Hillary Clinton slams anti-Israel protests on college campuses, says students have been fed propaganda

[Beastly Boy]

Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton tears into the pro-Palestinian protest movement that has swept across American colleges, calling them ignorant and lamenting that they’re being misinformed by propaganda on social media and in the classroom.

“I have had many conversations with a lot of young people over the last many months. They don’t know very much at all about the history of the Middle East or frankly about history in many areas of the world, including in our own country,” Clinton tells MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“With respect to the Middle East, they don’t know that under the bringing together of the Israelis and the Palestinians by my husband — then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the then-head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Yasser Arafat — an offer was made to the Palestinians for a state on 96% of the existing territory occupied by the Palestinians with 4% of Israel to be given to reach 100% of the amount of territory that was hoped for.”

--snip--

“Anybody who is teaching in a university or anyone who is putting content on social media should be held responsible for what they include and what they exclude. So much of what we’re seeing, particularly on TikTok, about what’s going on in the Middle East is willfully false, but it’s also incredibly slanted, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hillary-clinton-slams-anti-israel-protests-on-college-campuses-says-students-have-been-fed-propaganda/

Hillary Clinton is currently a Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

On edit: for reference, here is the link to the entire segment:
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-propaganda-is-not-education-hillary-clinton-on-combating-misinformation-in-schools-and-online-210572870000

Thanks, chowder66 !

[sarisataka]

1. Madam Secretary says the protesters are ignorant and misinformed by propaganda...

You should probably add an ISO 21482 warning.

[Elessar Zappa]

2. Social media is full of lies.

Not sure what we can do about it other than respond with the truth.

[markodochartaigh]

35. We better figure this ancient conundrum out soon.

We had a strong wake-up call with Cambridge Analytica in 2015 and I fear that we have wasted our warning.




How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!" - Autobiographical dictation, 2 December 1906. Published in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2

[JoseBalow]

41. You really think someone would do that?

[demosincebirth]

103. The truth doesn't crack thick skulls. Check out the

Maga’s.

[betsuni]

3. K&R

[elocs]

4. If you agree with something, then it is the truth. If you don't, then it's propaganda.

Hopefully, Hillary will be the only Democrat to lose a presidential election to Trump and I bet she feels the same.

[wnylib]

39. ???

[ForgedCrank]

61. I don't

subscribe to that method of determining truth.
But telling the truth can cost someone their account here. Too many people are unwilling to hear it if it hurts.
That being said, and as usual, Hillary is spot on correct.

[betsuni]

89. Truth and facts aren't propaganda, nothing to do with emotions. "Agree" is for opinions.

[marybourg]

5. She's absolutely right. The ignorance of history and facts shown by

the pro-Hamas activists and their supporters, including here on DU, is vast. They know nothing of the 75 years of refusal by the Palestinians to form a state unless they can eliminate Israel. Of the decades of high and low level terrorism perpetrated on Israel which caused the former occupation and the current blockade. Many of them don’t even know that Gaza and the West Bank are two separate and unconnected territories with separate governments.

I don’t expect most young people to have a clear take on Middle Eastern history, but if they are going to oppose one group and back another with civil disorder, that’s the point at which they should have been educating themselves, and not just falling in line with the ego-tripping ultra-left.

[wnylib]

7. +1,000,000

Can't recommend your post enough. Very accurate and well said.

[yardwork]

9. And Hillary is right to call out the failure of teachers.

Way too much of this is being perpetuated by faculty who ought to know better, but don't.

[Think. Again.]

14. I haven't seen any "pro-hamas" posts here on DU.

Are you confusing "pro-Palestinian" with "pro-hamas" by any chance?

[tritsofme]

15. Right! I mean folks who compare Hamas leaders to Nelson Mandela aren't necessarily pro-Hamas!

I don’t understand why anyone would think that!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

16. Just keep walking

They’ll go back under their bridge eventually.

[Think. Again.]

17. Neither do I, I definitely haven't seen that post!

[NickB79]

77. I have

A lot of us have, unfortunately.

[revmclaren]

95. It was one of many posts that I screen shot

because of its WTF Vibes.

There are many here that say they haven't seen it. Hundreds I'm sure did.

Nobody here who did wants to be the one who's post is hidden for 'calling out' a DUer by posting the proof.

Sometimes though...I think the risk may be worth it. But only on my terms and time if ever.

[yardwork]

158. It's not necessary to prove it.

There are thousands of posts on DU every day - nobody could possibly see them all. When posters say "I never saw a post like that so it doesn't exist!" they're being ridiculous.

There are plenty of pro-Hamas things said on DU and elsewhere. We all know it.

[betsuni]

96. Yes, we have. Obviously why all the references -- gaslighting won't work.

[betsuni]

38. Calling violent radical religious fundamentalist terrorists "freedom fighters" isn't pro-terrorist!

It's just being nice and polite and in solidarity *screams obscenities and threats at random passersby*

[Cha]

67. Yesh, it can be Denied all they

bloody want but Not a good look to deny the reality of what These fucking Terrorists are called.

Clue.. it's Not "Terrorists.

[JohnSJ]

53. and some posting that the brutality of October 7, with the mutilations, and rapes didn't really happen isn't

pro-hamas?

what bunk

[obamanut2012]

107. Why are you calling that poster a troll?

[tritsofme]

108. Huh? Those are your words, not mine.

[Violet_Crumble]

199. It was the person who replied to Tritsofme who did the troll accusation...

It appears that rather than engaging in civil discussion with people who don't agree with them, the default position for a few people is to start telling others to go back under their bridges. Nasty, but not the least bit surprising given the heat of the topic and not wanting to entertain anything that deviates from the hive-mind thinking that's taken up residence

[mcar]

122. ...

[lapucelle]

177. "News" that amplifies Axis of Resistance (i.e. Triunvirate of Terrorism) talking points

have been posted here regularly. Here are two examples:

[Think. Again.]

