Luv2play Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, BSR said: That is disgustingly disingenuous. The "end of the Israeli state" is a thinly disguised way of calling for the genocide of the Jews because the only way to eliminate the state of Israel would be to kill all the Jews who live there. Calling for the end of the Israeli state could be interpreted as calling for a single state solution rather than two state solution. The government of Israel has rejected both solutions as it would require them to give up settlements in the West Bank and grant statehood to Gaza and the West Bank in the latter case and face having Jews in Israel becoming the minority in the former case. Israel rejecting outright the two state solution is a new development and we’ll see how the US deals with it. + Charlie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Luv2play said: Calling for the end of the Israeli state could be interpreted as calling for a single state solution rather than two state solution. Agree; there’s a difference between calls to end Israeli statehood and calls for how that end should be achieved. My family is Jewish and I staunchly believe in Israel’s right to defend its sovereignty. I also believe in free speech and the thing with free speech is that it requires we permit speech we fervently disagree with. Determining when free speech crosses the line into bullying and harassment can be highly nuanced, requiring careful scrutiny of all the facts and circumstances from which it arose (i.e., context). In answering the question, Gay was, by articulating Harvard’s rule, merely acknowledging this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becket Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Whoops! Political postings. Ball gags for the lot. NJF, + nycman, pubic_assistance and 3 others 1 1 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSR Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 11 hours ago, Luv2play said: Calling for the end of the Israeli state could be interpreted as calling for a single state solution rather than two state solution. The government of Israel has rejected both solutions as it would require them to give up settlements in the West Bank and grant statehood to Gaza and the West Bank in the latter case and face having Jews in Israel becoming the minority in the former case. Israel rejecting outright the two state solution is a new development and we’ll see how the US deals with it. 70% of Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas, the terrorist group that wants to kill all Jews. How selfish of Israeli Jews to shut out people who want to mass-murder them. Any way you cut it, the "From the river to the sea (in other words, the elimination of Israel), Palestine will be free" chant is a call for genocide of Jews. + Vegas_Millennial, marylander1940 and pubic_assistance 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted January 21 Author Share Posted January 21 6 minutes ago, BSR said: 70% of Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas, the terrorist group that wants to kill all Jews. How selfish of Israeli Jews to shut out people who want to mass-murder them. Any way you cut it, the "From the river to the sea (in other words, the elimination of Israel), Palestine will be free" chant is a call for genocide of Jews. did I just 👍 one of your comments? pubic_assistance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Wrong; it’s use requires context (further validating Gay’s response): “The phrase was popularised in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation creating a democratic state freeing Palestinians from living under Israel.[6] In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jewswho had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jewswho had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah[7] The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety".[8] Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean[to whom?] one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".[9] Palestinian progressives use the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory[10] while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."[11] Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region.[9][11]” —Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luv2play Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, BSR said: 70% of Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas, the terrorist group that wants to kill all Jews. How selfish of Israeli Jews to shut out people who want to mass-murder them. Any way you cut it, the "From the river to the sea (in other words, the elimination of Israel), Palestine will be free" chant is a call for genocide of Jews. Now Netanyahu is saying Israel from Jordon to the sea. Seems like he is rather enamoured of that Palestinian slogan so he adopted it himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSR Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 41 minutes ago, Km411 said: Wrong; it’s use requires context (further validating Gay’s response): “The phrase was popularised in the 1960s as part of a wider call for Palestinian liberation creating a democratic state freeing Palestinians from living under Israel.[6] In the 1960s, the PLO used it to call for a democratic secular state encompassing the entirety of mandatory Palestine, which was initially stated to only include the Palestinians and the descendants of Jewswho had lived in Palestine before 1947, although this was later revised to only include descendants of Jewswho had lived in Palestine before the first Aliyah[7] The 1964 charter of the Palestine National Council (PNC) demanded "the recovery of the usurped homeland in its entirety".[8] Thus, by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean[to whom?] one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel".[9] Palestinian progressives use the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory[10] while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians."[11] Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Its use by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to argue that it implicitly advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and a call for the removal or extermination of the Jewish population of the region.