Israel and Zionism

[PizzaSnake]

Fcukers.

“Individual members of Israel’s security forces are tipping off far-right activists and settlers to the location of aid trucks delivering vital supplies to Gaza, enabling the groups to block and vandalise the convoys, according to multiple sources.

Settlers intercepting the vital humanitarian supplies to the strip are receiving information about the location of the aid trucks from members of the Israeli police and military, a spokesperson from the main Israeli activist group behind the blockades told the Guardian.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/artic ... id-trucksP

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Harvard’s governing board overrules faculty, bars 13 students who participated in pro-Palestinian encampment from receiving degrees

By Hilary Burns Globe Staff May 22, 2024


CAMBRIDGE — Harvard University’s top governing board on Wednesday rejected the recommendation of faculty to allow 13 pro-Palestinian students who participated in a three-week encampment in Harvard Yard to receive their degrees with their classmates.

Impacted students will be able to participate in commencement ceremonies Thursday but will not receive diplomas, jeopardizing post-graduation plans.

The announcement came two days after some members of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted to grant degrees to the 13 students and as the university prepared for the pomp and circumstance of one of the most important days of the academic year. And it follows a fierce debate on college campuses nationwide over the appropriate sanctions for pro-Palestinian demonstrators who set up encampments to protest the Israel-Hamas war.

The decision Wednesday shocked faculty who feel strongly that student protesters are being unfairly punished, largely because of political pressure on university leaders.

“I’m upset,” said Ryan Enos, a professor of government. “This was pure hubris by the Corporation. To think a bunch of billionaires that visit Cambridge a couple times a year could tell the professors who educate these students that they know better than them who deserves to earn degrees — the audacity is breathtaking. In my opinion, the Corporation is not worthy of leading the university.”

The Harvard Corporation, in a statement explaining its decision, cited the Harvard College handbook, which says that a “degree will not be granted to a student who is not in good standing or against whom a disciplinary charge is pending with the Administrative Board, the Honor Council, or the disciplinary board of another school.”

The students in question are either on probation or suspended. Harvard has not provided a breakdown of the disciplinary actions or what the students had allegedly done, saying it cannot comment on individual cases.

The Corporation has faced pressure from conservative politicians, donors, students, and alumni who support Israel to show that the protesters, who repeatedly ignored disciplinary warnings during their encampment, will face serious consequences.

Each semester, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences holds a pro forma vote to approve the list of graduating seniors in what is usually a sleepy meeting that few voting members attend.

On Monday, however, 115 faculty members among the roughly 900 in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences attended, according to Harvard, and an amendment was added to the agenda to grant degrees to 13 undergraduate seniors who learned last week that they would be prevented from receiving their diplomas at graduation because of their participation in the encampment. The measure was approved on a voice vote.

The main pro-Palestinian student group at Harvard assailed the Corporation’s decision. “Today’s actions have plunged the university even further into a crisis of legitimacy and governance, which will have major repercussions for Harvard in the coming months and years,” the Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine coalition said in a statement.

The governing body’s move also resonated Wednesday evening on campus following Harvard’s annual Class Day ceremonies.

“The lack of accountability is infuriating,” said graduating senior Jeremy Ornstein, who spoke during Class Day. Ornstein said the student body is divided and added “people feel pain on all sides” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Stephen Marglin, a professor of economics who has taught at Harvard for 59 years, called the Corporation’s decision “a slap in the face” to faculty and likely to prompt protests at graduation Thursday.

He does not support the pro-Palestinian protests because they have not acknowledged the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that killed 1,200 and took 250 hostage with the same fervor as the “atrocity of the retaliation by the Netanyahu government.”

Still, he thinks the discipline went too far in preventing students from receiving degrees. The encampment, which included 30-40 tents, was “well within the bounds of what Harvard has tolerated in the past,” Marglin said.

Shortly after the Corporation’s decision Wednesday, Accuracy in Media, the conservative media company responsible for the billboard trucks that first arrived in Harvard Square in October, featuring student protesters’ photos and personal information, said it was sending another “mobile billboard” to commencement to expose “students who have engaged in antisemitic activities or used antisemitic rhetoric on campus.”

