I have been more than reasonable. A good faith interpretation was that this internet discussion is not even an argument about the subject matter. I gave you a free lesson in language comprehension. You have exhausted what good faith is left to be had in this discussion.

You are now lying about the article. She objected because she was being put in a position where she could have to work with that professor in medical school. This objection is why she was suspended.

The next day, she gave an interview on the Democracy Now! news program in which she spoke of the climate on campus for protesters. She also talked about an Emory medical school professor who had recently returned from volunteering as a medic in the Israeli military. This would lead, seven months later, to her suspension from medical school for a year, after she was found to have violated the medical school’s standard of “professional conduct”.

At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

It is the school who is in the wrong. You are blatantly lying about their reframing.

Later that month, the open expression committee released a report of its own: according to its independent investigation, the content of Mohammad’s interview was protected by Emory’s policy on free expression. In fact, the committee said, the school of medicine had violated Emory’s policy on open expression by conducting the investigation in the way it did.

Nemenman wrote in the report that, by ignoring the committee, the school of medicine “violated not just the Policy, but, ironically, also the ‘principles of professionalism and mutual respect’, which they had aimed to enforce with this Conduct Code investigation”.

Azka Mahmood, executive director of Cair-Georgia, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Mohammad’s case was unusual because “we haven’t seen medical students targeted in this way,” she said. “You have a Palestinian medical student who specifically joined the field trying to understand inequities and the role of medicine in violence. To have to work side by side with an IDF soldier is exacerbating, and makes it uniquely painful for her.”

Your initial argument was misleading as well.

BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.

Again no one asserted that but you. As it turned out, this was an intentional straw man on your part and not as I had hoped a misunderstanding. You intentionally mislead people who did not read the article. IDF soldiers can come and work in America. And if they work in your medical school, you could have to work with them.

You’re even lying about a fictional example I gave you. In that example I found a rock in my soup. Plain and simple. There’s a bowl on the table full of soup and in that soup I have identified a rock. If I attempt to eat that soup as is there is a chance I will eat a rock. The food inspector is shutting that place down. No one is taking you seriously.

The goal of that example was to illustrate how objections are commonly phrased.

It’s bizarre to watch a person go to bat for genocide. You’ve gone to such great lengths to twist common language to in turn twist actual events to serve your narrative of an alternate reality.

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

This is the title. This is what happened. You’ve made your lies so obvious anyone who happens to read this far will spot them. I highly recommend you stop working to forward a genocide through this campaign of twisting words to legitimize silencing people. A person who in this case is both speaking out against and part of the minority targeted by that genocide.

There’s no way to have a good faith discussion with a person like yourself that is forwarding such an agenda. What you’re doing is effectively advocating for violence against Palestinians. Your goal is to silence this woman so the genocide is not derailed by her speech.

The nature of these internet discussions is that they are long, take time to read, and can in the short term be ambiguous as to what a person’s actual position is. But by discussing topics at length it becomes obvious what a person’s real position is.

I believe anyone who reads this far will see through what you are doing and object to it. Supporting genocide is wrong even if it is done in one of the most obtuse ways possible.