3 ms·

She came under fire for their dry responses to a line of questioning from Republican representative Stefanik, who asked whether “calling for the genocide of Jew

She came under fire for their dry responses to a line of questioning from Republican representative Stefanik, who asked whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the college’s code of conduct. But the premise of the question was nonsense[1], as Peter Beinart has made clear. The premise being „intifada“ meaning „an attempt at genocide of jews“ when it actually means „uprising“. It was acutally about silencing the Pro-Palestinian support at American universities in light of wealthy donors threatening to cut funding. [1] https://twitter.com/hahauenstein/status/1734608990628348303/ https://twitter.com/hahauenstein/status/1734608990628348303/

zaphar 3y ago
[flagged]
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The first is a pretty extreme, inflammatory claim. I think it requires very strong evidence. Also, it would help if you dropped the hyperbole.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bongoman37 3y ago
    [dead]
- submeta 3y ago
  It means uprising. Not killing jews. - On the other hand Israel‘s cabinet (Netanyahu, Gallant, Herzog, Ben Gvir, Smotrich) actively call for genocide: Netanyahu by comparing Palestinians to Amalek, of whom the Old Testament says „kill them all, men, children, women, babies, unborn“. Herzog said: „no innocents in Gaza“, meaning justified to kill children. Gallant: „human animals!“, cuts water, food, medicines for over 80 days. These and more statements and the actions of IDF are documented on a 85 page[1] accusation of South Africa against Israel accusing them of Genocide in Gaza. So while you insinuate „intifada“ means „genocide“, Israel is apparently engaging in genocidal acts. [1]: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Nobody, on either side of this conflict, is being careful with their words.
    - submeta 3y ago
      Well, do you compare the whole leadership of a western nation to a terror group? Shouldn’t a civilised country avoid calling for genocide? Or held accountable if they did?
      - tptacek 3y ago
        This is a good example of what I just said. I don't think there's much for us to learn, or to hash out, or to be curious about, by trying to pick apart what you just said there. It's written in a way to foreclose further discussion. That's fine, though; this subthread has not all that much to do with Claudine Gay.
        wredcoll 3y ago
        > That's fine, though; this subthread has not all that much to do with Claudine Gay. Why on earth do you think we're even discussing claudine gay then?
        tptacek 3y ago
        She resigned after a fresh batch of plagiarism evidence was uncovered.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Nobody, on either side of this conflict, is being careful with their words. I don't know for sure, but Hamas and Netanyahu's coalition have been masters of public communication. I think they are very careful and strategic, and know what they're doing. I think it's like saying an experienced, highly expert developer isn't being careful with their code.
- dekhn 3y ago
  I don't think anybody has established that the "average palestinian on the street" (or what's left of it) believes this, and given it's such a hyperbolic claim, I'd recommend you support your claim with more data.
gretch 3y ago
I watched the testimony. I’m left leaning these days (mostly because the right went batshit crazy), but I hold a lot of conservative values (which are reflected in the moderate left too so nbd). I found her testimony to be insipid and not worthy of someone who has the position of leader and president. She should have clearly stated “if someone calls for violence or genocide of any people, that is against harvards code” (and if that’s not true then amend the code please). It should have been a lay-up. Instead she kept saying “it depends on the context” which sounds like politician speech for dodging accountability. That’s fine for most people, but is this what we want from society’s leaders? If there were questions about “intifada”, she should have said something like “I don’t speak that language, so I can’t tell you what it means, but calls for genocide are not okay”.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > I found her testimony to be insipid and not worthy of someone who has the position of leader and president. How much leeway do you give her for being out of her element? That's part of the point of these hearings, to put people under extreme pressure and play gotcha.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    A harvard president gets no leeway in this context; they are expected to be absolutely perfect, handling gotchas with aplomb. She was just not qualified for this.
  - gretch 3y ago
    I don’t consider this to be out of element for a president. She tried to outplay the gotcha game, which is why she did poorly. Instead she should have come in and said “At Harvard this is what we believe - …”. Being able to state the values of your organization is core skill for the president and leader of the school. It should be down pat, a solid set of words that ring true and inspire. If you can’t do that, then let’s find someone who can. That’s the difference between leaders and managers.