184. Those videos seem to actually be still shots...

...can you give a clue about what an "axis of resistance" is and how is relates to the lack of pro-hamas posts on DU?

[lapucelle]

187. The videos were posted here.

Any further questions ... sea below.

[Think. Again.]

188. Are you not willing to back up your claim...

...that there have been posts on DU that were in support of hamas?

(You can just clearly say that you have read DU posts in which the poster clearly states they support hamas, it's how discussion works).

[lapucelle]

191. Sorry. That doesn't work on me.

You are free to draw the straight line from A to B concerning posted "news" that amplifies the message that Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah as the "resistance".

If you are unable to draw that line, think about it a bit, and try again.

[Think. Again.]

193. Are you now saying you have NOT read pro-hamas posts on DU...

...but you have read posts that include videos discussing the position that hamas claims?

(I apologize for makng an assumption about what the video shows, I can not view it as a still shot.)

[lapucelle]

194. Like I said, that doesn't work on me.

[Think. Again.]

196. I see, this discussion is obviously not a discussion. Thank you for your input.

[lapucelle]

198. It was never a discussion.

Launching a series of obtuse inquiries in the face of evidence is no one's definition of participating in a discussion.

But thanks for playing.

[Think. Again.]

200. Well, at least we established that there have been no pro-hamas posts on DU.

[lapucelle]

201. Don't presume to speak for me or in my name. I am no part of your "we".

[ShazzieB]

47. I agree 1000%!

It's often hard to tell who is just upset about the killing and who is actually rooting for Hamas, because the waters have been so muddied by things like people chanting slogans they don't fully understand, due to the ignorance and misinformation Hillary noted.

I agree with Hillary that a lot of those students are not nearly as well-informed as they need to be about the history behind what's happening in the Middle East right now. That has made them vulnerable to being influenced by those who are pro-Hamas and anti-Israel, which is very unfortunate, to say the very least.

[yardwork]

159. Well said.

[misanthrope]

88. The fact these students are willing to interject themselves into the miasma

shows how little they appreciate what a bloody mess it all is.

[yardwork]

160. For the first time in my life I actually wish the protesters would go check it out for themselves.

I've never seen such entitled behavior combined with sheer ignorance.

[wnylib]

6. So glad to see a prominent Dem leader say what I've been saying

for a long time.

I've been accused by some zealous posters here of being a RWer for pointing out pro Palestinian spin.

[Think. Again.]

12. Just to clarify...

...in the article Ms. Clinton talks about "pro-hamas" spin.

[wnylib]

19. Yes, I know. And my posts have pointed out

that many slogans and terminology used at pro Palestinian protests are spin coming from groups and social media that promote Hamas propaganda. The SAME thing that Hillary has said in the OP, but I've been called a RW opponent of Dems.

I wonder how many people will pay attention to Madame Secretary's advice on getting informed and how many will cling to their beliefs in spin and decide that they know more than she does.

[Cha]

8. Hillary has No Fear! She knows what

She’s up Against

She’s right, of course

I didn’t know she was teaching International & Public Affairs at Columbia University. Good on her and good for the students!

Mahalo for this Beastly Boy 🕯️🕊️💙🌊🇺🇸😎

[ffr]

42. Ditto, Cha!

[Cha]

48. Mahalo, ffr!

Aloha

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Interesting campaign strategy for sure.

[BannonsLiver]

13. Is she running for something this year?

[paleotn]

18. Riiiiight. Yea, whatever.

[Cha]

136. Hillary is Right.. "students have been fed propaganda"!

[emulatorloo]

179. You should watch the clip before making ass-umptions about her points.

Propaganda is not education': Hillary Clinton on combating misinformation in schools and online

Hillary Clinton joined Morning Joe to address the spread of misinformation through platforms like TikTok and the role of education in combating propaganda, emphasizing the importance of teaching comprehensive history to counter slanted narratives, especially concerning the Middle East.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-propaganda-is-not-education-hillary-clinton-on-combating-misinformation-in-schools-and-online-210572870000

p.s. She’s not “campaigning” as she is a private citizen. She’s a former Secretary of State who knows a fuck ton about the subjects she speaks on.

[Think. Again.]

11. Hi, I read the article you linked to...

...but it doesn't present any quotes from Ms. Clinton that suggests she "slammed" any protests, or even that she disagrees with the protests.

She does discuss the environment of false information found on the internet and social media (which is basically common knowledge) but other than the article author's opinion that there is a hidden meaning in her words, there is no indication from her words that such an opinion is valid.

If anything, that article itself presents a very good example of what Ms. Clinton is warning against when she does say:

"… People are on social media oftentimes to press an ideological, religious, financial or partisan political agenda. You don’t get the facts, you don’t get any kind of context.”

[paleotn]

20. Ummm, maybe they aren't real sure what exactly they're protesting about?

“I have had many conversations with a lot of young people over the last many months. They don’t know very much at all about the history of the Middle East or frankly about history in many areas of the world, including in our own country,” Clinton tells MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

Rebels without a clue.

[Think. Again.]

22. I wouldn't know what the protesters are aware of as far as the history...

...of the region, but I wanted to point out that the article author's opinion of what Ms. Clinton might have meant by her statements do not align with her statements, which is a hallmark of the "spin" she is lamenting in her actual statements.

[paleotn]

23. Not sure how you read that, but to me that's a slam....

They not only don't know much about what's driving the conflict in Gaza, or much of about the rest of the world, or their own goddamn country. If that's not a slam, I don't know what is.

[Think. Again.]

26. The article pretends she is "slamming" the protests...

...but she is slamming the amount of false information on social media, and the lack of historical knowledge by young people.

Two very different topics.

[wnylib]

43. Not different topics. The false information is about the

historical knowledge of the region. Distorted history, aka propaganda, is promoted in terminology and slogans used at protests.

If students had better knowledge of the history of the region, they would not fall for and promote propaganda at protests.

[Think. Again.]

