First Amendment covers speech. Part of getting a Green Card involves signing legal docs saying you don't support terrorism.
My impression is the Protesters stepped over lines and did things that aren't "speech". Maybe that's wrong but we should check with a judge. Wiki claimed the protesters occasionally supported Hamas and 10-7.
The real world reality is Hamas is a terror organization and 10-7 was a terror attack.
There's a lot of room here for him to have crossed lines that have legal consequences.
The day after the Israeli gov decides to go full genocide all the Palestinians in Gaza will die. Hamas on the other hand has the habit of killing every Jew they can.
Ergo one side is "openly genocidal" and the other is not. So it shouldn't be a surprise that the birth rate in gaza was still above the death rate even over the course of the war.
DavidTC: Urban warfare is extremely prone to causing violence against civilians
And there you go. Israel has no acceptable way to fight Hamas, it's supposed to just tolerate terrorism.
DavidTC: You’ll notice Israel is second (Now, after Oct 7th), but you’ll also notice how many other countries are within spitting distance.
You're comparing Israel to a bunch of failed states. What you mean is, yes, Israel is expected to ignore terrorism like no country in the West would.
DavidTC: Who do you think are defending ethnostates?
The better question is what ethnostates are attacked for being ethnostates. As far as I can tell it's just the Jewish one.
DavidTC: Anyway, Israel is not ‘expected’ to actually let people return. What is expected is that the right of return will be used as _concessions_ in negotiation.
Your statements sharply disagree with the official Palestinian demands in peace negotiations. The closest we've gotten to peace had them drop their requirement down to "only" 150,000 refugees per year.
So yes, the Palestinians are insisting on undoing the various wars, getting their specific land back, and ending the Jewish state. However at Camp David they offered to do it slowly over a period of decades.
DavidTC: Zionism is still an active political idea... constantly taking land in the West Bank.
The protesters weren't disrupting the University over settlements, they were upset the Jews won't tolerate terrorism and were fighting a war.
That makes sense if all of Israel is considered a settlement which seems to be where their heads were at.
DavidTC: It’s very interesting how you had to qualify the destruction ‘as a Jewish state’.
We have lots of examples in the surrounding states on what happens to Jews if they're ruled by Arabs. I don't see why the openly genocidal Palestinians should be assumed to have good intentions.
Full democracy combining the entire area isn't going to work because one side or the other will take control over the state and use it to repress the other.
The two state solution has thus far failed because the Palestinians refuse to give up the RoR, i.e. the right to destroy Israel.
DavidTC: Let me guess. You’re going to bring up examples...
I'll quote myself: Urban warfare is “genocide” if Jews do it, but not if anyone else does. Israel shouldn’t be an ethnostate because ethnostates are bad, however all non-Jewish ethnostates get a pass. Israel should put up with terrorism that non-Jews would never tolerate. Israel is expected to deal with a generational Right to Return.
DavidTC: justify the Nakba.
Normal countries are forgiven the crime(s) of their own creation, the Jewish one is not.
DavidTC: it took a good two decades for Palestinians to ramped up to even throwing-rocks-at-soldiers levels of violence, the first Intifada, in 1987.
The PLO was created in 1964 to destroy Israel. The stated goal of all of Israel's neighbors up until 1979 (when Egypt broke ranks) was to destroy Israel because it was Jewish.
10-7 was an effort to end it. That was what anti-zionism looks like in the real world, and the protesters are proclaiming themselves to be allies to that.
Some of them understand that, some of them don't. However it's very fair that they be treated as what they're claiming they are.
DavidTC: Not antisemitism, mind you. Anti-Zionism.
Zionism is the idea that the Jews should have a country. Ergo anti-Zionism is the idea that they shouldn't, i.e. Israel should be destroyed as a Jewish state.
That seems seriously antisemitic on the face of it, and that's without the real world likelihood that it would require a second holocaust.
I've pointed this out on this thread before that many of the "arguments" used against Israel are never used against non-Jews.
Page/Report has been removed. I read it before it vanished and it was interesting.
Hamas was totally air-brushed out of the picture. Not sure I'd even know their name if all I had was that report. That also gets rid of the hostages. It also means Hamas (because they don't exist) did no disruptions of aid and so on and had zero involvement in any of Gaza's civilians suffering.
If Israel blew up something or killed someone the only conceivable motivation was to attack civilians and make them suffer. Israel alone was responsible for the entire war.
It was kind of impressive. Maybe they took it down because someone pointed that out?
Columbia is not punishing the students for what they've said, just for the things that are normally illegal. Almost like the things which are normally illegal are still illegal, even if you call it "speech".
