Have people at Harvard been calling for that?


Performative minds don't want to know: Once again, we were stunned today by several discussions we watched on Morning Joe. 

Because the conversations in question dealt with very serious topics, we're going to wait a day before we comment in any detail. Having said that, good God:

Now they've even got Jackie Alemany!

Alemany works for the Washington Post, where she's done a lot of well-regarded journalism. In an attempt to build a wider context around what is currently going on, we'll note that these were the five "most read" articles at that newspaper as of the 10 o'clock this morning:

1) 5 things architects and designers regret about their own homes

2) Advice / Her 18-year-old’s boyfriend is 34. How does a worried mom respond?

3) Norman Lear, who brought social commentary to the sitcom, dies at 101

4) Woman sentenced to fast-food job after hurling Chipotle bowl at worker

5) The overhead bins are empty. Why do airlines make you check your bag?

According to the Post's own compilation, those were the five articles with the largest number of readers. We the people—including we the upper-end people who read the Washington Post—are a fundamental part of this nation's existential crisis.

Moving right along, we have a simple question. With apologies, that question goes like this:

Have people at Harvard been calling for the genocide of the Jewish people? 

With apologies, has that actually been happening on the Harvard campus? How about at MIT and Penn? 

With apologies, our question continues from there:

If that's been happening on those campuses, why haven't we seen the videotape of those ugly, inexcusable calls? 

In fact, we haven't seen any such tapes, including on Morning Joe. If these calls are taking place, why haven't we seen the recordings?

We ask this question in response to yesterday's hearing in the House. For our money, we think Kevin Drum is slicing the lunch meat pretty thin when he defends the performances of the college presidents from Harvard, MIT and Penn who were put on the grill during this session.

(For Kevin's assessment, click here. Presumably, what he's saying is technically accurate.)

In fairness, these three women aren't politicians. They aren't public performers of some other familiar type. They may have spent too many years inside an academic hothouse, speaking only to other people who swim in the same sea as them.

That said, their performances yesterday were just amazingly poor. Maybe these colleges need to hire some politicians or similar types to serve as their presidents, as when General Eisenhower hired on as Columbia's president.

At yesterday's hearing, the presidents performed very poorly when they came under attack. This will be directly used in the ongoing effort to elect Donald J. Trump next year.

In our view, the presidents performed quite poorly. That said, and with apologies, have people on their campuses actually been calling for the genocide of the Jewish people?

Almost surely, Elise Stefanik is the biggest phony in the entire House of Representatives. On this one occasion, she may even have been sincere, but recent history argues against the likelihood of that.

At any rate, Stefanik kept asking these presidents if such calls constitute a violation of their campus codes of conduct. As we noted above, the president gave amazingly narrow responses to Stefanik's non-question questions. 

At one point, the president of MIT did manage to offer this:

"I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus."

When Stefanik came at her again, the word salad was instantly worse. That said, her answer seemed to suggest the possibility that no one has been making such calls on the MIT campus.

(You can see this exchange on the videotape at the post to which Kevin links.)

We were disgusted by what we saw on Morning Joe this morning. At such times, we think of Plato's Seventh Letter, a document concerning the downfall of the Athenian democracy:

PLATO: The existing constitution, which was subject to widespread criticism, was overthrown...and a committee of Thirty given supreme power. As it happened some of them were friends and relations of mine and they at once invited me to join them, as if it were the natural thing for me to do. 

My feelings were what were to be expected in a young man: I thought they were going to reform society and rule justly, and so I watched their proceedings with deep interest. I found that they soon made the earlier regime look like a golden age. 

Among other things they tried to incriminate my old friend Socrates, whom I should not hesitate to call the most upright man then living, by sending him, with others, to arrest a fellow-citizen, and bring him forcibly to execution; Socrates refused, and risked everything rather than make himself a party to their wickedness. When I saw all this, and other things as bad, I was disgusted and withdrew from the wickedness of the times.

For the record: As far as we know, specialists aren't sure that this famous document is authentic.

By happenstance, we saw the 1985 film Witness over the weekend. In the film, a Philadelphia policeman briefly attempts to withdraw—through an internal exile in Amish country—from the wickedness of the times.

(In the end, he decides that he has to go back. That was also Plato's decision.)

It isn't clear that our nation can survive the reign of programs like Morning Joe. We were appalled by what we saw today, but—once again with apologies—we leave you with that question:

Have people been making that ugly call on the Harvard campus? If people are actually doing that, we haven't we all been shown?

Uninquiring minds don't seem to want to know. Birds have to fly and fish have to swim and big cable stars have to pose.

(More on this another day. In our view, today's Morning Joe was appalling.)


  1. I don't know who "Stefanik" is, but it's well understood that Zionists are extremely influential in the government and government-owned media. Don't pretend you're not aware of it, Bob.

    So, instead of criticizing some dumbass congresswoman, perhaps you may want to get to the root of the problem.

    1. sounds like weirdo Mao might be a touch anti-semitic

  2. "That said, their performances yesterday were just amazingly poor."

    Somerby says this because the opinions expressed by the college presidents who were testifying did not accord with his own pro-Palestinian views.

    They attempted to explain the need to protect even despicable speech as a first ammendment right versus the commission of acts that conflict with campus codes of behavior.

    Several said they had heard for calls for a global intifada from protesting students on their campuses. They said they found the chants personally upsetting and deplorable, but that students had the right to say such things, regardless of how the administrators felt about them. In contrast, acts against Jews or Israelis or anyone else would be a violation of the campus codes of conduct and thus actionable.

    Somerby misses this distinction between protected speech and hostile behavior. Somerby instead "apparently" thinks the presidents should have defended Hamas and been pro-Palestinian, like Jayapal, most in accord with his own political views which are pro-Palestinian.

    It isn't the role of a college administrator to take a stand on controversial political issues, even ones involving war. They job is to grow the endowment and keep peace among students. It is not their job to tell students or faculty or staff how to think about a highly charged political issue.

    1. Conflating all, or even a majority of, Palestinians with Hamas is ahistorical, misleading, and misinformation.

    2. That's a handy way for Palestinians to disavow violence one moment while engaging in it another, but Hamas is the elected representative of the Palestinian people in Gaza (like it or not) and until that situation changes, Palestinians are responsible for Hamas. It should be more possible for Gazans to have an intifada against Hamas than against Israel, so they need to solve that problem for themselves working together with Israel, if they are sincere about disavowing what Hamas did.

    3. Also, by their words and actions, Palestinians apparently approve of what Hamas did.

  3. I was at both Harvard and MIT (there is cross-enrollment and a lot of sharing across the two campuses) and support the statement that there was loud political discord at Harvard but not at MIT. MIT has a very different campus atmosphere and environment. Students have different interests and are focused on different things at MIT compared to Harvard.

    Somerby hints that the MIT president was lying when he said he hadn't heard calls for death to Jews at MIT. Having been a grad student there, I find that plausible.

    1. a braggart and a moron all wrapped up in a single insufferable online persona. amazing. no, moron, Somerby didn't "hint" at that. you can't find anything really wrong with what he said, but your Somerby Derangement Syndrome compels you to post something negative, so you make just make something up and say that's what he was "hinting" at.

  4. "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free"

    I've been trying to come up with an anagram of this phrase with "eliminate all the Jews" in it, but I'm missing a "w". What's the trick here?

    1. 1. Palestine doesn't exist.
      2. The territory encompassed by river to sea includes more than just Israel, but Palestinians seem to be only targeting Israeli Jews.
      3. Why can't Palestinians be free without eliminating Israelis and Jews?
      4. Why is it that other Arab and Muslim nations can get along with Israel these days, whereas Palestinians cannot?
      5. What kind of people wages war by raping women and killing babies? Is that what freedom looks like?
      6. Do Palestinians deserve to be free while they cannot even behave in a civilized manner while under Israeli supervision?
      7. Given how they behave now, what would Palestinians do with their freedom? Are they ready to be good neighbors to anyone else in the world?

    2. Erecting a Jewish state in Palestine was a mistake.

    3. Seems to me Israel is thriving and it is the Palestinians who have made the mistakes by murdering innocent people because no one will give Hamas their own country.

    4. It seems to me that Zionazism is a real thing.

  5. Students were calling for a global intifada. During the 2000-2005 second intifada, suicide bombings by Palestinians in Israeli cities peaked (146 completed, 389 foiled).