Massachusetts Peace Action, a nonprofit in Cambridge that advocates for disarmament, said it will hold a “solemn vigil for Gaza” outside the graduation.

Pro-Palestinian student protesters expressed shock last week that some students could be prevented from graduating, after they had dismantled their encampment with the understanding — based on their interpretation of their communications with interim president Alan Garber — that seniors would be allowed to graduate this semester.

In a May 14 email to student protesters, Garber said Harvard would “encourage” the “schools to address cases expeditiously under existing precedent and practice (including taking into account where relevant the voluntary decision to leave the encampment), for all students, including those students eligible thereafter to graduate so that they may do so.”

Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain said Sunday that Garber doesn’t have authority over student disciplinary matters, which are under the purview of individual schools within the university. However, in a letter to the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance, Garber said he “strongly supports appropriate disciplinary action for those found to have violated university policies.”

Several faculty members who attended Monday’s faculty meeting said they felt Harvard should uphold the essence of the deal they believe Garber made with students to persuade them to take down the encampment.

“He was as clear as he could possibly be in his communication to students that he was urging leniency,” Steve Levitsky, professor of government, said of Garber. “And then suddenly the [Administrative] Board clearly violates the terms of the deal.”

The board, which is responsible for undergraduate discipline and made up of administrators and instructors, doled out the punishment for the 13 seniors last week. That decision was affirmed by the Harvard Corporation on Wednesday.

The Administrative Board is overseen by Harvard College dean Rakesh Khurana. Several faculty members who voted in Monday’s meeting said they believe some board members should have recused themselves from the 13 disciplinary cases related to the encampment because they were also responsible for identifying and taking photos and videos of protesters at the encampment, which Harvard asked them to do. But protesters felt that was violating given many protesters have been doxxed since Oct. 7.

Garber said in a May 6 email to the community that Harvard staffers were yelled at and encircled by protesters when the employees “requested to see IDs in order to enforce our policies.”

“We have also received reports that passers-by have been confronted, surveilled, and followed” by protesters, Garber wrote. “Such actions are indefensible and unacceptable.”

Some faculty members questioned those reports. Harvard closed its gates to the public and to media after students were arrested at Columbia University in April.

The Corporation said Wednesday that it also considered the unfairness “of exempting a particular group of students who are not in good standing from established rules.” Impacted students can now go through an expedited review and appeal process. It is unclear how long the appeal process could take.

Harvard and MIT are so far the only schools in Massachusetts that have moved to prevent students from graduating this semester because of their involvement. Garber has indicated Harvard will not consider divestment from Israel.

Harvard administrators previously told students in emails and through campus signage that “erecting structures, tents, and tables without authorization is a violation” of university rules, adding that students who disrupted normal activities would face disciplinary consequences.

Many within the Harvard community want to see the student protesters held accountable. Steven Pinker, a psychology professor, called the faculty vote on Monday “unfortunate.”

”There’s no coherent policy that would allow students to unilaterally expropriate the university commons and disrupt its functioning for a political cause that many other members of the university community oppose,” Pinker said. “And without sanctions, there’s no way to implement a coherent policy. Universities should encourage debate and deliberation, not forced takeovers and threats.”

Correspondent Alexa Coultoff contributed to this report.

Hilary Burns can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her @Hilarysburns.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/22/ ... s-degrees/

[MDlaxfan76]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

[PizzaSnake]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

[MDlaxfan76]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

The Jewish state has repeatedly earned US respect by not being a pushover.

By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist, May 22, 2024


The White House has been demanding that Israel not launch a full-scale assault on the Hamas stronghold in Rafah, a message President Biden underscored this month by halting a shipment of bombs that would likely be used in such an attack. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, maintains that invading Rafah is crucial to rescuing its hostages and crushing Hamas. If necessary, he has said, Israelis will “fight with our fingernails” in order to prevail.

With the war’s outcome in the balance and the two governments at odds, this is a good moment to reflect that American opposition to Israeli military action is hardly a new development.

In 1991, following the swift US victory over Iraq in Operation Desert Storm, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sent a memento to David Ivry, the Israeli ambassador in Washington. It was an aerial photograph of the destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israel had bombed 10 years earlier, when Ivry was commander of the Israeli air force. On it, Cheney wrote: “For Gen. David Ivry, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981 — which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.”

Unmentioned in Cheney’s note, but well-known, was that the United States had not welcomed Israel’s attack when it happened. On the contrary, Washington had been infuriated. To destroy Osirak, Israel had deployed 14 US-built F-16 fighter aircraft, which cut through Jordanian and Saudi airspace before dropping a dozen 2,000-pound American bombs on the nuclear site. In response, the Reagan administration suspended delivery of additional planes to Israel and condemned the raid at the UN Security Council, where US Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled Israel’s attack “shocking” and likened it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The press was unsparing too: A New York Times editorial slammed Israel for its “act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression.”

But Washington eventually acknowledged that Israel had been right. Cheney’s 1991 praise was later echoed by Bill Clinton, who said Osirak’s destruction “in retrospect was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam [Hussein] from developing nuclear power.”

Again and again, Israel has had to confront its enemies in the face of opposition from the United States, its most vital ally.

In the spring of 1967, for example, Israel was repeatedly warned by President Lyndon Johnson against taking preemptive action against the Arab armies massing for war on its borders.

“I must emphasize the necessity for Israel not to make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities,” LBJ told the Israeli prime minister. “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” But Israel, believing it faced total obliteration if it delayed, did go it alone — with triumphant results.

“Virtually without exception, the United States has always opposed Israel’s decision to go to war,” historian Michael Oren, who served as Israel’s ambassador to Washington during the Obama administration, wrote earlier this year. When Israel has launched an attack despite resistance from Washington, it “has earned not America’s resentment but rather its respect.”

By contrast, when Israel has deferred to US demands to hold its fire, it has invariably regretted doing so.

In 1973, Prime Minister Golda Meir reluctantly bowed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s demand that Israel not launch the first strike against the Egyptian and Syrian forces planning to attack. The result was the shattering debacle of the Yom Kippur War.

In 1991, when Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Tel Aviv during the Gulf War, Israeli leaders knew that deterrence required them to respond. But under pressure from President George H. W. Bush, the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir agreed to stand down. That was taken by Washington as a display not of loyalty but of weakness. “Israel received not a word of gratitude,” Oren wrote, “but rather only pressure for territorial concessions.”

One way or another, Israel must enter Rafah if it is to have any hope of liberating Gaza from its fanatical Islamist dictators. To allow any of Hamas’s battalions to remain intact is to virtually ensure that the terrorist group will, as pledged, repeat the horror of Oct. 7 “time and again” until it achieves the “annihilation” of Israel.

The current dispute between Washington and Jerusalem dominates short-term headlines but it is in America’s long-term interest that its closest Mideast ally be strong, self-sufficient, and worthy of respect. Israel is an invaluable strategic partner with a deep reservoir of support among the US public, and it brings assets to the relationship — from military R&D to world-class intelligence to shared democratic values — that few countries can match. Whatever happens in Rafah, that won’t change.


Jeff Jacoby can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, visit globe.com/arguable.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/22/ ... uthorQuery

[PizzaSnake]

The Jewish state has repeatedly earned US respect by not being a pushover.

By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist, May 22, 2024


The White House has been demanding that Israel not launch a full-scale assault on the Hamas stronghold in Rafah, a message President Biden underscored this month by halting a shipment of bombs that would likely be used in such an attack. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, maintains that invading Rafah is crucial to rescuing its hostages and crushing Hamas. If necessary, he has said, Israelis will “fight with our fingernails” in order to prevail.

With the war’s outcome in the balance and the two governments at odds, this is a good moment to reflect that American opposition to Israeli military action is hardly a new development.

