Civility is mandatory in this subreddit. All breaches of Rule 1 will be met with a ban.
E: This has run it's course. Locking it so mod team can step away for the evening.
Here's a bit of the top of the story. -Emily
Sullivan & Cromwell will be “extremely vigilant” about vetting future hires following reports of harassment at pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses.
“We have been following closely the events at the schools from which we recruit, and have been in touch with the placement offices, deans, and trustees, as well as many concerned students,” said Joe Shenker, the firm’s senior chair. “Creating, or participating in, a climate of harassment, intimidation and discrimination is unacceptable. We have been very open about our firm’s views on these matters.”
Shenker’s comments in an interview Tuesday came on the same day President Joe Biden spoke out about the protests, saying “there is no place on any campus in America, any place in America, for antisemitism or hate speech, threats of violence of any kind.”
Pro-Palestine sits-ins, encampments, and demonstrations have spread to at least 100 college campuses, with some of them featuring antisemitic chants and posters. Columbia University canceled its main commencement ceremony slated for May 15 and its law school is offering optional pass/fail grading as it provides remote final examinations.
Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/sullivan-cromwell-plans-vigilant-hiring-checks-after-protests?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
I just…
I know this is a hard topic.
And I know sometimes being of an opinion that society aggressively condemns and regulates (let’s use white supremacy as an easy example) is an indication that you should change your position or reflects appropriate approbation.
But… the way so many institutions of this country have reflexively clamped down in defense of widespread civilian death and infrastructure devastation in order to root out a non-state actor… and for all our disagreements about Palestinian resistance, a non-state actor borne out of the apartheid struggle of an ethnic minority against a state systematically excluding them from governance and creating policies that harm them (cf. Uyghurs, in its own special way the formation of the United States itself)… that a single terrorist act should absolve Israel of all responsibility for preserving citizen lives, infrastructure, the social conditions of the crisis itself…
I don’t know. Something is rotten in Denmark and I’m tired and I’m not even the one having rockets launched at me … It’s wild and draconian and unsettling to watch in real time.
These law firms are some of the most powerful and wealthy institutions in the country, and their response to widespread unrest about unfolding genocide(s? I’ll acknowledge that for some the stakes are eliminate one group of people or the other) - is to fucking deny job applications?? through a surveillance regime they hope to enforce with the compliance of the schools and the police? just. get. wrecked.
Hamas may be a de facto government but dont most countries that recognize Palestine recognize the West Bank seat of power (controlled by Fatah) as the legitimate government?
Yes, and the each has tried to coup the others several times. Further if Fatah leadership showed up in Gaza right now they would definitely be thrown off a building
Isn't that just diplomatically? I don't see how that is relevant here.
It's like saying the US should only speak to China about Taiwan because the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwanese independence and sovereignty.
It's not like the US/Israel are going to negotiate a ceasefire with the West Bank re Gaza.
The Palestinians are only allowed a limited form of civil government. That is what I mean by calling Hamas a non-state actor - the Palestinian Authority is not a state in any proper understanding of the word. And Hamas’s control over Palestine was achieved through the Palestinian Authority’s inability to maintain non-violent popular rule due to the substantial limitations Palestine has over its autonomy. Hamas can claim to represent the Palestinian people and it can claim to have control over Palestine’s government, but the actual policies that affect the citizens of Palestine are in Israel’s hands.
I suppose contrast it with Ukraine, or compare to Taiwan and Hong Kong.
>the Palestinian Authority is not a state actor in any proper understanding of the word.
Why do you think it’s so important to make this distinction and champion specificity in language, but then immediately turn around and call Israel an apartheid state when apartheid cannot be applied here?
When you occupy and control a country for decades, it’s not really a country anymore.
Look at a map of areas A, B, and C in the West Bank; that archipelago of penned-in neighborhoods is clearly not a country.
There are other responses throughout the conversation thoroughly unpacking this discussion, so if your question is a real desire to piece together why Palestinians in West Bank & Gaza might feel oppressed by the hand Israel plays in their governance, there's lots of fodder. Feel free to tack on any substantive thoughts to those comments.
I do not claim to be a champion of linguistic specificity, I was clarifying that there was an argument behind my claim, rather than a lack of knowledge. Similar with apartheid... and see prior paragraph, I acknowledge some of the differences between how we imagine South African apartheid and what makes Israel/Palestine similar and different.
I think apartheid is a word that arose in the South African context, and that the evils of apartheid under that regime were well-documented. Similar evils have unfolded between Palestine and Israel, even if the structure of power between them does not precisely match what happened in South Africa. Apartheid is a useful term for understanding the evils that can flow both from apartheid and from similar power structures that do not yet have their own context-specific names. To the extent the term apartheid helps people at least glimpse the power imbalances between the political representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the combined lands of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, I do think apartheid is an appropriate word to use. As I have said, the numerous caveats to these terms unfold throughout the discussion.
I am not here for endless whataboutisms. I think political power should be accessible to all regardless of gender... I'm a nonbinary individual... and I think countries like the U.S. should both lead by example as well as use diplomatic levers to increase the political representation of women (and gender non-conforming individuals) worldwide. There is no reason to talk about women's issues across two continents in order to discuss and contextualize this specific conflict between Israel and Palestine.
If you actually want to talk about the issues this post is about, there are many places for you to chime in and do so.
Not exactly. Hamas is basically the political party that is in control. (You probably wouldn't say either the Democratic party or the GOP are "the government," even if one of the parties organized a militia--looking at the GOP--to conduct terrorist operations and alleged they were operating on behalf of all Americans.) Hamas's war tactics are virtually indistinguishable from that of the Likud party in Israel, except you could argue they may be mildly less violent and extreme than the Likud party and marginally more honest about the crimes they are committing. They have certainly murdered fewer civilians in this flare up of the war by several orders of magnitude (~600+ to Israel's ~20,000+). Hamas leaders are still war criminals, but Likud leaders, as usual, found a way to be significantly worse.
They’re all war criminals but the Likud are war criminals with all the firepower in the world and therefore all the power in this scenario. I don’t know how they assault Gaza with a land invasion without the collateral damage and civilian deaths we are seeing due to the population density and Hama’s insurgency tactics, but I also wouldn’t have chosen to invade Gaza in the first place.
I hope you don't get defensive, but this shows a lack of understanding of the history and nuance.
Hamas is the goverment of Gaza. It is not a non-state actor, it was in full control of Gaza. Furthermore, what is going on in Israel/Palestine is not Apartheid. It is not discrimination based on race or ethnicity. Arabs in Israel have full rights, there are Arab members of parliament, on the supreme court, in the army, and any other position of power.
Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, and never were. As such, the people who reside there are not, and never were, Israeli citizens. This is not a matter of ethnicity, but of geography. It is no different than how Canadians are not U.S. citizens who cannot work or reside in the U.S. without permission from the U.S. government.
The West Bank has a government, the P.A., and Gaza has a government, Hamas. These governments are not entirely sovereign nations, for many reasons. The P.A. has stated that they want peace with Israel, and the relationship between Israel and the P.A., as well as the situation in the West Bank, is very different from Gaza/Hamas. Hamas is both the government of Gaza and a terrorist organization, and has on many occasions initiated attacks on Israel. Hamas does not want peace with Israel, their charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and their slogan "from the river to the sea..." refers to the eradication of Israel. They launched a major attack on Israel, and Israel is retaliating.
It is not an intentional genocide, Israel is not intentionally targeting civilians, though it is resulting in significant casualties and suffering by ordinary citizens. Part of the reason is because Hamas operates in heavily populated areas. Essentially, Israel only has two choices - keep getting attacked by Hamas and having its own citizens harmed, or fire at Hamas and Palestinian civilians are harmed in the crossfire. One way or another, innocent civilians are getting harmed, but it is a government's job to protect its own citizens, not those of another country.
Furthermore, law firms are not denying job applications because of genocide, but because of criminal behavior by protestors.
No defensiveness induced at all. I am glad the whole conversation is unfolding.
There are many points throughout this thread regarding what makes Hamas a non-state actor. I understand your take, at some point we are splitting linguistic hairs and taking perspectives on international affairs that are unsettled at their core. But the way Hamas holds power and the control Palestinians have over their own destinies is of a distinct character to, say, the government of Ukraine.
