> For Defense spending, the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion
for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at
long last, fully secure our border.
WordPress seems advanced for a government body whose head of health actively promotes for himself and his grandchildren swimming downstream from sewerage to boost the immune system.
That's really not more chilling. I recommend actually reading the document. There are multi billion dollar cuts to IT programs and CISA/cyber security infrastructure, along with massive cuts to basic research, EPA protections and toxic site cleanup, and basic social services, the list goes on. Instead we're plowing extra money into military spending, but because the defense budget is already so bloated it amounts to a small percentage increase there, and huge percentage decreases in everything else.
If we’re investing in securing the border with a significant chunk of that defense spending that’ll save us a lot more over time, presuming the democratic presidents of the future don’t proverbially throw the gates open.
This is false. A prediction of "securing our border will save money" is false. It really, really is. Check your sources and approach this as a scientist trying to verify your idea, not as a partisan and trying to defend it. You will quickly see that even illegal immigration is not a cost, especially to the federal government.
I voted for Trump. I think the Harvard funding thing is stupid. I don't really want money going to Israel.
However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level.
This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien.
Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.
Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. Raise defense spending a little. Work hard on bringing down defense costs because we are throwing money at the primes for what.
>Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot.
It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to.
However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?"
Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not.
Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be.
My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first.
Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.
By welfare I was referring to all social programs, medicare, medicad, etc because you mentioned Trump and said "The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt." Which sounds like you were generalizing.
Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.
The law purports to give the feds that power. I believe the Constitution has been grossly twisted to federalize that which the feds have no authority to do. Social welfare is one of those things.
Defense per-state would disrupt the concept of a nation and the feds' ability to operate internationally. This is the same as borders and foreign policy. If anything localities are better able to understand the needs of their neighbor than the feds.
I have this view about small fed because I do not trust government. Any government. The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more.
Redistribution is not the basic purpose of a state. It was not a founding principle of our state. It is discretionary spending in the literal use of the word if not in that of the budget committee. In this case the feds are spending $500 on housing and $4,000 on pokemon toys.
In the US, vastly more people die in ways that are amplified by poverty than die in combat. The idea that welfare programs are not "existential" to the people whose lives depend on them is strange.
The US spends vastly more on defense than any other nation on the planet. Why not spend 2x what we already spend? 10x? Surely at some point "we have a larger military spending than the 10 countries with the next highest military spending combined" is enough to mitigate the "existential threat."
The only presidents that made any attempt to balance the budget in the last 40 years were members of the Democratic party. The perception of "right = fiscally responsible" and "left = reckless spending" just isn't accurate.
The balanced budget of the 1990s was on track to happen regardless of who was in the white house. "the peace dividend has caused a lowering of military spending from 6% of GDP to 3%" -- We sold off half our military bases and folded that revenue into the budget.
Then this was a total miscommunication or misread. The last paragraph of my comment was bemoaning precisely this. The right yaps about "we need to cut spending" and never does. The left doesn't yap about it and also never does.
"All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt."
It's exactly what the entire campaign platform you voted for was: unprincipled, random bullshit designed to stoke an angry, bigoted, ignorant base.
I can respect principled patriotism and fiscal conservativism, but voting for an icon of xenophobia, illiteracy, and graft and expecting anything but that is kinda...
Also if you actually gave a shit about containing China, it would probably be in your best interests to vote for a candidate who doesn't base their campaign on alienating the entire rest of the free Western world while simultaneously denigrating and disrespecting the armed services... but what do I know.
> I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china.
But she would probably be better at keeping the US position in the world and with our allies in good standing; instead of selling it off for personal gain.
> Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
Good point, at least he pretends to care. I mean he is getting the US a "free" jet that will cost the american tax payer almost a billion dollars to retrofit that will be finished at the end of his term and then given to his library for his personal use. But since he pretends to care about Americans, I guess we can also pretend to believe his dealing with the middle east and all his crypto is totally not selling the country out for his, his business partners and his family's benefit.
At least you are honest about voting for someone who only pretends to care, instead of voting for someone who does care about the country and it's people, even if some domestic policies views differ -- I can appreciate that honesty.
We tried the "nice" approach with the EU of polite patron-to-client instruction. The EU failed to play ball. We tried this with many countries. They failed to play ball. So there is no reason to continue costing the American citizen money for their benefit. An "alliance" where you mostly just help the other person is closer to parasitism.
I do not believe any politician cares about America or her citizens. I do not believe harris cares about America or her citizens. Politicians seek power.
Canada failed to play ball when they joined us in Afghanistan and died alongside us? When they took in our jets on 9/11?
How deep do you think I have to look to find dozens (or hundreds) of strong examples of the EU and other western allies "playing ball"?
We seem to be focused a lot on Qatar and Saudi Arabia as our "good" allies.
I don't blame you for falling for the rhetoric of a populist candidate willing to say and do anything, claim victory if it works, and ignore and bury it when it doesn't. It's easy. You're not the first in history to do it, and you won't be the last.
But why? Because Boeing has delayed the real Air Force One replacement until 2035. Trump wants it for the Trump Presidential Library when he leaves office which he can buy and have it retrofitted again. The same/similar thing done for Reagan in 2001.
We also need to pay our people/manufacturers significantly more than either of those countries.
Don’t get wrong, we’ve all heard stories about $5,000 toilet seats or whatever but without actual changes on that front we can’t cut our budget in half and be competitive.
Right, if you assume competency and hard work from the administration involved. Seriously, many of the cuts reference returning power to the states, does that mean it will be returned in its entirety as block grants, or as non-corporate tax cuts? Based on past performance I doubt they'll accomplish either yet the money and programs and federal jobs will still be gone. Federal jobs many considered to be good jobs and even the biggest cynic would admit provided -some- public good (e.g. National Parks NSF, NHS, many others).
How many times is woke (and related words) mentioned? Is dragging culture war BS into the budgeting process really the way forward. In the limited descriptions that they gave, was dedicating so much headspace to nebulous buzzwords really a good use of tax payer money? Are we really machete'ing giant programs and saying its all because of woke?
Green New Scam was plastered everywhere, likely referencing Biden's infrastructure bill where ~80% of funds were earmarked for conservative districts (it was the only way to pass the bill!).
I'm not here to disparage the way you vote or your beliefs and certainly not what you think is best for the country, but taken within the context of Trumps ~5 years in political office, does this really look like a good thing?
I would prefer non-corporate tax cuts focusing on the middle class. This would also help us balance the federal budget.