In 1991, following the swift US victory over Iraq in Operation Desert Storm, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sent a memento to David Ivry, the Israeli ambassador in Washington. It was an aerial photograph of the destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israel had bombed 10 years earlier, when Ivry was commander of the Israeli air force. On it, Cheney wrote: “For Gen. David Ivry, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981 — which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.”

Unmentioned in Cheney’s note, but well-known, was that the United States had not welcomed Israel’s attack when it happened. On the contrary, Washington had been infuriated. To destroy Osirak, Israel had deployed 14 US-built F-16 fighter aircraft, which cut through Jordanian and Saudi airspace before dropping a dozen 2,000-pound American bombs on the nuclear site. In response, the Reagan administration suspended delivery of additional planes to Israel and condemned the raid at the UN Security Council, where US Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled Israel’s attack “shocking” and likened it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The press was unsparing too: A New York Times editorial slammed Israel for its “act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression.”

But Washington eventually acknowledged that Israel had been right. Cheney’s 1991 praise was later echoed by Bill Clinton, who said Osirak’s destruction “in retrospect was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam [Hussein] from developing nuclear power.”

Again and again, Israel has had to confront its enemies in the face of opposition from the United States, its most vital ally.

In the spring of 1967, for example, Israel was repeatedly warned by President Lyndon Johnson against taking preemptive action against the Arab armies massing for war on its borders.

“I must emphasize the necessity for Israel not to make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities,” LBJ told the Israeli prime minister. “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” But Israel, believing it faced total obliteration if it delayed, did go it alone — with triumphant results.

“Virtually without exception, the United States has always opposed Israel’s decision to go to war,” historian Michael Oren, who served as Israel’s ambassador to Washington during the Obama administration, wrote earlier this year. When Israel has launched an attack despite resistance from Washington, it “has earned not America’s resentment but rather its respect.”

By contrast, when Israel has deferred to US demands to hold its fire, it has invariably regretted doing so.

In 1973, Prime Minister Golda Meir reluctantly bowed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s demand that Israel not launch the first strike against the Egyptian and Syrian forces planning to attack. The result was the shattering debacle of the Yom Kippur War.

In 1991, when Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Tel Aviv during the Gulf War, Israeli leaders knew that deterrence required them to respond. But under pressure from President George H. W. Bush, the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir agreed to stand down. That was taken by Washington as a display not of loyalty but of weakness. “Israel received not a word of gratitude,” Oren wrote, “but rather only pressure for territorial concessions.”

One way or another, Israel must enter Rafah if it is to have any hope of liberating Gaza from its fanatical Islamist dictators. To allow any of Hamas’s battalions to remain intact is to virtually ensure that the terrorist group will, as pledged, repeat the horror of Oct. 7 “time and again” until it achieves the “annihilation” of Israel.

The current dispute between Washington and Jerusalem dominates short-term headlines but it is in America’s long-term interest that its closest Mideast ally be strong, self-sufficient, and worthy of respect. Israel is an invaluable strategic partner with a deep reservoir of support among the US public, and it brings assets to the relationship — from military R&D to world-class intelligence to shared democratic values — that few countries can match. Whatever happens in Rafah, that won’t change.


Jeff Jacoby can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, visit globe.com/arguable.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/22/ ... uthorQuery

Self-sufficient? What does that phrase mean?

[JoeMauer89]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

Don't expect anything else, par for the course. I respect your desire to keep trying. Like banging your head against a wall.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

The Jewish state has repeatedly earned US respect by not being a pushover.

By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist, May 22, 2024


The White House has been demanding that Israel not launch a full-scale assault on the Hamas stronghold in Rafah, a message President Biden underscored this month by halting a shipment of bombs that would likely be used in such an attack. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, maintains that invading Rafah is crucial to rescuing its hostages and crushing Hamas. If necessary, he has said, Israelis will “fight with our fingernails” in order to prevail.

With the war’s outcome in the balance and the two governments at odds, this is a good moment to reflect that American opposition to Israeli military action is hardly a new development.