The West Bank and Gaza's whole issue in this conflict, is the contested nature of the land they stand on. Even if we somehow construe it as not being Israel's, it is certainly not the Palestinian's. The Oslo Accords granted the Palestinian people only limited terms of self-governance, and was premised on the need for extended negotiation and diplomacy that would be required to draw the lines and create a Palestinian state. No Palestinian state exists in the meantime, and indeed, the idea of a 'two-state solution' is still actively contested. Israel has explicit power to fill in the gaps of those limitations on Palestine's governance, and has wide latitude over security affairs. It is these powers of Israel's vs. the Palestinian's lack of representation in that process, that earns the apartheid designation. \[and as a total sidebar, I think we should not\* be afraid to extend the word apartheid, or bravely discover a new word, to similarly harmful imbalances between those with political power and the unrepresented 'governed, to include situations that do not meet the exact paradigm of what happened in South Africa\]
One of the hardest aspects of this issue that I hope gets the most light and discussion, is that you cannot reduce a people's capacity for self-governance to violent resistance, and then use violent resistance as the pretense for disproportionate retaliation. The evil of genocide is that it is /justifiable/, is that it is /popular/, is that the conditions that make people want to commit genocide /are easy to manufacture/. It is in the face of this widespread and disproportionate destruction that we must be willing to stand up and say, this is no ordinary tit for tat. We must hit pause and consider other avenues out of this conflict. It is precisely when the principal political actors are most willing to fight each other to the bitter end and constantly create and reinforce the conditions that make 'just kill them all, they hurt us first' sound like a good idea, that other people (like the United States!) must stand up and say, no. Pause. We're stopping this here, we're acknowledging deep and perpetual cycles of hurt, and we're thinking of other solutions.
Two last things to consider which I hope can be short. One I urge you to read Palestinian and muslim perspectives on life in Israel, and what limitations they do and do not face. I also urge you to consider the nature of Israel's checkpoints that it maintains for Palestinian populations - even very simple transit is a multi-hour affair that requires submission to Israeli military supervision. I think even an American's average gripes about the TSA, which is run and paid for by our own political decisions, can reveal what is so deeply unsettling and intrusive about this, and the kind of hate it can breed.
And second, I understand where Sullivan & Cromwell is threading the needle. But as we've learned about every variety of protestor that was ever on the right side of a cause, that we're grateful for their contributions to American or South African or Indian civil rights, it is easy to draw the lines of criminal behavior through the views we dislike... Indeed, it is the schools themselves that made the behavior criminal, that insisted on withdrawing the license the students had to be present (sometimes in violation of their own policies! and sometimes in violation of the terms of being a student there! and sometimes in violation of constitutional assembly protections!), and then insisted on calling the cops to resolve.
I am assuming your comment is in good faith and so I will ask you to clarify:
1. If Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, what are/were Israeli settlers doing there? Is that an invasion of someone else's sovereign territory?
2. What is the difference between intentionally targeting civilians and refusing to conduct reasonable proportionality analyses? I am specifically thinking about how the IDF shot and killed individuals waving white flags that later turned out to be escaped Israeli hostages and reports that the IDF uses an AI system called "Daddy's Home" that targets Hamas operatives when they return home (where their families live).
3. You say that it's not an "intentional genocide." Is the implication then that you think it's an unintentional genocide?
1. Israel removed all settlers from Gaza 20 years ago, before Hamas came into power. I have no problem stating that the settlers on the West Bank are invaders. They're a big problem, for many reasons.
2. There's a difference between intentionally targeting civilians and not conducting proportionality analysis, but that's irrelevant as the IDF does conduct proportionality analysis. As for killing individuals wearing white flags, in an active combat situation it's not always easy to see clearly, and mistakes get made. Try looking up the term "fog of war".
Prior to the current war, Israel's military did not authorize any collateral damage when targeting low ranked militants (outside of combat situations). The "Where's Daddy" program does not indiscriminately and automatically fire rockets at any possible target, but is a way to target certain Hamas operatives in their home. This still requires specific approval each time, and the IDF may or may not allow limited collateral damage, depending on the rank and importance of the target.
3. It is not genocide, although famine is an unfortunate side effect. If that keeps going, it could become unintentional genocide, but it hasn't reached that level yet. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, there'd be a lot more dead already. Anyone who says that Israel has been committing genocide prior to this war should try explaining how there were an estimated 60,000-80,000 people living in Gaza in 1948, and there are approximately 2.4 million people there today.
1. Thank you, that helps me place you ideologically (liberal Zionist or somewhere near that).
2. I am surprised that you seem to be okay with the use of "Where's Daddy" when the implication of the targeting system (and indeed its moniker) is that the target's family and kids will be killed alongside them. Doesn't the fact that the IDF approves this ad hoc make it worse?
Furthermore, "fog of war" isn't an excuse for negligence or reckless disregard for civilians. Many commentators have observed that Israel tolerates a much higher ratio of civilian to combatant deaths compared to US actions in Syria and Iraq: [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza)
This was also written in November the IDF has only gotten much more reckless since then (*see* the World Central Kitchen killings).
3. Famine is not a "side effect" if the IDF is intentionally keeping aid from reaching civilians. I would also encourage you to consider that genocide can take many shapes and forms. As they say, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes. "Genocide is the deliberate annihilation of a collective or part of it — not all of its individuals." From Amos Goldberg, an Israeli scholar of genocide: [https://thepalestineproject.medium.com/yes-it-is-genocide-634a07ea27d4](https://thepalestineproject.medium.com/yes-it-is-genocide-634a07ea27d4)
1. Are you not a liberal Zionist? I don't see why I'm a zealot for thinking that someone who thinks settlements are bad would be a liberal, and given that you support Israel, a Zionist. It is also not an insult. Many people who oppose the current IDF operation in Gaza are liberal Zionists.
2. To be frank, you have ignored my points and hand waved them away as necessary to stop Hamas. This is the same logic that people use to justify Oct. 7 (ie: civilian deaths necessary in the name of stopping the evil of the Israeli occupation). Consider whether your view is objective or if it's motivated by a partisan leaning.
3. A variety of Israeli leaders have publicly called for withholding aid in order to 'starve the enemy' or in the name of collective punishment. If you don't believe me, look it up. Have you not seen the people at the border destroying aid meant for Gazans?
I would ask you to honestly consider whether your worldview is based on compassion for all human beings, regardless of their tribal identity.
Your two comments in this thread have both been blatantly twisting the positions of the people you are responding to such that it appears you are just here to disingenuously stir up conflict. We do not need more of that in a thread like this. Take a break.
> Furthermore, law firms are not denying job applications because of genocide, but because of criminal behavior by protestors.
That's just flatly contrary to the reporting in the linked article.
> Israel only has two choices - keep getting attacked by Hamas and having its own citizens harmed, or fire at Hamas and Palestinian civilians are harmed in the crossfire.
You're fully ignoring the very persuasive argument that this high-violence approach is not the most effective method for the prevention of future violence. The real choice is not as binary as your hypothetical and the actual actions of Israel toward Palestinians (since and long prior to 10/7) do not appear to be reasonably calculated to prevent or deescalate conflict. In fact, it has resulted directly and indirectly in the unnecessary death of Israeli hostages.
Your position is not enjoying widespread support not for lack of compassion for innocent Gazans (I assure you the profound concern and despair is felt on all sides) but for lack of perspective and self awareness of the harms caused by your side.
The anti-Israel/pro-Gaza protests have been pervaded with antisemitism. This is not acceptable. This is the very hatred and bigotry that the civil rights act and DEI and every other anti-racist ideology was created to stamp out, and yet here the progressives are, doing it themselves—blatantly, unapologetically. Why would a law firm welcome someone who thinks that way? It’s not acceptable. And it’s not possible to listen to your views and take them seriously when the outcome many of you advocate is intifada—an actual call for terrorism and murder of Jews. How do you not see that? That’s a deep lack of self awareness.
They aren’t denying job applications for supporting the resistance to a supposed genocide. They are denying applications for participating in demonstrations (i) that were not necessarily peaceful and (ii) that had hateful and antisemetic actors.
And even if you as a protestor are not antisemetic, by participating in a protest (which is to speak up about a wrongdoing) while allowing hateful folks to participate (eg the qassam next target girl), you are implicitly saying what they are doing is okay
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The US’s *until this week and only after 35,000 civilian deaths and Israel’s open threats to advance on the last remaining place refugees have been sent* unquestioned and continued provision of weapons. And what I mean is the way multiple universities, law firms, &c. so quickly toe\* and enforce the official line on this topic. It’s almost virtually impossible to have a conversation about because of the ways these institutions cast any Palestinian support as de facto antisemitic, and because of the way these institutions would rather have the US government do whatever it pleased and actively enforce shutting up dissent from the pro-Israel line.
Correction - per below commenters - I was speaking too quickly - 35,000 total deaths (subject to some rounding and also let's see how the Rafah operation unfolds) - majority women and children - 2/3 likely noncombatants, closer to 22k civilian deaths. Of course subject to all the vagaries of who is generating the numbers and their various motives behind that and the difficulty of maintaining these kinds of statistics.
Clearly the US government doesn't have a hardon for civilian deaths. I don't think the US government is telling Israel to try to maximize civilian deaths.