BREAKING: Columbia University Starts Expelling Anti-Israel Agitators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aMWhQDTZ8
Slade: We’re going to need a cite for this: “multiple states funding what are basically IslamicNa.zi arguments”.
If you mean "the funding" then most of the media in the Arab countries is state controlled. Their various positions in the UN are also state controlled. Al Jazeera has an English feed, try listening to them for a while.
If you mean the arguments themselves, then the idea that the Jews control everything is na.zi antisemitism, as is the idea that they are especially evil and should be held to different standards because they're evil.
If the arguments only make sense when used against Jews and make no sense at all when applied to non-Jews, then that's a problem.
Slade: Colonialism refers to steady encroachment on Palestinian land.
No. That's a good example of the Palestinians saying something and the West spinning it into they'd be cool with two states.
The PLO's charter, written years before the 67 war, had article 22 which spells out all of Israel is a colonial project, and multiple articles which make it clear they mean every inch.
When I listen to Arabic media, they don't make a big deal out of "steady encroachment" because every inch of the land is disputed.
When I listen to podcasts that talks to random Arabs on street, the issue never comes up. Again because every inch of the land is disputed.
When the Palestinian's talk about Israel the colony they mean all of Israel. As insane as it sounds, they're still fighting over whether or not the Jews get a state.
Slade: No right thinking individual believes that country is going to disappear.
The Palestinians do.
That's what they say when the person on the street is asked. That's what is in the original charters of both the PLO and Hamas. That's why these various peace plans keep falling apart.
They believe they can make the Jews flee to Europe or something and they make their policies on that. That's why we keep hearing about "colonialism".
That's also why giving up the Right to Return is such a non-starter, or even redefining it so it's a right to return to a Palestinian state along side a Jewish one.
If we listen to what the Palestinians actually say then they're pretty consistent. Even the rare support for "two states" requires the follow up question "can one of the states be Jewish".
This means there can't be peace and it opens the door for fringe groups in Israel to behave badly because they can't make the situation any worse.
Slade: By my reading of this, only the most pure of heart may render criticism of Israel.
No. I'm just saying we should be consistent.
There is a ton of media coverage on and even multiple states funding what are basically IslamicNazi arguments.
Their talking points get repeated and integrated into people without them understanding these arguments are judging Jews differently because they're Jews.
The idea that Jews shouldn't have a state but all other ethnotypes get a pass comes down to "because they're Jews" reasoning.
Ditto the idea that Jews shouldn't be able to respond to terrorism, ditto the idea that they shouldn't be able to have an urban war.
Apply these situations to other countries and it looks insane.
Slade: we’re not allowed to differentiate between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.
A lot of the criticism of Israel involves reasoning we never use against non-Jews.
Urban warfare is "genocide" if Jews do it, but not if anyone else does. Israel shouldn't be an ethnostate because ethnostates are bad, however all non-Jewish ethnostates get a pass. Israel should put up with terrorism that non-Jews would never tolerate. Israel is expected to deal with a generational Right to Return.
I'd say the big issue that we'd apply in normal situations is it's lack of defined borders. It should just announce what land it considers it's own and be done with it.
Chris: I still see no evidence that Khalil supported 10/7,
True. It's "guilt by association" at the moment. However the margin of error is large and the idea of him supporting terrorism looks a lot more reasonable than it did at the start of this thread.
Chris: Would supporting armed resistance in Palestine generally be grounds for deportation?
Faict, the "armed resistance" groups in Palestine are resisting the idea of Jews and a Jewish state in the Middle East. That's why they target civilians, it's why their charters read the way they do, and so on.
So the answer to your question is going to be "yes". Normal rules apply. Supporting terrorism is grounds for deportation.
I do not see any evidence that most, or even more than a few, of the protestors supported 10/7.
Shrug. Enough did to make it into wiki, whatever that's worth. The better question is whether he personally said or did something along that line or whether the group he was leading did so.
We don't have specific information. However we've managed to draw a potential line from him to legal deportation. Whether the gov can do that in court is a different question.
Protesting(*) is legal but supporting terrorism is not. Israel was at war with an openly genocidal terror organization. Opposing the war without supporting the terror organization requires clear thinking on an emotional topic.
(*) There are a good number of things that "protesters" can do in the name of protesting which also crosses lines. They don't have the right to shut down education or harass random people even if they are Jewish and so on.
If the number of deaths is less than the number of births then is very hard to claim that Israel is killing everyone it can.
Given the Palestinian refusal to admit how many of the dead are militants, we're stuck with various estimates which suggest the Israeli Army's civilian kill ratio was pretty normal (or even good) for urban combat.
