I hope you are doing something for self-care, as I know what it’s like to make impassioned posts on topics that feel draining, and hearing that you’re getting through to some people can feel really positively reinforcing, but it can also lead to burnout. Take care of you.
I’ll add another thumbs up for your posts on the current mid east crisis. I’m not posting in those threads for several reasons, but I make a point of reading what you have to say.
@Sam_Stone You have a cite with that rant?
I just do not understand the praise Babale is getting. Maybe I’m missing a ton of posts. But when I have dipped my toe in to any of these threads, I can always predict that Babale’s post will be one made in anger, and that said anger seems to get in the way.
In this thread in particular, I see her lashing out at HMS for his argument that the students may not have the same meaning in mind of a certain word that she does. But, in a later post, she admits that they may not have that same understanding. But then, right after that, she has another post lashing out at HMS for making that claim.
There’s also the post that spawned the ATMB thread. I think I already posted about my issues with that one. But the main thing I’ll note here is that the person she had angrily responded to had repeatedly clarified that she had misunderstood what he meant. But she seemed unwilling to listen to this.
And I don’t want to this to be read as an attack on Babale. That’s not my intent. This is more that I can’t keep reading posts that seem contrary to my perception without saying something. To me, Babale’s posts are not helpful, but chase people away.
Don’t get me wrong: she’s not the only one. Sam_Stone’s rather disingenuous provocative argument style isn’t helping either. But he’s been like that for a while. Babale is someone whose posts I generally like. But not with this situation.
Babale’s a man, man.
Which part of this post is angry?
Here’s the Reuters report on the tunnels and rooms under the hospital:
https://www.reuters.com/pictures/hamas-tunnels-under-shifa-hospital-according-israel-2023-11-22/
Rooms, tunnels and a heavy weapons cache. I guess we can debate what constitutes a ‘base’. Also, all the photos are from the IDF, so assign as much credibility to them as you think they warrant.
FWIW:
Missed the edit window. I should have included a quote from that link in my last post:
In an email, seen by the BBC, Mr Stevens said: “I have clear grounds to rescind Penn’s $100 million of Stone Ridge shares due to the conduct of President Magill.”
The founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, Mr Stevens told the university that its “permissive approach” to those calling for violence against Jewish people “would violate any policies or rules that prohibit harassment and discrimination based on religion, including those of Stone Ridge”.
I have sensed that anger too. Maybe combative is a better term. I get a sense that @Babale feels he is the keeper of the facts/truth on this topic and doesn’t brook much disagreement.
It is an emotionally charged topic though so I get where it comes from.
If Babale’s anything like me, he’s been living in a state of constant simmering rage for the past two months. The fact that he is capable of coming here again and again and making relatively calm, rational arguments is nothing short of amazing. God knows, I can’t do it.
Babale has been angry, and snarky, but completely understandably. He’s also good at admitting when he’s overstepped.
I’ve been on the receiving end of it the last few weeks and have no issue with it (when appropriate to the forum).
We should be able to disagree about aspects of the situation, and that’s generally been how things have proceeded, at least as far as Babale and Alessan are concerned.
The content-free “Butwhatabout Hamas…” sniping from Macgiver, on the other hand, was getting quite tiresome, but they seemed to have tailed off a bit.
Given that at this point in time the primary job of “University President” is essentially “ensure continued influx of funding and continued perception of how great we are”, it’s not surprising. Everything else that official signs off on – hiring of prestigious faculty, running cutting-edge research projects, fielding a smashing sports program, creating Safe Spaces, accepting or granting awards – is a predicated on that.
And repeating myself, whatever answer they gave would have been “wrong” in the eyes of legislators who just wanted to publicly chastise them for not being “on the right side”. Legislators who were perfectly willing to live with “there’s fine people on both sides” until it began going down at these particular schools.
I’m okay with this, because it is helping me to understand how personal this is to some people. I’m not saying @Babale is the ultimate arbiter of truth in this situation, I am saying he is representing his perspective well. That includes being pissed off and combative, because you know some people feel that way, and it’s given me insight into why some people feel that way. Does anybody here doubt why he feels that way? No. He’s made it perfectly clear.