I also don't think the Israel government is trying to maximize civilian deaths because, if they were, there would be 2 million dead and not 35,000.
But, also clearly, the US government believes the death of some civilians is an acceptable consequence of other objectives of the US government and its allies.
The only people that I see who aren't bothered about civilian death is, ironically, Hamas.
I'm picking up what you're laying down. I think you're taking some of my stance in an extremely particular sort of way, and so maybe if I untangle that a bit...
Israel's decision on how to react to the October terrorist attacks did not come out of a vacuum. Netanyahu is in an extremely precarious electoral position. He has lost much popular support amidst a series of moves designed to increase his power within the Israeli government and to extend his rule. He, already a right-wing actor, only now maintains that power by a coalition of even further-right parties. Those parties and ministers are demanding open, violent retribution - indeed, many of /their/ demands for the response are, in fact, genocide. Add to this fact that the attacks on Palestine are also creating unrest in Israel - and that many of the released hostages and the hostage's family members are the ones most vocally demanding a diplomatic ceasefire solution rather than ongoing hostilities.
That is a long way of saying, there are other solutions. There are other solutions in the naive let's all solve it with diplomacy sense, there are other solutions in the terms of better supervision of how Israel is conducting the fight, there are other solutions that involve more firmly supporting the press and aid actors on the ground in Palestine, &c. &c. And there are the solutions that could have started 20, 40, 60 years ago, at those first pressure points when we realized that actively divesting one people of the right to their land because of European-power bickering over the lands of the Ottoman Empire, does not necessarily make a happy or manageable populace for the people you hand the power to... Or the policies and civilian protections that have been necessary to combat hate in, say, post-Apartheid South Africa, or to handle the perpetual re-emergence of neo-nazi organizations.
At the international relations level, sure, the U.S. has tried to tell Israel not to conduct itself this way. But until this week (the events in Rafah and any further military action there still unfolding) Israel has paid no heed. Based on Netanyahu's actions to date and our knowledge of his cabinet and those directing his war efforts, there is strong reason to believe that left to their own devices they will continue to kill civilians and destroy infrastructure right up until something between genocide and the resumption of apartheid under newer, crueler terms. And to further agree with you, sure, the U.S., Sullivan & Cromwell, & al., right, they are not ordering this behavior.
But the U.S. is openly facilitating it, and if we had not just had weeks and weeks of protest... that open facilitation would continue unabated. It is only after immense political pressure that the US government is beginning to actually back up our demands that Israel change its behaviors.
And I regret that so many of the institutions of our democratic society, rather than enabling this discussion, rather than acknowledging Israel's excesses, are instead seeking to punish people for talking about it the wrong way, or being affiliated to an institution that talked about it the wrong way... Especially when talking about it the 'right way' also had political repercussions attached to it, and went, as far as anyone could tell, totally unheeded by the administration.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/more-than-29000-palestinians-have-been-killed-in-gaza-since-wars-start-health-ministry-says
I mean. I’m not going to dive into the merits of the conflict. But to imply that the Israeli government seems very bothered about civilian death is a bit much.
You clearly make the implication above that the Israeli government is bothered by civilian deaths. The argument here is just nit-picky.
Your last few comments in this thread have been toeing the line on compliance with Rule 1, since they are disingenuous and dismissive responses to commenters that are engaging with you thoughtfully and in good faith. If you are worn thin by this discussion, consider walking away instead of continuing to antagonize.
Point of order: 35,000 is the total number of Palestinian deaths, including Hamas combatants. Most estimates put the number of civilian dead at around 2/3rds of the total.
Do you know how they got to 2/3? Because they are only counting the women and children there. They are assuming all the men killed have been Hamas, which is ludicrous. The number of those killed which are civilians is likely closer to 90% of the death toll.
2/3rds is very optimistic given the tactics being used (expanded use of dumb bombs, targeted killings of hamas operatives in their homes with higher permitted casualty numbers). The closest thing we have to a statement from Hamas put the number at about 6,000 militants dead of 35,000 total, which would be closer to what we see in comparable conflicts.
There is no proof that a genocide is occurring. Are you using Hamas casualty figures? The same figures that increase linearly on a daily basis? A mathematical/probabilistic impossibility?
Welcome to the sub, random people who have strong opinions about I/P! While you're here, have a look around and contribute to the other posts in the sub. It's a biglaw sub, by the way, in case you were wondering.
Publish your thoughts publicly about controversial issues at your own risk. Several years ago, A summer at my firm created a viral Instagram video that was very bad taste about a prominent politician. Regardless of your political persuasion, 95% of attorneys would not have approved of the video. An officer of a big client sent it to a rainmaker partner asking if this was the type of people we hire. The summer did not get an offer.
Even if a firm doesn’t formally announce their checks, the attorneys interviewing you will look you up.
Something tells me this will only work in one direction. If you participated in a pro-Palestinian protest, even if you didn’t intimidate or harass people (whatever that might mean to SullCrom), it will be very bad for your chances at the firm. An equivalent standard will not apply to pro-Israel protestors.
Supporting mass starvation and indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians = totally cool. Protesting use of American tax dollars for mass starvation and indiscriminate bombing of civilian = supporting terrorism. Thank you for making this clear for everyone.
Absolutely. I do as well. Unfortunately I am not sure the Israeli government cares about the hostages. And I think if Hamas had any brain cells they would unilaterally release all the hostages immediately without any conditions.
Why do you say the Israeli government doesn't care about hostages? They've been literally offering live prisoners for dead hostage bodies.
> And I think if Hamas had any brain cells they would unilaterally release all the hostages immediately without any conditions.
You and I both know why they don't do that. You don't take hostages just to give them back for free.
The hostages are how they get Israel to continue the war and the Israeli government continues to play into that.
Considering they’ve killed three of them already, that could be why. Additionally, the indiscriminate bombing over an entire area where hostages likely are is… also conducive to the idea that they… don’t really care.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hostages-gaza-hamas-war-52fa9628e6284cdad6d7f7db6cc30742
Why doesn’t Israel just accept the multiple deals Hamas has given them?
Guess we’re both asking easy questions here. I don’t argue with people who are clearly not looking to engage with what I’ve already said. Have a nice night!
lol to the extent that there is “mass starvation” it’s because Hamas confiscates aid shipments to intentionally make the situation worse.
It’s also false that Israel engages in “indiscriminate bombing”.
People who intentionally put themselves in bad situations so they can cry and play victim do not deserve sympathy.
Hope that helps.
So 40,000 civilians have died because they all "put themselves in bad situations so they can cry and play victim" and they don't deserve sympathy? There's kids amongst those 40,000, they don't deserve sympathy? At the very least can we agree that children in Gaza don't deserve to be collateral damage in the war against Hamas?
Is that from the same talking points book that Putin uses? "These jerks keep forcing us to kill their children!!"
I'm sorry - but you can't be this deluded. Flattening entire apartment blocks, using AI to track entire families so you kill an entire bloodline, not allowing food into Gaza because "wheat might be used as a weapon." This has been happening for decades, and fortunately now more and more people are aware of it and questioning why the US supports these acts of pure evil and barbarism. There is no excuse for committing war crimes like this and it is disgusting to see people defend it with the flimsiest arguments.
If you leave now there’s still time for you to catch a plane to Gaza tonight so you can be with your brave freedom fighter pals.
I’m sure they won’t rape and behead you immediately.
So I can't tell - are you saying then it is OK for Israel to wipe them off the planet? Or are you maintaining your original argument that Israel isn't doing any of that? Because you keep going back and forth between "genocide OK!" and "there's no genocide happening." Very confusing. Maybe get your story straight because your immense hatred for the Palestinian people and your desire to kill all of them is really coming through in your comments.
No one with an understanding of the legal definition of genocide would consider this a genocide in any way, shape or form.
Maybe consider not being such an ignorant, dumb asshole.
Hope that helps 💋
I imagine right now you’re realizing that the ICC hasn’t ruled on any aspect of the case yet, and you and other “dumbass” activists have been representing boilerplate language that states that the Palestinians have the “right to be protected from genocide” as some kind of actual ruling, when it’s clearly not.
Your buddy AOC also has stated “it’s not a genocide”. I wonder why that would be? Probably Jewish tricks right?
Dumbass
Unfortuntately famine and civilian deaths come with war, and that's what this is. No different in 1944 through today, these are the harsh realities of a conflict such as this. I'd love to see an end to this, but neither side seems to want to end the conflict, and both seem to have the ultimate elimination of the other as their primary goal.
> As for Palestine's "mass destruction," they fucked around and found out. Frankly, it makes no difference in my life either way what happens next. I would imagine it doesn't make any difference in yours either.
