National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president.

Scroll to see replies

I made an inference that her support of the "Intifada" meant that she supported the "Intifada of the Individuals."

If someone said during the 1980s that they supported the armed struggle against apartheid, would you take that as unconditional support for every act committed as part of it, including the atrocities?

Or, to turn it round another way, do those on the pro-Israeli side who say they support Israel's "right to defend itself" therefore support each and every act committed as part of it, including the killing of civilians?

Or is the more likely answer that they all merely support the general principle of using armed violencein pursuit of a particular goal?

Reply 81

Observatory

Original post by anarchism101

Or, to turn it round another way, do those on the pro-Israeli side who say they support Israel's "right to defend itself" therefore support each and every act committed as part of it, including the killing of civilians?

I think someone who supports Israel's military operations has to support operations that involve collateral damage. They don't have support operations targeted solely against civilians, since carrying out such operations isn't Israeli policy.

Similarly I support the British war effort in WWII and I think you can reasonably infer that that means I support the actions of Bomber Command, that I support the use of artillery against cities like Cherbourg and that I support the blockade of Germany from imports of food and medical supplies. If I don't then I should clarify my statement.

Reply 82

jamestg

Original post by JezWeCan!

Yeah seriously.

The Far Left is anti semitic, anti democratic, and attempts to destroy free speech.

Fascist in other words.

Agreed. But they're all elements of the far right.

Anti-semism in 20th cent Europe is today's Islamophobia. Hitler would still constitute as far right if he were around today.

Reply 83

AperfectBalance

Original post by Quantex

Can we have a round of applause to congratulate her on her election victory. On second thoughts, we'll make it a round of jazz hands as we don't want to scare anyone of a nervous disposition.

You've got to give to to the NUS, for all their irrelevance, they are quite entertaining.

Oh wow look at you appropriating black culture by doing jazz hands. Disgusting

Reply 84

anarchism101

Original post by Observatory

If made without clarification, I would interpret that as approval of the armed operations that had taken place to that point, including ones I consider atrocities.

Even with clarification, I would assign a relatively high probability that the person supported the atrocities too, and just didn't want that to become known.

I think someone who supports Israel's military operations has to support operations that involve collateral damage. They don't have support operations targeted solely against civilians, since carrying out such operations isn't Israeli policy.

Similarly I support the British war effort in WWII and I think you can reasonably infer that that means I support the actions of Bomber Command, that I support the use of artillery against cities like Cherbourg and that I support the blockade of Germany from imports of food and medical supplies. If I don't then I should clarify my statement.

I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.

But whatever your opinion on that, the way you're framing it would not make Malia Bouattia's states support for Palestinian armed resistance anything out of the ordinary, just from a different angle.

Reply 85

Observatory

Original post by anarchism101

I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.

But whatever your opinion on that, the way you're framing it would not make Malia Bouattia's states support for Palestinian armed resistance anything out of the ordinary, just from a different angle.

In the sense that you can argue that Britain used similar tactics in WWII, that is true. Britain also killed civilians to spread terror.

However, Britain and Germany acted reciprocally. If Israel were allowed to use Bomber Command or Luftwaffe tactics there would be no Palestine today, and probably no Palestinians. Palestine is allowed to use Bomber Command/Luftwaffe tactics whereas Israel is not. So saying you support Palestine doing what it is doing now is morally equivalent to saying you support Israeli committing genocide in Palestine, not to saying that you support Israel doing what it is doing now.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 86

JezWeCan!

Original post by anarchism101

I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.

But whatever your opinion on that, the way you're framing it would not make Malia Bouattia's states support for Palestinian armed resistance anything out of the ordinary, just from a different angle.

Hmmm.

You are right that there is a distinction between supporting a cause and actively supporting atrocities committed in that cause.

To use an example cited I support Britain's cause in WW2 but do NOT support the fire bombing of Dresden, after the war was won. That killed far more innocent people than either the IDF or Palestinian terrorism.

Dresden was morally unforgivable and is a stain on Britain's honour, Churchill's historic legacy, and I would argue has totally destroyed Harris' posthumous reputation.

But the point is that Malia Bouattia supports the cause AND the atrocities to achieve that cause. She is like Air Marshal Harris, the ends justify the means for them both. Arthur Harris thought children burned to death (in effect) deserved it because they were German, and the Nazis started the war, started the bombing of cities, and had to be defeated. Bouattia believes Israelis stabbed to death deserve it because they are citizens of a "colonialist, Zionist" power, whose illegal, immoral government is murdering Palestinians and depriving them of their homeland.

But the ends don't justify the means. Both were, are wrong. The atrocities are morally indefensible.

And this is to to ignore another differentiating point which is also vital. The ends aren't the same in the two cases. WW2 was a "just war." The cause of Palestinian terrorism (wiping Israel off the map) is not.

If they moderated their aims, and accepted that a two state solution was inevitable that would be a different matter. Then you could reasonably argue that the ends were just. It still wouldn't morally legitimise terrorism to achieve them, though...

