Isra�l - Hamas - #267 Ja, maar Isra�l

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:00 schreef havanagila het volgende:
Dan nog. Die laffe hamasratten kunnen de gijzelaars vrijlaten, en daarmee deze oorlog be�indigen, wanneer ze maar willen.......

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:05 schreef Ronald-Koeman het volgende:

[..]
Grapje? Of geloof je dat echt?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 14:27 schreef theunderdog het volgende:

[..]
Ten dele met je eens. Namelijk dat Netanyahu en co geen goed en eerlijk alternatief willen voor Hamas. Alleen waar ik het niet mee eens ben is dat je lijkt te suggereren dat Hamas er zit, vanwege Israel hun inderdaad hardvochtige beleid jegens Palestijnen (op de WestBank, in Gaza).

Dat is natuurlijk onzin. Hamas zit er voor zichzelf. Het is een ordinaire terreur-organisatie met een agenda vol islamisme. Die met hun totalitaire terreur zelf eveneens elk ander alternatief de grond in hebben geboord. En dit, hebben een deel van de Palestijnen (in Gaza in dit geval) laten gebeuren.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:11 schreef havanagila het volgende:

[..]
Ceasefire besprekingen gemist?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:22 schreef Ronald-Koeman het volgende:

[..]
Hamas kan wel degelijk de steun onder het volk verliezen. De situatie van de Palestijnen is nu al decennia uitzichtloos en dan is de boodschap van Hamas de enige optie en erg aantrekkelijk voor sommigen (de dood of de gladiolen). Maar als de situatie niet uitzichtloos is dan valt er wat te kiezen en is de boodschap van Hamas ineens een stuk minder aantrekkelijk. Uiteraard zul je altijd extremisten houden en zal Hamas proberen de macht te houden. Naast de steun van de meerderheid van de Palestijnen zal ook de Arabische wereld zich achter een alternatief moeten gaan scharen. Stel je voor dat er een goed en eerlijk tweestatenoplossing op tafel ligt waar een aanzienlijk deel van het Palestijnse volk, Isra�l, de VS en de Arabische (politieke) wereld achter staat.... dan komt Hamas in een hele penibele positie. Helaas heb je dan nog wel Iran op de achtergrond die Hamas in het zadel kan proberen te houden. Er zijn geen garanties en we zijn sowieso heel ver weg van dit scenario. Van Hamas hoeven we niks te verwachten, het zal in eerste instantie van Isra�l moeten komen. Van Isra�l, een land dat pretendeert moreel en een democratische rechtstaat te zijn, verwachten we meer en beter dan van een jihadistische terreurorganisatie.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:23 schreef Ronald-Koeman het volgende:

[..]
Nee, niet gemist. De bereidheid tot een permanente ceasefire i.p.v. tijdelijke ceasefire vanuit Isra�l heb ik wel gemist.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:59 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
En zie hier het gevolg als de 'red & green alliance' in het Westen vrij hun gang kunnen gaan.

[ twitter ]
[ twitter ]

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:23 schreef Ronald-Koeman het volgende:

[..]
Nee, niet gemist. De bereidheid tot een permanente ceasefire i.p.v. tijdelijke ceasefire vanuit Isra�l heb ik wel gemist.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:59 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
En zie hier het gevolg als de 'red & green alliance' in het Westen vrij hun gang kunnen gaan.

[ twitter ]

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 16:59 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
En zie hier het gevolg als de 'red & green alliance' in het Westen vrij hun gang kunnen gaan.

[ twitter ]
[ twitter ]

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 21:09 schreef HiZ het volgende:
De rode fascisten hadden vandaag een wandeltocht in Amsterdam om hun terroristische vrienden te ondersteunen.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 21:09 schreef HiZ het volgende:
De rode fascisten hadden vandaag een wandeltocht in Amsterdam om hun terroristische vrienden te ondersteunen.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 22:29 schreef Bluesdude het volgende:

[..]
Ik kan geen nieuwsbericht vinden over een demonstratie 1 mei in Amsterdam. Heb je een linkje of lieg je over fascisten, die meestal niet terreur van Hamas ondersteunen. Eerder de veel gewelddadiger Israelische terreur ?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 22:58 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
[ x ]
[ x ]
[ x ]
[ x ]
[ x ]

quote:

Op donderdag 2 mei 2024 01:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:
[ x ]

[ x ]

Waarom zouden die nu ineens weer naar Polen moeten?

quote:

Op donderdag 2 mei 2024 01:52 schreef Ulx het volgende:
Ze leken niet echt de arische �bermenschjoden uit Europa. Het kan ook gaan om Iraniers met een ander geloof.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2024 13:19 schreef Tekaschi het volgende:
[ x ]

[ x ]

Blijkbaar een vergeldingsactie omdat fascistisch links een onschuldig Joods meisje in elkaar geslagen heeft.

quote:

April 29, 2024

Dear President Nemat Minouche Shafik,

As a former Columbia University faculty member and father of a Columbia graduate (PhD ’21), I am quite frankly appalled by your draconian, unethical, illegal, and dishonest actions toward your own students and faculty.

In the name of keeping students safe, you bring the NYPD on campus to break up a peaceful encampment, thereby endangering hundreds of student protesters—many of whom are Jewish students and students of color—and the campus community at large. Given the NYPD’s racist record, the fact that you would subject Black, Latinx, Arab and South Asian students to police repression suggests that you are either unaware or indifferent to the trauma our communities have experienced with the police. And your administration’s decision to evict students from their dorms, strip them of their meal cards, and have them charged with trespassing is nothing less than vindictive. After taking their tuition and fees, you render them houseless and potentially food insecure. How does this make students safe? As president, you must be well aware of the number of financially vulnerable students enrolled at Columbia.

In the name of keeping students safe, you suspend chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) for organizing a peaceful protest in order to draw attention to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its escalation of violence in the West Bank. When two students attacked an antiwar rally on the steps of Low Memorial Library on January 19 by dousing the assembled with a foul-smelling chemical agent, sending several people to the hospital, what did you do to keep students safe? The assailants were not arrested, and although Columbia’s interim provost announced that they were banned from campus soon after the attacks, the decision to suspend them was made public just a few days ago. Instead, you brought the NYPD to campus to suppress a follow-up protest organized to call attention to the attack.

When Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student, received death threats from someone involved in a counterprotest, no one called for an investigation or took affirmative steps to keep him safe. And when will you release a statement expressing deep sympathy for all of your Palestinian students who have lost family and friends to Israel’s military onslaught?

When antiwar students are being doxxed for allegedly supporting “terrorism” and their names and faces are splashed onto sites like Canary Mission, what do you do to protect them? And why on Earth would you allow police and university employees to literally destroy food donated for the Gaza encampment, or, as reported by Columbia student journalists, permit the NYPD to bar a student from getting medication from their dorm room? As you may or may not know, that student reportedly had a seizure as a consequence of not having their meds.

Why has Professor Shai Davidai, who targets and identifies antiwar students on his social media account, putting their safety in jeopardy, not been suspended, while peaceful student protesters have not only been arrested but also suspended and denied their right to finish the academic term? How is it that you would threaten both Professor Joseph Massad and Professor Mohamed Abdou, two distinguished scholars, with removal, suspension, or outright dismissal, during a live televised hearing and lie about their employment statuses and stoke the Congressional committee’s false allegations? And why would you deliberately misrepresent Professor Katherine Franke’s remarks about Israeli students who served in the IDF? In your desperate effort to deflect attacks from the likes of Elise Stefanik, you have abandoned the principles of academic freedom—including our obligation to engage in truthful, accurate, and nuanced discourse—and sacrificed the safety of our colleagues. Your “testimony” played right into the hands of members of the committee who want to destroy the university.