In 1991, following the swift US victory over Iraq in Operation Desert Storm, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sent a memento to David Ivry, the Israeli ambassador in Washington. It was an aerial photograph of the destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israel had bombed 10 years earlier, when Ivry was commander of the Israeli air force. On it, Cheney wrote: “For Gen. David Ivry, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981 — which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.”

Unmentioned in Cheney’s note, but well-known, was that the United States had not welcomed Israel’s attack when it happened. On the contrary, Washington had been infuriated. To destroy Osirak, Israel had deployed 14 US-built F-16 fighter aircraft, which cut through Jordanian and Saudi airspace before dropping a dozen 2,000-pound American bombs on the nuclear site. In response, the Reagan administration suspended delivery of additional planes to Israel and condemned the raid at the UN Security Council, where US Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled Israel’s attack “shocking” and likened it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The press was unsparing too: A New York Times editorial slammed Israel for its “act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression.”

But Washington eventually acknowledged that Israel had been right. Cheney’s 1991 praise was later echoed by Bill Clinton, who said Osirak’s destruction “in retrospect was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam [Hussein] from developing nuclear power.”

Again and again, Israel has had to confront its enemies in the face of opposition from the United States, its most vital ally.

In the spring of 1967, for example, Israel was repeatedly warned by President Lyndon Johnson against taking preemptive action against the Arab armies massing for war on its borders.

“I must emphasize the necessity for Israel not to make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities,” LBJ told the Israeli prime minister. “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” But Israel, believing it faced total obliteration if it delayed, did go it alone — with triumphant results.

“Virtually without exception, the United States has always opposed Israel’s decision to go to war,” historian Michael Oren, who served as Israel’s ambassador to Washington during the Obama administration, wrote earlier this year. When Israel has launched an attack despite resistance from Washington, it “has earned not America’s resentment but rather its respect.”

By contrast, when Israel has deferred to US demands to hold its fire, it has invariably regretted doing so.

In 1973, Prime Minister Golda Meir reluctantly bowed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s demand that Israel not launch the first strike against the Egyptian and Syrian forces planning to attack. The result was the shattering debacle of the Yom Kippur War.

In 1991, when Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Tel Aviv during the Gulf War, Israeli leaders knew that deterrence required them to respond. But under pressure from President George H. W. Bush, the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir agreed to stand down. That was taken by Washington as a display not of loyalty but of weakness. “Israel received not a word of gratitude,” Oren wrote, “but rather only pressure for territorial concessions.”

One way or another, Israel must enter Rafah if it is to have any hope of liberating Gaza from its fanatical Islamist dictators. To allow any of Hamas’s battalions to remain intact is to virtually ensure that the terrorist group will, as pledged, repeat the horror of Oct. 7 “time and again” until it achieves the “annihilation” of Israel.

The current dispute between Washington and Jerusalem dominates short-term headlines but it is in America’s long-term interest that its closest Mideast ally be strong, self-sufficient, and worthy of respect. Israel is an invaluable strategic partner with a deep reservoir of support among the US public, and it brings assets to the relationship — from military R&D to world-class intelligence to shared democratic values — that few countries can match. Whatever happens in Rafah, that won’t change.


Jeff Jacoby can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, visit globe.com/arguable.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/22/ ... uthorQuery

Self-sufficient? What does that phrase mean?

Fair question.

[a fan]

The Jewish state has repeatedly earned US respect by not being a pushover.

By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist, May 22, 2024


The White House has been demanding that Israel not launch a full-scale assault on the Hamas stronghold in Rafah, a message President Biden underscored this month by halting a shipment of bombs that would likely be used in such an attack. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, maintains that invading Rafah is crucial to rescuing its hostages and crushing Hamas. If necessary, he has said, Israelis will “fight with our fingernails” in order to prevail.

With the war’s outcome in the balance and the two governments at odds, this is a good moment to reflect that American opposition to Israeli military action is hardly a new development.