I’ve been in this boat, and for me it ultimately resulted in burnout, and I just don’t feel as angry and triggered or whatever over certain subjects the way I used to be, but coming from that experience I think it’s very important to recognize that you can both be angry about a subject and correct at the same time. We have a tendency to dismiss emotional people as irrational, which IMO is rooted in misogyny since it’s usually women who get that shit, but in truth everyone has an emotional motive for any judgment they make, and there is plenty of science to back that up. To expect someone directly affected by an idea or a policy or a war to be impartial is irrational in and of itself, IMO.
Of course I am angry. There was a massive terrorist attack on my home country, with my people getting slaughtered by murderers in cold blood.
I try not to let that anger “get in the way,” though. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and that I don’t even channel it in my posts. Anger is an entirely appropriate response here, thank you very much.
First, I haven’t “lashed out” at HMS. I have pointed out that the word “Intifada”, in the context of the Arab/Israeli conflict, means something specific - the First and Second Intifadas, which were waves of terror attacks that killed thousands of Israelis and injured tens of thousands.
Like I said before, it is true that the word “Intifada” could mean “uprising” and could in theory refer to nonviolent resistance against Israel. But that is not the reality.
Likewise, it is true that in theory any violence being called for could be intended only for legitimate targets of resistance. But again, in historical reslity, (reality I lived through by the way; I was a child in Israel for the duration of the second Intifada) this violence was for the most part not directed at Israeli military and security forces, but at Israeli civilians; so again, in our reality, in the context of Israel/Palestine, Intifada refers to violent terrorism against Israeli civilians. Period, end of story.
And further, even if hypothetically it was referring to resistance against Israeli security personnel, those people are in Israel. The only people that a “global” Intifada could target who are not in Israel are expats like me, and non-Israeli Jewish people.
What I acknowledged is that a suburban white American, 20 years old and in college, running around chanting “Globalize the Intifada” is most likely not actually going to go and firebomb a synagogue. He may even be ignorant of the meaning of the phrase “Globalize the Intifada”. But this is not an excuse. It does not change the phrase “Globalize the Intifada” away from being a call to violence.
Further, I worry that over time, normalizing this sort of language will normalize what it refers to. That the Intifadas, or Oct 7, will be seen by some not as heinous terrorist attacks but as legitimate acts of resistance.
The person said I misunderstood them, but refused to explain what they actually meant, and then repeatedly did what I accused them of doing in the first place (accusing Israel of ethnically cleansing Gaza and trying to commit a genocide there). They were mod noted for doing so and told to take those kinds of claims to the Pit, and since then they’ve continued to walk right up to the edge of making these claims without quite doing so.
So I really don’t think there was any misunderstanding there, but if that poster would like to clarify how their posts could possibly be anything other than an accusation that Israel is engaging in genocide, I am (and always have been) all ears.
I’m not sure why you think I was refusing to listen. I repeatedly asked that poster to clarify what they meant, if they did not mean to accuse Israel of genocide; I never got an answer (probably because they are accusing Israel of genocide but just cannot say so (again) in that thread).
Oh, and yes, I am a man.
There are exactly two things I get combative about, and really, it’s just one.
The first is the implication that Israel is an illegitimate state or should not exist. The reason I object to this so harshly is the existential implications of such a statement.
I have written at length about the intolerable existence of the Jewish people before the State of Israel came about. And let me emphasize, it was intolerable before the Holocaust, which is why Zionism predates the Holocaust by many decades. Further, only those members of my family who recognized this and embraced the Zionist project early survived the Holocaust. From this, we learn that it is insufficient to be reactive here. Reactivity ensures for us Jews the same existence we had before 1948. That is unacceptable.
Since it’s Hanukkah, a brief historical aside. You often hear it said that we have been exiled for 2,000 years. It’s even in our national anthem:
[…]
We have not yet lost our Hope
Our hope is 2,000 years old
To be a free people in our homeland
[…]
And yes, arouns 2,000 years ago is when the Hasmonean dynasty ruled over a Jewish kingdom in what is today Israel. But the Hasmonean dynasty was free (if we are generous and include its time as a Greek and a Roman autonomous client) for just under 100 years.
Before that we were under oppressive Greek rule. And before that we were under somewhat more permissive Persian rule, but we still were not free. And before that we were exiled under Babylonian rule… etc etc etc.
We have a very long and very painful history as the subjects of other people, and the victims of other people. The promise of Zionism (and the reason why Zionism is an inherently secular movement that greatly angered religious figures back in the day) is that אם תרצו אין זו אגדה. If you will it, it is no dream is the common translation. We do not need to wait for God or a Messiah to deliver the Jewish people; we can be our own deliverance. We can end that painful history and write a new one - a bright, hopeful history.
And as @Alessan so eloquently said many times - we are never going back.
So that is why I will be combative against arguments that delegitimize Israel. I will not tolerate rhetoric that could be used to justify existential attacks on the Jewish state, because returning the Jewish people to a stateless status means throwing us to the wolves yet again.
And that brings me to the second thing I will be combative about - accusations that Israel is committing a genocide. These sorts of accusations have been used against Israel in order to try and delegitimize its existence since 1948. These accusations are a tool - a tool in turning the west against Israel; a tool in galvanizing the Palestinian people to reject any sort of two state solution.
I don’t think the people repeating these accusations here know that, or understand that. But just like chanting “Globalize the Intifada” in ignorance is still harmful, echoing these accusations here - accusations which I have called “Blood Libel” because they serve the exact same purpose of delegitimize the existence of Jews, whether in a ghetto or in a state - is extremely harmful, and I will challenge them with all my might.
Another aspect of liberal antisemitism* is that Jewish history is not allowed to inform the Jewish present. Critical race theory is an incredibly useful lense for understanding the past and the present. But when it comes to our history and generational trauma, it’s “ah yes, well, all of that was bad but it was so long ago.”
This contrasts with conservatives who just apply that “yeesh let it go already” doctrine to literally everybody.
The cultural memory of Jewish people is longer and more painful than most, and it’s impossible to talk about Israel today without giving credence to the million or so yesterdays we still remember, and the deeply real truth that history will always circle back around to murdering us.
Anyway, chalk me up to somebody else who’s been appreciating @Babale articulating quite a lot of what I cannot.
If you think he sounds too angry, all I can really suggest is that you check your fucking privilege.
*Understand that when I talk about liberal antisemitism, it’s not as a way of saying all liberals are antisemitic. I’m talking about the way systemic antisemitism tends to manifest in liberal thought.
It has been a whirlwind of emotions, that’s for sure. Anger, incredible sadness… but also at times immense pride. People in Israel have come together to help one another in ways that really restore my faith in humanity. It’s a bittersweet emotion, because usually they’re coming together over some immensely heartbreaking tragedy - but there have been some amazing stories that really remind me what is being fought for here. It’s a shame it takes such a disaster to remind us that we’re all Israeli.
You have posted fewer posts than I have, but every single one has been incredibly solid.
Yes, I agree. I also criticize strongly the attitude of some who seem to want to fight Arabs vicariously through us. I’ve always found that kind of “support” to be much more disturbing than encouraging.
I’m also deeply disturbed by the End of Days Christian whackjobs who “support” us insofar as they think we are setting up their prophecy, only to die at the appropriate time; those people are even more disturbing (though thankfully we don’t seem to get many of them here). This is really off topic, but a couple of years ago someone made a documentary in Hebrew about this crowd, and it made the rounds among my Israeli Facebook friends; they were as weirded out as you might expect (this is not something that’s very well known in Israel, actually).
Absolutely agreed, and you are someone I enjoy debating with even when we disagree. I’ve learned a lot over the years from your point of view.
Exactly. This is a situation where anger is the appropriate response. Being non-combative is not the highest virtue imaginable.
I was going to mention that when it was mentioned upthread about Republicans in Congress getting mad about anti-Semitism. Evangelical Christians tend to be highly supportive of the state of Israel. The university uproar may be cynical liberal bashing for some, but there are a lot of Christian conservatives who are sincere in their condemnation of anti-Semitism to the point of religious fervor.