Saturday, October 28, 2023

On the media

NYU law student who defended Hamas’ terror attack refuses to say if she has empathy for ‘brutalized’ Israelis | Fox News  

. . ."Workman, who reportedly identifies as nonbinary, previously came under fire for writing in the newsletter SBA Weekly shortly after Hamas' terrorist attack that "Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life" and "this regime of state-sanctioned violence created the conditions that made resistance necessary," adding, "I will not condemn Palestinian resistance."   "Since that statement, Workman was forced to step down as the organization's president and lost a job offer from international law firm Winston & Strawn LLP." . . .

“What’s harsh, is dropping in on a music festival and slaughtering a bunch of young people just trying to enjoy an afternoon” (legalinsurrection.com)  . . ." Kirby: “What’s harsh — what’s harsh is the way Hamas is using people as human shields. What’s harsh is taking a couple of hundred hostages and leaving families and anxious, waiting and worrying to figure out where their loved ones are. What’s harsh, is dropping in on a music festival and slaughtering a bunch of young people just trying to enjoy an afternoon. I could go on and on. That’s what’s harsh. That is what’s harsh and being honest about the fact that there have been civilian casualties and that there likely will be more is being honest, because that’s what war is. It’s brutal. It’s ugly. It’s messy. I’ve said that before. President also said that yesterday. Doesn’t mean we have to like it. And it doesn’t mean that we’re dismissing anyone of those casualties each and every one is a tragedy in its own right…It would be helpful if Hamas would let [Gazans] leave….We know that there are thousands waiting to leave Gaza writ large and Hamas is preventing them from doing it. That is what is harsh.”. . . 

Some of the People Defending Hamas Are Using the Same Argument the Nazis Tried After the Holocaust (legalinsurrection.com)  

"The ‘Dresden defense’  I am a historian (like Khalidi), interested in the origins of ideas and arguments. It turns out that Khalidi’s premier talking point has a very specific genesis.

"It figured in the case for the defense in the Einsatzgruppen Trial, conducted by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal from late 1947 to the spring of 1948. The Einsatzgruppen were the paramilitary death squads of Nazi Germany, which carried out mass murder by shooting in Nazi-occupied Europe. They destroyed well over a million Jews, and two million people all told. After the war, their surviving senior commanders were put on trial at Nuremberg, charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes.

"The chief defendant, SS-Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, had been commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which carried out mass murders in Moldova, southern Ukraine, and the Caucasus. An economist and father of five, he had supervised the killing of 90,000 Jews. Ohlendorf imagined that he had a moral conscience. The killers under his command, he told a U.S. Army prosecutor, were prohibited from using infants for target practice, or smashing their heads against trees." . . .

No comments: