Re: Deportation of Khalil

On 2025-04-13 4:40 PM, shawn wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:19:59 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

On 2025-04-12 11:29 PM, Robin Miller wrote:

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>

I despise Khalil. He's espousing anti-Western and anti-Israeli values and
is acting, effectively, as a spokesman for Hamas, It's a
misrepresentation to call him "pro Palestinian" as taking the Hamas side
is anti-Palestinian.

>
>
These are all lies. Khalil's position is to oppose Israel's genocide in
Gaza, which is the only moral position to take. Numerous Jewish groups
have taken the same position; Jewish groups have often led campus
protests. Anyone who supports Israel in its genocide is siding with
ideological descendants of Nazis.

 If that is the case then it should be easy enough to prove. Either
he's been out there supporting Hamas in public or he hasn't.
 

>

If Hamas had taken the honourable - and legally required - approach to
war, none of this "genocide" would have happened. They would have put
their fighters in uniform and fought away from civilian areas instead of
deliberately hiding among the civilian population and civilian
infrastructure. But they didn't.

 They would have lost on the first day because Israel is just that much
better armed and trained. It's why they are hiding among the civilian
population in the hopes that will help protect them. It shows that
they are willing to sacrifice their fellow Palestinians in order to
keep themselves safe.
 That doesn't support their own attack on Israel civilians. That takes
them from soldiers fighting a war to terrorists who deserve what ever
they get. Not that the Palestinians they hide amongst are deserving of
suffering with Hamas.

We have no idea what proportion of the human shields acted as such voluntarily and how many were forced at gunpoint to stay in place rather than seeking shelter away from the bombing and fighting. Given that Hamas won an election to become the legitimate governing party of Gaza, we have to assume significant public support but whether this support has survived all the years since that election is unknown and possibly unknowable. I'd be shocked if the percentage of willing shields was zero and I'd be shocked if it was 100%.

If Hamas cared about the citizens they represent, they would have let
them shelter in the extensive tunnel network that they built under Gaza,
rather than forbidding them to do so because the tunnels were reserved
for fighters and rockets. But they didn't.

 That would have been better but it likely would have just led to
Israel using bunker busting type bombs to get at the people in the
tunnels.
 

You're using a pragmatic/political calculation to deduce that and I don't disagree with your assessment. But where is the moral component? Surely it is simply WRONG to deny your own people shelter when it exists and has been paid for with aid money given with the intent of making life better for Gazans.

If Hamas wanted to end the suffering and death, they would have given up
the hostages months ago and laid down their arms. But they didn't.

 I wouldn't expect them to put down their arms so long as Israel is
treating the Palestinians as they are. That said I don't see the point
in holding on to the hostages. It doesn't give them the sort of
leverage they hoped for and just provides Netenyahoo (yeah, I know it
isn't his name) cover for doing what he and his far right supporters
want.
 

You're using a pragmatic/political calculation to deduce that and I don't disagree with your assessment. But where is the moral component? Surely it is simply WRONG to perpetuate a war you can't win and is kiliing your own people.

If Hamas had a shred of honesty, they would have ensured that the health
ministry in Gaza - which is run by Hamas - wouldn't be exaggerated and
would distinguish between dead fighters and dead civilians. But they
didn't.

 

Probably because they think that strengthens their position. No idea
if it helps or not but at least I can see why they would do that. Also
why would you give your enemy information on how effective their
attacks have been. That's never been a good idea.
>

Fine, then they shouldn't have reported any numbers at all. But that would have reduced the amount of sympathy they got from gullible "progressives", which they were counting on to drive support from politicians that wanted to be seen as being "progressive", like Canada's own Melanie Joly, who talked about recognizing Palestine and got a thank you letter from Hamas due to her efforts on their behalf. Again, where is the moral realization that it is simply wrong to claim a hospital was devastated and 500 people were killed by an Israeli bomb when it was the parking lot that was hit with a much lower death toll and the Israeli bomb was actually one of Hamas' own rockets?

 

The government's position that a protestor at a university "would have
potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United
States" is preposterous on its face. Rubio's statement contained no
evidence for his assertion.
>
More generally, the contention that people legally in the US can be
thrown out of the country--or legally harmed in any way--for taking a
political position different from that of the government effectively
nullifies the First Amendment.
>

Those two paragraphs are essentially what Adam are saying.

 

>

The more extreme that Israel becomes, the more extreme becomes the
repression by governments allied to Israel--and the fanaticism of
Israel's supporters.
>
Zionism is a genocidal political philosophy that must be eradicated.
>

>
BTR1701 responded to that point already and I have nothing to add to his
response.
>
Mahmoud Khalil has gone beyond just speech, as Douglas Murray points out
in this video:
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWjWAiAIG4 [8 minutes]
>
(Be patient, he gets there....)

--
Rhino