49. Again, the article pretends she is "slamming" the protests...

...she does not do that in the article.

She does lament a lack of historical reference by the youth, but nowhere does she "slam" the basic premise of protecting innocent lives, which is the basis of the protests.

[Beastly Boy]

62. She laments the "garbage in, garbage out" nature of the protests.

According to HRC, ignorance, not any particular sentiments, is the basis of the protests. More specifically, ignorant people basing their narratives on ignorance and showing off their ignorance.

[Think. Again.]

63. No, she doesn't speak about the protests at all.

Edit to add: I have very strong respect for Ms. Clinton and I hope that people will not continue to take her statements out of context to support their own narrative.

Ms. Clinton made excellent points in that interview about the state of our educational system and the dangers of social media twisting facts to influence political debates, and I believe people should refrain from doing that very thing to her statements on those topics.

[Beastly Boy]

66. She speaks about the protesters. And their ignorance.

She didn't speak about the state of our educational system at all. And her comments on the dangers of social media twisting facts were directed at the protesters whose ignorance she is speaking of.

She speaks of the Israel/Palestine conflict as a "very important piece of history to understand if you are going to take this kind of position". A clear reference to the protesters Joe Scarborough was ranting about and she was replying to.

[Think. Again.]

70. Perhaps you should watch the original interview....

...the article in the OP is obviously not reliable information, in fact it is exactly the kind of propaganda she is warning about.

Here is the interview:

https://m.

[Beastly Boy]

72. Watching the interview was the first thing I did.

And I checked it against the article. The quotes were accurate, the spin was expected, the information in the article checks out to be reliable.

She was responding to Joe, and in the context of her response, the kind of propaganda she is referring to is generated in social media, by god knows who, and this is what she finds unreliable, and dangerously so when spread by ignorant protesters.

That's essentially what the article states.

...Did YOU watch the original interview?

[Think. Again.]

74. You honestly feel that article was a reliable...

...source of legitimate info and not a tortured twisting of what Ms. Clinton said in the interview?

The title of the darn thing is an outright lie! She never even mentions the protests and although Joe did, her response was a complete statement on it's own pertaining to misinformation and the weakness of current education, only.

[Beastly Boy]

82. I don't feel, honestly or otherwise. I do check for accuracy, though.

And the article checks out with the source. You can do the same thing yourself and see it checks out. This is the measure of the legitimacy of the information in the article, not my feelings.

This doesn't mean that the article doesn't contain things other than the information that legitimately checks out. If it didn't, there would be no purpose for the article - the source would be sufficient. But you never see articles that only contain the information present in the source, do you?

What HRC said did not appear out of the blue. All of it was in response to Joe's questions, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it was complete statement on its own. It was a response, not a soliloquy, for gawds sake!

And yes, the header is inconsistent with what you find in the article, but what you find in the article is consistent with HRC's interview. The deceptive header pissed me off too, as much as hundreds of other headers I come across that are inconsistent with the contents of their articles do. I noted my objection to it elsewhere in this thread.

[ecstatic]

140. Thank you for sharing and for taking the time to read the article.

I admit I messed up by commenting based on the excerpts alone.

[mjvpi]

204. Just witnessed a protest at the #1 public university...

..,…in the US. These students are not dummies. They want a ceasefire now. They are pro Palastian and not pro Hamas. There are many self described Jews for Peace.

One of the most hopeful day of my life was watching President Clinton get damn close to a workable peace. I truly believe that the assassination of Sadat was critically important to the long term success or failure of that agreement.

That being said, the students are against all of the death. Death that is augmented by my tax dollars

[Diraven]

209. That quote does not even mention protesters

It's so neutral it doesn't even say which side of the issue the young people are on.

[Beastly Boy]

25. You're right, she doesn't slam the protests, she slams the ignorance of the protersters.

Students and faculty alike.

Likewise, she expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with the protesters, she was merely appalled with their ignorance of history.

Both her opinions are hardly complimentary to the protests, though.

But I totally agree with you about the headline not matching the content. It has become epidemic across main stream media lately.

[Think. Again.]

27. Thank you.

[lapfog_1]

68. At least after getting a high school diploma

You would expect them to know geography ( and a little about the history ) of the region in question.

And yet when a protester actually talk to reporters and the reporter asks them "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.. what river and what sea are you chanting about in your protest?" and few of them actually know the answer.

Now if anyone asks them a question they simply say "We are not trained yet" or "You need to talk to the leaders of the protest". As if they have no knowledge or opinion or can't defend their own argument that Hamas are freedom fighters and the IDF are "genocidal monsters".

so, yeah, Hillary is "slamming" the students protesting.

Of course we live in the post violent computer game world now where every fact check is "he/she/they were DESTROYED by the fact checker" Or when confronted by a different opinion online or in a interview... "they were SLAMMED by whoever".

Honestly when I read those sort of headlines I expect pictures of blood and gore and body parts everywhere and not a mild rebuke or alternate set of facts or something. But I'm just old I guess.

[Progressive dog]

127. Hi I read the article too.

Here's just one of those quotes that you must have missed.
“Anybody who is teaching in a university or anyone who is putting content on social media should be held responsible for what they include and what they exclude. So much of what we’re seeing, particularly on TikTok, about what’s going on in the Middle East is willfully false, but it’s also incredibly slanted, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel.”

[Think. Again.]

128. I know right? she never said a word about the protests.

That article is a prime example of the online misinformation she is warning us about.

[Progressive dog]

153. No, she just talked about the ignorance of the protesters

I guess in you mind that isn't the same,

[Think. Again.]

154. We're discussing the misinformation of the article, aren't we?

[Progressive dog]

155. You are discussing your assertion of disinformation

I am discussing the actual quotes from Hillary in the article.

[Think. Again.]

156. Oh, I see, because you want to point out...

...how the article author's statements and the headline of the article don't match what Ms. Clinton actually said.

My mistake, we are in agreement after all.