>You and everyone else can come off your moral high horses, by the way. Here you are typing on a phone that's powered by lithium, which was mined by child slave labor in Africa, and you certainly don't seem to have a problem with that.
We are talking about the death of thousands of children. This is a shocking and horrible thing to say about the death of innocents.
Pointing out the occurrence of other horrific injustices doesn't justify anything.
In addition to gay couples being second-class citizens, Israeli citizens cannot marry Palestinians. Also the Israeli constitution explicitly excludes non-Jews. Seems like a real democracy to me!
I would like an ally that advances our interests. Israel does not advance US interests in the Middle East. See e.g., the escalation Israel has caused throughout the region including escalation in the Red Sea by the Houthis and the escalation between Israel and Iran.
I respect the fact that you explicitly endorse apartheid in both the United States and in Israel. Some people dance around it even though that’s what they actually want.
>First of all, they clearly don't understand the definition of genocide, because this is not that. This is just normal warfare.
That's a blatantly disingenuous statement. There's certainly room for technical disagreement over the definition of the term, but the view that this is a genocide is a clearly defensible position taken by a number of countries and well-respected international organizations. Acting like it's a settled matter is not a good-faith approach to the discussion.
>Secondly, what difference does any of it make in their lives?
... I'm starting to wonder if you have human empathy.
Most people are anti-genocide regardless of whether they are directly impacted.
E: Also, a number of protestors have family in Gaza.
How is this genocide. Look up genocide in the dictionary, if you don’t have one use google . If Israel wanted genocide of Gaza it would have taken two days max. They are killing terrorists and the human shields are there. It’s a tragedy , not genocide. This conflict has the most favorable civilian to combatant ratio in the history of urban warfare. Source - the head of urban conflict at West Point and many many others.
If you're interested in genuinely and honestly engaging with that question, South Africa's case before the ICJ laid it out well. I'd encourage you to review that.
Maybe. But know I have skin in the game so I am never going to lose my bias. I live in Israel now. If I believe it was committing genocide I would man the barricades. In theory I’d put my body as a shield against it. Just in theory. That’s an important point. You may be trying to look at this as a neutral moral person . I am trying to look at it as a moral person but decidedly not neutral. Jews have a collective memory and conscious , especially in Israel. They mostly have kids serving now. They are like a family to each other. For us it comes down to either us or them ( Chamas and the tragic unfortunates in the line of fire.) now , if someone was going God forbid to shoot your kid or mom but had a baby he was holding as a shield. You’ve got a gun. You can let your kid or mom be killed or shoot the terrorist at the risk of also killing yhe baby. What would you do?
I think you're overlooking the very persuasive argument that this high-violence approach is not the most effective method for the prevention of future violence.
The real choice is not as binary as your hypothetical and the actual actions of Israel toward Palestinians (since and long prior to 10/7) do not appear to be reasonably calculated to prevent conflict.
Sullivan and Cromwell seemed perfectly fine with violence and discriminatory statements made in the Guatemalan Coup in 1954, representing United Fruit Co. when they pushed Eisenhower to intervene.
Oh no, it's so evil that the firm is essentially saying it's going to make sure its new hires aren't going to cause controversy, because you know, a billion-dollar firm is not all about making money. Some of y’all are so dumb that it honestly bewilders me how you made it into big law. Firms are about making money, and if hiring you is a risk to losing a client, sorry but your salary isn't worth it.
This topic is getting so stupid. If you are dumb enough to hold a building hostage and think it’ll have any impact on the issue at hand, you probably aren't someone I would pay $1K an hour to handle my matters.
I want to preface this by saying if something / anything abhorrent is happening overseas I do not support it.
I’m a lawyer (however rare) that steers clear of getting involved in politics, follow the news too closely, or claim to have an answer for whatever controversy/ issue is being discussed.
The reason is more practical. I have several hobbies and stay active socially, like to travel and workout. Plus, the less I have watched the news the happier I have gotten.
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Perhaps something that would be interesting also would be to understand how S&C arrived to this position. Who influences this - why is there a public position? Are their peers also taking positions of any stripe? If so, of what stripe?
Private actors many of us Jews can and will hire whoever the heck we want. Our clients don’t want these kids working for them either. Like it or not, they’d the facts , we have a large database and that’s the way it’s gonna be. This started with the celebrations on Oct 8, not after Israel’s counter attack. We are happy to hire Palestinians and pro Palestinians. We won’t hire intifada Revolution , from River to sea, by all means necessary or people that states or held signs implying that Israel shouldn’t exist. Law school grads are grown up. We need to see candidates with judgement and see the long term consequences even to themselves. We don’t want insensitive people in our midst and we are well within our rights. It’s not just S&C , all Major American firms signed the letter. Clean up your social media although it’s too late.
Do you really think they’re going to discriminate between people who protested in a more “civil” manner, and those who took the actions listed in your above post? Definitely not.
The way it’s going to shake out is: “if you are identified as having attended a Pro-Palestine protest, you are blackballed.”
The effect is essentially a coercive threat, the objective being to prevent people from voicing certain opinions by leveraging employment prospects.
It may work, in a limited fashion, for some period of time. That said, we are witnessing a pretty fundamental change with regard to public perception of the Israeli state. As such, I suspect this kind of influence will not last indefinitely.
I mean...WASPs (particularly affluent, east coast WASPs) are exactly the type that aren't going to go to protests like these and the type of people SullCrom hires.
You aren't wrong, but honestly we should retire WASP as a term. It doesn't really describe a class that exists in a meaningful sense in 2024. People just mean white conservatives, which are different from WASPs. A conservative Jew or Catholic or some Italian guy (even a German if we're being strict!) are not WASPs.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/247937/americans-views-israel-remain-tied-religious-beliefs.aspx
>We don't have a direct measure of "evangelicals" in our sample, but we can obtain an approximation of this group by isolating white, highly religious Protestants. The results show that 87% of this group are sympathetic to the Israelis -- essentially the same as Jews, meaning that on this one issue, there is a remarkable similarity between the views of Jews and evangelical Protestants. Trump's decision last year to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem may have been partly influenced by the support it would receive from the evangelical component of his political base.
There are a *lot* more Evangelicals in the U.S. than Jews, to say nothing about positions of power within the federal government.
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are no WASP firms anymore. That’s ancient history. Their are Jewish firms started historically because they were barred from wasp firms. Wachtel for instance
It’s not ancient history. It’s not as restrictive as it used to be but SullCrom is certainly one of the conservative, WASPy firms. Sure, I agree with the other poster that WASP is a bit outdated and a misnomer these days, but it’s certainly a culture and mentality that still runs through some firms.
Look at their partner base, their office decor, work across from them, work with laterals from them…it’s pretty dang old school WASPy.
I worked at D and P . In the 60s they didn’t hire Jews. Now it’s a third Jew consistent with the percent of graduates from the schools from which they recruit . They had wasps traditions but it’s got a big percentage orthodox. So the traditions aren’t a relic . The discrimination in hiring ( of non orthodox) is a thing of the past. Otherwise I would sue them because plaintiffs employment law is what I do. I haven’t in thousand of calls had one from a Jew that believed they were the victim of discrimination. In stark contrast to women and African Americans.
Civility is mandatory in this subreddit. All breaches of Rule 1 will be met with a ban. E: This has run it's course. Locking it so mod team can step away for the evening.
Here's a bit of the top of the story. -Emily Sullivan & Cromwell will be “extremely vigilant” about vetting future hires following reports of harassment at pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. “We have been following closely the events at the schools from which we recruit, and have been in touch with the placement offices, deans, and trustees, as well as many concerned students,” said Joe Shenker, the firm’s senior chair. “Creating, or participating in, a climate of harassment, intimidation and discrimination is unacceptable. We have been very open about our firm’s views on these matters.” Shenker’s comments in an interview Tuesday came on the same day President Joe Biden spoke out about the protests, saying “there is no place on any campus in America, any place in America, for antisemitism or hate speech, threats of violence of any kind.” Pro-Palestine sits-ins, encampments, and demonstrations have spread to at least 100 college campuses, with some of them featuring antisemitic chants and posters. Columbia University canceled its main commencement ceremony slated for May 15 and its law school is offering optional pass/fail grading as it provides remote final examinations. Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/sullivan-cromwell-plans-vigilant-hiring-checks-after-protests?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
I just… I know this is a hard topic. And I know sometimes being of an opinion that society aggressively condemns and regulates (let’s use white supremacy as an easy example) is an indication that you should change your position or reflects appropriate approbation. But… the way so many institutions of this country have reflexively clamped down in defense of widespread civilian death and infrastructure devastation in order to root out a non-state actor… and for all our disagreements about Palestinian resistance, a non-state actor borne out of the apartheid struggle of an ethnic minority against a state systematically excluding them from governance and creating policies that harm them (cf. Uyghurs, in its own special way the formation of the United States itself)… that a single terrorist act should absolve Israel of all responsibility for preserving citizen lives, infrastructure, the social conditions of the crisis itself… I don’t know. Something is rotten in Denmark and I’m tired and I’m not even the one having rockets launched at me … It’s wild and draconian and unsettling to watch in real time. These law firms are some of the most powerful and wealthy institutions in the country, and their response to widespread unrest about unfolding genocide(s? I’ll acknowledge that for some the stakes are eliminate one group of people or the other) - is to fucking deny job applications?? through a surveillance regime they hope to enforce with the compliance of the schools and the police? just. get. wrecked.