RE: the protests, where in the Wikipedia page does it say they supported 10/7
In fall 2024, activist groups including CUAD had begun to use rhetoric in support of Hamas and the October 7 attacks.
I voted for Harris. However Harris ran as an empty suit. My strong impression was she was sincere about being pro-choice and her identity policies and insincere about all of her other positions.
Big picture, the fiscal sanity wing of the GOP is in the process of being removed from the coalition and will become swing voters.
LeeEsq: ...the Pro-Palestinian side decided to latch onto the broad definition of genocide in the Geneva Convention because they needed to district from Hamas and 10/7.
IMHO it's "accuse the other side of doing what you're doing so no one can tell the difference."
On 10-7 the Palestinians (including but not limited to Hamas) killed every Jew they could get their hands on, which is "genocide". That's really ugly and showcases what the Right of Return would look like.
If Israel is also committing genocide, then everyone is committing genocide so no one is.
I would like to see Team Blue running on economic growth and good government. "Economic growth" would include "free trade".
Trump is creating massive disruptions in business. Maybe someone can make ads where the auto industry explains why his tariffs destroy auto jobs and they built their businesses around the trade agreements Trump himself forced through last time.
Wiki says at times the Columbia protests were supporting 10/7. I have no idea what he personally said or did, however he was their leader so there's that.
Chris: or just in opposition to the then ongoing genocide
It is probably not useful to lower the definition for "genocide" to the point where it applies to all wars.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/17/25”
Probably should have Biden announce that he approved all those pardons while he's still able to.
Also I strongly expect this was more Trump running his mouth than any sort of legal evaluation.
On “From The New York Times Editorial Board: The Authoritarian Endgame on Higher Education”
I don't see how to justify giving Obama's kids a helping hand because their supposed ancestors suffered institutional wrongs.
On “Columbia, Mahmoud Khalil, and Protest Expectations”
First Amendment covers speech. Part of getting a Green Card involves signing legal docs saying you don't support terrorism.
My impression is the Protesters stepped over lines and did things that aren't "speech". Maybe that's wrong but we should check with a judge. Wiki claimed the protesters occasionally supported Hamas and 10-7.
The real world reality is Hamas is a terror organization and 10-7 was a terror attack.
There's a lot of room here for him to have crossed lines that have legal consequences.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
DavidTC: The protest was literally over the fact that the university was investing in companies that profited off the conflict.
First sentence, in bold, from your link: College students across the country are protesting Israel’s attacks on Gaza.
It is not useful to pretend that the students were protesting something other than they were.
DavidTC: We have an actual list of demands
Which includes insisting that trying to prevent terrorism/mass-murder is "genocide" when Jews do it.
DavidTC: ...the openly genocidal Israeli government...
The day after the Israeli gov decides to go full genocide all the Palestinians in Gaza will die. Hamas on the other hand has the habit of killing every Jew they can.
Ergo one side is "openly genocidal" and the other is not. So it shouldn't be a surprise that the birth rate in gaza was still above the death rate even over the course of the war.
DavidTC: Urban warfare is extremely prone to causing violence against civilians
And there you go. Israel has no acceptable way to fight Hamas, it's supposed to just tolerate terrorism.
DavidTC: You’ll notice Israel is second (Now, after Oct 7th), but you’ll also notice how many other countries are within spitting distance.
You're comparing Israel to a bunch of failed states. What you mean is, yes, Israel is expected to ignore terrorism like no country in the West would.
DavidTC: Who do you think are defending ethnostates?
The better question is what ethnostates are attacked for being ethnostates. As far as I can tell it's just the Jewish one.
DavidTC: Anyway, Israel is not ‘expected’ to actually let people return. What is expected is that the right of return will be used as _concessions_ in negotiation.
Your statements sharply disagree with the official Palestinian demands in peace negotiations. The closest we've gotten to peace had them drop their requirement down to "only" 150,000 refugees per year.
So yes, the Palestinians are insisting on undoing the various wars, getting their specific land back, and ending the Jewish state. However at Camp David they offered to do it slowly over a period of decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Refugees_and_the_right_of_return
"
DavidTC: Zionism is still an active political idea... constantly taking land in the West Bank.
The protesters weren't disrupting the University over settlements, they were upset the Jews won't tolerate terrorism and were fighting a war.
That makes sense if all of Israel is considered a settlement which seems to be where their heads were at.
DavidTC: It’s very interesting how you had to qualify the destruction ‘as a Jewish state’.
We have lots of examples in the surrounding states on what happens to Jews if they're ruled by Arabs. I don't see why the openly genocidal Palestinians should be assumed to have good intentions.
