I was going to say that there's a difference between opposing Israel and supporting a massacre. But if what the article say is true, the guy never outright supported Hamas' actions. It looks like the worst you can accuse him of is to sweep it under the rug by not mentioning it.
In the current climate and context, it is an absolute shitbag move on his part for doing that. If you're going to condemn one side doing atrocities, you have to condemn the other as well in order to not be a shitbag in my book.
I would generally think that this should still not be sufficient cause to fire an employee in general (or rescind an offer), unless your reputation and political alignement is inherent to your job function.
I don't know enough about how the law firms work to know for sure if this is the case here. But I've seen many stories of law firms letting go of low level lawyers due to them failing to maintain a certain level or reputation. Either way it's not specific to Israel.
I was going to say that there's a difference between opposing Israel and supporting a massacre. But if what the article say is true, the guy never outright supported Hamas' actions. It looks like the worst you can accuse him of is to sweep it under the rug by not mentioning it.
Here's what the Student Bar Association's (former) President wrote:
Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life. This regime of state-sanctioned violence created the conditions that made resistance necessary. I will not condemn Palestinian resistance.
Why?
Why should this person have said something about both sides?
In a court of law, when an attorney goes to plead their case, do they have to plead their case or both sides equally?
What about their opponents? Does netanyahu or bush or any pro Israel supporter who condemns only hamas for "massacre" also say that Israel commits war crimes by doing collective punishment or by using white phosphorus or killing thousands of babies in the last week alone ?
Why should a job offer be affected by your persnla views unless you say you only hire people who have shared values and only those shared values ? Isn't… That … discrimination?
Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?
Bobby punches Danny
Danny punches Bobby in response
Teacher scolds Danny in front of entire class
Danny visibly upset
Can you really not understand why failing to address both sides of a conflict might be seen as problematic to an outside observer, and as a personal attack by one group or another?
Note: I'm not assigning first cause blame to one party or another in the Israel-Gaza case, just to be clear.
Why should a job offer be affected by your persnla views unless you say you only hire people who have shared values and only those shared values ? Isn’t… That … discrimination?
A law firm has a right to refuse to hire an actual neo-Nazi, too. They can associate with or disassociate with anyone they want. You're torturing the definition of "discrimination" to the point where it's lost all utility in this conversation.
You are running in circles. I am saying why isn't pro Israel lobby saying something about the POV of Palestine ? Why does it have to be only pro Palestine people who have to recognize the other side?
No, you quite literally said: "Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?"
I'm not engaging your whataboutism. I'm specifically responding to the exact words you used. This person should have been more sensitive to the broader context than they were, as the president of the university's Student Bar Association and a person with a considerable audience. In the event of a violent conflict it's poor taste to come out and lambast the actions of one party but sidestep or ignore the actions of the other.
I didn't say anything about any "lobby", or the fact that one person should be instructed to do something and the other given a pass.
Go back and read my comment again, because you clearly didn't get it the first time.
Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?
Because failing to acknowledge the major differing and valid viewpoints in a complex situation contributes to echo chambers and radicalization which can ultimately lead to or contribute to political disfunction, civil war, war and deaths.
Because of the several layers of indirections I think it's completely unreasonable to expect people to live up to the expectation of acknowledging differing valid viewpoints, but people who fail to do so are still engaging in shitbaggery, in my opinion, because they contribute to the deterioration of the political discourse which can have catastrophic consequences.
As I said I generally think that engaging in shitbaggery in political discourse shouldn't harm your job /career. Unless your job relies heavily on your reputation, which lawfirms seem to weirdly believe is the case for lawyers. I personally don't get it, a lawyer's argument should always be just as a valid regardless of which lawyer makes the argument, but I know very little about law practice.
Why should a job offer be affected by your persnla views unless you say you only hire people who have shared values and only those shared values ? Isn’t… That … discrimination?
But if what the article say is true, the guy never outright supported Hamas’ actions. It looks like the worst you can accuse him of is to sweep it under the rug by not mentioning it.
It's worse than that. He said all of the bloodshed was Israel's fault, and went on to issue several apt condemnations of Israel. He very pointedly did not condemn Hamas for the attack.
He blamed the context of how we got to the murders instead of the actual murderers. It was never swept under the rug.
I was going to say that there's a difference between opposing Israel and supporting a massacre. But if what the article say is true, the guy never outright supported Hamas' actions. It looks like the worst you can accuse him of is to sweep it under the rug by not mentioning it.
In the current climate and context, it is an absolute shitbag move on his part for doing that. If you're going to condemn one side doing atrocities, you have to condemn the other as well in order to not be a shitbag in my book.
I would generally think that this should still not be sufficient cause to fire an employee in general (or rescind an offer), unless your reputation and political alignement is inherent to your job function.
I don't know enough about how the law firms work to know for sure if this is the case here. But I've seen many stories of law firms letting go of low level lawyers due to them failing to maintain a certain level or reputation. Either way it's not specific to Israel.
Here's what the Student Bar Association's (former) President wrote:
Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?
In a court of law, when an attorney goes to plead their case, do they have to plead their case or both sides equally?
What about their opponents? Does netanyahu or bush or any pro Israel supporter who condemns only hamas for "massacre" also say that Israel commits war crimes by doing collective punishment or by using white phosphorus or killing thousands of babies in the last week alone ?
Why should a job offer be affected by your persnla views unless you say you only hire people who have shared values and only those shared values ? Isn't… That … discrimination?
Bobby punches Danny
Danny punches Bobby in response
Teacher scolds Danny in front of entire class
Danny visibly upset
Can you really not understand why failing to address both sides of a conflict might be seen as problematic to an outside observer, and as a personal attack by one group or another?
Note: I'm not assigning first cause blame to one party or another in the Israel-Gaza case, just to be clear.
A law firm has a right to refuse to hire an actual neo-Nazi, too. They can associate with or disassociate with anyone they want. You're torturing the definition of "discrimination" to the point where it's lost all utility in this conversation.
You are running in circles. I am saying why isn't pro Israel lobby saying something about the POV of Palestine ? Why does it have to be only pro Palestine people who have to recognize the other side?
No, you quite literally said: "Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?"
I'm not engaging your whataboutism. I'm specifically responding to the exact words you used. This person should have been more sensitive to the broader context than they were, as the president of the university's Student Bar Association and a person with a considerable audience. In the event of a violent conflict it's poor taste to come out and lambast the actions of one party but sidestep or ignore the actions of the other.
I didn't say anything about any "lobby", or the fact that one person should be instructed to do something and the other given a pass.
Go back and read my comment again, because you clearly didn't get it the first time.
Because failing to acknowledge the major differing and valid viewpoints in a complex situation contributes to echo chambers and radicalization which can ultimately lead to or contribute to political disfunction, civil war, war and deaths.
Because of the several layers of indirections I think it's completely unreasonable to expect people to live up to the expectation of acknowledging differing valid viewpoints, but people who fail to do so are still engaging in shitbaggery, in my opinion, because they contribute to the deterioration of the political discourse which can have catastrophic consequences.
As I said I generally think that engaging in shitbaggery in political discourse shouldn't harm your job /career. Unless your job relies heavily on your reputation, which lawfirms seem to weirdly believe is the case for lawyers. I personally don't get it, a lawyer's argument should always be just as a valid regardless of which lawyer makes the argument, but I know very little about law practice.
This reads like a chatgpt response.
This reads like a middle schooler's response.
Only if you're a fucking idiot.
It's worse than that. He said all of the bloodshed was Israel's fault, and went on to issue several apt condemnations of Israel. He very pointedly did not condemn Hamas for the attack.
He blamed the context of how we got to the murders instead of the actual murderers. It was never swept under the rug.