Leader of protests at Columbia University appears to justify 7 October massacre

[RandySF]

In the interview, Khalil also appeared to link the 7 October attack to an agreement that would have normalised relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

“It was clear that the Saudi-Israel deal is very imminent, and Palestinians wouldn’t have any path to statehood and self-determination. So they had to do that, according to their calculations — which, it’s obvious, were not right.”

He told Klein that the terror attack was “to break the cycle” of Palestinians “not being heard” by Israel, calling it “a desperate attempt to tell the world that the Palestinians are here, that Palestinians are part of the equation. To me, it felt frightening that we had to reach this moment in the Palestinian struggle.”

He went on to claim: “Having lived in the Middle East most of my life, unfortunately, the only Jew you hear about is the one who’s trying to kill you” and described the reports of antisemitism at Columbia as “manufactured hysteria.”



https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/leader-of-protests-at-columbia-university-appears-to-justify-7-october-massacre/

[TommyT139]

1. "...which, it's obvious, were not right."

[RandySF]

2. Full quote.

"It was clear that the Saudi-Israel deal is very imminent, and Palestinians wouldn’t have any path to statehood and self-determination. So they had to do that, according to their calculations — which, it’s obvious, were not right.”

[TommyT139]

3. Exactly.

I'll wait to hear the interview.

[RandySF]

6. He was referring to a miscalculation, not the immorality.

[TommyT139]

7. That's why it's important to hear/read the whole thing.

She picked what she wanted out of the interview. Ezra Klein's very next question to Khalil was a continuation of the topic.

Four paragraphs is what we can except here on DU. So here's the very next section of the transcript:

[Ezra Klein] I’ve heard you in other news be very clear about condemning the killing of civilians. Oct. 7 was obviously an operation that did target and kill a lot of civilians. Do you see that as unavoidable, that Hamas had no other choice? Do you see it as a mistake?

[Mahmoud Khalil] What I know is that targeting civilians is wrong. That’s why we’ve been calling for an international independent investigation to hold perpetrators to accountability. It’s very important, for those of

us who believe in international law, that this should happen.

And it’s very important to underscore, as well, that Palestinians have tried all forms of resistance — including nonviolent resistance. However, this was always targeted by Israel. Palestinians who participated in the Great March of Return were killed or maimed because of that.

There’s nothing that can justify the killing of civilians — and the international law is very clear about that. We cannot pick and choose when international law applies to us or to others.

[H2O Man]

12. Thank you.

[Eko]

11. As if morality never enters into caculations.

Or calculations into morality.

[yardwork]

4. He seems to be saying the calculations weren't right.

He seems to be saying that the Palestinians had to do the October 7 attack, based on their calculations, which weren't right.

I don't understand him to be saying the attack wasn't right.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. Hope they stretched before they made that leap.

[Blue Full Moon]

8. Record number of Palestinian children were killed by Israel including American citizens

[AloeVera]

9. If merely explaining a POV and strategy is complicity and "justification" where does that leave historians?

Historians explain how things don't happen in a vacuum.

Are Palestinians to be deprived of even THAT?

Of course when the goal is to erase a people, erasing their history is necessary.

[Beastly Boy]

10. Interesting observation.

Here's another one: if merely repeating same accusations over and over again makes someone guilty, where does it leave international law experts?

They are the ones, and not the mobs, who determine what constitutes breach of international laws, no?

[EdmondDantes_]

13. Many of them are coalescing around the opinion that Israel is committing genocide

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza

"The seven experts were interviewed Wednesday by NRC, a newspaper in the Netherlands, and were unequivocal: Not only have they all come to believe—some earlier than others—that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, but the vast majority of their peers in academia concur.

"Can I name someone whose work I respect who doesn't consider it genocide?" said Raz Segal, an Israeli genocide researcher at Stockton University in New Jersey. "No.""

"Melanie O'Brien, president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, told NRC that Israel's deliberate blockade on "food, water, shelter, and sanitation" convinced her the Netanyahu government was carrying out a genocide, while Segal pointed to "openly genocidal statements" by Israeli leaders. "

I suppose one could continue to cling to that what is happening hasn't yet been officially declared a genocide by the ICC. Of course if one wants to be semantic and be consistent, then the Holocaust didn't become a genocide until 1948 when genocide was adopted as a crime in international law. And technically while it was a genocide after the fact, given that nobody was charged with it, semantically one could say that a genocide happened, but nobody committed it since nobody was ever convicted of it. But that would be silly and focusing on being "technically correct" rather than usefully correct.

It's less common for a genocide to have been declared in the course of the actual event such as the Rwandan and Yazidi genocides. On the other hand, the Darfur, Bosnian, Cambodian, Kurdish, Guatemalan genocides were all declared after. Not to mention the Holocaust itself. So that's not really the great defense you think it is.

[Beastly Boy]

14. With all due respect to the seven experts interviewed by NRC,

they do not represent expert consensus on the issue. They do not even make up the "many" experts, who, in turn, do not represent consensus on the issue.

And this is the reason why competent courts of international law exist. So accusations and opinions can be tested by applying due process of law to them.

Even at the Nurenberg trials, where expert opinions were far more consistent prior to the trial, the accused were given an opportunity to defend themselves before the verdict became final. And if one is to remain respectful to due process of law, then semantics should not be raised as an issue. If one is judged on the basis of semantics, we have lawlessness. You yourself demonstrate how unreliable semantics are in forming a judgement.

My defense is not of a particular party, it is a defense of due process of law, where a defendent is given an opportunity to speak on their behalf. It is a defense against allowing opinions dictate verdicts until and unless guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt in a competent court of law. And I am confident that this defense is as good as I think it is.