zaphar 3y ago

[flagged]

wolverine876 3y ago
The first is a pretty extreme, inflammatory claim. I think it requires very strong evidence. Also, it would help if you dropped the hyperbole.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bongoman37 3y ago
  [dead]
submeta 3y ago
It means uprising. Not killing jews. - On the other hand Israel‘s cabinet (Netanyahu, Gallant, Herzog, Ben Gvir, Smotrich) actively call for genocide: Netanyahu by comparing Palestinians to Amalek, of whom the Old Testament says „kill them all, men, children, women, babies, unborn“. Herzog said: „no innocents in Gaza“, meaning justified to kill children. Gallant: „human animals!“, cuts water, food, medicines for over 80 days. These and more statements and the actions of IDF are documented on a 85 page[1] accusation of South Africa against Israel accusing them of Genocide in Gaza. So while you insinuate „intifada“ means „genocide“, Israel is apparently engaging in genocidal acts. [1]: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
- tptacek 3y ago
  Nobody, on either side of this conflict, is being careful with their words.
  - submeta 3y ago
    Well, do you compare the whole leadership of a western nation to a terror group? Shouldn’t a civilised country avoid calling for genocide? Or held accountable if they did?
    - tptacek 3y ago
      This is a good example of what I just said. I don't think there's much for us to learn, or to hash out, or to be curious about, by trying to pick apart what you just said there. It's written in a way to foreclose further discussion. That's fine, though; this subthread has not all that much to do with Claudine Gay.
      - wredcoll 3y ago
        > That's fine, though; this subthread has not all that much to do with Claudine Gay. Why on earth do you think we're even discussing claudine gay then?
        tptacek 3y ago
        She resigned after a fresh batch of plagiarism evidence was uncovered.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Nobody, on either side of this conflict, is being careful with their words. I don't know for sure, but Hamas and Netanyahu's coalition have been masters of public communication. I think they are very careful and strategic, and know what they're doing. I think it's like saying an experienced, highly expert developer isn't being careful with their code.
dekhn 3y ago
I don't think anybody has established that the "average palestinian on the street" (or what's left of it) believes this, and given it's such a hyperbolic claim, I'd recommend you support your claim with more data.

gretch 3y ago

I watched the testimony. I’m left leaning these days (mostly because the right went batshit crazy), but I hold a lot of conservative values (which are reflected in the moderate left too so nbd). I found her testimony to be insipid and not worthy of someone who has the position of leader and president. She should have clearly stated “if someone calls for violence or genocide of any people, that is against harvards code” (and if that’s not true then amend the code please). It should have been a lay-up. Instead she kept saying “it depends on the context” which sounds like politician speech for dodging accountability. That’s fine for most people, but is this what we want from society’s leaders? If there were questions about “intifada”, she should have said something like “I don’t speak that language, so I can’t tell you what it means, but calls for genocide are not okay”.

wolverine876 3y ago
> I found her testimony to be insipid and not worthy of someone who has the position of leader and president. How much leeway do you give her for being out of her element? That's part of the point of these hearings, to put people under extreme pressure and play gotcha.
- dekhn 3y ago
  A harvard president gets no leeway in this context; they are expected to be absolutely perfect, handling gotchas with aplomb. She was just not qualified for this.
- gretch 3y ago
  I don’t consider this to be out of element for a president. She tried to outplay the gotcha game, which is why she did poorly. Instead she should have come in and said “At Harvard this is what we believe - …”. Being able to state the values of your organization is core skill for the president and leader of the school. It should be down pat, a solid set of words that ring true and inspire. If you can’t do that, then let’s find someone who can. That’s the difference between leaders and managers.