Harvard Law Review Blocks Article About Genocide in Gaza

Tankiedesantski , 7 months ago

In North Korea, academics are prevented from publishing their work if their conclusions are politically unpopular. Some people even threaten to kill scholars and journal publishers if they publish papers which embarrass the ruling party.

yeonmi-park

library_napper , 7 months ago

For those curious, you can find the essay that HLR refused to publish here:

thenation.com/…/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-ge…

Potatofish , 7 months ago

The Nation version is click bait garbage. The original was denied both for safety concerns and it simply wasn’t good enough.

What is genocide?

Eikichi , 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

And ?

Btw the conclusion of your link lmao, and you should read it entirely btw again. If you can write, i mean why not after all.

“It’s important to remember that there is no hierarchy among crimes under international law,” Amnesty International said in a statement. “As stated in the preamble of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes all are ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole [and] must not go unpunished.’”

Verdeja put it even more simply. “The international community has responsibility already,” he said. “Whether it’s genocide or not I think is a little bit beside the point.”

Potatofish , 7 months ago

Still stupid to repeat a word over and over without knowing what it means. Words are important.

If you agree with the article, use war crimes instead. That makes sense. Don’t feed the stupid people.

Eikichi , 7 months ago

If u read the article you would see there is no proper way to do,

There is some for whom this is a genocide with their arguments, and counters views with their poor arguments, both presented in your article.

You choose, I’ve too.

End of story. Go read it and understand it, and then calm yourself.

Potatofish , 7 months ago

I have no idea what you are saying. I have little doubt you had no idea what you read. End of story.

ShimmeringKoi , 7 months ago

smuglord

Potatofish , 7 months ago

That doesn’t mean what you think it means

Eikichi , 7 months ago

Ad hominen vs logical arguments.

Yep end of story like I said. Ty percochet.

Potatofish , 7 months ago

It’s perfectly reasonable to assume you do not understand what you are reading, but please do excuse yourself.

autotldr Bot , 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

---

A week after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, by which time Israel’s all-out assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had killed thousands of civilians, the online editors of the prestigious Harvard Law Review reached out to Rabea Eghbariah.

Following an intervention to delay the publication of Eghbariah’s article by the Harvard Law Review president, the piece went through several committee processes before it was finally killed by an emergency meeting of editors.

In an email to Eghbariah and Harvard Law Review President Apsara Iyer, shared with The Intercept, online chair Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, one of the editors who commissioned the essay, called the move an “unprecedented decision.”

With careers potentially on the line, the Harvard Law Review’s decision on Eghbariah’s essay came amid a crackdown in academia, in Ivy League schools and elsewhere, against pro-Palestinian speech following the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent onslaught against the Gaza Strip.

Eghbariah’s article was published Tuesday night at The Nation, under the headline “The Harvard Law Review Refused to Run This Piece About Genocide in Gaza.”

“The Law Review specifically had just gone through an incident in which one of its members was doxxed after participating as a safety marshal at a ‘die in’ at the Harvard Business School campus organized by student activists,” said Doerfler, the professor.

---

The original article contains 1,670 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!