[Progressive dog]

157. What imaginary friend are you trying to communicate with?

[Think. Again.]

161. Are you Okay?

[AnrothElf]

162. ...

[Progressive dog]

163. Just a few links to other articles about Clinton's thoughts on the protests

https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-says-pro-palestinian-protesters-uneducated-middle-east-1899106
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/they-have-no-idea-hillary-clinton-calls-out-pro-palestinian-protesters/ar-BB1iBFMW
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/us/hillary-clinton-wellesley-protests.html
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/10/nation/hillary-clinton-backlash-protesters/
The headlines speak for themselves. Some pro "Palestinian" protesters even showed up to protest against Hillary.

[Think. Again.]

165. And some articles on her thoughts about netanyahu...

Clinton call to Netanyahu: Israel settlement move a 'deeply negative signal' https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0312/Clinton-call-to-Netanyahu-Israel-settlement-move-a-deeply-negative-signal

Hillary Clinton email trove shows concern with Netanyahu’s psyche https://www.timesofisrael.com/hillary-clinton-email-trove-shows-concern-with-netanyahus-psyche/

Hillary Clinton pans Netanyahu as ‘untrustworthy,’ says he has to go https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-pans-netanyahu-as-untrustworty-says-he-has-to-go/ar-BB1hXQ4H

Hillary Clinton Tells Hostages' Families: Netanyahu Busy With 'Politics and Personal Survival' https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2023-12-21/ty-article/.premium/hillary-clinton-to-hostages-families-netanyahu-busy-with-politics-personal-survival/0000018c-8c4b-da31-adff-8e4b67620000?v=1703214107413

Clinton’s tough talk with Netanyahu https://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/clintons-tough-talk-with-netanyahu-034349

[Progressive dog]

166. So now you want to conflate what Hillary thinks about the protesters to

what she thinks about Netanyahu. What does one have to do with the other? She can certainly dislike Netanyahu without aligning herself with Hamas and she has.

[Think. Again.]

167. What do her thoughts on the dangers of social media misinformation...

...and the protests (that she doesn't even discuss) have to do with each other?

[Progressive dog]

168. Watch the interview on MSNBC

Ignoring what she actually said doesn't make it untrue.
She did discuss the protesters and that they were ignorant of history. Some people could stretch that to mean that it's OK for them to disrupt the life of other students. I don't and Hillary gave no indication that she did either.

[Think. Again.]

169. I did, I actually posted it above.

[intheflow]

21. Yes, the students have been fed propaganda.

From the likes of Jimmy Carter.

From Desmond Tutu.

From the United Nations.

From Amnesty International.

From Human Rights Watch.

From American Jews.

Sorry, HRC. Love ya, but you're on the wrong side of history, here.

[Think. Again.]

24. Afte reading the article...

...it's clear to me that Ms. Clinton did not give an opinion on whether the protests are a positive thing or a negative thing.

That implication comes only from the article author's opinion on her words.

[Butterflylady]

30. I know that many here do not the history of the Middle East.

I have to agree with her on that.

[Think. Again.]

34. Very true...

...it's the current atrocities we seem to be focused on stopping.

[ExciteBike66]

46. This. We can see the bombing in real time.

But sure, some like to argue that an ancient prophecy means they can slaughter a bunch of kids.

[emulatorloo]

180. I recommend you the read description and watch the actual interview

Because she is not saying what you seem to think she’s saying.

Hillary Clinton joined Morning Joe to address the spread of misinformation through platforms like TikTok and the role of education in combating propaganda, emphasizing the importance of teaching comprehensive history to counter slanted narratives, especially concerning the Middle East.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-propaganda-is-not-education-hillary-clinton-on-combating-misinformation-in-schools-and-online-210572870000

[Torchlight]

28. I've noticed Sec. Clinton isparticular skillful of amking obvious statements in such as way as to

get deep under the skins of sealions to the point they begin unmasking themselves without realizing it.

And I certainly can't argue with her most common-sense assertion, that "Anybody who is teaching in a university or anyone who is putting content on social media should be held responsible for what they include and what they exclude."

[Think. Again.]

29. I've never thought of her as a troll...

...trying to get under people's skin, but I guess if you see it that way...

[Torchlight]

32. Most likely no intent on her part, just a penchant for the subtly obvious

Maybe we just oten see only what best serves us.

[Think. Again.]

33. or maybe her words were taken out of context and twisted...

...to fit the pre-determined narrative of the article author, which is exactly what she was warning against believing.

[Torchlight]

36. Or maybe

a billion things. 'What a piece of work is a man.'

Maybe's help. A LOT.

[Think. Again.]

40. um, you started it?

[jimfields33]

100. Wow.

[jimfields33]

101. Deep thought.

[NickB79]

79. You don't troll sealions, because sealions are themselves trolls

You might not be familiar with the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Getting under the skin of sealions is a good thing.

[Think. Again.]

80. Okay then...

[betsuni]

124. Sealions are incredibly persistent!

[Cha]

137. Yeah, not to mention..

******* ********.



ETA~ & Boring.

[betsuni]

146. I'd be a terrible sealion, would never spend that much time on something unless it was my job!

[Cha]

150. ..

zing

[ShazzieB]

84. Hillary's not a troll.

A troll is someone who intentonallly uses comments that are inflammatory or controversial to upset people, in order to stir things up and cause drama. They often don't really even care that much about the actual issues under discussion. All they care about is getting people upset, because they find it entertaining. That's NOT Hillary.

[Think. Again.]

97. I believe you responded to the wrong poster.

[SYFROYH]

164. Regarding that last assertion...

If a public university holds faculty responsible for a certain narrative on their personal social media then that would be a clear 1st Amendment violation.

[BlueTsunami2018]

31. Yep, Madam Secretary knows of what she speaks.

But it will just fall on deaf ears. That propaganda is strong.

