Is the title implying or not implying that her suspension is related to the fact that objected to working alongside IDF?

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

The title says working alongside IDF soldiers. It’s not implying anything.

Explain to me how being a student is considered “working alongside” with a professor simply because they are both at the same school?

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

Because she is a medical student and he is a professor of medicine.

According to users in this thread apparently. This national origin rhetoric is absurd. Fuck that and fuck the KKK.

To everyone not reading this article title: “A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her”

BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.

Reread the title, it does not say that.

She refused to work with a person who contributed to the genocide against her own people. He chose to be complicit in genocide. IDF soldiers are monsters and can fuck off. We should hand this guy over to the Hague. edit: typo

Death to them all, the satanic scum on Earth.

I was debating whether this rhetoric was effective or to easily misconstrued as antisemitic and then this other user writes:

In the end, she’s discriminating against a protected class: national-origin.

Dude, you don’t go hard enough with your rhetoric. People unironically believe that if a fascist government drafts you into the military you simply have no choice but to genocide as many people as possible.

Fuck me, I am Jewish. Not in my name! The IDF is committing genocide. Fuck the IDF. Do not let them slide because they were just following orders. Holy shit!

So your argument is that Israeli nationals should be absolved from any war crimes and/or genocide they participate in because they were just following orders?

Using national origin as an excuse for participating in genocide is peak genocide denial.

In the end, she’s discriminating against a protected class: national-origin.

This is the same as equating protesting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as xenophobia against Russians.

I highly recommend reassessing your world view. Your arguments are a one to one match with fascists arguments.

Netanyahu’s goals are to deny Palestinian statehood and form a greater Israel. He does not care about the hostages.

Iran also sold drones to Russia and have been a longer ally than Israel. But I guess that doesn’t really matter to dictatorships. Russia doesn’t really need Iran anymore now that they have Israel and the US.

Yeah, but I would think the Iranian leadership would rather have the US at their beck and call than as an enemy trying to wipe them off the face of the Earth no?

edit: It probably wasn’t up to Iran. Russia could be backstabbing them for the shiny new toy that is a fascist Israel.

“The Trump administration and the White House were consulted by the Israelis on their attacks on Gaza tonight and as President Trump has made clear to Hamas, the Houthis, Iran - all those who seek to terrorise not just Israel but the United States of America will see a price to pay,” Leavitt said.

“All hell will break loose and all of the terrorists in the Middle East - the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian-backed terror proxies and Iran themselves - should take President Trump very seriously when he says he is not afraid to stand for law-abiding people.”

I figured Trump would want to make peace with Iran since they’re also a Russian ally. At some point I guess you have to choose and we’re already too in deep with Israel to be neutral. So Trump will be supporting the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians and war to form a greater Israel against Iran and its proxies. That’s awful, for a bit there I thought we might have accidentally allied with everyone in the Middle East. edit: added quotes

Bipartisan spending bill.

Yes, unfortunately. Chuck Schumer handed the country over to fascists in exchange for nothing so his billionaire donors’ stock portfolios would go up. Schumer made the next small step and we are all closer to the death camps.

It had the support of Just Enough Democrats.

No, they only needed eight Democrats in the Senate. They got ten. It was overkill. They also got one House Democrat. This in excellent opportunity to educate people that Democrats serve the same billionaires as Republicans and the magnitude of the work that will need to be done to fix it. We need to overturn Citizens United and get money out of politics at the bare minimum. edit: capitalization

Citizens United has allowed what was already happening to reach its logical conclusion. The reason more people are noticing is because it’s by far the worst it’s been since we’ve had monopoly and anti-trust laws. If people take the time to look they’ll see it.

This time it wasn’t just one guy or two guys. It was ten Senators and a House Rep. Schumer as the senate minority leader handed over the country to the fascists. It’s an unprecedented betrayal. And it shows how both parties serve the same billionaires. =(

Fuck me. The backstab is from the cheese guy. 🤯

Genocide denial is still genocide denial even if your argument uses victims of one genocide to deny that genocide happened to other groups of people.

Try telling that to the face of someone whose whole family died in the death marches.