I like national parks. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. Most of the federal budget does not go to national parks.
I also live in a state that has really good state parks. Well-run, widely available, well-maintained. Hopefully we can have states help pick up the slack if there are challenges with the NPS.
You can't lump NHS in with those. I do not like public health care.
I did not put "woke" in there. I don't like the "wrapper" language. I do like some of the content.
I do not think trump in office is a good thing. I just think harris is a bad thing. Since roosevelt we have been stuck on a leftward ratchet. Liberals take office and change things. Conservatives take power and fail to reverse them.
Trump is not much of a conservative. I do think he can at least promote some reversal of the social parts. I don't care much about the social parts. But I do hope that sets a precedent for someone to reverse the practical economic parts.
You like national parks and see no problem with funding it with taxes. But then why is it bad when the rest of us like other things that the federal government does? Elsewhere you talk about federalism concerns but you completely ignore them here. Why is that?
Property clause: “ The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”
In other words it’s not commerce/elastic clause bullshit.
If you really care about the NPS and think it’s an overreach we could move management of parks back to states. I don’t strongly object to that.
You might not be aware. After we grew up that word became somewhere vaguely in the same classification of 'radioactive' as the N word people from the 1940s used to use all the time.
It kind of tints movies like Idiocracy (a movie I fear increasingly describes a possible future rather than a satirical one) that made a joke out of someone who was only moderately not-smart as just the last 4 letters rather than all 6.
What exactly are the 'unsafe anti-Semitic actions' that Harvard Univ has committed? Is this whole thing about how Harvard hasn't suppressed the free speech rights of its students as they protested the wholesale bombing of Gaza? Its not like Harvard is rife with far-right activists denying the Holocaust and such. I can't imagine that Harvard wouldn't win their case quite roundly. Law firms & universities have to stop bowing to the wanna-be dictator.
Why not try to do the minimum amount of research before complaining about it online? Here's a complaint from a recent lawsuit by a collection of Jewish Harvard students against the university. It's a good starting point. https://www.kasowitz.com/media/unxcnvpo/harvard-complaint.pd...
Key Allegations:
1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students.
2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment.
3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias.
4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus.
5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims:
• Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law.
• Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment.
• Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
These protests were mostly against the state of Israel which isn't a violation of Title IX.I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?
-----
My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to
1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents
2. Defend the Israeli government
3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous
For example the complaint you linked to opens with
".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and
slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children,
and the elderly"
Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)
This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.
Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.
"I know there were specific instances of Anti-Semitism, which were wrong and should be punished, but is there evidence Harvard didn't take action for those?"
That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit. And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
>That is literally the allegation made in the lawsuit.
"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"
>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.
> And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse
No actually I think it's right on the money.
Some vaguely brown people being very mad at Israel does not antisemitism make.
Are they denying the Holocaust? Are they saying Jews should die? Or... are they saying Israel is committing a genocide? Are they blaming those particular jews running Israel?
I think we all know it's almost entirely the latter, and almost none of the former.
In every movement there are going to be extremists and people with prejudice.
However, you don't need to be antisemitic to be anti-Zionist. There are pretty much infinite reasons to denounce Israel, and the state seems to be making more every day.
If I, or anyone else, wanted to make a poignant argument against Israel we could simple gesture to the pile of crimes against humanity the state has committed. We wouldn't need to resort to antisemitism.
References to Israel are not unnecessary details when protestors call for the elimination of the only existing Jewish state. Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel. Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.
There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.
If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it
You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.
The trouble is that Israel-Palestine is a proxy war with spiritual implications.
Israel is composed of people who just went through a legitimate holocaust and genocide themselves. Therefore it seems logical to most people that they'd be ready and willing to exact vengeance in the measure it was dished out to them. Furthermore, their Tanakh (our Old Testament) details the battles between the Children of Israel and their neighbors, which were murderous, atrocious, and genocidal on both sides. Why should modern warfare be any different?
Conversely, Palestine is composed of an amalgam of pan-Arabic people and, correct me if I'm wrong, no particularly deep roots in terms of common ethnic descent, or claim to such land or territory, since it was British until recently. Therefore, the Palestinians are a stand-in for all the Arab world, and by proxy, we're fighting all those Arab terrorists by targeting Palestine, and vice versa. Now the Arab world is nakedly genocidal against the Jews. They really make no bones about their desire to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. By proxy they did a pretty good job during WWII -- the Third Reich, being the enemy of their enemy, was greatly pleasing to the Arab world.
So the Middle East has two little Davids fighting each other on behalf of their respective Goliaths. Israel's campaign has finally ramped up to the point where the rest of the world cries injustice and genocide and enough. But Israel has vowed "never again [to us]" while living under very real and existential threat that the entire Arab world would very much do it again to them, if they had half the chance.
So if the West puts the brakes on Israel, then we're letting the other Goliath's David win, and nobody around here wants that.
“ Palestinians didn't do the holocaust. On the contrary, they took Jewish people in - on condition that no one would try and form an ethno-state”
Before World War II, the land was British Mandate Palestine, which was previously part of the Ottoman Empire. It was a land with a mixed population and growing nationalist movements among both Jews and Arabs.
Balfour Declaration 1917
“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object..."
Under League of Nations, there was no explicit agreement that Jewish people could only come if they never formed a state.
1920s-30s more immigration occurred and clearly Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state.
In 1939, before Holocaust, Britain severely limited Jewish immigration stating in a White Paper, “Palestine would not become a Jewish state”. It limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over 5 years.
Fast forward to 1947 post WW2, Britain became increasingly concerned about tensions between Arabs and Jews. There became a strong demand for a Jewish state amongst Zionists it was referred to the United Nations in 1947.
UN partition plan divided Palestine into three parts. Jews accepted even though it had compromises and Palestinians rejected.
War broke out and in 1948, several Arab states attacked. After the Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt took Gaza, Israel expanded its borders. No Palestinian state was created.
Palestine identity started getting created in the 20th century. It had been known as Palestine for millennia and ruled by various empires over hundreds of years.
“ Palestinians – as well as other Levantine people – are primarily descended from ancient Levantines who inhabited what is today Israel and Palestine, at least 3700 years ago”
It’s complicated and there is a lot of nuance. Many cultural groups trace their origins there including Jews who consider themselves descendants of ancient Israelites.
>War broke out and in 1948, several Arab states attacked.
Please do mention the Dalet Plan, the massacres of the Palestinians by Zionists, and how the war broke out. Also killing UN mediators by Zionists would something to complete the history lesson, rather than Palestinians rejected. Wow, who would have thought people would reject taking their land and giving it to somebody else! And also mention the rejection by Zionists of the count Bernadotte's plan. So the Zionists just killed the one who made the plan, so whoever came after him just gave more land to Zionists.
> the Arab world is nakedly genocidal against the Jews
The Arab world historically (specifically the Palestinians) has never been the enemy of the Jews. It has always been other Europeans that have been the enemy of the Jews. Why should the Palestinians pay reparations under the form of genocide for what the Europeans did to the Jews?
> Israel is composed of people who just went through a legitimate holocaust and genocide themselves.
This gives them a free pass to commit a second one, right?
Also, no it's not. That's just not true. Israel is not composed of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust. The youngest survivors of the Nazi Holocaust are over 80 years old now. Is Israel composed of people over 80 years old? And is 80 years ago a time that "just" happened?
Israel gives the Palestinians a contiguous state with sea access is exchange for a mutual recognition of borders.
The root problem that anti-Zionists have in practice (rather than the "no state of Israel" loonies) is Palestinians having a viable state (economically and territorially).
Both of those are things Israel (with the help of Arab funding) could fix tomorrow, if its current government weren't kowtowing to its ultra-right / illegal settler minority for political reasons.
I can totally see how the settlements and politics of Israel in the westbank would prevent a viable Palestinian state.
I know less about Gaza (haven't been there to begin with), but my impression is that Gaza had much more freedom within it's borders. It's unfortunate that the people there voted for a terror organization back then that as their very first act murdered the opposition and has no interest at all to work for the benefit of the Palestinian people.
Recognition of borders by Hamas will obviously never happen, so as long as they rule in Gaza or might potentially rule in Gaza or the westbank in the future it would be way too much risk for Israel to expose their borders.
I think everyone forgets just how much money Palestinians receive, effectively because of the war with Israel (or they wouldn't receive anywhere near this amount without that war). This guarantees the war continues. None of the states in the middle east around Israel are anywhere close to Palestine, economically. What Palestinians are receiving amounts to $1000/person (or $13000/person/yr) for nothing. That doesn't include payments from the middle eastern countries like Qatar, which reportedly are enough to make all Palestinian government leaders billionaires, as well as run both hamas and the PA.
If Palestinians needed to support their own economy, well, let's look at the neighboring countries:
Egypt: 3,457.46 GDP/capita/yr
Jordan: 4,455.51 GDP/capita/yr
Lebanon: 3,654.36 GDP/capita/yr
(This is NOT income, it's GDP, let's generously say average income would be half that)
So napkin math: peace with Israel would cost Palestinians 7/8th or 87.5% of the average income of a Palestinian. Well, let's say they wouldn't lose all aid. Let's say it would cost them 75% of their income. It would be a worse economic disaster for them than WW2 was in Europe. Frankly it's so much of a loss that I do actually kind of believe Israel's government also wants the war: the business they get from Palestinians is still between 15 and 20% of Israel's GDP and would entirely disappear if there was peace. But the incentive for war is far stronger for Palestinians.
Currently, despite everything, Palestine is ahead of Eastern Europe in economic development (by which I mean "go into a random apartment, what would you find?"). You would destroy that. Frankly, I find it hard to believe Palestinians would even match Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan in terms of economy any time soon.
I think if you asked Palestinians if they wanted war, victims and all, in trade for keeping what they have (as opposed to losing 75%), they would want war. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that's not exactly an exception. If, say, the French had the option to 4x their average income in trade for war, they'd start a war. No doubt in my mind about that.
You have to discount Gaza's economic development by needing to rebuild their infrastructure every few years and a complete blockade since 2007.
Why is there so much per capita aid to Gaza?
Because Israel prevents them from having a functioning economy.
Why does Israel prevent that?
Because then it would have to bargain with a stronger counterparty for an ultimate resolution.
Until Israel realizes that it either needs to (a) kill every man, woman, and child in Gaza or (b) grant them a functioning, independent state, the wheel will keep on turning. Israel represses and provokes Palestinians; Palestinians lash out; Israel cracks down militarily until international pressure forces them to stop; GOTO 10.
Anyone who reads your initial comment will agree that EVERY point you made boils down to "this happened, but it's a Jewish conspiracy". You barely mention Palestinians.
I don't think most Palestinians want the war. Most of them just want to love their lives just as most people in the world do. When people voted for Hamas back then, they specifically didn't wanted what Hamas did afterwards. At least I have seen polls that strongly indicate that. People were angry back then that there wasn't enough progress on the matter.
Leadership is a different matter. Hamas is a terror organization, they achieve their goals by means of terror and that's what defined them. So they of course want terror. Don't know much about Fatah, but they seem to be much more interested in political solutions.
Israel gives them a hard time though as they keep demonstrating that they want to replace the Arab population in the westbank with Jewish settlers.
... and given the choice between war and 1000 usd/month/person help, or no war, but, let's say 250 usd/month/person in help, and the rest has to come from a job (and if you want 750 that will be a job in Israel, likely working for Jews, for less, let's say half, than Israeli make).
Not the "war or peace, with no further consequences" fake choice people like to pretend exists?
The Israel-Palestine conflict always was a proxy war. Maybe less so on Israel's side, but always on the muslim/Arab side, even before it started. Peace would mean support from the proxies stops and Israeli and Palestinians would have to care for themselves. Aid would drop to the level anyone else gets (which isn't even 1/4th of what they currently officially get, more like 1/20th, and probably even less if you count unofficial "aid")
Given that choice, the real choice, war or desperate poverty, what do Palestinians want? Frankly, if we look at history, I'd argue it historically took a lot less than what is bound to happen in Palestine to get people to start a war. For example, the French revolution was preceded and at least partly caused by a tax increase of 16%. This would be an effective 75% to 90% tax increase.
Oh and to add insult to injury, of course, stopping the war would mean economic disaster on the Palestinian side, but it would ALSO mean an immediate economic boom like nothing before on the Israeli side. Palestinians would be forced into desperate poverty ... and Israeli may see their wages double at the same time, for the same reason.
This conflict cannot end with this level of aid provided to the Palestinian side. It just can't.
I don't think your provoking theory holds because before the massacre on 7th October, the situation between Gaza and Israel was improving. That's also why intelligence didn't think Hamas would start such a massacre.
Israel tends to eventually destroy infrastructure that's (dual-)used to increase Hamas terror infrastructure. Unfortunately, that's virtually all of existing infrastructure right now.
Why hasn't Gaza normalized it's relationship with Egypt? They have closed their borders to Gaza as well because Hamas is friends with Muslim brotherhood and apparently Egypt thinks a proper border with Gaza would do harm to Egypt.
>Why hasn't Gaza normalized it's relationship with Egypt?
The border is controlled by Israel. Egypt US and Israel has a tripartite treaty to have Egypt act as a mere watchdog on the border. This border crossing is now controlled by Israel. The sea is controlled by Israel, and has fixed and detained any maritime peace activities, read the floatilla raid on Palestinian waters. Maybe we should be holding accountable those who call themselves to a democratic nation than a party in a small bombed out piece of land.
It is NOW. For obvious reasons. Other than that: bullshit. The border was controlled by Egypt and Hamas from 2005 to 2021. Incidentally it was Egypt that closed the border, not Israel (after hamas decided to murder Egyptian army officers "because they were Jews", I might add, the incidents (plural) that wikipedia euphemistically describes as "escalation of cross-border incidents between Israel and Hamas". Cross-border is correct, but somehow it is not relevant to point out that it was hamas attacks in Egypt, and that it was Egyptian security forces that died. Oh and they probably weren't even anti-Israel attacks but an attempt to sabotage one of the attempts of the Egyptians to hold an election. That attempt was succesfull I might add (of course it's still the middle east and "it's complicated")
That's fine, but allegations in a law suit aren't prima facie evidence of anything. Especially when the text of that law suit is filled with political invective (calling protesting students and faculty "uncontrolled antisemitic mobs" and so forth).
There's a very easy determination to be made here about which students are or are not being victimized. If my knowledge of current events is still accurate, not a single pro-Israel student has been extra-judicially kidnapped and imprisoned. Pro-Israel Jewish students very well may feel victimized or scared. But put into perspective, I can imagine that pro-Palestinian students feel it much more so.
The rhetoric at the top nowadays is that Israel == the Jewish people, and the will of Israel == the needs of the Jews. To criticise their policy is anti-Semitic.
One of the organizations that got completely cut off is the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Which brings together researchers across the country in to find cures to the rarest diseases. And it may just cease to exist, setnences people with rare diseases to die. This administration is responsible for abject evil because a university didn't swear fealty to a genocidal foreign government.
In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
> ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities.
To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd.
I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
That's something that you can look up. Not "you" in the "some person" sense, but literally you. I suggest doing that. Your ‘arguments’ are falling flat because you don't have any facts, don't seem to be interested in learning any, and are just venting your personal feelings, which are neither compelling nor merely interesting.
> it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
What do you mean by tax dodge, in this context?
How familiar are you with taxes? Off the top of my head, people who work for non-profits have to pay withholdings and income taxes, just like the rest of us. Generally, 'business' expenses for both non-profit and for-profit organizations (whether a McDonalds, university, church) are tax-deductible. Tax rules differ between states, but being a non-profit doesn't automatically exempt you from collecting and forwarding other forms of tax, such as sales tax.
Well, right. In that case, all non-profits are "tax dodges" using the literal interpretation of the words. But tax dodge usually implies something unsavory...
Is the issue that you don't think that any university - or perhaps specifically Harvard? - should be granted non-profit status? If that’s the case, then I'm curious what you think about the same question for religion-affiliated universities and non-profit organizations whose missions you agree with?
No, some of them operate like genuine non-profits by promoting some public good and compensate their executives only modestly. For example, the Salvation Army.
Okay. Well, I'm sorry your feelings are so hurt. I'd suggest that you donate to the Salvation Army and not go to Harvard, then. It also sounds like you don't like education, so you could try looking for an organization that's trying to get rid of it.
They should use their endowment to mitigate this. People should be concerned about that. But (1) other schools aren't in that position, and (2) whether or not the Harvard admin makes the right calls, we either are or aren't funding cancer research; we should be angry at anybody compromising that.
That's absolutely worth a serious debate, but that endowment falls well within existing laws for how universities are allowed to accumulate and govern their finances.
You know what doesn't fall within the rubric of existing laws (or things that anyone who respect the rule of law and controlled government should be comfortable with)? Trump unilaterally using the federal agencies under his control to vengefully, punitively attack a major public institution just because he wants it to do whatever his latest personal tantrum has dictated.
His whimsical funding cuts are indeed illegal (1) and even if you agree with the government not funding certain institutions in certain ways, i'd call it a bad fucking idea to claim that the president should break his government's own federal laws to do so.
Every leftist I know believes that education should be free and universally accessible. That holding capital (especially with the intent to make more capital, which is what an endowment is) is morally wrong. And that we should tax wealthy people and corporations to fund things like healthcare and education.
Constructing a strawman like this (inventing a position that progressives do not hold) and then trying to point out the hippocracy in that position is classic logical fallacy territory.
Progressives are busy being bothered by other things like transgender and autistic people being demonized, womens' rights being repealed, resegregation, the return of child labor, Nazis being cool apparently, the chilling effect of right-wing oppression and censorship causing the erasure of gay, female and non-white people from history and the public record, book bans and the whole "kidnapping political dissidents to foreign concentration camps" thing. But sure, we can add "rich assholes don't pay enough taxes" to the pile if you want.
Better question is why aren't conservatives bothered by any of this?
They are bothered by it. But the anti-liberal, extra-judicial, law-ignoring method this administration is levying against Harvard is also being levied against many, many other progressive priorities and interests worth even more than taxes on a $52B trust fund.
75 years ago, universities were cautious about accepting Federal funds due to this specific possibility. It worked out. Not it isn't.
Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo.
Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.
On the flip side, accepting this funding has allowed for a lot of research to progress. Sometimes those strings attached still lead to a net good. Obviously, you should always have a plan for "what if this source of funding goes to zero, suddenly", and be prepared to walk away if needs be. But it's hard to imagine what university research would be like if they didn't accept Federal funding. (Much, much weaker, I'd imagine.)
There’s a lot of work that is “useful” but the return on investment is not direct, but rather indirect.
For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.
Let's remember that China funds all kinds of research, not just the research with guaranteed profit. (Indeed, private industry already funds research with guaranteed profit.)
75 years ago was right in the middle of McCarthyism, when universities were not only taking federal GI Bill money hand over fist, but instituting loyalty pledges and political review boards for staff and students. I don't think anyone needed to contemplate theoretical financial levers when they had much more straightforward examples immediately at hand.