Full democracy combining the entire area isn't going to work because one side or the other will take control over the state and use it to repress the other.
The two state solution has thus far failed because the Palestinians refuse to give up the RoR, i.e. the right to destroy Israel.
DavidTC: Let me guess. You’re going to bring up examples...
I'll quote myself: Urban warfare is “genocide” if Jews do it, but not if anyone else does. Israel shouldn’t be an ethnostate because ethnostates are bad, however all non-Jewish ethnostates get a pass. Israel should put up with terrorism that non-Jews would never tolerate. Israel is expected to deal with a generational Right to Return.
DavidTC: justify the Nakba.
Normal countries are forgiven the crime(s) of their own creation, the Jewish one is not.
DavidTC: it took a good two decades for Palestinians to ramped up to even throwing-rocks-at-soldiers levels of violence, the first Intifada, in 1987.
The PLO was created in 1964 to destroy Israel. The stated goal of all of Israel's neighbors up until 1979 (when Egypt broke ranks) was to destroy Israel because it was Jewish.
"
Slade: There exists Jewish state...
10-7 was an effort to end it. That was what anti-zionism looks like in the real world, and the protesters are proclaiming themselves to be allies to that.
Some of them understand that, some of them don't. However it's very fair that they be treated as what they're claiming they are.
"
DavidTC: Not antisemitism, mind you. Anti-Zionism.
Zionism is the idea that the Jews should have a country. Ergo anti-Zionism is the idea that they shouldn't, i.e. Israel should be destroyed as a Jewish state.
That seems seriously antisemitic on the face of it, and that's without the real world likelihood that it would require a second holocaust.
I've pointed this out on this thread before that many of the "arguments" used against Israel are never used against non-Jews.
"
Page/Report has been removed. I read it before it vanished and it was interesting.
Hamas was totally air-brushed out of the picture. Not sure I'd even know their name if all I had was that report. That also gets rid of the hostages. It also means Hamas (because they don't exist) did no disruptions of aid and so on and had zero involvement in any of Gaza's civilians suffering.
If Israel blew up something or killed someone the only conceivable motivation was to attack civilians and make them suffer. Israel alone was responsible for the entire war.
It was kind of impressive. Maybe they took it down because someone pointed that out?
"
Columbia is not punishing the students for what they've said, just for the things that are normally illegal. Almost like the things which are normally illegal are still illegal, even if you call it "speech".
BREAKING: Columbia University Starts Expelling Anti-Israel Agitators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aMWhQDTZ8
"
Can you disrupt the educational institution to that degree and have it still be "speech"?
"
DavidTC: This is on top of the fact that the government is clearly doing this because of the content of the _speech_
I think the disruption of the educational institution and threatening some of it's students takes us well beyond "content of speech".
"
Suggesting we cut off aid 22 years from now is a way to not talk about it for 20 years.
"
Slade: We’re going to need a cite for this: “multiple states funding what are basically IslamicNa.zi arguments”.
If you mean "the funding" then most of the media in the Arab countries is state controlled. Their various positions in the UN are also state controlled. Al Jazeera has an English feed, try listening to them for a while.
If you mean the arguments themselves, then the idea that the Jews control everything is na.zi antisemitism, as is the idea that they are especially evil and should be held to different standards because they're evil.
If the arguments only make sense when used against Jews and make no sense at all when applied to non-Jews, then that's a problem.
"
Slade: Colonialism refers to steady encroachment on Palestinian land.
No. That's a good example of the Palestinians saying something and the West spinning it into they'd be cool with two states.
The PLO's charter, written years before the 67 war, had article 22 which spells out all of Israel is a colonial project, and multiple articles which make it clear they mean every inch.
When I listen to Arabic media, they don't make a big deal out of "steady encroachment" because every inch of the land is disputed.
When I listen to podcasts that talks to random Arabs on street, the issue never comes up. Again because every inch of the land is disputed.
When the Palestinian's talk about Israel the colony they mean all of Israel. As insane as it sounds, they're still fighting over whether or not the Jews get a state.
"
Slade: No right thinking individual believes that country is going to disappear.
The Palestinians do.
That's what they say when the person on the street is asked. That's what is in the original charters of both the PLO and Hamas. That's why these various peace plans keep falling apart.
They believe they can make the Jews flee to Europe or something and they make their policies on that. That's why we keep hearing about "colonialism".
That's also why giving up the Right to Return is such a non-starter, or even redefining it so it's a right to return to a Palestinian state along side a Jewish one.
If we listen to what the Palestinians actually say then they're pretty consistent. Even the rare support for "two states" requires the follow up question "can one of the states be Jewish".