Columbia has a history of throwing its faculty under the bus, as it were, especially when it comes to colleagues critical of Israel. I witnessed the vicious attacks on Joseph Massad and Rashid Khalidi in the early 2000s, and many of us tried to stand up for them and others against an indifferent and even hostile administration. But in my nearly forty years as a faculty member, I have never seen such brazen cruelty toward students and faculty, such cowardice before what amounts to a right-wing witch hunt, and such blatant dishonesty. Indeed, in your recent statement you claim that you had no choice but to call police to clear the encampment, and give your decision a patina of legality by asserting that you invoked Section 444 of the University Statutes. But that section requires that you consult with the University Senate Executive Committee before authorizing police to come on campus, and according to at least three executive committee members, including its chair, you made the decision unilaterally.

I need not say much else. You’ve been condemned by your faculty, by the majority of students, and by scholars and human rights activists around the world. You are keeping no one safe, except for your donors, trustees, and Columbia’s endowment. Among these same trustees and donors are persons who have vowed to punish these students by blocking them from future employment.

Universities are not supposed to resemble dictatorships or Fortune 500 companies, irrespective of the size of their endowments. Faculty governance, intellectual honesty, the robust defense of academic freedom, and students’ right to peaceful free expression are core principles of the university. As stewards of institutions tasked with educating, housing, and protecting young people (many of whom are teenagers far from home), university leaders are responsible for their safety and well-being. I suspect that your previous executive and managerial posts in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank of England did not prepare you to lead a university. As you yourself stated in your testimony before Congress, Columbia’s student disciplinary policies and processes “were sometimes unable to meet the moment,” leaving your administration no choice but to change the rules without input from faculty or forewarning to students. To declare by fiat that a peaceful outdoor protest poses “a clear and present danger to the substantial functioning of the University” is a radical redefinition of “danger” reminiscent of the Red Scare or antiterrorism laws.

Sadly, you are not alone in turning to state repression to silence students. The presidents of Yale, Princeton, Emory, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the Ohio State University, the University of Pittsburgh, and Emerson, among others, have also called the police against nonviolent protests and encampments. This is a dark day for U.S. higher education, especially at a time when right-wing extremists are waging war on academic freedom and all manner of critical studies.

Yet, as the courageous students you had arrested and suspended have been saying, it is a much darker day for the people of Palestine. Gaza’s universities are now rubble, many of its faculty, staff, students, and administrators—including three university presidents—have been killed, and most of its libraries, archives, and bookstores destroyed. These students are risking their futures to demand that universities divest their holdings from Israel and weapons manufacturers, and that their leaders act in an ethical manner—in how they invest, how they relate to their own neighboring communities, and how they treat students, faculty, and staff.

In other words, they are doing what you should be doing: leading. It is time to follow their lead, listen to their demands, acknowledge the loss of tens of thousands of Palestinian lives, stop funding apartheid and genocide, drop all charges against the protesters, restore their student status, give them complete amnesty, apologize, and issue a strong statement condemning the genocide and offering condolences and support to community members who have lost family and friends.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 mei 2024 04:14 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
[ x ]

quote:

Students at the University of Michigan chanted for a Palestinian revolution last week, sparking a media furor. Right-wing media, pro-Israel activists, and members of U.S. Congress described their chants as a call for violence or even an anti-Jewish genocide.

The debate centered around the meaning of the word “intifada,” with different sides offering up interpretations. A lot of them are more complicated than they have to be. Intifada just means “uprising,” and Arabic media uses it to describe uprisings all over the world.

Of course, it’s a subjective question whether Americans should be calling for a Palestinian uprising against Israel. But this situation is nothing unique. American activists have cheered on uprisings in lots of different countries, and critics have often called them out-of-touch or dangerous.

The more interesting question is why the word “intifada” is left untranslated, when a simple English equivalent would work. American media likes to use foreign political terms, because they mystify and exoticize conflicts in other countries.

For example, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is referred to as the last “Shah” of Iran, even though shah just means “king,” and Persian-language media uses that term for every other male monarch in the world.

Or consider the suffix -ista in Spanish and Portugusts.

It has the same etymology as the suffix -ist in English, with the same meaning, too: capitalist, dentist, Buddhist, atheist, activist. Yet news coverage about Latin American politics often leaves it untranslated: sandinista instead of Sandinist, and bolsonarista instead of Bolsonarist.