It's an example of universities accepting federal funds. I didn't actually know the breakdown of federal university funding in the 1950s, so I had to look it up. For separately budgeted research, federal funds were ~70% of dollars according to a 1954 NSF survey. For total expenditures, they were 42%. A bit over half of that went to medical and agricultural research.
Because the reputational damage to Harvard would probably exceed the minimal cost of litigating this (given its endowment) if they thought they would win. It's not evidence in legal sense, but it's a strong suggestion of culpability. Harvard isn't some kid that was arrested on false charges and settles because they're facing jail time. This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.
>This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.
Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability.
Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important
“ Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences will stop requiring a diversity, inclusion, and belonging statement as part of its faculty hiring process”
Professor Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School described these statements as "ideological pledges of allegiance" that pressure candidates to conform to specific viewpoints, potentially discouraging those with differing perspectives
For instance, computer science professor Harry Lewis observed that the course catalog contains over 100 classes referencing "social justice" and around 80 each mentioning "oppression" or "liberation,"
Those are some examples but clearly they have failed to address anti semitism on their campus. Harvard also appears to be an enabler of social activism
The computer science professor isn’t some nobody either - long time faculty, graduated in 1968, former Dean.
In the case of the curriculum, it suggests an institutional preference for particular ideological narratives
Harvard selectively aligned with or tolerated specific activist ideologies while suppressing or distancing themselves from others
For DEI (which is just rebranded now honestly), it suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies and indoctrinated their students in this ideology.
They shouldn’t indoctrinate any students whatsoever
“ Just because they are not intentionally indoctrinating does not mean the overwhelming majority of voices being liberal does not create a force to push people in that direction more than they would be otherwise.
It can also create a circle where people who are more conservative are less likely to view universites favorably, and therefore attend less and in different departments, thus creating an even more overwhelming majority.
This shows the difference in thinking between left and right on higher education. In general the longer you are at college, the more likely you are to be liberal. Is that 'indoctrination'? No, but I think it's a bit silly to not see a stray thumb on the scale”
“Differing political opinions” is a dealbreaker for liberals, but NOT for conservatives. And conservatives don’t know this, they just love to take advantage - a Supreme Court seat here, a presidency there… One fine day liberals will wake up and decide they’ve had enough, and conservatives will be so surprised.
153 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] thread[1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal...
Hell just ask an llm. https://chatgpt.com/share/682b50c5-27ac-8004-b217-dc3748bf11...
However, I don't think this is chilling. I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China. And I would prefer to cut most social spending from the federal level and relegate it to the local level.
This is pretty consistent with most people on the right. This is not a feature of the magas. Please don't act like it's strange or alien.
Obviously social spending cuts will never happen sadly. All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt.
But
>I would prefer more defense spending to ensure the military inferiority of China
It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to.
However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social programs?"
______
I don't know what primes are
Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not.
Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be.
My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first.
Primes are the prime contractors: boeing, northrop, lockheed, rtx. The guys who do a lot of stuff on cost-plus. The guys who systems-integrate most of the smaller manufacturers' stuff.
Did you specifically mean welfare run by states? If so then wouldn't that debt be localized to a state and the left is already in control of certain states so that it wouldn't be a future event? Confusing.
Every federal social program is backed by a law giving the federal government that power. The Stafford act and social security act for example.
>Defense must be handled at the national welfare
Why can't defense be per state? If the answer is it's not efficient or coordination then the same could be said for any social program
>My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do
Why? I understand your view I would like to understand why you have it.
>It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first.
Why? Wouldn't it be better to look at the least nessacary line items. Counter example;
I spend $1000 a month on housing, $300 on video games, and $200 on Pokemon plush toys.
If I was overspending would the first change be my housing?
Defense per-state would disrupt the concept of a nation and the feds' ability to operate internationally. This is the same as borders and foreign policy. If anything localities are better able to understand the needs of their neighbor than the feds.
I have this view about small fed because I do not trust government. Any government. The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more.
Redistribution is not the basic purpose of a state. It was not a founding principle of our state. It is discretionary spending in the literal use of the word if not in that of the budget committee. In this case the feds are spending $500 on housing and $4,000 on pokemon toys.
But
>The damage a local government can do is necessarily less and the layers of government above it that can check that damage are more
The US spends vastly more on defense than any other nation on the planet. Why not spend 2x what we already spend? 10x? Surely at some point "we have a larger military spending than the 10 countries with the next highest military spending combined" is enough to mitigate the "existential threat."
"All we'll get is more spending. The right will raise the defense budget and fail to stop recapture and overcharging by defense primes through the broken cost-plus model. The left will raise social spending. We all end up deeper in debt."
I have no such perception.
I can respect principled patriotism and fiscal conservativism, but voting for an icon of xenophobia, illiteracy, and graft and expecting anything but that is kinda...
Also if you actually gave a shit about containing China, it would probably be in your best interests to vote for a candidate who doesn't base their campaign on alienating the entire rest of the free Western world while simultaneously denigrating and disrespecting the armed services... but what do I know.
I don't really like trump. I've voted against him in every primary I could. I voted libertarian in 2020 because I figured biden would lose.
I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. probably worse. Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
But she would probably be better at keeping the US position in the world and with our allies in good standing; instead of selling it off for personal gain.
> Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
Good point, at least he pretends to care. I mean he is getting the US a "free" jet that will cost the american tax payer almost a billion dollars to retrofit that will be finished at the end of his term and then given to his library for his personal use. But since he pretends to care about Americans, I guess we can also pretend to believe his dealing with the middle east and all his crypto is totally not selling the country out for his, his business partners and his family's benefit.
At least you are honest about voting for someone who only pretends to care, instead of voting for someone who does care about the country and it's people, even if some domestic policies views differ -- I can appreciate that honesty.
I do not believe any politician cares about America or her citizens. I do not believe harris cares about America or her citizens. Politicians seek power.
How deep do you think I have to look to find dozens (or hundreds) of strong examples of the EU and other western allies "playing ball"?
We seem to be focused a lot on Qatar and Saudi Arabia as our "good" allies.
I don't blame you for falling for the rhetoric of a populist candidate willing to say and do anything, claim victory if it works, and ignore and bury it when it doesn't. It's easy. You're not the first in history to do it, and you won't be the last.
I don't think Canada and the EU were "bad" allies. Canada partially still is not.
The EU is now regarding China.
“Government contracted L3Harris Technologies to retrofit the Qatari jet with necessary modifications, aiming to have it operational by fall 2025. “ [1] https://www.ainvest.com/news/l3harris-steps-boeing-footsteps...
But why? Because Boeing has delayed the real Air Force One replacement until 2035. Trump wants it for the Trump Presidential Library when he leaves office which he can buy and have it retrofitted again. The same/similar thing done for Reagan in 2001.
How much do you believe each country spends on defense?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
Based on that, the US spends more than the remainder of the top 10 countries combined, most of which are allies.
The US could cut its defense budget in half and still be spending more than China and Russia (spots 2 and 3) combined.
Don’t get wrong, we’ve all heard stories about $5,000 toilet seats or whatever but without actual changes on that front we can’t cut our budget in half and be competitive.
How many times is woke (and related words) mentioned? Is dragging culture war BS into the budgeting process really the way forward. In the limited descriptions that they gave, was dedicating so much headspace to nebulous buzzwords really a good use of tax payer money? Are we really machete'ing giant programs and saying its all because of woke?
Green New Scam was plastered everywhere, likely referencing Biden's infrastructure bill where ~80% of funds were earmarked for conservative districts (it was the only way to pass the bill!).
I'm not here to disparage the way you vote or your beliefs and certainly not what you think is best for the country, but taken within the context of Trumps ~5 years in political office, does this really look like a good thing?
I would prefer non-corporate tax cuts focusing on the middle class. This would also help us balance the federal budget.
I like national parks. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. Most of the federal budget does not go to national parks.
I also live in a state that has really good state parks. Well-run, widely available, well-maintained. Hopefully we can have states help pick up the slack if there are challenges with the NPS.
You can't lump NHS in with those. I do not like public health care.
I did not put "woke" in there. I don't like the "wrapper" language. I do like some of the content.
I do not think trump in office is a good thing. I just think harris is a bad thing. Since roosevelt we have been stuck on a leftward ratchet. Liberals take office and change things. Conservatives take power and fail to reverse them.
Trump is not much of a conservative. I do think he can at least promote some reversal of the social parts. I don't care much about the social parts. But I do hope that sets a precedent for someone to reverse the practical economic parts.
You like national parks and see no problem with funding it with taxes. But then why is it bad when the rest of us like other things that the federal government does? Elsewhere you talk about federalism concerns but you completely ignore them here. Why is that?
In other words it’s not commerce/elastic clause bullshit.
If you really care about the NPS and think it’s an overreach we could move management of parks back to states. I don’t strongly object to that.
When that happens eggs will cost $12,000 USD per dozen.
It kind of tints movies like Idiocracy (a movie I fear increasingly describes a possible future rather than a satirical one) that made a joke out of someone who was only moderately not-smart as just the last 4 letters rather than all 6.
Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.
-----
My concern is that Anti-Zionism is being conflated with Anti-Semitism by the complainants in order to
1. Bolster their case wrongfully by increasing the number of incidents
2. Defend the Israeli government
3. Expand Anti-Semitism to include Anti-Zionism in court decisions making future criticism of Israel dangerous
For example the complaint you linked to opens with
".. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children, and the elderly"
Unnecessary details to the situation because if their claims against Harvard are valid the source of the anti-Semitism is irrelevant (edit: meaning anger at Israel's response to the attack)
This means it was placed at the beginning of the complaint to illicit an emotional reaction/reminder of the horrific event.
Edit: Just to add that if a person is criticizing Israel and a Jewish person feels threatened or avoids campus because of it that's not anti-Semitism.
"I'd like to open my case against John Smith for murder your honor. My only piece of evidence that he committed this horrific crime is that he was accused of it. I rest my case"
>And calling these protests merely "anti-Israel" is intentionally obtuse — it ignores the blatant anti-Jewish bigotry that was plainly on display.
By all who were there or just some? Being the protest was open to all how can you lump all protestors together because of the views of some.
>intentionally obtuse
Because I avoided generalizations?
No actually I think it's right on the money.
Some vaguely brown people being very mad at Israel does not antisemitism make.
Are they denying the Holocaust? Are they saying Jews should die? Or... are they saying Israel is committing a genocide? Are they blaming those particular jews running Israel?
I think we all know it's almost entirely the latter, and almost none of the former.
Quite a lot of people are. Just because some don't doesn't mean that others aren't.
However, you don't need to be antisemitic to be anti-Zionist. There are pretty much infinite reasons to denounce Israel, and the state seems to be making more every day.
If I, or anyone else, wanted to make a poignant argument against Israel we could simple gesture to the pile of crimes against humanity the state has committed. We wouldn't need to resort to antisemitism.
"opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Zionism
>Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted.
There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong.
If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti-Zionism but you are trying to make it
You can only be bigoted against a person or group of people, not a country or government.
Israel is composed of people who just went through a legitimate holocaust and genocide themselves. Therefore it seems logical to most people that they'd be ready and willing to exact vengeance in the measure it was dished out to them. Furthermore, their Tanakh (our Old Testament) details the battles between the Children of Israel and their neighbors, which were murderous, atrocious, and genocidal on both sides. Why should modern warfare be any different?
Conversely, Palestine is composed of an amalgam of pan-Arabic people and, correct me if I'm wrong, no particularly deep roots in terms of common ethnic descent, or claim to such land or territory, since it was British until recently. Therefore, the Palestinians are a stand-in for all the Arab world, and by proxy, we're fighting all those Arab terrorists by targeting Palestine, and vice versa. Now the Arab world is nakedly genocidal against the Jews. They really make no bones about their desire to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. By proxy they did a pretty good job during WWII -- the Third Reich, being the enemy of their enemy, was greatly pleasing to the Arab world.
So the Middle East has two little Davids fighting each other on behalf of their respective Goliaths. Israel's campaign has finally ramped up to the point where the rest of the world cries injustice and genocide and enough. But Israel has vowed "never again [to us]" while living under very real and existential threat that the entire Arab world would very much do it again to them, if they had half the chance.
So if the West puts the brakes on Israel, then we're letting the other Goliath's David win, and nobody around here wants that.
Before World War II, the land was British Mandate Palestine, which was previously part of the Ottoman Empire. It was a land with a mixed population and growing nationalist movements among both Jews and Arabs.
Balfour Declaration 1917
“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object..."
Under League of Nations, there was no explicit agreement that Jewish people could only come if they never formed a state.
1920s-30s more immigration occurred and clearly Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state.