In 1991, following the swift US victory over Iraq in Operation Desert Storm, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sent a memento to David Ivry, the Israeli ambassador in Washington. It was an aerial photograph of the destroyed Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israel had bombed 10 years earlier, when Ivry was commander of the Israeli air force. On it, Cheney wrote: “For Gen. David Ivry, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981 — which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.”

Unmentioned in Cheney’s note, but well-known, was that the United States had not welcomed Israel’s attack when it happened. On the contrary, Washington had been infuriated. To destroy Osirak, Israel had deployed 14 US-built F-16 fighter aircraft, which cut through Jordanian and Saudi airspace before dropping a dozen 2,000-pound American bombs on the nuclear site. In response, the Reagan administration suspended delivery of additional planes to Israel and condemned the raid at the UN Security Council, where US Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled Israel’s attack “shocking” and likened it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The press was unsparing too: A New York Times editorial slammed Israel for its “act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression.”

But Washington eventually acknowledged that Israel had been right. Cheney’s 1991 praise was later echoed by Bill Clinton, who said Osirak’s destruction “in retrospect was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam [Hussein] from developing nuclear power.”

Again and again, Israel has had to confront its enemies in the face of opposition from the United States, its most vital ally.

In the spring of 1967, for example, Israel was repeatedly warned by President Lyndon Johnson against taking preemptive action against the Arab armies massing for war on its borders.

“I must emphasize the necessity for Israel not to make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities,” LBJ told the Israeli prime minister. “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” But Israel, believing it faced total obliteration if it delayed, did go it alone — with triumphant results.

“Virtually without exception, the United States has always opposed Israel’s decision to go to war,” historian Michael Oren, who served as Israel’s ambassador to Washington during the Obama administration, wrote earlier this year. When Israel has launched an attack despite resistance from Washington, it “has earned not America’s resentment but rather its respect.”

By contrast, when Israel has deferred to US demands to hold its fire, it has invariably regretted doing so.

In 1973, Prime Minister Golda Meir reluctantly bowed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s demand that Israel not launch the first strike against the Egyptian and Syrian forces planning to attack. The result was the shattering debacle of the Yom Kippur War.

In 1991, when Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Tel Aviv during the Gulf War, Israeli leaders knew that deterrence required them to respond. But under pressure from President George H. W. Bush, the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir agreed to stand down. That was taken by Washington as a display not of loyalty but of weakness. “Israel received not a word of gratitude,” Oren wrote, “but rather only pressure for territorial concessions.”

One way or another, Israel must enter Rafah if it is to have any hope of liberating Gaza from its fanatical Islamist dictators. To allow any of Hamas’s battalions to remain intact is to virtually ensure that the terrorist group will, as pledged, repeat the horror of Oct. 7 “time and again” until it achieves the “annihilation” of Israel.

The current dispute between Washington and Jerusalem dominates short-term headlines but it is in America’s long-term interest that its closest Mideast ally be strong, self-sufficient, and worthy of respect. Israel is an invaluable strategic partner with a deep reservoir of support among the US public, and it brings assets to the relationship — from military R&D to world-class intelligence to shared democratic values — that few countries can match. Whatever happens in Rafah, that won’t change.


Jeff Jacoby can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, visit globe.com/arguable.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/22/ ... uthorQuery

Israel cannot eliminate Hamas or terrorism via war. We tried it. Hammered Afghanistan and other places around the globe for 23+ years.

The terrorists are still there. To wit: Oct 8th.

We have to try something else. Or at the very least, try something in addition to war. And no, I'm not saying that Israel or any other country shouldn't defend themselves.

[a fan]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

If it was a caste system, getting a degree wouldn't be needed, Pizza. You'd just....stay rich, no matter what you do.

[JoeMauer89]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

If it was a caste system, getting a degree wouldn't be needed, Pizza. You'd just....stay rich, no matter what you do.

+1

Well-said. Cynical is an understatement. Statement projects bitterness if nothing else.

Joe

[PizzaSnake]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

If it was a caste system, getting a degree wouldn't be needed, Pizza. You'd just....stay rich, no matter what you do.

