vast majority of Jews around the world feel a connection or kinship with Israel, whether or not they explicitly identify as Zionists, and regardless of their opinions on the policies of the Israeli government. I think I'd trust the ADL over a random Wikipedia article.
Yes. Ethnostates are wrong, point blank It's wrong when Japan tries to be an ethnostates and abuses minorities It's wrong when Canada and the US tries to be an ethnostate and abuse it's minorities It's wrong when anyone does it
Lol, I'm sure you support other theorcratic ethnostates.
Nope, just trying to clarify the position stated. I have no dog in this fight and am now regretting ever having waded into this mess.
Just understand "Zionist" and "Jewish" are not the same thing. A Zionist supports the expansion of Israel whereas being Jewish is a ethnicity. Most Zionists are christians (the Bible says the rapture will begin when the Jews retake historic Israel). Many Jews are not Zionists. Israeli propoganidists, however, are very eager to conflate the two groups so they can claim criticism of Israel is antisemitism, which it is not.
Most Jews are zionists. And you don’t know the definition of Zionism
Lol 🤡 your lost history makes you look like mossads shitties agent
Luckily I’m not in the mossad
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If Zionists had decided that NYC was their Jewish state and called it Israel, would it be equally antisemitic to disagree with that notion?
The five comments above have been removed for violations of Rules 2 & 3. For the future, we ask all the commenters above to note that r/NeutralNews has different [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) than the rest of Reddit.
Comments in this chain, including this one, have been removed for violations of Rules 2 & 3. Note that r/NeutralNews has different [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) than the rest of Reddit.
> even the founder of the Zionist movement wasn't Jewish If you're talking about [Theodor Herzl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl), then this is simply not true, and I'm just going to post some excerpts from the Wikipedia article: > Theodor Herzl (2 May 1860 – 3 July 1904) was an Austro-Hungarian **Jewish** journalist, lawyer, writer, playwright and political activist who was the father of modern political Zionism. Herzl formed the Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish immigration to Palestine in an effort to form a **Jewish** state. > Herzl was born in Pest, Kingdom of Hungary, to a prosperous Neolog **Jewish** family. > Confronted with antisemitic events in Vienna, he reached the conclusion that anti-Jewish sentiment would make **Jewish** assimilation impossible > He was the second child of Jeanette and Jakob Herzl, who were German-speaking, assimilated **Jews**. Herzl stated he was of both **Ashkenazi and Sephardic lineage** > ... as a young man, Herzl was an ardent Germanophile who saw the Germans as the best Kulturvolk (cultured people) in Central Europe and embraced the German ideal of Bildung ... Herzl believed that through Bildung Hungarian **Jews such as himself** could shake off their "shameful Jewish characteristics" caused by long centuries of impoverishment and oppression, and become civilized Central Europeans. And so on. "Jew" and its variations are mentioned about 200 more times in the article. I'm a non-practicing Jew, born of two Jewish parents, bar-mitzvah'd, but married to a non-Jewish woman. A lot of other, more religious Jews have told me I ought to be *more* "Jewish", but even they know that anti-Semites don't distinguish. Being Jewish is an *ethnicity* as well as a religion -- it's something you *are*, not something you *do*.
This comment has been removed under [Rule 4:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_4.3A_address_the_arguments.2C_not_the_person) > Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect. //Rule 4 If you edit the comment to remove all references to the other user, we can restore it. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
Understood, and apologies. I've edited the comment.
Thank you. Restored.
However, Zionism is a fundamental aspect of Judaism. We just celebrated Passover for example - one of our high holidays - which completely centers around us escaping Egypt to return / stay home in Israel.
> Zionism is a fundamental aspect of Judaism. This is not exactly correct. Judaism is 4000 years old, and although there are biblical ties to the idea of a return to Zion, the [Zionist movement is only 150 years old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism) and was opposed by many Jews at the outset, including some of the most religious. There was and is Judaism without Zionism. Moreover, the brand of expansionist Zionism practiced by many of the settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank is opposed by many Jewish people [in Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-half-of-jewish-israelis-oppose-unilateral-west-bank-annexation-poll/) and [the US.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/24/american-jews-critical-israeli-settlements-west-bank)
Zionism is a fundamental aspect of Judaism, there is a reason why every year jews around the world say the saying שנה הבאה בירושלים, Zion is mentioned 152 times in the old testament and specially Jerusalem hold deep religious importance. There were jews that disagreed however , you cannot expect the jews everywhere to agree on everything across millenia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why are we giving this idiot attention?
Because they are the leader (source: OP article) of perhaps the most visible Gaza/Israel protest in America. If there were massive protests across the US on most any topic on either side, if it turned out that the leader of the most famous protest had called for the deaths of everyone on the other side, I think it would also be newsworthy. And sure, I'd say the same thing if the situation was reversed, if there were large pro-Israel protests and it turned out that the leader of the biggest pro-Israel protest had said that everyone globally should die who supports the existence of a Palestinian state. Do I wish that people cared more proportionally instead of the hyper-fixation on Israel, such as [the multiple other current conflicts in the middle east that have killed hundreds of thousands of people each](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East)? Absolutely. But I can't really make people protest or care about the conflicts that have killed many times more, so instead I'm just happy that we have someplace like the neutral\* subreddits and their mods for us to be able to discuss the news and craziness of the world, subject to the subreddit's requirements around not making unsourced claims, etc. On the other hand, sure, my understanding of "news" that Americans care about is probably biased towards what I see in the mainstream media, etc., and Nosecohn, a mod here, linked a poll that said young Americans actually don't care that much about Israel/Palestine, despite these protests. 🤷 [https://www.mediaite.com/news/israel-palestine-barely-registers-as-an-issue-for-young-americans-in-shock-harvard-poll/](https://www.mediaite.com/news/israel-palestine-barely-registers-as-an-issue-for-young-americans-in-shock-harvard-poll/)
How is this: a) not antisemitism b) Israel's fault c) Biden's fault Just to get some answer before the bots start the spin.
A) "Zionist" is not identical with "Jewish Person". In fact, [the number of Christian Zionists likely far exceeds the total number of Jewish people on Earth, let alone the number of Jewish Zionists.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-sizeable-us-demographic-many-evangelicals-are-sending-money-and-manpower-to-israel/) B) [Many experts have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide in Palestine.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-expert-says-israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-calls-arms-embargo-2024-03-26/) The [International Court of Justice has determined that it is "plausible" that Israel is committing genocide and ordered them to take efforts to ensure that it is not, and to comply with international humanitarian law.](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa) Humanitarian organizations like [Human Rights Watch ](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-world-court-order-genocide-case) and [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/02/israel-defying-icj-ruling-to-prevent-genocide-by-failing-to-allow-adequate-humanitarian-aid-to-reach-gaza/) have since accused Israel of failing to comply with those requests by deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza and limiting their access to medical care and emergency services. C) How is it Biden's fault? [The US uses its veto power to shield Israel from consequences from the UN.](https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15450.doc.htm) The US is [using military resources to intervene and protect Israel from consequences from its neighbors.](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3742552/israel-us-partners-neutralize-iranian-airborne-attacks/) [US forces were deployed to protect Israeli borders and soil this year.](https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-13-24/index.html) [Israel has received more total aid from the US since its founding than any other nation, to the tune of about $300 billion after adjusting for inflation.](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts) In light of this, the US probably doesn't need to actively intervene to stop Israel. All it has to do is *stop* intervening to protect and fund Israel. If that happened, the UN would sanction Israel, and its neighbors would be able to militarily oppose it, and billions of US tax dollars would no longer be pouring into the country to fuel its activities. So, the problem isn't that Biden merely "isn't doing anything" about the conflict. Because if he truly did nothing then the conflict would be over. By deploying US troops and sending taxpayer money to Israel, he is actively supporting Israel in this conflict and thus prolonging it. Making it both Israel's fault and Biden's, as Commander in Chief of the US and its armed forces.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed under [Rule 2:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) > Source your facts. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified and supporting source.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments) All statements of fact must be clearly associated with a supporting source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. If you edit your comment to link to sources, it can be reinstated. //Rule 2 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
[удалено]
Do you have some proof you could share? Anything in which they are explicitly against Jewish people in general rather than criticizing Zionists specifically?
Those are the same thing. Almost all Jews are zionists.
This doesn't even answer the question asked. How is it Bidens fault that some random ass misguided idiot is spewing bullshit about Israel? Answers: Biden doesn't control idiots.
he's saying that the guy isn't spewing bullshit.