In 1939, before Holocaust, Britain severely limited Jewish immigration stating in a White Paper, “Palestine would not become a Jewish state”. It limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over 5 years.
Fast forward to 1947 post WW2, Britain became increasingly concerned about tensions between Arabs and Jews. There became a strong demand for a Jewish state amongst Zionists it was referred to the United Nations in 1947.
UN partition plan divided Palestine into three parts. Jews accepted even though it had compromises and Palestinians rejected.
War broke out and in 1948, several Arab states attacked. After the Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt took Gaza, Israel expanded its borders. No Palestinian state was created.
Palestine identity started getting created in the 20th century. It had been known as Palestine for millennia and ruled by various empires over hundreds of years.
“ Palestinians – as well as other Levantine people – are primarily descended from ancient Levantines who inhabited what is today Israel and Palestine, at least 3700 years ago”
It’s complicated and there is a lot of nuance. Many cultural groups trace their origins there including Jews who consider themselves descendants of ancient Israelites.
Please do mention the Dalet Plan, the massacres of the Palestinians by Zionists, and how the war broke out. Also killing UN mediators by Zionists would something to complete the history lesson, rather than Palestinians rejected. Wow, who would have thought people would reject taking their land and giving it to somebody else! And also mention the rejection by Zionists of the count Bernadotte's plan. So the Zionists just killed the one who made the plan, so whoever came after him just gave more land to Zionists.
You missed the various normalization treaties over the years:
- 1979 Egypt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_peace_t...
- 1994 Jordan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Jordan_peace_...
- 2020 Bahrain and UAE https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords
- 2020 Morocco https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Morocco_norma...
With Syria potentially being added, in return for sanctions relief. And Saudi Arabia gradually inching towards recognition.
This gives them a free pass to commit a second one, right?
Also, no it's not. That's just not true. Israel is not composed of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust. The youngest survivors of the Nazi Holocaust are over 80 years old now. Is Israel composed of people over 80 years old? And is 80 years ago a time that "just" happened?
How should this be achieved without war and a genocide-like event? What are people that are in favor of Anti-Zionism specifically hoping for?
The root problem that anti-Zionists have in practice (rather than the "no state of Israel" loonies) is Palestinians having a viable state (economically and territorially).
Both of those are things Israel (with the help of Arab funding) could fix tomorrow, if its current government weren't kowtowing to its ultra-right / illegal settler minority for political reasons.
I know less about Gaza (haven't been there to begin with), but my impression is that Gaza had much more freedom within it's borders. It's unfortunate that the people there voted for a terror organization back then that as their very first act murdered the opposition and has no interest at all to work for the benefit of the Palestinian people.
Recognition of borders by Hamas will obviously never happen, so as long as they rule in Gaza or might potentially rule in Gaza or the westbank in the future it would be way too much risk for Israel to expose their borders.
If Palestinians needed to support their own economy, well, let's look at the neighboring countries:
Egypt: 3,457.46 GDP/capita/yr
Jordan: 4,455.51 GDP/capita/yr
Lebanon: 3,654.36 GDP/capita/yr
(This is NOT income, it's GDP, let's generously say average income would be half that)
So napkin math: peace with Israel would cost Palestinians 7/8th or 87.5% of the average income of a Palestinian. Well, let's say they wouldn't lose all aid. Let's say it would cost them 75% of their income. It would be a worse economic disaster for them than WW2 was in Europe. Frankly it's so much of a loss that I do actually kind of believe Israel's government also wants the war: the business they get from Palestinians is still between 15 and 20% of Israel's GDP and would entirely disappear if there was peace. But the incentive for war is far stronger for Palestinians.
Currently, despite everything, Palestine is ahead of Eastern Europe in economic development (by which I mean "go into a random apartment, what would you find?"). You would destroy that. Frankly, I find it hard to believe Palestinians would even match Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan in terms of economy any time soon.
I think if you asked Palestinians if they wanted war, victims and all, in trade for keeping what they have (as opposed to losing 75%), they would want war. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that's not exactly an exception. If, say, the French had the option to 4x their average income in trade for war, they'd start a war. No doubt in my mind about that.
Why is there so much per capita aid to Gaza?
Because Israel prevents them from having a functioning economy.
Why does Israel prevent that?
Because then it would have to bargain with a stronger counterparty for an ultimate resolution.
Until Israel realizes that it either needs to (a) kill every man, woman, and child in Gaza or (b) grant them a functioning, independent state, the wheel will keep on turning. Israel represses and provokes Palestinians; Palestinians lash out; Israel cracks down militarily until international pressure forces them to stop; GOTO 10.
Try and avoid assumptions and ad hom's, if you want someone to read the rest of what you wrote.
If you're ready to have a conversation, I'm game.
If you want to pathos-bait (or even worse, can't tell that you're doing it), then I've got more interesting people to talk to.
Leadership is a different matter. Hamas is a terror organization, they achieve their goals by means of terror and that's what defined them. So they of course want terror. Don't know much about Fatah, but they seem to be much more interested in political solutions.
Israel gives them a hard time though as they keep demonstrating that they want to replace the Arab population in the westbank with Jewish settlers.
Not the "war or peace, with no further consequences" fake choice people like to pretend exists?
The Israel-Palestine conflict always was a proxy war. Maybe less so on Israel's side, but always on the muslim/Arab side, even before it started. Peace would mean support from the proxies stops and Israeli and Palestinians would have to care for themselves. Aid would drop to the level anyone else gets (which isn't even 1/4th of what they currently officially get, more like 1/20th, and probably even less if you count unofficial "aid")
Given that choice, the real choice, war or desperate poverty, what do Palestinians want? Frankly, if we look at history, I'd argue it historically took a lot less than what is bound to happen in Palestine to get people to start a war. For example, the French revolution was preceded and at least partly caused by a tax increase of 16%. This would be an effective 75% to 90% tax increase.
Oh and to add insult to injury, of course, stopping the war would mean economic disaster on the Palestinian side, but it would ALSO mean an immediate economic boom like nothing before on the Israeli side. Palestinians would be forced into desperate poverty ... and Israeli may see their wages double at the same time, for the same reason.
This conflict cannot end with this level of aid provided to the Palestinian side. It just can't.
Israel tends to eventually destroy infrastructure that's (dual-)used to increase Hamas terror infrastructure. Unfortunately, that's virtually all of existing infrastructure right now.
Why hasn't Gaza normalized it's relationship with Egypt? They have closed their borders to Gaza as well because Hamas is friends with Muslim brotherhood and apparently Egypt thinks a proper border with Gaza would do harm to Egypt.