[LisaM]

37. I wouldn't call that "slamming" or "tearing into" (not the OP's fault).

She's absolutely right that most college students don't have full understanding of the conflict in the Middle East, including a lot of the protestors . I don't have a full enough understanding myself.

I wish that the media interviewing the college students would delve deeper into the issues and history of Israel and its neighbors and, frankly, test these students' actual knowledge. Most of the protests they've shown have been at Ivy League or other top-rated schools, so it shouldn't be that big an ask.

[chowder66]

50. Yep. She didn't slam or tear or even use the word ignorant.

Here is the full video segment. She is measured and very much concerned about fighting back disinformation.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-propaganda-is-not-education-hillary-clinton-on-combating-misinformation-in-schools-and-online-210572870000

[Beastly Boy]

60. She is also very concerned about ignorant people taking over the narrative.

Specifically, she is concerned about ignorant people being ignorant of the fact that the Palestinians were offered 96% of all occupied territories in a two-state proposal as late as the year 2000, and they refused to take it.

A great tragedy of history, as she put it.

[Nixie]

102. Exactly. The ignorance about the Palestinian's refusing

a historically recent two-state solution and then they discussed that the Palestinian's refused because .... they knew they would get slaughtered by Hamas.

So she is correct, and Morning Joe's whole segment was correct about the protestor's willful ignorance about Hamas and historical context.

[wnylib]

73. Here's one attempt to get students' actual knowledge

at Fordham University of what they are protesting.

[betsuni]

87. My favorite: "I want to see empire fall ... free Hawaii!"

[wnylib]

91. Yeah, I have a hunch that she's not on the Dean's List.

[TheKentuckian]

141. Headache inducing and all kinds of shady.

Marionettes of who and what?

[SunSeeker]

44. Hillary was stating facts, not "slamming."

As Harry Truman said, "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

[AZLD4Candidate]

51. I guess HRC will get turned against now. Just like people have turned on John Fetterman

Israel is evil, Ms. Clinton. Don't you know that?

[Think. Again.]

54. But Ms. Clinton didn't even mention the protests...

Last edited Thu May 9, 2024, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)

...much less which side she might be supporting.

She spoke only of misinformation being spread through social media and the internet, which I suspect everyone agrees with her on.

Here's her entire interview from a post by Rhiannon...

https://m.

[AZLD4Candidate]

57. But, but. . .what about all the babies the Hamas Government in Gaza has claimed Israel killed?

And the targeting of civilians no one has proved has happened?

Or the genocide?

Come on, Israel is evil, Ms. Clinton. Why can't you say that?

[Think. Again.]

58. Yes, that's exactly the kind of misinformation she is warning against.

[Beastly Boy]

71. She was responding to Joe, who DID mention the protesters, in rather unflattering terms.

Everything she said was a response to Joe's rant.

[Sky Jewels]

52. The propaganda that I was fed growing up was: "Israelis Good/Palestinians Bad"

When I was a kid/teen, I honestly thought that "Palestinian" was a synonym for "terrorist." Those two words were bound together in the 70s and 80s.

It took me a long time to realize I'd been brainwashed into believing simplistic b.s.

Israel is committing genocide. The students are absolutely right to protest.

[Think. Again.]

55. Me too...

...if I remember correctly the derogatory word "philistine", an intentional mispronunciation of "Palestinian" stems from all that.

[Jedi Guy]

104. I don't think you're remembering correctly.

The Philistines were an ancient people who lived in Canaan and predated the words "Palestine" or "Palestinian". The word "Palestine" derives from the Greek term given to the land of the Philistines, which was Philistia.

"Philistine" as a derogatory term is generally taken to mean "someone who disdains intellectual and artistic pursuits" and traces its roots to 17th-century Germany.

[Think. Again.]

105. Oh, so it was 17th century Germans who first...

...conflated Palestinians with the derogatory term, thanks!

[Jedi Guy]

106. Sigh. No, they weren't conflating anything with the Palestinians. They were referring to the Biblical Philistines.

Nice try, though.

[Think. Again.]

109. Didn't you just tell me that...

" The word "Palestine" derives from the Greek term given to the land of the Philistines, which was Philistia." ?

[Jedi Guy]

111. Deliberate obtuseness, as expected. Carry on, then. N/T

[Think. Again.]

112. Obtuse? But those were YOUR words!

[Jedi Guy]

113. Do you grasp the concept that the Philistines and the Palestinians are not the same people?

There is zero connection between ancient Philistines and modern Palestinians (or 17th-century Palestinians, if you want to look at it that way) as a people. The Palestinians came to the area much later, long after the Philistines were gone.

Ergo, the derogatory term "philistine" has literally nothing to do with the Palestinians.

That's the (deliberate) obtuseness to which I was referring.

[Think. Again.]

114. But didn't you just point out the connection when you wrote...

" The word "Palestine" derives from the Greek term given to the land of the Philistines, which was Philistia." ?

[Jedi Guy]

115. I sure didn't. You assumed that connection because it suits your purpose. That's not my problem. N/T

[Think. Again.]

116. Again, those were your words.

[Jedi Guy]

117. You grasp that a land and a people are not the same thing, right?

And you grasp that a land might be named after the people inhabiting it or that the people might take their name from the land they inhabit, right?

The Palestinians migrated to the region from the Arabian Peninsula long after it was named Philistia by the Greeks. They then took on the name "Palestinians" based on "Palestine" as it was derived from "Philistia". It does not mean they are the same people as the Philistines. You made that assumption based on what I said because it suited your bias and your purpose.

If nothing else, this conversation has revealed that you don't know much of anything about the history of the region in terms of land or people. The information is all out there, easily available using the search engine of your choice. I prefer Google, but supposedly the AI-powered Bing has some neat features.

[Think. Again.]

120. To attempt to deny that...

...the word philistine has been and is still used to refer to modern Palestinians is ridiculous.