    Here is a list of all of the suicide bombings in Israel by Palestinians:


    This is what students were calling for when they used the term global intifada because that term is inextricably linked to the campaign of violence carried out by Palestinians during the previous intifadas.

  6. @1:22 Try this one:



    Being excessively literal is disingenuous in this context.

  7. There's a wikipedia article for intifada too:
    It's odd that you missed it, 1:27 PM.

    "An intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة intifāḍah) is a rebellion or uprising, or a resistance movement. It is a key concept in contemporary Arabic usage referring to a uprising against oppression.[1]"

  8. "Once again, we were stunned today by several discussions we watched on Morning Joe. "

    "In our view, today's Morning Joe was appalling."

    Somerby's vividly described visceral reaction to Morning Joe says a lot about his own mind state. No liberal watching Morning Joe has that specific reaction to it. It might be boring or insipid or we may disagree with things said, but none of us actual liberals are stunned or appalled by liberal cable the way Somerby claims to be.

    Stunned and appalled does describe how I have felt about too many of Somerby's articles, increasingly after 2015 when he came out of the closet as a bigot and joined Trump's MAGA chorus.

    It stunned me that Somerby did not support Hillary, despite Trump's obvious deficiencies. It stunned me that he called ALL of the candidates vying to run against Trump in 2020 "terrible candidates". It appalled me that Somerby would defend someone like Roy Moore, not to mention Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman, and it appalled me that he would call Kyle an excitable youth but not Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin. I was stunned when Somerby said that Trump should not be impeached because it would overturn the will of the voters, and when he knowingly said that the 1/6 Committee was unfairly biased (after the Republicans chose to walk out on it). And I am still appalled that Somerby would try to hard to undermine reports of the progress in MS schools on the NAEP test -- what can he have against recognizing good work to benefit kids? Most appalling was the column he wrote sexualizing Anne Frank -- he actually said the photo on the cover of the recent bio about her was worth the price of admission (presumably the book cost).

    These are appalling and stunning things that Somerby has said since 2015 that cause me to think he is no kind of liberal at all, but a fucked up right winger, perhaps trolling for pay, who is working hard to put Trump back into office. Somerby joined the ranks of people who don't care about democracy and wouldn't mind having a moron as a dictator, defending things like book banning. I don't know a single lefty who would express such a long list of deplorable attitudes, and I know a lot of liberals. Somerby may just be an asshole (anything is possible), but there is too much congruence between his stunning admissions and right wing talking points for this to be accidental.

    1. He didn't defend Roy Moore. This was pointed out to you many times, dumbfuck troll.

    2. Yes, he did defend him. Calling me names changes nothing about that. He did that by claiming Moore was being unfairly labeled as a pedophile by the media, pointing out that the mothers approved in one case, suggesting that because he ALSO dated girls over 18 that the younger ones shouldn't count against him, and by suggesting that the accusations were accusations and not convictions (as if that means he did nothing to the several girls who all made independent accusations). Somerby tried to argue that the yearbook inscription made by Moore was innocent, but come on, who does that? And Somerby ignored the statements by Moore's colleagues about their concerns. Somerby suggested that because Moore waited until his wife was of age, it didn't matter that he focused on her when she was much younger. All of that amounts to a defense of a Republican candidate under fire for inappropriate behavior with young girls (age 14).

      It is unclear whether Somerby was defending Moore as a Republican talking point or because he identifies with guys accused by women (or girls) of inappropriate behavior.

      "Pointed out" is not the same as addressing the things Somerby actually said, which I have linked to previously. Here are some links:


      In this one, Somerby equates Corfman (Moore's accuser) with Juanita Broaddrick, a false accuser of Bill Clinton:


      Here is another clear defense of Moore, arguing that women lie:


      Somerby spent a lot of time on this topic, always defending Moore and explaining away the evidence against him. There is more, but this should give you the gist of Somerby's arguments. Somerby never addressed the concerns of Moore's coworkers who had concerns about his dating habits, nor the cases where there are witnesses that Moore called an underage girl out of her high school class (using his Asst DA credentials) in order to ask her for a date, and witnesses that Moore was asked by mall security to stop stalking 14 year olds there because he was creeping them out. This stuff may not have been illegal but it provides support of his interest in pre-teen girls, to support the claims made by these girls as grown women able now to protect themselves from Moore.

      This stuff all came out when he was running for office because a man who formerly preyed on young girls should not hold a position of public trust after committing previous uncharged felonies. The voters should have the info to make such a decision about him. Somerby was opposed, as is clear from these posts. Somerby even proposed that customs are different in the South and that girls get married much younger there, without any harm (from his perspective).

    3. Here's the one where Somerby argued it was OK for Roy Moore to "date" 14 year olds because Bogie married Bacall when she was young, and it was considered romantic and not creepy:


      If you visit the incel and men's rights websites they argue that a woman is at her best at age 17, and they think it is unfair that girls are jailbait at that age, when it is all downhill (physically) after that. Their idea is that naive young girls are better "dates" because a man can train them up to be compliant to their wishes without them being polluted by feminism or maturity or awareness of their own needs and rights as people.

      Psychologists consider a man who seeks out young girls to be sexually inadequate. They want a virgin who will not compare them to other men and thus not realize their deficiencies. They fear being mocked. This is very dangerous for the girls involved with such men because they typically react with rage and can be violent if the girl challenges them as she becomes older. It is a dynamic in domestic violence.

      This is serious misbehavior but Somerby only considers Moore's problems, never that of the girls involved. This, from a former middle school teacher. What might Lauren Boebert have been like if she hadn't been a pregnant teen dropout married to the guy who exposed himself to girls at the local bowling alley, had four children before getting her GED, now going through a divorce after fucking up her stint in the House. She might have had a chance at an education, a stable marriage, a job based on less circus-like behavior and a future instead of being a national joke. Hers are the circumstances that Somerby tries to normalize as he defends Roy Moore.

    4. 5:12 - I don't have time to fact check every one of your citations, but I'll do your first one:

      "In this one, Somerby equates Corfman (Moore's accuser) with Juanita Broaddrick, a false accuser of Bill Clinton:"

      You forgot to put the date, which is 12/11/17. In this essay, Somerby does not equate Corfman to Broaddrick at all. You just made that up. Instead, when Somerby discusses Corfman's accusations, first he quotes Michelle Goldberg, who says this:

      "Moore stands credibly accused of molesting a 14-year-old whom he picked up outside her mother's custody hearing"

      Somerby then states: "We agree with every word"

      Thus, Somerby says that Corfman has CREDIBLY accused Moore of molesting her when she was just 14.

      YOUR credibility, on the other hand, is shot to hell.

    5. So, why is Broaddrick mentioned at all?

    6. Somerby always makes reasonable disclaimers before contradicting them. Dogface gets suckered by the disclaimers.

    7. 7:37 exposed for the thousandth time as the lying shitbag they are, but they'll be back at it tomorrow, you can rest assured. thank god they and the other Somerby Derangment Sufferers that shit on this comments board every day don't have a platform of any real influence. they would drive people away from the left and ironically increase the chance of another Trump term

    8. 7:37:


      This focuses on the need for more nuanced media reporting in cases of sexual misconduct. It does not defend Moore or claim that women typically lie about assault.

      You are either lying or stupid.

    9. 12:46: Roy Moore lost, in case you had forgotten. Because he was a creep.

    10. Anonymouse 8:39am, and there was this:


  9. @1:32 PM
    Your ajc link doesn't have any "eliminate all the Jews" either.

  10. Yes, this is the definition of the word in Arabic, but it does not capture the meaning of the word in actual use, nor the context of the Palestinian uprising named by that word -- that is specifically about killing Jews and erasing Israel.

    I didn't miss that definition. I considered it too general, much like calling Christmas with all of its richness of tradition just "holiday." Yes, holiday encompasses Christmas, but it also leaves out so much detail.

    "The most prominent expressions of intifada have been through violence so this phrase is often understood by those saying and hearing it as encouraging violence against Israelis, Jews, and institutions supporting Israel."


    Claiming that violence is not part of the meaning of the word as currently used is specious given how much violence accompanied the previous intifadas (see list of suicide bombings provided above).

  11. You don't have to eliminate ALL of the Jews to be accused of violent intent toward Jews as a people.

  12. "Claiming that violence is not part of the meaning of the word as currently used is specious given..."

    So, then, you're a pacifist, 1:55 PM? A principled opponent of any and all violence?