The border is controlled by Israel. Egypt US and Israel has a tripartite treaty to have Egypt act as a mere watchdog on the border. This border crossing is now controlled by Israel. The sea is controlled by Israel, and has fixed and detained any maritime peace activities, read the floatilla raid on Palestinian waters. Maybe we should be holding accountable those who call themselves to a democratic nation than a party in a small bombed out piece of land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing#2005:_Is...
In addition: there are 1-2 million Palestinians already living in Israel as normal citizen.
There's a very easy determination to be made here about which students are or are not being victimized. If my knowledge of current events is still accurate, not a single pro-Israel student has been extra-judicially kidnapped and imprisoned. Pro-Israel Jewish students very well may feel victimized or scared. But put into perspective, I can imagine that pro-Palestinian students feel it much more so.
The rhetoric at the top nowadays is that Israel == the Jewish people, and the will of Israel == the needs of the Jews. To criticise their policy is anti-Semitic.
https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/anti-semitism-task-force-stat...
Why are progressives not bothered more by this?
I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain.
It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
What does this article have to do with nonprofits in general?
Also the board of the nonprofit sets salaries for admin
> ... the National Association of College and University Business Officers issues a report on ... where the money [endowments] generate ends up. ... About 48 percent of investment income went to student aid ... about a quarter of the money ... went to academic programs and maintaining facilities.
To claim it's a "tax dodge, and nothing more" without elaborating is absurd.
I won't argue further with someone more interested in inflammatory statements than actually discussing.
How much of that "student aid" just covers some of the astronomical tuition Harvard charges?
What do you mean by tax dodge, in this context?
How familiar are you with taxes? Off the top of my head, people who work for non-profits have to pay withholdings and income taxes, just like the rest of us. Generally, 'business' expenses for both non-profit and for-profit organizations (whether a McDonalds, university, church) are tax-deductible. Tax rules differ between states, but being a non-profit doesn't automatically exempt you from collecting and forwarding other forms of tax, such as sales tax.
Is the issue that you don't think that any university - or perhaps specifically Harvard? - should be granted non-profit status? If that’s the case, then I'm curious what you think about the same question for religion-affiliated universities and non-profit organizations whose missions you agree with?
No, some of them operate like genuine non-profits by promoting some public good and compensate their executives only modestly. For example, the Salvation Army.
If our society lacks education we end up having people question the utility of 501(c)(3) status of universities.
People have screamed that Universities tuition fees are too expensive for the RoI. It’s a separate bipartisan issue.
You know what doesn't fall within the rubric of existing laws (or things that anyone who respect the rule of law and controlled government should be comfortable with)? Trump unilaterally using the federal agencies under his control to vengefully, punitively attack a major public institution just because he wants it to do whatever his latest personal tantrum has dictated.
His whimsical funding cuts are indeed illegal (1) and even if you agree with the government not funding certain institutions in certain ways, i'd call it a bad fucking idea to claim that the president should break his government's own federal laws to do so.
1 https://www.thefire.org/news/faq-responding-common-questions...
Every leftist I know believes that education should be free and universally accessible. That holding capital (especially with the intent to make more capital, which is what an endowment is) is morally wrong. And that we should tax wealthy people and corporations to fund things like healthcare and education.
Constructing a strawman like this (inventing a position that progressives do not hold) and then trying to point out the hippocracy in that position is classic logical fallacy territory.
Better question is why aren't conservatives bothered by any of this?
Federal funds comes with strings attached and administrations change. If the usefulness of the work has proven itself now, then other sources can fund it. This won't really be controversial or require grandstanding or debate soon, because it will be the status quo.
Yes, its also disruptive to many programs to cut off funding in this way. I think decoupling is for the better. This university daytraded tax free up to a $50bn endowment, for a rainy day. They just need to get liquid and plug the budget gap, which they are starting to do. Donors and other sources can be leveraged too.
For example I don’t remember the detail exactly but this professors insistence to study extremophiles has directly translated to many improvements in medicine.
Non profits
Various agencies in every municipal government
Various agencies in every state government
Various agencies in every other nation’s national government
Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability.
3% of civil cases reach a verdict.
https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-whe...
Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important
“ Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences will stop requiring a diversity, inclusion, and belonging statement as part of its faculty hiring process”
Professor Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School described these statements as "ideological pledges of allegiance" that pressure candidates to conform to specific viewpoints, potentially discouraging those with differing perspectives
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Too,_Am_Harvard
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Harvard
[4] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/1/pro-palestine-l...
[5] https://www.jdjournal.com/2024/07/05/critics-blast-harvard-t...
[6] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/04/harvard-renames-dive...
[7] https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/28/harvard-university-neut...
For instance, computer science professor Harry Lewis observed that the course catalog contains over 100 classes referencing "social justice" and around 80 each mentioning "oppression" or "liberation,"
[8] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/18/harvar...
[9] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/8/lewis-reaping-wh...
Those are some examples but clearly they have failed to address anti semitism on their campus. Harvard also appears to be an enabler of social activism
The CS professor just running a word search is a poor experiment but this doesn't negate your point.
[1] The DEI intitive is social activism [2] True but not an official school policy but a professor
[3] Independent organization [4] Article on protests and mentions faculty support them [5-6] Accusations [7] True
These are good examples. What about indoctrination though and is it wrong for Harvard to be social activists?
In the case of the curriculum, it suggests an institutional preference for particular ideological narratives
Harvard selectively aligned with or tolerated specific activist ideologies while suppressing or distancing themselves from others
For DEI (which is just rebranded now honestly), it suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies and indoctrinated their students in this ideology.
They shouldn’t indoctrinate any students whatsoever
Are there?
>suggests that Harvard pushes only progressive policies
How does Harvard's DEI program suggest they ONLY push progressive policies?
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ip031k/commen...
It can also create a circle where people who are more conservative are less likely to view universites favorably, and therefore attend less and in different departments, thus creating an even more overwhelming majority.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/07/10/sharp-partis...
This shows the difference in thinking between left and right on higher education. In general the longer you are at college, the more likely you are to be liberal. Is that 'indoctrination'? No, but I think it's a bit silly to not see a stray thumb on the scale”
That's nice
"Although acknowledging his experiment’s limitations – “word frequency is an imperfect measure”
The classes exist and he could have confirmed by attending them or checking course material. I was complaining about his lazy method
It doesn't matter I said you proved that point
https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Har...