Reply 87

MildredMalone

Original post by jamestg

Anti-semism in 20th cent Europe is today's Islamophobia.

Merr. Nearly all islamophobia is in response to the negative aspects of islamic religion and culture which are carried out over here. Was anti-Semitism in response to anything as bad?

Reply 88

jamestg

Original post by MildredMalone

Merr. Nearly all islamophobia is in response to the negative aspects of islamic religion and culture which are carried out over here. Was anti-Semitism in response to anything as bad?

This is all in the context of Germany. The feeling was partially similar in other countries, but rather surprisingly not in Fascist Italy. The anti-semtic laws passed in Italy were essential in keeping Mussolini in Hitler's bed. Not because Mussolini, the Facists or Italy were anti-Semites.

It was in response to the Jewish conspiracy, which was that the Jews were wanting to dominate western life and it was the Jews who had lost the war (with a significant proportion of German army officers Jewish). Most wealthy people in Germany who were Jews (yet only made up a small percentage of society), while the lower and some of the middle classes were suffering with no job, no food and no home. People felt VERY bitter about this.

So yeah pretty bad.

Reply 89

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by anarchism101

I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.

Except that bigotry and hatred is inherent in any support for Hamas in light of its charter which calls for all the Jews in the world to be executed.

Also, it's inherent in supporting the "armed resistance" that she supports the deliberate targeting of civilians which is a war crime.

And logically, she must be considered to support the targeting of people for death based on the fact they are a Jew. All this makes her a totally unsuitable individual to hold the post of NUS President

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 90

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by jamestg

It was in response to the Jewish conspiracy, which was that the Jews were wanting to dominate western life and it was the Jews who had lost the war (with a significant proportion of German army officers Jewish). Most wealthy people in Germany who were Jews (yet only made up a small percentage of society), while the lower and some of the middle classes were suffering with no job, no food and no home. People felt VERY bitter about this.

You cannot be serious? You actually buy the Nazi fantasy of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the West?

Reply 91

jamestg

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

You cannot be serious? You actually buy the Nazi fantasy of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the West?

Hhahahahahaha do you think I believe in the Jewish conspiracy?!

I was merely saying what it was to that guy.

Reply 92

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by jamestg

Hhahahahahaha do you think I believe in the Jewish conspiracy?!

I was merely saying what it was to that guy.

Okay. Your comment sounded quite definitive, claiming that most wealthy people in Germany were Jews etc.

You have to admit, it's not entirely clear from the way you phrase your comment, it looks exactly like you were stating these things as facts

Reply 93

jamestg

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

Well a lot of wealthy people, and those in positions of authority, were Jews in Germany between unification and Hitler taking the premiership. Obviously the stats were wrong, but there was however a trend.

I was stating it in a way to show how people viewed Jewish people in 20th Cent. Germany. I don't like twisting it to suit my own views or opinions. Plus I never referred to myself in the explanation :tongue:

Reply 94

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by jamestg

A trend towards what? And what is your source for your claims about the predominance of Jewish people in positions of authority in post-WW1 Germany?

I was stating it in a way to show how people viewed Jewish people in 20th Cent. Germany. I don't like twisting it to suit my own views or opinions. Plus I never referred to myself in the explanation :tongue:

I'm sorry but your responses come across as evasive, and your claim above seem to be muddying the waters even more.

Reply 95

Dinasaurus

She's not black though, how can she claim to be black wtf is this.

Reply 96

Happy97

Original post by DiddyDec

This is the best result possible, the NUS will now fall even faster than previously predicted. We are already seeing universities calling for disaffiliation. It hasn't even been a day.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't really keep up with these sort of events, but I've got an honest question and I want an honest answer, be frank and blunt if you have to.

Is the NUS facing a backlash because their newly elected president is a Muslim or because she's too much of a leftist? To me, it seems the latter but what do you think?

Reply 97

DiddyDec01

Original post by Happy97

It is because she is a ****ing nutter.

Reply 98

jamestg

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

A trend towards what? And what is your source for your claims about the predominance of Jewish people in positions of authority in post-WW1 Germany?

I'm sorry but your responses come across as evasive, and your claim above seem to be muddying the waters even more.

When you inform in history you don't let your opinion/views impact what you're trying to say. Hence why you tell it as it was back in the day, and why you presumed I was anti-semitic. But it should have been obvious really since it wasn't written in first person.

"Strangely enough, in a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, 'Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.' But she adds 'Jews were overrepresented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..' etc etc."

- source

Reply 99

Happy97

She may or many not be a nutter as you say, I don't know anything about her but that is not the issue at hand. Being a Muslim myself I'm certainly not oblivious to the fact that a significant section of the media is demonising Malia Bouattia because of her religious background regardless of her political beliefs. Love her or hate her, she was democratically elected and no amount of unsubstantiated accusations and thinly-veiled hate articles will ever change that fact.