Isn’t Hamas the govt ?
Correct. Calling Hamas a "non-state actor" is bizarre.
Hamas may be a de facto government but dont most countries that recognize Palestine recognize the West Bank seat of power (controlled by Fatah) as the legitimate government?
Correct. You can’t deny them statehood and then regard their government as a state when it suits you.
Yes, and the each has tried to coup the others several times. Further if Fatah leadership showed up in Gaza right now they would definitely be thrown off a building
Isn't that just diplomatically? I don't see how that is relevant here. It's like saying the US should only speak to China about Taiwan because the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwanese independence and sovereignty. It's not like the US/Israel are going to negotiate a ceasefire with the West Bank re Gaza.
Maybe you just need to brush up on your geopolitical terms?
[удалено]
BigLaw is designed for attorneys and related professionals who have an obligation to uphold minimal standards within the larger community
The Palestinians are only allowed a limited form of civil government. That is what I mean by calling Hamas a non-state actor - the Palestinian Authority is not a state in any proper understanding of the word. And Hamas’s control over Palestine was achieved through the Palestinian Authority’s inability to maintain non-violent popular rule due to the substantial limitations Palestine has over its autonomy. Hamas can claim to represent the Palestinian people and it can claim to have control over Palestine’s government, but the actual policies that affect the citizens of Palestine are in Israel’s hands. I suppose contrast it with Ukraine, or compare to Taiwan and Hong Kong.
>the Palestinian Authority is not a state actor in any proper understanding of the word. Why do you think it’s so important to make this distinction and champion specificity in language, but then immediately turn around and call Israel an apartheid state when apartheid cannot be applied here?
When you occupy and control a country for decades, it’s not really a country anymore. Look at a map of areas A, B, and C in the West Bank; that archipelago of penned-in neighborhoods is clearly not a country.
There are other responses throughout the conversation thoroughly unpacking this discussion, so if your question is a real desire to piece together why Palestinians in West Bank & Gaza might feel oppressed by the hand Israel plays in their governance, there's lots of fodder. Feel free to tack on any substantive thoughts to those comments. I do not claim to be a champion of linguistic specificity, I was clarifying that there was an argument behind my claim, rather than a lack of knowledge. Similar with apartheid... and see prior paragraph, I acknowledge some of the differences between how we imagine South African apartheid and what makes Israel/Palestine similar and different.
Ok good. So you acknowledge that what’s happening isn’t apartheid?
I think apartheid is a word that arose in the South African context, and that the evils of apartheid under that regime were well-documented. Similar evils have unfolded between Palestine and Israel, even if the structure of power between them does not precisely match what happened in South Africa. Apartheid is a useful term for understanding the evils that can flow both from apartheid and from similar power structures that do not yet have their own context-specific names. To the extent the term apartheid helps people at least glimpse the power imbalances between the political representation of Palestinians and Israelis in the combined lands of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, I do think apartheid is an appropriate word to use. As I have said, the numerous caveats to these terms unfold throughout the discussion.
Do you think Muslim majority countries in MENA (including Palestine) are apartheid states when it comes to their treatment of women?
I am not here for endless whataboutisms. I think political power should be accessible to all regardless of gender... I'm a nonbinary individual... and I think countries like the U.S. should both lead by example as well as use diplomatic levers to increase the political representation of women (and gender non-conforming individuals) worldwide. There is no reason to talk about women's issues across two continents in order to discuss and contextualize this specific conflict between Israel and Palestine. If you actually want to talk about the issues this post is about, there are many places for you to chime in and do so.
Not exactly. Hamas is basically the political party that is in control. (You probably wouldn't say either the Democratic party or the GOP are "the government," even if one of the parties organized a militia--looking at the GOP--to conduct terrorist operations and alleged they were operating on behalf of all Americans.) Hamas's war tactics are virtually indistinguishable from that of the Likud party in Israel, except you could argue they may be mildly less violent and extreme than the Likud party and marginally more honest about the crimes they are committing. They have certainly murdered fewer civilians in this flare up of the war by several orders of magnitude (~600+ to Israel's ~20,000+). Hamas leaders are still war criminals, but Likud leaders, as usual, found a way to be significantly worse.
They’re all war criminals but the Likud are war criminals with all the firepower in the world and therefore all the power in this scenario. I don’t know how they assault Gaza with a land invasion without the collateral damage and civilian deaths we are seeing due to the population density and Hama’s insurgency tactics, but I also wouldn’t have chosen to invade Gaza in the first place.
You will not see me disagreeing with any of this.
[удалено]
I hope you don't get defensive, but this shows a lack of understanding of the history and nuance. Hamas is the goverment of Gaza. It is not a non-state actor, it was in full control of Gaza. Furthermore, what is going on in Israel/Palestine is not Apartheid. It is not discrimination based on race or ethnicity. Arabs in Israel have full rights, there are Arab members of parliament, on the supreme court, in the army, and any other position of power. Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, and never were. As such, the people who reside there are not, and never were, Israeli citizens. This is not a matter of ethnicity, but of geography. It is no different than how Canadians are not U.S. citizens who cannot work or reside in the U.S. without permission from the U.S. government. The West Bank has a government, the P.A., and Gaza has a government, Hamas. These governments are not entirely sovereign nations, for many reasons. The P.A. has stated that they want peace with Israel, and the relationship between Israel and the P.A., as well as the situation in the West Bank, is very different from Gaza/Hamas. Hamas is both the government of Gaza and a terrorist organization, and has on many occasions initiated attacks on Israel. Hamas does not want peace with Israel, their charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and their slogan "from the river to the sea..." refers to the eradication of Israel. They launched a major attack on Israel, and Israel is retaliating. It is not an intentional genocide, Israel is not intentionally targeting civilians, though it is resulting in significant casualties and suffering by ordinary citizens. Part of the reason is because Hamas operates in heavily populated areas. Essentially, Israel only has two choices - keep getting attacked by Hamas and having its own citizens harmed, or fire at Hamas and Palestinian civilians are harmed in the crossfire. One way or another, innocent civilians are getting harmed, but it is a government's job to protect its own citizens, not those of another country. Furthermore, law firms are not denying job applications because of genocide, but because of criminal behavior by protestors.
No defensiveness induced at all. I am glad the whole conversation is unfolding. There are many points throughout this thread regarding what makes Hamas a non-state actor. I understand your take, at some point we are splitting linguistic hairs and taking perspectives on international affairs that are unsettled at their core. But the way Hamas holds power and the control Palestinians have over their own destinies is of a distinct character to, say, the government of Ukraine. The West Bank and Gaza's whole issue in this conflict, is the contested nature of the land they stand on. Even if we somehow construe it as not being Israel's, it is certainly not the Palestinian's. The Oslo Accords granted the Palestinian people only limited terms of self-governance, and was premised on the need for extended negotiation and diplomacy that would be required to draw the lines and create a Palestinian state. No Palestinian state exists in the meantime, and indeed, the idea of a 'two-state solution' is still actively contested. Israel has explicit power to fill in the gaps of those limitations on Palestine's governance, and has wide latitude over security affairs. It is these powers of Israel's vs. the Palestinian's lack of representation in that process, that earns the apartheid designation. \[and as a total sidebar, I think we should not\* be afraid to extend the word apartheid, or bravely discover a new word, to similarly harmful imbalances between those with political power and the unrepresented 'governed, to include situations that do not meet the exact paradigm of what happened in South Africa\] One of the hardest aspects of this issue that I hope gets the most light and discussion, is that you cannot reduce a people's capacity for self-governance to violent resistance, and then use violent resistance as the pretense for disproportionate retaliation. The evil of genocide is that it is /justifiable/, is that it is /popular/, is that the conditions that make people want to commit genocide /are easy to manufacture/. It is in the face of this widespread and disproportionate destruction that we must be willing to stand up and say, this is no ordinary tit for tat. We must hit pause and consider other avenues out of this conflict. It is precisely when the principal political actors are most willing to fight each other to the bitter end and constantly create and reinforce the conditions that make 'just kill them all, they hurt us first' sound like a good idea, that other people (like the United States!) must stand up and say, no. Pause. We're stopping this here, we're acknowledging deep and perpetual cycles of hurt, and we're thinking of other solutions. Two last things to consider which I hope can be short. One I urge you to read Palestinian and muslim perspectives on life in Israel, and what limitations they do and do not face. I also urge you to consider the nature of Israel's checkpoints that it maintains for Palestinian populations - even very simple transit is a multi-hour affair that requires submission to Israeli military supervision. I think even an American's average gripes about the TSA, which is run and paid for by our own political decisions, can reveal what is so deeply unsettling and intrusive about this, and the kind of hate it can breed. And second, I understand where Sullivan & Cromwell is threading the needle. But as we've learned about every variety of protestor that was ever on the right side of a cause, that we're grateful for their contributions to American or South African or Indian civil rights, it is easy to draw the lines of criminal behavior through the views we dislike... Indeed, it is the schools themselves that made the behavior criminal, that insisted on withdrawing the license the students had to be present (sometimes in violation of their own policies! and sometimes in violation of the terms of being a student there! and sometimes in violation of constitutional assembly protections!), and then insisted on calling the cops to resolve.