More sensationalist media also leaves titles like Presidente or Comandante in the original Spanish, even though the English equivalent is quite obvious. Using a foreign word makes these things sound exotic, evoking images of gunmen sipping guava juice and smoking cigars under palm trees.

It’s now become a custom to use -ista to make English-speaking political actors sound edgier. Supporters of Jeremy Corbyn became corbynistas, supporters of Donald Trump become trumpistas, and supporters of Bernie Sanders became sanderistas. At least that last one is fitting; it sounds like sandinista and Sanders did sympathize with the Sandinist revolution.

“Intifada” is one of those words. Dictionaries and news reports often delve into the Classical Arabic root, which has to do with shaking something off. I think that unnecessarily complicates things.

Yes, intifada comes from the word for “shaking,” just like uprising and insurrection come from words for “rising.” In a modern political context, they all mean the same thing.

Don’t believe me? Here’s Arabic-language coverage of the current intifada in Iran, the multiple intifadas in Chilean history, the call for a military intifada in Venezuela, a medieval slave intifada in Mesopotamia, another slave intifada in 19th century Brazil, and the potential intifada of European publics against high gas prices.

In Arabic-language materials, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum refers to the Warsaw Ghetto intifada during World War II.

The word caught on in other languages during the first Palestinian uprising of the late 1980s and early 1990s, then made headlines again during the second Palestinian uprising of the early 2000s. The nature of those two uprisings helps explain why people on both sides leave the term untranslated.

The first uprising was marked by strikes, demonstrations, riots, and other forms of mass political activity. It led to international recognition of Palestinian claims and Israel sitting across the table with the Palestine Liberation Organization. About 1,600 Palestinians were killed, most by Israeli crackdowns and some by Palestinian infighting, along with around two hundred Israelis.

The second uprising was much more violent, especially towards civilians. Palestinian guerrillas used suicide bombings against “soft targets” on an unprecedented scale, as well as random shootings and grenade attacks. Israeli forces besieged entire cities and opened fire on protesters with live ammunition. Around 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians were killed.

For Israelis and their supporters, the term “intifada” evokes the second uprising and militant actions of the same nature. Their image of Palestinian nationalism is “hijacked airplanes, homemade rockets, charred wreckage of exploded buses, and, more recently, teenagers wielding scissors and knives,” as the journalist Nathan Thrall describes it in The Only Language They Understand.

The second uprising also lined up with the War on Terror. American audiences were being confronted with a bewildering series of Arabic names in a sinister political context. Giving Palestinian militancy its own foreign word put it in the same category as things like “Al Qaeda” and the “Ba’ath Party.”

Pro-Israel activists may understand the chants of pro-Palestine students as a provocation, invoking the memory of burning vehicles and bloodstained streets that traumatized a generation of Israelis. But there is also a more charitable explanation.

The first uprising was, “for many of the Palestinians old enough to have participated in it, the ‘real’ intifada,” Thrall writes. It was a time when Palestinians felt that they were united and breaking up the status quo to their benefit. That era was not just an uprising but “The Uprising,” a model that defined the term.

The unrest a decade later seemed to deserve the name “Second Intifada,” due to its similarly nationwide scale. Despite various attempts to declare a “Third Intifada,” nothing has really lived up to the phrase, because Palestinian factions have been bitterly divided ever since.

I am not a mind-reader, so I don’t know what meaning the University of Michigan protesters were trying to invoke, the unifying one or the bloodthirsty one. Frankly, the controversy is not really about the term “intifada,” but about whether encouraging Palestinian rebellion is a legitimate political activity.

That same debate can be had about a lot of situations. American activists across the political spectrum have egged on foreigners to risk their lives or shed blood for “freedom,” and American politicians love nothing more than to take photos with other countries’ revolutionaries.

Every side is wildly hypocritical about what they consider patriotic resistance versus evil terrorism.

Debating the etymology of foreign words helps avoid getting to the root of the issue — or applying the principles equally to different countries.

quote:

Op donderdag 2 mei 2024 05:21 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
[ x ]
[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 2 mei 2024 01:09 schreef Ulx het volgende:
[ x ]

[ x ]

Waarom zouden die nu ineens weer naar Polen moeten?