    1. A principled opponent of any and all violence except that directed at YOU specifically.

  13. The best evidence that Palestinians participating in Hamas wish to eradicate Jews occurred on 10/7. Actions speak louder than words.

  14. Genetics indicate that Palestinians are more directly the descendants from the original Jews that occupied the land than the current Jews that occupy the land, who are mostly descendants of Europeans.

    It’s pretty rich to falsely mind read the American students while at the same time Israel is engaging in an ethnic cleansing genocide.

    1. 48% are sephardic Jews and not European, whereas 45% are Ashkenazi (related to Europeans) so where do you get off saying that current israeli Jews are "mostly" descendents of Europeans?

      Israel is engaged in NO genocide and not ethnic cleansing when it is itself a diverse nation. This is more crappy repetitive pro-Palestinian propaganda.

  15. Personally, I don't care about genetics, but I find it odd that those objecting to European settlers massacring actual Semites in Gaza and the West Bank are called 'antisemites'. Shouldn't there be a better word?

    1. Yes, a better word is needed. The current one refers to hatred of Jews, not semites. The mistaken word arises from the use of the word semite as a euphemism for Jew in Europe.

  16. "Have people at Harvard been calling for that?"

    Why does Somerby use the word "people" instead of "students" when he knows that the recent discussion has been about student protests, not the other "people" at Harvard (which include faculty, administrators, and staff)? The distinction is important because the people at Harvard are permanent whereas the students will be gone a few years after venting their spleen. The students are viewed as "customers" who must be catered to and appeased whereas the rest of the people work there to provide an education for those students. They can be fired for getting rowdy.

  17. Here is what we should be talking about today:


    Somerby's preoccupation with nitpicky garbage is usually intended to distract his readers from real news. It is real news that Trump has refused to reassure Sean Hannity (and his viewers) that he does not plan to behave like a dictator if reelected. Trump's answer was "only on day one," when he plans to remake the government in order to remain in power indefinitely.

    But Somerby thinks we should be obsessing over Morning Joe. In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!"

    1. You think it's real news that Trump has refused to reassure Sean Hannity that he doesn't plan to behave like a dictator if reelected???

      Really? Because that is not news at all. That is non news. It's a made-up, partisan, non-story that only exists to scare cowards.

    2. To scare? That might be a mistake. When things go awry -- falling wages, credible threats of a nuclear war -- people usually do want a strong hand.

    3. Pod Save America was saying last week that Trump's entire campaign is to portray himself as stronger than Biden, an appeal to those who want a strongman (which not coincidentally is another name for a dictator).

      I agree that it is not "news" that Trump refuses to say he won't end the presidency on his first day in office. It is his campaign strategy. But that definitely should concern Democrats, as if we weren't already aware of it.

    4. It may be true that Trump is trolling the left by making them think there is a real danger he could declare himself a dictator. Trump probably loves that Digby is trying to scare people into thinking he really plans to behave like a dictator if reelected. It shows how clueless the left are to believe and perpetrate something so stupid. It makes him stronger.

      Once again Digby plays into Trump's hands and helps his reelection chances. Thanks Heath! Thanks gullible commenters!!

    5. He has already behaved like a dictator last time. Why wouldn’t we believe it again?

    6. So the OC feels like it "real news" that Trump will behave in the same way he did before? Duh. That is most certainly not news. Yet, they feel like that is what we should be discussing. You all are world class losers.

      Democrats should be discussing how to motivate voters to support them and how to find candidates that are appealing, inspirational and great instead of the loser, gasbag, ultimate insiders they foist on us.

    7. The real news is that Trump wants to provide blacks with reparations for slavery on Day One of his Second Presidential term. I wonder why the corporate media isn't reporting that news. Could it be that they are in the bag for Trump, and don't want to alienate Republican voters? That would be odd, since our media insists that Republican voters are "economically anxious", and not at all just a shit-pile of bigots.

    8. 7:12,
      That explains why the media never calls Trump a racist, grifting, self-admitted sexual predator, with a long history of business failures, despite stiffing his contractors.
      It's not news because everybody, including Republican voters who align with Trump, know it.
      Much better to report on things that aren't known by everyone in the world, like our current historically low unemployment rate and the falling cost of eggs.