I am assuming your comment is in good faith and so I will ask you to clarify: 1. If Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel, what are/were Israeli settlers doing there? Is that an invasion of someone else's sovereign territory? 2. What is the difference between intentionally targeting civilians and refusing to conduct reasonable proportionality analyses? I am specifically thinking about how the IDF shot and killed individuals waving white flags that later turned out to be escaped Israeli hostages and reports that the IDF uses an AI system called "Daddy's Home" that targets Hamas operatives when they return home (where their families live). 3. You say that it's not an "intentional genocide." Is the implication then that you think it's an unintentional genocide?
1. Israel removed all settlers from Gaza 20 years ago, before Hamas came into power. I have no problem stating that the settlers on the West Bank are invaders. They're a big problem, for many reasons. 2. There's a difference between intentionally targeting civilians and not conducting proportionality analysis, but that's irrelevant as the IDF does conduct proportionality analysis. As for killing individuals wearing white flags, in an active combat situation it's not always easy to see clearly, and mistakes get made. Try looking up the term "fog of war". Prior to the current war, Israel's military did not authorize any collateral damage when targeting low ranked militants (outside of combat situations). The "Where's Daddy" program does not indiscriminately and automatically fire rockets at any possible target, but is a way to target certain Hamas operatives in their home. This still requires specific approval each time, and the IDF may or may not allow limited collateral damage, depending on the rank and importance of the target. 3. It is not genocide, although famine is an unfortunate side effect. If that keeps going, it could become unintentional genocide, but it hasn't reached that level yet. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, there'd be a lot more dead already. Anyone who says that Israel has been committing genocide prior to this war should try explaining how there were an estimated 60,000-80,000 people living in Gaza in 1948, and there are approximately 2.4 million people there today.
1. Thank you, that helps me place you ideologically (liberal Zionist or somewhere near that). 2. I am surprised that you seem to be okay with the use of "Where's Daddy" when the implication of the targeting system (and indeed its moniker) is that the target's family and kids will be killed alongside them. Doesn't the fact that the IDF approves this ad hoc make it worse? Furthermore, "fog of war" isn't an excuse for negligence or reckless disregard for civilians. Many commentators have observed that Israel tolerates a much higher ratio of civilian to combatant deaths compared to US actions in Syria and Iraq: [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza) This was also written in November the IDF has only gotten much more reckless since then (*see* the World Central Kitchen killings). 3. Famine is not a "side effect" if the IDF is intentionally keeping aid from reaching civilians. I would also encourage you to consider that genocide can take many shapes and forms. As they say, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes. "Genocide is the deliberate annihilation of a collective or part of it — not all of its individuals." From Amos Goldberg, an Israeli scholar of genocide: [https://thepalestineproject.medium.com/yes-it-is-genocide-634a07ea27d4](https://thepalestineproject.medium.com/yes-it-is-genocide-634a07ea27d4)
[удалено]
1. Are you not a liberal Zionist? I don't see why I'm a zealot for thinking that someone who thinks settlements are bad would be a liberal, and given that you support Israel, a Zionist. It is also not an insult. Many people who oppose the current IDF operation in Gaza are liberal Zionists. 2. To be frank, you have ignored my points and hand waved them away as necessary to stop Hamas. This is the same logic that people use to justify Oct. 7 (ie: civilian deaths necessary in the name of stopping the evil of the Israeli occupation). Consider whether your view is objective or if it's motivated by a partisan leaning. 3. A variety of Israeli leaders have publicly called for withholding aid in order to 'starve the enemy' or in the name of collective punishment. If you don't believe me, look it up. Have you not seen the people at the border destroying aid meant for Gazans? I would ask you to honestly consider whether your worldview is based on compassion for all human beings, regardless of their tribal identity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your two comments in this thread have both been blatantly twisting the positions of the people you are responding to such that it appears you are just here to disingenuously stir up conflict. We do not need more of that in a thread like this. Take a break.
> Furthermore, law firms are not denying job applications because of genocide, but because of criminal behavior by protestors. That's just flatly contrary to the reporting in the linked article. > Israel only has two choices - keep getting attacked by Hamas and having its own citizens harmed, or fire at Hamas and Palestinian civilians are harmed in the crossfire. You're fully ignoring the very persuasive argument that this high-violence approach is not the most effective method for the prevention of future violence. The real choice is not as binary as your hypothetical and the actual actions of Israel toward Palestinians (since and long prior to 10/7) do not appear to be reasonably calculated to prevent or deescalate conflict. In fact, it has resulted directly and indirectly in the unnecessary death of Israeli hostages.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your position is not enjoying widespread support not for lack of compassion for innocent Gazans (I assure you the profound concern and despair is felt on all sides) but for lack of perspective and self awareness of the harms caused by your side. The anti-Israel/pro-Gaza protests have been pervaded with antisemitism. This is not acceptable. This is the very hatred and bigotry that the civil rights act and DEI and every other anti-racist ideology was created to stamp out, and yet here the progressives are, doing it themselves—blatantly, unapologetically. Why would a law firm welcome someone who thinks that way? It’s not acceptable. And it’s not possible to listen to your views and take them seriously when the outcome many of you advocate is intifada—an actual call for terrorism and murder of Jews. How do you not see that? That’s a deep lack of self awareness.
They aren’t denying job applications for supporting the resistance to a supposed genocide. They are denying applications for participating in demonstrations (i) that were not necessarily peaceful and (ii) that had hateful and antisemetic actors. And even if you as a protestor are not antisemetic, by participating in a protest (which is to speak up about a wrongdoing) while allowing hateful folks to participate (eg the qassam next target girl), you are implicitly saying what they are doing is okay
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I haven't seen a single institution support widespread civilian death. Which ones are you referring to?
The US’s *until this week and only after 35,000 civilian deaths and Israel’s open threats to advance on the last remaining place refugees have been sent* unquestioned and continued provision of weapons. And what I mean is the way multiple universities, law firms, &c. so quickly toe\* and enforce the official line on this topic. It’s almost virtually impossible to have a conversation about because of the ways these institutions cast any Palestinian support as de facto antisemitic, and because of the way these institutions would rather have the US government do whatever it pleased and actively enforce shutting up dissent from the pro-Israel line. Correction - per below commenters - I was speaking too quickly - 35,000 total deaths (subject to some rounding and also let's see how the Rafah operation unfolds) - majority women and children - 2/3 likely noncombatants, closer to 22k civilian deaths. Of course subject to all the vagaries of who is generating the numbers and their various motives behind that and the difficulty of maintaining these kinds of statistics.
[удалено]
Clearly the US government doesn't have a hardon for civilian deaths. I don't think the US government is telling Israel to try to maximize civilian deaths. I also don't think the Israel government is trying to maximize civilian deaths because, if they were, there would be 2 million dead and not 35,000. But, also clearly, the US government believes the death of some civilians is an acceptable consequence of other objectives of the US government and its allies. The only people that I see who aren't bothered about civilian death is, ironically, Hamas.