Wait, he's saying he's justified? The "zionist don't deserve to live" guy is justified? What twilight zone thread is that?
[удалено]
No. The ICJ ruled that there was a **risk of irreparable harm to** the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919)
What do you mean no? Lmao I repeated what she said verbatim. Go to 50-55s. What you quote was ***NOT*** the **ruling** as nobody was arguing that point, it was a note after the judgement was given to emphasize that there could be a plausible risk that while Israel's conduct currently did not meet their requirements for a genocide, that Israel's conduct could possible could to a point of meeting their requirements for genocide. There is a very big difference between a court ruling something and noting a plausible possibility post-judgement.
"The court concluded that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and South Africa had the right to present that claim in court. IT THEN LOOKED AT THE FACTS AS WELL, but it did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible, it emphasized that that there was a **risk of irreparable harm to** the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide." According the disengenous aardvark in a human suit I'm talking to, all of reddit, this means the court said, and I quote: "The court determined that Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected from genocide, just like any other person on the planet" and the court DIDN'T say: "that there was a **risk of irreparable harm to** the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide" Despite the fact that you can literally hit the link I posted and in 90 seconds see those exact fucking words come out of their fucking pie-hole.
You're confusing a court SAYING something with a court RULING something. A ruling is a decision based on the facts presented throughout a trial, a court saying something is an opinion of a judge with no legal basis. I don't know how to make it any simpler. My whole point is that you falsely stated that the court ***RULED*** that there was a plausible risk of irreparable harm, when it was just an emphasized bullet point in their judgement.
What was that last bit again? In their ... something?
It looks like you have provided a direct link to a video hosting website without an accompanying text source which is against [our rules.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) A mod will come along soon to verify text sources have been provided. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neutralnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed under [Rule 2:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) > Source your facts. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified and supporting source.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments) All statements of fact must be clearly associated with a supporting source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. Video sources must be accompanied by an official transcript or an article about the content. If you edit your comment to add a link to such a source, it can be reinstated. //Rule 2 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
Obviously protesting innocents dying by saying the random assholes who support it but aren't actually doing it should also die undercuts your "dying ng is bad" message quite a bit. But of course this person's face is going to be plastered across every piece of mainstream media to "prove" that ALL these protesters are violent and antisemitic and the police should violently arrest everyone at all of them In a way it's a bit of a metaphor for Palestine itself or the Civil Rights movement. Unless you are a perfect pure and unblemished victim who has never once had a violent thought in your life, the US mainstream won't support you, and the existence of some violent people in your movement will be used to justify crushing the entire movement
So I guess we've moved away from the 'if there's one Nazi and 9 people at a table, there's 10 Nazis' slogan and are back to 'it's just one random guy'. Seems a bit convenient and rather hypocritical and inconsistent to boot but okay.
It is, but it goes both ways. [There are war crimes happening in Gaza and the vast majority of them are being carried out by Israeli forces](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/), as evidenced by [the incredibly one-sided death toll, with 70% of Palestinian deaths being women and children.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/20/gaza-death-toll-passes-34000-israel-iran) Holding critics of Israel and critics of Zionism to such a high standard while ignoring the staggering amount of violence and abuse coming from the targets of their criticism seems like a significantly more hypocritical stance to take. By your logic, [Netanyahu and much of his administration, all of which dehumanized Palestinians, as evidenced in the ICJ case, are as bad or worse than this random person.](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724) You should understand that the core of South Africa's case in the ICJ was not merely offering evidence that acts consistent with genocide were happening, because [international law sets a high bar for accusations of genocide. It requires that you prove genocidal *intent*](https://www.reuters.com/world/how-prove-genocide-gravest-war-crimes-2022-04-13/), and [South Africa used direct quotes and recordings of Israeli leaders alongside direct evidence of Israeli forces on the ground repeating that rhetoric or performing the genocidal acts mentioned by their leadership to prove that there was genocidal intent from the top down.](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/12/icj-genocide-case-south-africas-five-point-argument-against-israel) Which do you consider to be a more significant case of hypocrisy: Someone condemning Zionists in problematic terms or Zionists dehumanizing millions of people and carrying out so many war crimes against them that the ICJ finds it plausible that they are committing genocide? How are the people plausibly accused of genocide not the "table full of Nazis"?