  18. Witness and Plato have nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion topic. It is padding. Why Somerby feels the need to do this is anyone's guess.

  19. Somerby says he just rewatched Witness and yet he cannot summarize the plot accurately. Here is what the movie is about:

    "After witnessing a brutal murder, young Amish boy Samuel (Lukas Haas) and his mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis) seek protection from police officer John Book (Harrison Ford). When Book uncovers evidence of police corruption involving narcotics lieutenant James McFee (Danny Glover), Book must take Rachel and Samuel, and flee to the Amish countryside where Rachel grew up. There, immersed in Amish culture and tradition, Book and Rachel begin a cautious romance."

    Here is what Somerby says it is about:

    "In the film, a Philadelphia policeman briefly attempts to withdraw—through an internal exile in Amish country—from the wickedness of the times."

    Does that sound like the same movie to you? If Somerby cannot summarize a movie he just watched, how can anyone depend on his description of what happened on Morning Joe?

  20. If Somerby were really concerned about bridging political divides and reducing polarization, he might be discussing attempts to address such problems, such as Semafor and the new Allbritton Journalism Institute:

    "New Non-Profit News Site to Launch Next Month
    December 6, 2023 at 1:37 pm EST By Taegan Goddard

    Semafor: “A high-profile nonprofit is launching a Washington D.C.-focused newsroom early next year that promises to publish deep reporting and act as a training ground for young reporters.”

    “The Allbritton Journalism Institute said on Wednesday that in January 2024, it plans to launch News of the United States, or ‘NOTUS,’ a new publication that will explore Washington and the 2024 election.”

    Semafor, founded by the guys who gave us Bloomberg Media, The Atlantic, and Buzzfeed, claims to be giving a world of diverse people the same set of facts, in order to bridge the political divide. Somerby might consider whether it has been doing that job well. Like this media review, by someone who actually knows how to be a media critic:


    NOTUS is funded by the founder of Politico. One commenter said:

    "So maybe hate factory is a bit strong, but definitely sounds likely to be a bastion of horse-race bothsiderism, with a leavening of Democrats-in-Disarray."

    Whenever I read actual media criticism, it strikes me that the other media critics discover different problems with the media than Somerby does. I've never heard Somerby decry the way the media makes presidential races about the race instead of the issues and capabilities of the candidates, how Somerby never discusses the bothsiderism of today's press (although he used to talk about it a bit in the past, along with false equivalences), and he has never pointed out the Democrats in Disarray theme beloved by mainstream media. Those things come up in Somerby's comments but never in his essays.

    Because Somerby wastes his time watching Fox more and more, these new media will not be on his radar. Perhaps it is hard for him to read anything these days.

  21. This is the most comical and preposterous thing I’ve read all week.

    It’s abundantly obvious that some kids were never hit on the backside with a wooden spoon when they devoutly needed it.


    1. Hitting kids is not a good idea.

    2. It depends on whether they need it.

    3. There are consequences that interfere with parenting.

    4. Nowadays a woman has to hit a man to make him know she's there.

    5. Anonymouse 9:47, there’s a better man out there. Go get him.

    6. Sometimes a wife needs a spanking, too.

    7. Sometimes a husband could use a spanking from his wife.

    8. Cecelia needs a spanking.

  22. Article convincingly shows that Palestinians generally approve and support Hamas's actions. The last paragraph summarizes the conclusions:

    The Biden administration is demanding that Israel take even more extraordinary measures to avoid harming “innocent civilians” as it tries to eradicate Hamas. Around the world, politicians and others express dismay at the alleged number of innocent civilians who have been killed by Israeli bombardments, even while admitting that Hamas’s casualty numbers include its own terrorists, people killed by terrorists’ awol missiles, and so on.

    But my complaint is more fundamental. Watching videos of Israeli captives being paraded through Gaza, and seeing “civilians” spitting on them, hitting them, joyously celebrating their capture, I have asked: where are these innocent civilians we keep hearing about?

    In the Times of Israel, Avigdor Liberman makes the point in a column titled “Innocents in Gaza? Don’t be naive.”

    [T]here is no shadow of a doubt that among those who took part in the attack on southern Israel, provided the intelligence on the homes of the residents, and led the mob in the second wave of looting and destruction were Gazans who worked in the kibbutz communities they invaded. They earned a living and ate in the homes of the massacred residents, some of whom were the very residents who helped Gazans and their families when they were sick, and took care of transporting them from Gaza to Israel for life-saving treatments in Israeli hospitals.

    Meanwhile, scenes within Gaza paint a sickening picture:

    Some will say Gazans are afraid of Hamas and that is why we have not heard any condemnation from them, but the scenes we witnessed every evening when our kidnapped were being transferred to the Red Cross and the testimonies of those who have returned from captivity suggest otherwise. It’s clear that Hamas has massive support in Gaza: The frenzied crowd jeering and spitting on the abductees, the testimonies of Israeli children who say they were beaten by Gazans of all ages, and the demonstrations of joy and support for terrorists throughout Gaza testify to the cruelty of a populace that educates its children to hate Israel and is raising a new generation of terrorists and supporters of terrorism whose goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and all its citizens.

    The story of Roni Krivoi, who was kidnapped from the Supernova festival by the bad guys, is a case in point. Roni managed to escape from captivity and hide for a few days until Gazans caught him and returned him to his captors. …

    Further evidence of the cooperation of the population can be found in the corridors of Shifa Hospital, where the hospital director and other senior doctors helped the terrorists hide hostages and turn the hospital into a haven for terrorists. But it’s not only in hospitals that you find collaborators, it’s also in private homes of Gazans, including a reported case of an UNRWA employee, where hostages were held in terrible conditions.

    Like people everywhere, Gazans express themselves on social media. No one forces them to publish posts cheering on the massacre of Jews, but that is what they do:

    This reality is also reflected on social networks in the Arab world and in Gaza, where an avalanche of posts are words of praise and wall-to-wall support for Hamas and the horrible acts of October 7th.

    So tell me, where are those innocent people in the Gaza Strip hiding?

    The idea that Hamas is the source of Gaza’s sickness, and that Hamas can be excised leaving a normal society, is false. Hamas is a symptom, not a cause. The root cause of Gazans’ horrific actions is their culture, which promotes Jew-hatred above all other virtues. Unfortunately, the people of Gaza are suffused with that sick culture and, seemingly with very few exceptions, have bought into it. Calling them “civilians” doesn’t change that reality.

    1. So what do you want to do? Palestinians generally approve and support Hamas's actions. The root cause is their sick culture. They hate Jews above everything else. It is all of them. They are incapable of operating a normal society.

      So what now then? What do you want to do? What is anyone supposed to do with this information?

      Shouldn't Israel just kill all of them then? Is that what you want? Is that what you are seeking? Approval to genocide them? What do you want to do? Say it!

    2. Not David, but it would help for other nations and organizations to stop encouraging them and to condemn their violence.

    3. It was a mistake to erect a Jewish state in Palestine.

    4. Since the civilians, many of whom are children, are not apparently innocent, it is all the more easy to cheer on the Israelis. Enlarging the target population accomplishes much. Civilian casualties become more acceptable when such people are judged en masse to harbor the intent to extinguish the neighboring Jewish population. A slippery slope indeed.

      You could say that nuance is not the forte of those being shelled or under the boot of the Israelis for decades. A small speck of curiosity is all that is required to ask why it is that groups of Israelis support the Palestinians by protesting against Israeli policy. This has been the case on the streets and among Israeli intellectuals for years before 10/7, more commonly since the illegal West Bank settlements and ensuing violence against West Bank Palestinians stepped up. DIC , spouting off about what level of destruction the Israelis are entitled to, has not mentioned, as one of the chosen people, visiting his so called homeland, in the 75 years since its UN partition.

      For a more balanced view, Bob would recommend paying heed to the other viewpoint. Acknowledging that one exists for a reason would be a start. This does not require accepting the view of Muslim extremists. Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappes, Norman Finkelstein, and others are all Jews who have witnessed Israeli/Palestinian affairs from the vantage point of years spent studying them up close. Gideon Levy, for example, was in the Perez government under the Labor Party and now writes for Haaretz. YouTube "The Zionist Tango: Step left, step right" for a view counter to that which paves the way for genocide, that is, the simple minded view promoted in many media outlets and by the uninformed who would prefer their cartoonish world of cheerleading.

  23. Operation 28:

    Debrief liaison: Fanny Whisper