Then how would you describe our highly stratified society increasingly marked by a lack of social and economic mobility? Note I modified caste with American. Did I need to hyphenate to make clear the modification from the usual parlance?

[PizzaSnake]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

If it was a caste system, getting a degree wouldn't be needed, Pizza. You'd just....stay rich, no matter what you do.

+1

Well-said. Cynical is an understatement. Statement projects bitterness if nothing else.

Joe

I suggest you knock off the personal asides. Last warning.

[MDlaxfan76]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

If it was a caste system, getting a degree wouldn't be needed, Pizza. You'd just....stay rich, no matter what you do.

Then how would you describe our highly stratified society increasingly marked by a lack of social and economic mobility? Note I modified caste with American. Did I need to hyphenate to make clear the modification from the usual parlance?

You're both 'correct' but I think it's a bit of hyperbole to call what exists in America 'caste'.
I'd call it advantage, but not caste.
Maybe that's pedantic, but if there was ever a place to be a little such, it'd be in our discussions here.

On a more practical aspect, I think it's simply factually incorrect that mobility in America, social and economic, is constrained beyond the capacity of individuals to overcome frictions to movement. We see examples all the time of talent being tremendously rewarded in our society, on an individual level. Risk and effort, with talent, can be stupendously rewarded.

That said, it's also fair that our efforts to achieve a more meritocratic society based on those factors rather than birth advantage have been met with human desires and efforts and investments to seek advantage for one's offspring, and these often, thus, translate to substantial advantages to the offspring of the already well-off.

So, statistically, our society continues to have outcomes more likely similar to one's birth situation than not. It's just not predetermined limitations as in an actual caste system.

[a fan]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

If it was a caste system, getting a degree wouldn't be needed, Pizza. You'd just....stay rich, no matter what you do.

Then how would you describe our highly stratified society increasingly marked by a lack of social and economic mobility? Note I modified caste with American. Did I need to hyphenate to make clear the modification from the usual parlance?

Call it what you want. I agree that Americans are less economically mobile than it used to be, no question there. But in a caste system education is irrelevant. Only class matters.

America is still a meritocracy in the sense that Education matters. And the poor CAN get a good one, although obviously not as a whole population. Which is an enormous problem....I agree there. It's our biggest problem as a nation, if you ask me, and one I've discussed here many times.

And right after that, access to quality health care is the next big problem.

[JoeMauer89]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

This sort of action lays bare the relationship of most students to these entities: purely transactional. Pay your fee, get your credential stamped.

This reality, combined with ridiculous fees (tuition), and the removal of the campus-life ethos with athletics as a “pure, amateur” endeavor, exposes higher education for what it is: a sorting process for the American caste system.

well, that's a 'take', a cynical one though.

If it was a caste system, getting a degree wouldn't be needed, Pizza. You'd just....stay rich, no matter what you do.

+1

Well-said. Cynical is an understatement. Statement projects bitterness if nothing else.

Joe

I suggest you knock off the personal asides. Last warning.

Noted.

Enjoy your holiday weekend!

Joe

[jhu72]

All hail Lord Voldemort.

[jhu72]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

yup ... bet on it!

[cradleandshoot]

My hunch is that they will eventually receive their degrees, post whatever suspension period the disciplinary process requires.

The problem these schools face is that not all protests, including encampments, have resulted in this level of discipline. So, precedent is an issue. The faculty vote is not surprising in that context, given their focus on education attainment, however the Board comes at it differently. They wish to regain control and re-establish expectations of consequences when breaking clear policies.

Perhaps high time for the schools to make much more clear what their coherent go-forward stance will be with disruptive protests at this level.

That said, once the disciplinary processes are complete, degrees will eventually follow.

I find the conservative media truck stuff despicable and dangerous. Hard to stop, certainly for Harvard as that's happening on public, not school, property... but truly dangerous.

yup ... bet on it!

My hope is the administration at Harvard chooses to use those degrees as kindling to start the campfires and have a huge s'mores party. I bet mommy and daddy will be so proud of their youngins. They should have advised their crumb crunchers they will have more than enough time to be dumbasses after they graduates.