[Jedi Guy]

125. Kindly cite a source, because I've never once heard it used specifically to refer to the Palestinians.

One might call an enemy or opponent "philistines" to denote a lack of cultural, artistic, or intellectual achievement, so I can imagine Israelis referring to Palestinians in that context given the enmity between the two.

But "philistine" is not a slur that is associated specifically with Palestinians as other ethnic slurs are associated with specific ethnic groups, to the best of my knowledge. So I will absolutely deny that unless and until you cite a source, regardless of how ridiculous you think it is.

[Think. Again.]

126. Here's a quick source...

"One might call an enemy or opponent "philistines" to denote a lack of cultural, artistic, or intellectual achievement, so I can imagine Israelis referring to Palestinians in that context given the enmity between the two. "

- https://democraticunderground.com/100218936393#post125

[Jedi Guy]

129. Back under your bridge, please. I think we're done here. N/T

[Think. Again.]

131. it's about time.

[Jedi Guy]

133. For you to slink back under your bridge? Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.

As I said once in a previous engagement, feel free to get in the last word if you like, I won't bother to read it, let alone respond. You've made it plain what you are and why you're here and I know better than to bother now.

Have a great weekend.

[Think. Again.]

135. Projection.

[Beastly Boy]

64. I am not sure how appropriate this response is to the OP in which HRC is warning us of

ignorance.

Israel is not committing genocide.

[Sky Jewels]

86. Yes they are.

Also, quibbling over a definition doesn’t erase the fact that Israel is slaughtering and starving tens of thousands of innocents and leveling Gaza.

The ignorance is coming from people who have only heard Israel’s side and don’t know or care about the apartheid and other horrors Israel has imposed on Palestinians.

[Beastly Boy]

92. No they are not.

And I am not quibbling over definitions. They are a matter of law and are not quibblable. Yet, I see these definitions completely disregarded, defaced and misused, time and time again, and casually thrown around as if they are a meaningless piece of trivia and a figure of speech.

Why is it that every single mention of dead gazan children and civilians glosses over the fact that over 30,000 armed to the teeth terrorists, hundreds of their rocket launchers and dozens command and control centers were hiding behind the kids' backs while taking part in military hostilities? Why is it so inconceivable for so many people to concede that all those militants, their rockets, drones, RPGs and machine guns had something to do with the innocents being dead?

This is absurd.

[betsuni]

94. +1

[Think. Again.]

110. The only element absent in the charge of genocide...

...is netanyahu's lack of honesty about his intentions which are made clear to the world by his actions.

[Beastly Boy]

118. You are not saying that a legal definition of a crime is contingent on one man's lack of honesty, are you?

That would be a scathing rejection of the authority of international law, wouldn't it?

[Think. Again.]

121. I am clearly saying that the element of intention is...

...the only element of a charge of genocide that can not be immediately established, due to netanyahu's outlandish claims of "defense".

[Beastly Boy]

132. This is like saying that the only element that prevents me from owning a 50 foot yacht is

that my intent to pay for it cannot be immediately established.

In all other respects, I am its legitimate and proud owner, right?

Yhis makes even less sense than your previous post.

[Think. Again.]

134. No, you would not yet be the legitimate owner, just as charges have not yet been brought against netanyahu.

[Beastly Boy]

138. Exactly my point. Intent is as essential in my becoming a legitimate owner as it is

in Netanyahu being convicted of a crime.

Statements to the effect that genocide had been committed are as legitimate as statements to the effect that I own a yacht.

Not yet. Thank you. In the mean time I will be working on proving my intent to pay for a yacht and leave ICC in charge of proving Netanyahu's intent, without further comments on the subject of genocide.

[Think. Again.]

139. You do understand that the common language use...

...of the word is different from the legal definition of the charge of genocide, right?

[Beastly Boy]

142. In the same way the common language use of "You are killing me!" does not describe attempted murder.

It is meaningless in establishing culpability.

Yes, I do understand that. But it is different from "You are guilty of attempted murder" or "You are committing attempted murder" These are meant to accuse someone of a crime.

[Think. Again.]

143. Well no, more like how "homicide" has a legal definition of a criminal charge...

...for an act people commonly call murder.

[Beastly Boy]

144. Actually, "murder" is a legal definition. It denotes premeditation.

Just like "genocide" denotes intention. Sure, people use it as a metaphor, but it is meaningless in establishing guilt.

So let's call a spade a spade. Using "Genocide" without demonstrating intent is a metaphor that is meaningless in establishing guilt. In this respect, using "guilty of genocide" outside of the legal framework is an oxymoron.

[Think. Again.]

145. Oh stop, people can come to conclusions on their own without a court involved.

[Beastly Boy]

148. You're kidding, right?

If this were the case, why would we need International Criminal Court? to rubberstamp the "people's" conclusions?

Who counts as "the people" anyway, and who doesn't? Let me guess, I wouldn't be among the "people"...

[Think. Again.]

151. I'm not kdding....

...it's shocking, I know, but people actually do reach conclusions about other people's actions that have absolutely nothing to do with whether that person is officially charged, prosecuted, and either convicted or aquitted of any particular crime.

For instance, some say that netanyahu is trying to kill off the Palestinian people and their culture, even though he has not been tried and convicted or aquitted of genocide, yet.

[Beastly Boy]

170. As I keep repeating, apparently to no avail, "genocide" is a legal term, describing a crime.

And it is shocking indeed to suggest that a legal term is interchangeable with populist sentiment of the day. Just as shocking is the presumption that unfounded conclusions carry any resemblance to due process of law.

"Some people" say all sorts of stuff, and it does not reflect on the law one bit. But when people say "genocide", they are referring to a specific crime, and when they say "guilty of genocide", they are referring to guilt of a crime already established by a legal authority on the subject. And when "some people" refer to a specific crime as if it had been established beyond doubt, it is a false reference which misappropriates a legal term to deceitfully attribute the weight of legal authority to their sentiments.

Just as "even though he has not been tried and convicted or acquitted of genocide, yet" falsely presumes, in order to make your sentiment appear to have some sort of legal foundation, that the trial is imminent in the near future.