This means there can't be peace and it opens the door for fringe groups in Israel to behave badly because they can't make the situation any worse.
"
Slade: By my reading of this, only the most pure of heart may render criticism of Israel.
No. I'm just saying we should be consistent.
There is a ton of media coverage on and even multiple states funding what are basically IslamicNazi arguments.
Their talking points get repeated and integrated into people without them understanding these arguments are judging Jews differently because they're Jews.
The idea that Jews shouldn't have a state but all other ethnotypes get a pass comes down to "because they're Jews" reasoning.
Ditto the idea that Jews shouldn't be able to respond to terrorism, ditto the idea that they shouldn't be able to have an urban war.
Apply these situations to other countries and it looks insane.
"
Slade: we’re not allowed to differentiate between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism.
A lot of the criticism of Israel involves reasoning we never use against non-Jews.
Urban warfare is "genocide" if Jews do it, but not if anyone else does. Israel shouldn't be an ethnostate because ethnostates are bad, however all non-Jewish ethnostates get a pass. Israel should put up with terrorism that non-Jews would never tolerate. Israel is expected to deal with a generational Right to Return.
I'd say the big issue that we'd apply in normal situations is it's lack of defined borders. It should just announce what land it considers it's own and be done with it.
"
Chris: I still see no evidence that Khalil supported 10/7,
True. It's "guilt by association" at the moment. However the margin of error is large and the idea of him supporting terrorism looks a lot more reasonable than it did at the start of this thread.
Chris: Would supporting armed resistance in Palestine generally be grounds for deportation?
Faict, the "armed resistance" groups in Palestine are resisting the idea of Jews and a Jewish state in the Middle East. That's why they target civilians, it's why their charters read the way they do, and so on.
So the answer to your question is going to be "yes". Normal rules apply. Supporting terrorism is grounds for deportation.
"
I do not see any evidence that most, or even more than a few, of the protestors supported 10/7.
Shrug. Enough did to make it into wiki, whatever that's worth. The better question is whether he personally said or did something along that line or whether the group he was leading did so.
We don't have specific information. However we've managed to draw a potential line from him to legal deportation. Whether the gov can do that in court is a different question.
Protesting(*) is legal but supporting terrorism is not. Israel was at war with an openly genocidal terror organization. Opposing the war without supporting the terror organization requires clear thinking on an emotional topic.
(*) There are a good number of things that "protesters" can do in the name of protesting which also crosses lines. They don't have the right to shut down education or harass random people even if they are Jewish and so on.
"
RE: genocide denialism
If the number of deaths is less than the number of births then is very hard to claim that Israel is killing everyone it can.
Given the Palestinian refusal to admit how many of the dead are militants, we're stuck with various estimates which suggest the Israeli Army's civilian kill ratio was pretty normal (or even good) for urban combat.
RE: the protests, where in the Wikipedia page does it say they supported 10/7
In fall 2024, activist groups including CUAD had begun to use rhetoric in support of Hamas and the October 7 attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupations#May_31%E2%80%93June_2,_2024:_Alumni_weekend_encampment
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
I voted for Harris. However Harris ran as an empty suit. My strong impression was she was sincere about being pro-choice and her identity policies and insincere about all of her other positions.
Big picture, the fiscal sanity wing of the GOP is in the process of being removed from the coalition and will become swing voters.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
LeeEsq: ...the Pro-Palestinian side decided to latch onto the broad definition of genocide in the Geneva Convention because they needed to district from Hamas and 10/7.
IMHO it's "accuse the other side of doing what you're doing so no one can tell the difference."
On 10-7 the Palestinians (including but not limited to Hamas) killed every Jew they could get their hands on, which is "genocide". That's really ugly and showcases what the Right of Return would look like.
If Israel is also committing genocide, then everyone is committing genocide so no one is.
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
I would like to see Team Blue running on economic growth and good government. "Economic growth" would include "free trade".
Trump is creating massive disruptions in business. Maybe someone can make ads where the auto industry explains why his tariffs destroy auto jobs and they built their businesses around the trade agreements Trump himself forced through last time.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Wiki says at times the Columbia protests were supporting 10/7. I have no idea what he personally said or did, however he was their leader so there's that.
Chris: or just in opposition to the then ongoing genocide
It is probably not useful to lower the definition for "genocide" to the point where it applies to all wars.
"
There's also the matter of the protesters supporting 10-7. That presumably is "endorsing terrorist activity".
So yes, you can get deported for supporting Hamas and/or 10-7.
And if this is long time established law, then we're also back to “wolf” accusations.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.