My argument is genocide is bad, ethnic cleansing is bad, and that there is no meaningful difference between the two.

Your argument is genocide is bad, ethnic cleansing is frowned but somehow less bad, and that there is a meaning distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide that your argument does not articulate.

Luis Moreno Ocampo, the inaugural prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has classified the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians as a second Armenian genocide, and opined that the inaction of the international community encouraged Azerbaijan to act with impunity.[34][35]

The number of deaths has nothing to do with it. The intent is the same, the only difference between the two genocides is that they were less successful at killing people in the second one. The only people that are helped by defending a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide, that does not exist, are the people who want to commit genocide.

Yeah, they went to the trouble of what amounted to a virtue signal no one wanted. The supposed target audience has no interest in what Trump and Musk are selling. Their joint incompetence might be what knee caps the entire christo-fascist project and the oligarchy to boot.

I think the vast majority of Democrats in House and Senate will bend the knee or just stay silent before facing persecution.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the Democrats have been ineffective so far, but they haven’t been silent. We’ll find out soon.

And everybody voting the furthest left viable is a flimsy strategy for fighting fascism.

It was the only useful, viable strategy we had.

Many people already do that all the time, but you can’t make sure that everybody does.

We can count on people to act in their own self-interest. People can organize online to spread true information. The issue was that people fell for propaganda that convinced them to act against their own interests without them realizing it.

Also, with this there never was a chance to move the party any further left. Every election there was this myth that you have to vote moderate to change the party, but it never happened. Why should it? Moderates can say that the voters have shown they want moderate positions when they win. And when they lose for some reason they go, “Well, if you need them the most the progressives will stab you in the back. Let’s cut them out”. This is what I mean there are no consequences for Democrats, at least for the leadership that’s moderate and neoliberal. They will never move.

My argument is that voting for neoliberal Democrats will only incrementally shift the party to the left. In order to make the Democrats meaningfully change from a leaning right of center organization to at least a leaning left of center organization they must be co-opted by a progressive or socialist candidate with a populist narrative. This populist narrative would ideally be a progressive and socialist agenda. Like Bernie tried to do twice. In order for someone like Bernie to do this we needed more time before a fascist takeover.

We know this strategy can work because Trump did it to the Republican party. He used a populist narrative of white christian nationalism. However, we are now out of time and relying on the idea that fascist incompetence will give us another chance.

There is no fulcrum on the political spectrum that can force Democrats to change. And if what your argument wants is a reason for Democrats to change that is not consequences but incentives. To be clear, in a democracy the only consequence for losing elections is to lose out on political power. There is no mechanism besides voting to make Democrats agree with one group of constituents. Democrats look at who voted and then chase those votes.

As long as money is in politics the incentives will always be for the Democrats to incrementally change at best. At a pace that is far to slow to fix wealth inequality or climate change. Political power has to be seized when it is up for grabs during primaries in order to see more systemic change. But in order to do that there needed to be future elections which is no longer guaranteed.

Your argument’s defense of a nonexistent boundary between genocide and ethnic cleansing boils down to genocide denial. There is no agreed upon definition of ethnic cleansing. There is no way to peacefully forcefully relocate a group of people. An attempt to forcefully relocate a group of people is motivated by the desire to destroy that group in whole or in part.

The quote from the wiki article points out everything I have now written down in this comment. It’s written as a series of rhetorical questions with clear answers. Your argument’s effort to misrepresent the wiki page’s descriptive analysis of ethnic cleansing as an official definition is an attempt to police a none existent boundary. You argument left out the last part of that section.

Multiple genocide scholars have criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide, with Martin Shaw arguing that forced deportation necessarily results in the destruction of a group and this must be foreseen by the perpetrators.

A call for ethnic cleansing is a call for genocide. There is no way to engage in peaceful forceful deportation or population transfer. There is no meaningful difference between getting rid of a group by forcefully removing them and destroying them.

The Armenian genocide involved death marches, into the desert without food or water. What’s the meaningful difference between sending people to die in the desert and destroying them? There isn’t one.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/armenian-genocide

Oh, lol. XD
🫶🇨🇦