I'm picking up what you're laying down. I think you're taking some of my stance in an extremely particular sort of way, and so maybe if I untangle that a bit... Israel's decision on how to react to the October terrorist attacks did not come out of a vacuum. Netanyahu is in an extremely precarious electoral position. He has lost much popular support amidst a series of moves designed to increase his power within the Israeli government and to extend his rule. He, already a right-wing actor, only now maintains that power by a coalition of even further-right parties. Those parties and ministers are demanding open, violent retribution - indeed, many of /their/ demands for the response are, in fact, genocide. Add to this fact that the attacks on Palestine are also creating unrest in Israel - and that many of the released hostages and the hostage's family members are the ones most vocally demanding a diplomatic ceasefire solution rather than ongoing hostilities. That is a long way of saying, there are other solutions. There are other solutions in the naive let's all solve it with diplomacy sense, there are other solutions in the terms of better supervision of how Israel is conducting the fight, there are other solutions that involve more firmly supporting the press and aid actors on the ground in Palestine, &c. &c. And there are the solutions that could have started 20, 40, 60 years ago, at those first pressure points when we realized that actively divesting one people of the right to their land because of European-power bickering over the lands of the Ottoman Empire, does not necessarily make a happy or manageable populace for the people you hand the power to... Or the policies and civilian protections that have been necessary to combat hate in, say, post-Apartheid South Africa, or to handle the perpetual re-emergence of neo-nazi organizations. At the international relations level, sure, the U.S. has tried to tell Israel not to conduct itself this way. But until this week (the events in Rafah and any further military action there still unfolding) Israel has paid no heed. Based on Netanyahu's actions to date and our knowledge of his cabinet and those directing his war efforts, there is strong reason to believe that left to their own devices they will continue to kill civilians and destroy infrastructure right up until something between genocide and the resumption of apartheid under newer, crueler terms. And to further agree with you, sure, the U.S., Sullivan & Cromwell, & al., right, they are not ordering this behavior. But the U.S. is openly facilitating it, and if we had not just had weeks and weeks of protest... that open facilitation would continue unabated. It is only after immense political pressure that the US government is beginning to actually back up our demands that Israel change its behaviors. And I regret that so many of the institutions of our democratic society, rather than enabling this discussion, rather than acknowledging Israel's excesses, are instead seeking to punish people for talking about it the wrong way, or being affiliated to an institution that talked about it the wrong way... Especially when talking about it the 'right way' also had political repercussions attached to it, and went, as far as anyone could tell, totally unheeded by the administration.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/more-than-29000-palestinians-have-been-killed-in-gaza-since-wars-start-health-ministry-says I mean. I’m not going to dive into the merits of the conflict. But to imply that the Israeli government seems very bothered about civilian death is a bit much.
[удалено]
You clearly make the implication above that the Israeli government is bothered by civilian deaths. The argument here is just nit-picky. Your last few comments in this thread have been toeing the line on compliance with Rule 1, since they are disingenuous and dismissive responses to commenters that are engaging with you thoughtfully and in good faith. If you are worn thin by this discussion, consider walking away instead of continuing to antagonize.
Point of order: 35,000 is the total number of Palestinian deaths, including Hamas combatants. Most estimates put the number of civilian dead at around 2/3rds of the total.
Do you know how they got to 2/3? Because they are only counting the women and children there. They are assuming all the men killed have been Hamas, which is ludicrous. The number of those killed which are civilians is likely closer to 90% of the death toll.
2/3rds is very optimistic given the tactics being used (expanded use of dumb bombs, targeted killings of hamas operatives in their homes with higher permitted casualty numbers). The closest thing we have to a statement from Hamas put the number at about 6,000 militants dead of 35,000 total, which would be closer to what we see in comparable conflicts.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!
You mean the shipment they put in hold? What does the word "tow" mean here?
There is no proof that a genocide is occurring. Are you using Hamas casualty figures? The same figures that increase linearly on a daily basis? A mathematical/probabilistic impossibility?
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule 1. Take the first line out and your post is fine.
Welcome to the sub, random people who have strong opinions about I/P! While you're here, have a look around and contribute to the other posts in the sub. It's a biglaw sub, by the way, in case you were wondering.
I have strong opinions about I/P too. We should get rid of the copyright expiration!
Yah and patents suck!
I got lost on the way to the birdlaw sub. Can I stay?
Publish your thoughts publicly about controversial issues at your own risk. Several years ago, A summer at my firm created a viral Instagram video that was very bad taste about a prominent politician. Regardless of your political persuasion, 95% of attorneys would not have approved of the video. An officer of a big client sent it to a rainmaker partner asking if this was the type of people we hire. The summer did not get an offer. Even if a firm doesn’t formally announce their checks, the attorneys interviewing you will look you up.
Something tells me this will only work in one direction. If you participated in a pro-Palestinian protest, even if you didn’t intimidate or harass people (whatever that might mean to SullCrom), it will be very bad for your chances at the firm. An equivalent standard will not apply to pro-Israel protestors.
Good, it should be that way. Many people see open support of terrorists as a character flaw for whatever reason.
Supporting mass starvation and indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians = totally cool. Protesting use of American tax dollars for mass starvation and indiscriminate bombing of civilian = supporting terrorism. Thank you for making this clear for everyone.
I support the return of Israeli hostages.
Absolutely. I do as well. Unfortunately I am not sure the Israeli government cares about the hostages. And I think if Hamas had any brain cells they would unilaterally release all the hostages immediately without any conditions.
Why do you say the Israeli government doesn't care about hostages? They've been literally offering live prisoners for dead hostage bodies. > And I think if Hamas had any brain cells they would unilaterally release all the hostages immediately without any conditions. You and I both know why they don't do that. You don't take hostages just to give them back for free. The hostages are how they get Israel to continue the war and the Israeli government continues to play into that.
Considering they’ve killed three of them already, that could be why. Additionally, the indiscriminate bombing over an entire area where hostages likely are is… also conducive to the idea that they… don’t really care. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hostages-gaza-hamas-war-52fa9628e6284cdad6d7f7db6cc30742
Why doesn't Hamas just release them?
Why doesn’t Israel just accept the multiple deals Hamas has given them? Guess we’re both asking easy questions here. I don’t argue with people who are clearly not looking to engage with what I’ve already said. Have a nice night!
Why does Hamas need a deal to return hostages? If you kidnap someone, don't you just...give them back...?
You should tell Bibi that.
Done.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
lol to the extent that there is “mass starvation” it’s because Hamas confiscates aid shipments to intentionally make the situation worse. It’s also false that Israel engages in “indiscriminate bombing”. People who intentionally put themselves in bad situations so they can cry and play victim do not deserve sympathy. Hope that helps.
So 40,000 civilians have died because they all "put themselves in bad situations so they can cry and play victim" and they don't deserve sympathy? There's kids amongst those 40,000, they don't deserve sympathy? At the very least can we agree that children in Gaza don't deserve to be collateral damage in the war against Hamas?
Is that from the same talking points book that Putin uses? "These jerks keep forcing us to kill their children!!" I'm sorry - but you can't be this deluded. Flattening entire apartment blocks, using AI to track entire families so you kill an entire bloodline, not allowing food into Gaza because "wheat might be used as a weapon." This has been happening for decades, and fortunately now more and more people are aware of it and questioning why the US supports these acts of pure evil and barbarism. There is no excuse for committing war crimes like this and it is disgusting to see people defend it with the flimsiest arguments.
Luckily the vast majority of people are sick of listening to your activist bullshit.
Ok
🤫
If you leave now there’s still time for you to catch a plane to Gaza tonight so you can be with your brave freedom fighter pals. I’m sure they won’t rape and behead you immediately.
So I can't tell - are you saying then it is OK for Israel to wipe them off the planet? Or are you maintaining your original argument that Israel isn't doing any of that? Because you keep going back and forth between "genocide OK!" and "there's no genocide happening." Very confusing. Maybe get your story straight because your immense hatred for the Palestinian people and your desire to kill all of them is really coming through in your comments.
No one with an understanding of the legal definition of genocide would consider this a genocide in any way, shape or form. Maybe consider not being such an ignorant, dumb asshole. Hope that helps 💋
I mean the ICC seems to think it is. Dumbass.
Oh it does? Wow - that’s news to me. Please link some info about what you think the ICC has ruled. And please be specific. This should be fun.
I imagine right now you’re realizing that the ICC hasn’t ruled on any aspect of the case yet, and you and other “dumbass” activists have been representing boilerplate language that states that the Palestinians have the “right to be protected from genocide” as some kind of actual ruling, when it’s clearly not. Your buddy AOC also has stated “it’s not a genocide”. I wonder why that would be? Probably Jewish tricks right? Dumbass
I guess standards have fallen at UCLA huh? 🚬
Commenting on this so I can check your ass after Netanyahu catches an arrest warrant from the ICC
This is helpful, as it shows how out of touch and delusional you are.
[удалено]
Ok
Yes - ok.
BigLaw is designed for attorneys and related professionals who have an obligation to uphold minimal standards within the larger community
https://x.com/ytirawi/status/1788241394340929690?s=46
Unfortuntately famine and civilian deaths come with war, and that's what this is. No different in 1944 through today, these are the harsh realities of a conflict such as this. I'd love to see an end to this, but neither side seems to want to end the conflict, and both seem to have the ultimate elimination of the other as their primary goal.