[Think. Again.]

171. As I keep trying to remind you...

"Genocide" is also a common language term for when an entire culture is killed off.

[Beastly Boy]

172. I am not disputing the misappropriation of "genocide" to be used in common language.

And once again, you are demonstrating the pitfalls of appropriating "genocide" for use in common language. It allows people to associate the term with statements that are not only factually inaccurate, but excessively hyperbolic, opinionated and incendiary.

[Think. Again.]

173. It hasn't been appropriated...

...it's just a common word people us to describe the act of killing off an entire generation of a culture, just as any of the words ending with "cide' means "to kill" a thing. The word "pesticide" doesn't refer to the 'crime' of killing pests, just the act.

[Beastly Boy]

174. I will not let this thread to descend into etymology.

There is a clear distinction between "genocide" and "spermicide" despite "cide" being their common denominator, a coincidence that does not signify parity in any way. I will not insult your intelligence by trying to explain the difference.

You know full well what I am talking about, and I have no interest in responding to every deflection you throw my way.

Have a nice day.

[Think. Again.]

175. Finally.

[Beastly Boy]

176. I was very patient, but my patience has its limits.

You don't seem to be disappointed, though. Or surprised.

[Think. Again.]

181. Well, really, we were just going around and around. Have a great night.

[revmclaren]

189. Can I private message you Beastly Boy ?

[lapucelle]

178. It is not "just a common word people use", at least not serious people.

It's problem when a specific legal term is appropriated and then redefined to serve an agenda.

Link to tweet

[Think. Again.]

183. I suspect the common-use word was in common use...

...before it was applied to a criminal charge, but whatever.

[lapucelle]

185. I don't think that's correct.

The word was coined in 1944 in specific reference to the Nazi extermination of the Jews. It was recognized as a crime in 1946. The legal definition predates common usage.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/genocide#etymonline_v_6004

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

[Think. Again.]

186. oh, so I was right...

...it was coined as a word of reference in common language before it was applied to a criminal charge. Cool.

[lapucelle]

190. No, actually you were wrong.

The word was coined in 1944 by a legal scholar in his analysis of Axis rule in Occupied Europe, and recognized as a crime two years later.

It was not in "common use" in the interim.

[Think. Again.]

192. No, I was right...

The word was used in common language before it was used a legal term to signify a crime.

"The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book (edit to add: first common usage) Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime." (highlights and edit mine)

From the link you provided: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

[lapucelle]

195. Yes, I know. The word was coined in 1944 and was recognized as a crime in 1946.

The word was not in "common usage" in the two year interim.

The NYT introduced its readers to the term in 1946.

https://www.nytimes.com/1946/08/26/archives/genocide.html

[Think. Again.]

197. The word was introduced into common-usage (as opposed to legal terminology)...

... in a publicly available published book 2 years before it was introduced into legal terminology (as opposed to common-usage).

Thank you for your input.

[lapucelle]

202. "it's just a common word people us [sic]"

Your suspicions were wrong. The word "genocide" was not in common use before it became known as a new term for a specific crime.

It seems that you are trying to pin your hopes on "common-use", but you claimed what you claimed, and equivocation is not going to work.

And as a reminder for anyone staking a claim that the "common use" is not the appropriation of a word in the service of an agenda:

Link to tweet

[Think. Again.]

203. I think it's obvious that...

...the term "common use" was being used as opposed to legal terminology.

And since the word was published in a publicly available book written for the common public, before it was used as a legal term to identify a criminal charge, I stand by my belief that the word "genocide" was indeed in common use before it became known as a new term for a specific crime.

[lapucelle]

205. Nope. You yourself made the distinction between "the common-use word" and "in common use".

Maybe you thought it sounded pithy at the time, but it was ill-advised.

[Think. Again.]

206. You're really reaching now.

[lapucelle]

207. ...

[peggysue2]

56. Hillary Clinton is on point

As always.

Her critics have been proven disastrously wrong. Which is why we’re still dealing with the the Trumpist scourge.

[Think. Again.]

59. I agree, her interview was very clear about...

...how bad the state of education system has become and how social media is being used to fill that void of actual knowledge with lies.

[ecstatic]

65. Is President Biden misinformed too?

Serious question.

[Beastly Boy]

69. If this is a serious question, no.

But I can't tell how serious it is because I have no clue of what you are talking about.

[ecstatic]

81. Biden has referenced indiscriminate bombings and now he has set a red line.

Why?

[Beastly Boy]

83. Did Biden ask Hillary any questions? Did Hillary respond to Biden?

What does Biden's reference have to do with this article? In what way is Biden connected to it?

I am beginning to suspect that your question was not serious, or at least completely unrelated to the OP and this thread.

[ecstatic]

85. Clinton said the people protesting the bombings and mass slaughter in Gaza are misinformed. That's why I asked

if Biden is misinformed too. Biden has referenced the issues that the students are protesting and now he has set a red line himself and threatened to withdraw support.

[Beastly Boy]

90. HRC made no comment about the bombing and mass slaughter.

She said that the young people she spoke to don't know very much about the history of the Middle East.

Biden knows a lot about the history of the Middle East. Biden is not misinformed on it too.

Does this answer your question?

[ecstatic]

98. Yes and no. The history of the Middle East

and specifically Israel and Palestine is very important context to have--we wouldn't be in this moment had previous Palestinian leaders accepted various offers.

However, most of the college students are protesting over current events--Gazans dying and starving from activities (atrocities) that appear to be supported by the United States.

[Beastly Boy]

99. What does this have to do with Biden being misinformed "too"?

That was your question, wasn't it? How hard is it ti stay on subject?

[ecstatic]

119. I guess we're just not on the same page here (or you're playing around). I asked for clarification and explained why

When you said that Hillary was not talking about the deaths and famine, I took you at your word, and therefore the question about Biden being misinformed became moot. And I already explained how Biden ties in -- he has concerns about the bombings and famines too as does most of his administration.