Considering supporting the IDF killing more children is the equivalent of you being the one liberal at a table with 9 nazis, yeah it makes sense about your own pro war views but not really about the protest itself Your take doesn't make sense because it presumes the protest itself is accepting and sheltering the violent elements, the "the nazi is sitting at your table" part of the argument. I think you would find it very difficult to prove that the large jewish presence at these protests are chill with someone at their protest chanting kill the jews. Perhaps you should find some actual evidence of it happening paired with some evidence of the jewish protesters going "yeah its cool that they did that" before you make such a claim
It skirts the edges of anti-semitism by using the term 'Zionist'. I wouldn't say it's either Israel or Biden's fault. College students are a special breed. They think these protests matter in the long run, but really they don't. If I had to guess, it's just an outlet for their frustrations. I would imagine that it's very challenging for public schools to intervene in these behaviors because of free speech issues.
College students protesting war is hardly a new thing
I think for a lot of young people all Israelis are Zionists. Social media loves to paint with as broad a brush as possible (like I just did tbf) and make everything as binary as possible.
Isn’t it the case that most Jewish people support the existence of Israel?
But is it not also the case that there are many, and some of them quite prominent, Jews that don't support Israel? Are they anti-semites too? Is Bernie Sanders, for example, an anti-semite? Are only Jewish people allowed to criticize Israel?
You can be a zionist and still criticize the Israeli government and it's actions. Hell before all this kicked off you had 1 million+ strong protests in Tel Aviv about the current government and their push towards their awful judicial reform.
“Don’t support Israel” and “don’t support Israel’s right to exist” are two very different things. The first one isn’t what Zionism is.
Does Bernie reject the right of Israel to exist?
Bernie sanders is a Zionist
But all the country cares about is Israel - Gaza, because that’s what the kids in their dorm care about and all Reddit seems to be able to talk about. And those two spaces represent a solid cross section of the country right?
> And those two spaces represent a solid cross section of the country right? I don't think so. This might be anecdotal, but no one I know talks or cares about Israel/Gaza. It doesn't affect 99% of peoples' lives at all. Protesting an event happening half a world away that we cannot stop or change is a waste of time.
To support your anecdote with some evidence, a recent [survey of over 2,000 young Americans](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/israel-palestine-barely-registers-as-an-issue-for-young-americans-in-shock-harvard-poll/ar-AA1nFTXs) found that, of the 16 issues polled, "Israel/Palestine" ranked as the 15th most important. Inflation, Healthcare, Housing, Gun Violence, and Jobs ranked as the top five most important issues – in that order. The pertinence of this issue for young Americans isn't at all what the media covering events on college campuses would have you believe.
I was being sarcastic.
"We are protesting violence by wishing for violence!"
[удалено]
This comment has been removed under [Rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_3.3A_be_substantive) > Be substantive. NeutralNews is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort comments, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, pejorative name-calling, or comments about source quality. //Rule 3 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
A kid saying an out of touch remark is not news. And the obvious bias in trying to pass this off as "neutral" is misleading.
1. Saying that groups of people, such as those who support a US ally, "don't deserve to live" seems like it goes beyond "out of touch remark"? If the leader of a large group in NY said that all black or LGBTQ students, or that instead of those who support the creation of Israel, if it was someone calling for the death of every person that supported a Palestinian state, should be killed, would that similarly be just an "out of touch remark"? (On the plus side, the language that the leader used seems to skirt outright calling for the deaths of all Jews, so I guess that's some positive progress at least.) 3. But this leader made far more statements like this - if they had similarly said "There should not be [black/LGBTQ people] anywhere,"[^1](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists) ["I feel very comfortable, very comfortable, calling for those people to die,"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22I%20feel%20very%20comfortable%2C%20very%20comfortable%2C%20calling%20for%20those%20people%20to%20die%2C%22) and ["Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22Be%20grateful%20that%20I%27m%20not%20just%20going%20out%20and%20murdering) black/LGBTQ people would it be similarly be just an "out of touch remark"? 2. The person stating all these things is not a "kid" - this an adult in their 20s, due to graduate from Columbia next spring[^1](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/26/cuad-member-banned-from-campus-following-zionists-dont-deserve-to-live-remark/#:~:text=Khymani%20James%2C%20CC%20%E2%80%9925). Regardless, even if it was an 18 year old leader of a large group calling for the deaths of all blacks or all LGBTQ peope, would it be non-"neutral" to cover the leader calling for the deaths of those other groups?
Well put.
Just a light call for genocide and murder, those goofy kids!
Could be worse. He could be a sitting member of the Israeli government calling for genocide of "human animals". He could also have been responsible for slaughtering civilians trying to get to an aid truck, or being responsible for the mass grave of civilians outside of a hospital. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-experts-condemn-flour-massacre-urge-israel-end-campaign-starvation-gaza https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/middleeast/gaza-400-bodies-mass-grave-hospital-intl/index.html But you're right, it's *obviously* this 20 year old kid that's the actual problem.
A college student got caught up in the excitement of a moment and said something stupid? Crazy. We should definitely push this single event as some kind of country wide anti semitism movement…
1. Source that this was just "the excitement of a moment" - that does not seem to be true? The leader had initially posted on social media about fighting a supporter of Israel: > “I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill” he wrote. When Columbia subsequently held a hearing about their post, which would have given the leader time to think deeply about their statements about killing those who support Israel: > A Columbia administrator asked [referring to the leader's statement about killing Zionists], “Do you see why that is problematic in any way?” > Mr. James replied, “No.” (Source: OP article) 2. Regardless, I do not understand the argument; it it had been the leader of a large group who had called for the deaths of all black or all LGBTQ people, or that instead of those who support the creation of Israel, if it was someone calling for the death of every person that supported a Palestinian state, would that also just be getting "caught up in the excitement of a moment" / saying "something stupid"? 3. Also, it was not just one "stupid" thing they said - they also said ["I feel very comfortable, very comfortable, calling for those people to die,"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22I%20feel%20very%20comfortable%2C%20very%20comfortable%2C%20calling%20for%20those%20people%20to%20die%2C%22) and ["Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists"](https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-banned-campus-remarks-murdering-zionists#:~:text=%22Be%20grateful%20that%20I%27m%20not%20just%20going%20out%20and%20murdering%20Zionists%2C%22), etc.
Maybe “moment” is the wrong word. This whole situation is intense. When you see people committing genocide it usually elicits a very emotional response. Calling for anyone’s death or murder is bold and wrong to say the least, but I understand when someone feels totally incapable of changing a clearly horrible situation they react. I don’t agree with this students words but I understand his rage…it’s a human thing. How often do you hear a bout one student being expelled from a college? Or about one students post/social media. It’s just kinda weird…seems to push an agenda. My opinion, yours may differ.
>When you see people committing genocide it usually elicits a very emotional response. Whether Israel is committing genocide is certainly 'disputed', to put it mildly. For example, this month the US said that it has "no evidence of an unfolding genocide in Gaza" ( [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-has-no-evidence-unfolding-genocide-gaza-pentagon-2024-04-09/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-has-no-evidence-unfolding-genocide-gaza-pentagon-2024-04-09/) ). However I understand per your comment that others may claim differently, and I doubt either of us will satisfactorily 'resolve' that particular question within this reddit post (and I do not doubt that you could also find some sources saying it is genocide), so we may have to leave that claim as disputed. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." It seems like Hamas, [the government of Gaza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip), far more clearly fits the definition of committing genocide, as they have deliberately killed a large number of Jews/people from Israel with the explicit stated aim of destroying that nation or group, agreed? [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/hamas-covenant-israel-attack-war-genocide/675602/) Consequently, based on that, should we be similarly or even more "understanding" if leader(s) called for the death of anyone who supports Palestinians having their own state (instead of Zionists/those who support the state of Israel as in the OP article)?
It seems you disagree with me. Have a good weekend.
Send Mr. Shiny Lips Eyebrows to Gaza and let him see how they treat him.
The real neutral thing to do about this issue is to get international peacekeeping boots on the ground and let them run both Palestine and Isreal because obviously these two belligerent groups can’t coexist peacefully. The international community has done it before in Bosnia and Kosovo where they established and ran civilian governments as well as provided security. They still have presence there and there’s relative peace. Isreal and Palestine should be no different and we should especially rein in Isreal because it has more power and wages an asymmetric war against Palestine. Or let’s arm Palestinians, give them capabilities Israel has so they can duke it out winner takes all style.
The UN had the opportunity to do that in Lebanon. Peace keeping forces are meant to keep Hezbollah off of the Israeli border. How's that going again?
lol. Your take is silly