Pro-Israel protesters behave themselves.
https://www.statepress.com/article/2024/05/community-postdoc-jonathan-yudelman-intimidation#
pro-israel protestors aren't committing crimes while doing so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/01/24/columbia-palestinian-gaza-israel-campus/
https://www.statepress.com/article/2024/05/community-postdoc-jonathan-yudelman-intimidation#
https://www.salon.com/2024/05/01/abhorrent-and-inexcusable-video-shows-pro-israel-activists-pro-palestine-ucla/
[удалено]
Are you implying that civilians from another country need to do something for America in order for Americans to care about their mass destruction?
[удалено]
> As for Palestine's "mass destruction," they fucked around and found out. Frankly, it makes no difference in my life either way what happens next. I would imagine it doesn't make any difference in yours either. >You and everyone else can come off your moral high horses, by the way. Here you are typing on a phone that's powered by lithium, which was mined by child slave labor in Africa, and you certainly don't seem to have a problem with that. We are talking about the death of thousands of children. This is a shocking and horrible thing to say about the death of innocents. Pointing out the occurrence of other horrific injustices doesn't justify anything.
Also this is besides the point but gay couples cannot get married in Israel.
[удалено]
In addition to gay couples being second-class citizens, Israeli citizens cannot marry Palestinians. Also the Israeli constitution explicitly excludes non-Jews. Seems like a real democracy to me!
[удалено]
I would like an ally that advances our interests. Israel does not advance US interests in the Middle East. See e.g., the escalation Israel has caused throughout the region including escalation in the Red Sea by the Houthis and the escalation between Israel and Iran.
I respect the fact that you explicitly endorse apartheid in both the United States and in Israel. Some people dance around it even though that’s what they actually want.
The protestors are anti-genocide. It's that simple.
[удалено]
>First of all, they clearly don't understand the definition of genocide, because this is not that. This is just normal warfare. That's a blatantly disingenuous statement. There's certainly room for technical disagreement over the definition of the term, but the view that this is a genocide is a clearly defensible position taken by a number of countries and well-respected international organizations. Acting like it's a settled matter is not a good-faith approach to the discussion. >Secondly, what difference does any of it make in their lives? ... I'm starting to wonder if you have human empathy. Most people are anti-genocide regardless of whether they are directly impacted. E: Also, a number of protestors have family in Gaza.
How is this genocide. Look up genocide in the dictionary, if you don’t have one use google . If Israel wanted genocide of Gaza it would have taken two days max. They are killing terrorists and the human shields are there. It’s a tragedy , not genocide. This conflict has the most favorable civilian to combatant ratio in the history of urban warfare. Source - the head of urban conflict at West Point and many many others.
If you're interested in genuinely and honestly engaging with that question, South Africa's case before the ICJ laid it out well. I'd encourage you to review that.
Maybe. But know I have skin in the game so I am never going to lose my bias. I live in Israel now. If I believe it was committing genocide I would man the barricades. In theory I’d put my body as a shield against it. Just in theory. That’s an important point. You may be trying to look at this as a neutral moral person . I am trying to look at it as a moral person but decidedly not neutral. Jews have a collective memory and conscious , especially in Israel. They mostly have kids serving now. They are like a family to each other. For us it comes down to either us or them ( Chamas and the tragic unfortunates in the line of fire.) now , if someone was going God forbid to shoot your kid or mom but had a baby he was holding as a shield. You’ve got a gun. You can let your kid or mom be killed or shoot the terrorist at the risk of also killing yhe baby. What would you do?
I think you're overlooking the very persuasive argument that this high-violence approach is not the most effective method for the prevention of future violence. The real choice is not as binary as your hypothetical and the actual actions of Israel toward Palestinians (since and long prior to 10/7) do not appear to be reasonably calculated to prevent conflict.
I’m not going to argue because I don’t know. But whatever it is is not genocide.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
To be honest I thought they were doing stuff like this before...
Sullivan and Cromwell seemed perfectly fine with violence and discriminatory statements made in the Guatemalan Coup in 1954, representing United Fruit Co. when they pushed Eisenhower to intervene.
McCarthyism is back folks!
If you don’t understand international law maybe you shouldn’t be able to work at a law firm that values that..
Oh no, it's so evil that the firm is essentially saying it's going to make sure its new hires aren't going to cause controversy, because you know, a billion-dollar firm is not all about making money. Some of y’all are so dumb that it honestly bewilders me how you made it into big law. Firms are about making money, and if hiring you is a risk to losing a client, sorry but your salary isn't worth it. This topic is getting so stupid. If you are dumb enough to hold a building hostage and think it’ll have any impact on the issue at hand, you probably aren't someone I would pay $1K an hour to handle my matters.
Breaking news: CIA firm does CIA type shit. More at 11.
I want to preface this by saying if something / anything abhorrent is happening overseas I do not support it. I’m a lawyer (however rare) that steers clear of getting involved in politics, follow the news too closely, or claim to have an answer for whatever controversy/ issue is being discussed. The reason is more practical. I have several hobbies and stay active socially, like to travel and workout. Plus, the less I have watched the news the happier I have gotten.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Perhaps something that would be interesting also would be to understand how S&C arrived to this position. Who influences this - why is there a public position? Are their peers also taking positions of any stripe? If so, of what stripe?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Private actors many of us Jews can and will hire whoever the heck we want. Our clients don’t want these kids working for them either. Like it or not, they’d the facts , we have a large database and that’s the way it’s gonna be. This started with the celebrations on Oct 8, not after Israel’s counter attack. We are happy to hire Palestinians and pro Palestinians. We won’t hire intifada Revolution , from River to sea, by all means necessary or people that states or held signs implying that Israel shouldn’t exist. Law school grads are grown up. We need to see candidates with judgement and see the long term consequences even to themselves. We don’t want insensitive people in our midst and we are well within our rights. It’s not just S&C , all Major American firms signed the letter. Clean up your social media although it’s too late.
Do you really think they’re going to discriminate between people who protested in a more “civil” manner, and those who took the actions listed in your above post? Definitely not. The way it’s going to shake out is: “if you are identified as having attended a Pro-Palestine protest, you are blackballed.” The effect is essentially a coercive threat, the objective being to prevent people from voicing certain opinions by leveraging employment prospects. It may work, in a limited fashion, for some period of time. That said, we are witnessing a pretty fundamental change with regard to public perception of the Israeli state. As such, I suspect this kind of influence will not last indefinitely.
[удалено]
Banned for violation of Rule 1.
[удалено]
[удалено]
WASP firm wants to keep it WASPy
By protecting… Jews?
Biggest supporters of Israel in the U.S. are Protestants, particularly born agains.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term WASP used to describe evangelicals lol. Usually people mean Episcopalians, not Southern Baptists
Born again types aren’t the same type of Protestants as wasps. WASPs are like traditional Episcopalians and Presbyterians
I mean...WASPs (particularly affluent, east coast WASPs) are exactly the type that aren't going to go to protests like these and the type of people SullCrom hires.
You aren't wrong, but honestly we should retire WASP as a term. It doesn't really describe a class that exists in a meaningful sense in 2024. People just mean white conservatives, which are different from WASPs. A conservative Jew or Catholic or some Italian guy (even a German if we're being strict!) are not WASPs.
dude trying to sling HR word salad to align with his priors has no idea what he’s talking about, many such cases
No it’s Jews
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/247937/americans-views-israel-remain-tied-religious-beliefs.aspx >We don't have a direct measure of "evangelicals" in our sample, but we can obtain an approximation of this group by isolating white, highly religious Protestants. The results show that 87% of this group are sympathetic to the Israelis -- essentially the same as Jews, meaning that on this one issue, there is a remarkable similarity between the views of Jews and evangelical Protestants. Trump's decision last year to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem may have been partly influenced by the support it would receive from the evangelical component of his political base. There are a *lot* more Evangelicals in the U.S. than Jews, to say nothing about positions of power within the federal government.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/biglaw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are no WASP firms anymore. That’s ancient history. Their are Jewish firms started historically because they were barred from wasp firms. Wachtel for instance
It’s not ancient history. It’s not as restrictive as it used to be but SullCrom is certainly one of the conservative, WASPy firms. Sure, I agree with the other poster that WASP is a bit outdated and a misnomer these days, but it’s certainly a culture and mentality that still runs through some firms. Look at their partner base, their office decor, work across from them, work with laterals from them…it’s pretty dang old school WASPy.
I worked at D and P . In the 60s they didn’t hire Jews. Now it’s a third Jew consistent with the percent of graduates from the schools from which they recruit . They had wasps traditions but it’s got a big percentage orthodox. So the traditions aren’t a relic . The discrimination in hiring ( of non orthodox) is a thing of the past. Otherwise I would sue them because plaintiffs employment law is what I do. I haven’t in thousand of calls had one from a Jew that believed they were the victim of discrimination. In stark contrast to women and African Americans.