HOWEVER, my follow up comment was that knowing history is important but the students are protesting over CURRENT events. I really admire and respect Hillary but her comment appeared to be a tone-deaf deflection from the topic at hand.

[Beastly Boy]

130. You keep asking for clarification of things I am not talking about.

And frankly, I have no idea where the next one will be coming from.

I don't know what compelled you to bring Biden into the conversation in the first place, since no reference to Biden was eve made before you brought him into the conversation. That was completely off subject. There is no connection between Biden being informed or misinformed and Hillary stating that the young people are poorly informed, which undermined the seriousness of your question from the start. Despite the obvious absence of connection between Hillary's interview and Biden's references to Gaza, you came back to Biden, twice more, implying there is a connection between the young people of Hillary's interview being misinformed and Biden being misinformed. That was not only off subject, but illogical. There is no logical explanation of how the two may be connected. If Biden is well informed, does it preclude the protesters being misinformed? Does Biden and the protesters addressing the same subject establish any connection between the their levels of competence in the subject?

Now you are saying history is important but students are protesting current events. Does this establish the sudents' competence in addressing current events? Well, Hillary answered you: their source of information is social media, a piss poor source that does nothing but reinforce their ignorance with more ignorance. I have no idea how this is related to history or why you are bringing this up. Off subject again.

I make it a point to stay on subject. If you can't, then by definition we will never get to the same page.

[emulatorloo]

182. Why don't you watch the actual interview to hear what she actually said.

Hillary Clinton joined Morning Joe to address the spread of misinformation through platforms like TikTok and the role of education in combating propaganda, emphasizing the importance of teaching comprehensive history to counter slanted narratives, especially concerning the Middle East.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-propaganda-is-not-education-hillary-clinton-on-combating-misinformation-in-schools-and-online-210572870000

Then if you disagree you can make actual arguments against her points, rather than non-sequiturs about Biden.

[ecstatic]

208. I admitted on another post that I didn't read the article or see the video until later.

Unfortunately, I believed the headline and the article excerpts from the OP and that was my mistake.

[emulatorloo]

210. Yeah the headline was just awful. Total misleading clickbait. Thanks for the reply.

[LeftInTX]

123. Is Biden chanting, "Free, free Palestine. Ceasefire Now. From the River to the Sea. Globalize the Intifada"?

He delayed one arms shipment and has threatened Israel with future delays if they stage a full invasion of Rafah.

At the UNGA today, the US voted NO.

If you read all the details about the horse trading between Biden and Israel, you will see that Biden has been holding this over Israel for months. He told them in January that if they invade Rafah, he will withhold arms. He didn't just "wake up". He's trying to prevent civilian deaths due to relocation and the closing of the Rafah crossing. He's not pursuing a unilateral cease fire that protesters are seeking. He's not going to divest from or boycott Israel.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. Sec Clinton is so right. I only watch BBC News on PBS, and the coverage is so pro Palestine that it's actually....

frightening. Everytime they interview one of these "protesters", it just happens to be the token Jewish kid who's supposed to lend credibility to these anti Israel, antisemitic campus rallies. Whenever they interview a pro Israel guest, they constantly interrupt with hostile questions, while pro Palestinian guests are allowed to drone on & on & on about how evil Israel & the US are. The coverage doesn't even pretend to be fair & balanced, and the hosts don't even attempt to hide their bias.

I guess Hamas' PR machine is to be congratulated. They've successfully managed to make formerly respected news outlets completely forget how all this shit got started.

[LuvLoogie]

76. And the Chinese shot Yitzhak Rabin

And Oslo died with him

[PufPuf23]

78. HRC must have forgotten that the Chinese killed Rabin and stopped the Oslo Accords.

Someone needs to fix wikipedia.

Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv. The assailant was Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Background

The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin came immediately after an anti-violence rally in support of the Oslo peace process.[1]

Before the rally, Rabin was disparaged personally by right-wing conservatives and Likud leaders who perceived the peace process as an attempt to forfeit the occupied territories and a capitulation to Israel's enemies.[2][3]

National religious conservatives and Likud party leaders believed that withdrawing from any "Jewish" land was heresy.[4] The Likud leader and future prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accused Rabin's government of being "removed from Jewish tradition [...] and Jewish values".[2][3] Right-wing rabbis associated with the settlers' movement prohibited territorial concessions to the Palestinians and forbade soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces from evacuating Jewish settlers under the accords.[5][6] Some rabbis proclaimed din rodef, based on a traditional Jewish law of self-defense, against Rabin personally, arguing that the Oslo Accords would endanger Jewish lives.[5][7]

Rallies organized by Likud and other right-wing groups featured depictions of Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform, or in the crosshairs of a gun.[2][3] Protesters compared the Labor party to the Nazis and Rabin to Adolf Hitler[5] and chanted, "Rabin is a murderer" and "Rabin is a traitor".[8][9] In July 1995, Netanyahu led a mock funeral procession featuring a coffin and hangman's noose at an anti-Rabin rally where protesters chanted, "Death to Rabin".[10][11] The chief of internal security, Carmi Gillon, then alerted Netanyahu of a plot on Rabin's life and asked him to moderate the protests' rhetoric, which Netanyahu declined to do.[8][12] Netanyahu denied any intention to incite violence

more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

[Sugarcoated]

93. Yep

Truth

[Ping Tung]

147. Ignorant students don't understand history and context and are fed propaganda?

Do the soldiers or terrorists understand history and context? Are they fed propaganda other than a version of "My country, right or wrong?" Do they fully understand what "context" is necessary to kill innocent people?

"If killing is natural, why do soldiers have to be trained how to do it?" Joan Baez

[chouchou]

149. I agree 100 percent with Hillary.

There's so much slob-job info regarding that war.

[Oopsie Daisy]

152. Hillary is correct... AGAIN!!