[9][11]” —Wikipedia Whatever the chant meant back in the 1960s is irrelevant. All that matters is what it means today. As you point out, the phrase was coined by Hamas, who very clearly states both in word and deed that it calls for the extermination of the Jews. This chant, this call for genocide, is what Gay allowed to be openly and freely expressed at Harvard. Harvard did the right thing when it forced/pressured Gay to resign, although it is a disgrace that it took so long. It's also a disgrace that this nonscholar will be collecting $900,000 as a "professor," but that's another debate. + Vegas_Millennial and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSR Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Luv2play said: Now Netanyahu is saying Israel from Jordon to the sea. Seems like he is rather enamoured of that Palestinian slogan so he adopted it himself. The difference, of course, is that when Netanyahu says "from the river to the sea," he is affirming Israel's right to exist whereas when Palestinians say it, they are calling for the mass-murder of Jews. Edited January 22 by BSR Wording pubic_assistance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luv2play Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 41 minutes ago, BSR said: The difference, of course, is that when Netanyahu says "from the river to the sea," he is affirming Israel's right to exist whereas when Palestinians say it, they are calling for the mass-murder of Jews. No he’s not. He asserting Israel’s desire to drive out the Palestinians, which is genocide by any other name. The court in The Hague will decide on that issue. pubic_assistance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 We will not agree on this, and that’s fine. For other readers, I’d simply ask you to consider what the lack of consensus evidenced in this microcosm might mean for someone running a large multicultural university with passionate, bright, and socially-minded students with competing viewpoints. I won’t contribute more to this thread, except to say that I’m not on board with Gay bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 this whole thread is politics and pro-genocide + José Soplanucas, musclestuduws, marylander1940 and 2 others 1 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luv2play Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 11 minutes ago, tassojunior said: this whole thread is politics and pro-genocide Actually I thought it is anti - genocide, no matter which side one is on. + Charlie and musclestuduws 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSR Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 36 minutes ago, Luv2play said: No he’s not. He asserting Israel’s desire to drive out the Palestinians, which is genocide by any other name. The court in The Hague will decide on that issue. Drive out Palestinians?? Just googled it, 1.6 million Palestinians are living in Israel as Israeli citizens. Palestinians (10 currently) even hold seats in Knesset, Israel's parliament. If Netanyahu is trying to drive Palestinians out of Israel, he's failing spectacularly. thomas and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luv2play Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 minute ago, BSR said: Drive out Palestinians?? Just googled it, 1.6 million Palestinians are living in Israel as Israeli citizens. Palestinians (10 currently) even hold seats in Knesset, Israel's parliament. If Netanyahu is trying to drive Palestinians out of Israel, he's failing spectacularly. I think he covets the waterfront lot of Gaza, to be frank. musclestuduws and pubic_assistance 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthatter Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 hours ago, Luv2play said: Now Netanyahu is saying Israel from Jordon to the sea. Seems like he is rather enamoured of that Palestinian slogan so he adopted it himself. The translation that was circulated was incorrect. I'll assume you speak Hebrew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luv2play Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 minutes ago, matthatter said: The translation that was circulated was incorrect. I'll assume you speak Hebrew? Well what did he say? I understand he repeated it on a different day. So what version did you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Administrator’s Message Gentlemen, The subject is: “Harvard Claudine Gay resigns after plagiarism/antisemitism allegations.” Please stay on topic and keep politics out of the discussion. matthatter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael1437 Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 I have never heard of the substance of her plagiarism. That being said, plagiarism can stem from something as insignificant as an undocumented footnote, an incorrect quote from a source, etc. As for Dr. Gay's testimony, I found that she was guilty of making the mistake of expressing her personal opinion instead of couching her words in a manner to placate a hostile audience. Marc in Calif 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc in Calif Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 8 hours ago, Cooper said: Administrator’s Message Gentlemen, The subject is: “Harvard Claudine Gay resigns after plagiarism/antisemitism allegations.” Please stay on topic and keep politics out of the discussion. This topic has been political almost from the beginning. Edited January 22 by Marc in Calif marylander1940 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ Vegas_Millennial Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 I read today that some people expect higher education to strive to reflect modern society as a whole. While others expect higher education to rise above modern society as a whole as an example of how to behave better. This may be the best explanation of the varied viewpoints on whether Harvard's leadership was appropriate because it strived to represent all of society, or weather it was inappropriate because it was not striving to be better. musclestuduws 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luv2play Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 As for Dr. Gay’s alleged plagiarism, I have read she has had to revise some of her work and withdraw others. Not a good look. I think one piece affected was her dissertation. I have written this from memory so maybe some details are off. In any case she is not the first academic in a high position to have been sloppy with her research and publications. I have read of others. It goes back to the old “publish or perish”. The really good researchers get a Nobel prize for their work. There are a lot of hacks beneath them in academia. musclestuduws 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ nycman Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, Luv2play said: It goes back to the old “publish or perish” AKA…."doing your job well". Pressure to succeeded and perform well in your job, isn’t an excuse for plagiarism. Yes, I’m blaming the victim….because sometimes the victim is at fault. pubic_assistance and BSR 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 the "topic" is intentionally offensively political to stir up fights in the blog. marylander1940, + WilliamM, SouthOfTheBorder and 1 other 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 On 1/21/2024 at 8:18 PM, tassojunior said: this whole thread is politics and pro-genocide 2 hours ago, tassojunior said: the "topic" is intentionally offensively political to stir up fights in the blog. You've already said it! Please report it! + WilliamM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts