To those who argue that it is a fact that Israeli forces killed Amer’s brothers, I encourage you to consider how often facts are disputed, debated, and politicized. Consider, for example, the Holocaust. There are mountains of evidence proving that the Holocaust occurred. Yet, there are many individuals who vehemently deny that it ever happened. Now, I believe that Israeli forces killed Amer’s brothers, but I also believe there are people in this world who do not accept this information as true, or they may feel the Israeli forces were justified in killing Amer’s brothers and preventing aid from reaching them and their father. It probably seems that I’m headed down a slippery slope, but look at all of the debate surrounding how this most recent violent conflict got started: it’s Hamas’s fault, not it’s Israel’s fault, Hamas started it, no Israel started it, such-and-such happened before the cease fire, no such-and-such happened after the cease fire, Israel is justified, no it’s not justified, and on and on and on. It’s enough to make your head spin. So, if Ron had written his post the way many of the commenters here think he should have in the first place, there were would be 20 or so other commenters calling him names and yelling at him to write it another way. Damned if you, damned if you don’t.

Nobody is asking Ron to make a speech denouncing Israeli brutality or “the evils of the ZOG” (as you suggest). What we are appalled and horrified by, is his reluctance to tell the simple truth, that the IDF are responsible party for the deaths of Amer’s brothers. Ron has deliberately omitted this simple fact out of his post, used ambiguous language, language that surfaces an offensive double standard. I can guarantee you if a Hamas gunmen deliberately shot and killed a Middleburry students brothers, Ron wouldn’t be refusing to identify the culpable parties, obfuscating the issue, and labeling the murders as mere “excessive force.”

The issue here is that his deliberate choice to omit the IDF’s mention does raise many questions.. And if anything is taking sides, it’s his deliberate refusal to do identify the culpable party. When you try to “cover up” something, that’s when you’re taking sides, my friend.

In my opinion, Ron’s behavior here is nothing short of moral and political cowardice.

I can understand not wanting to be divisive, but Ron’s refusal to say the simple truth here is clearly much more controversial and offensive (and especially to Amer) than what otherwise would have been a fairly uncontroversial post. You can’t accuse the facts of bias. Plain and simple, the IDF is responsible for Amer’s brothers’ deaths, and uttering this plain and simple fact, is neither biased nor an act of taking sides. It’s telling the truth. When you omit that truth, to try to “cover it up,” THAT is precisely when you are taking sides.

While I applaud Ron for publicizing the memorial, his behavior here is pure cowardice, and he should be deeply ashamed to call himself president of Middleburry.

Secondly, to the IDF supporters posting, I cannot even begin to respond to you. Hamas is fighting for peace and equality, and is doing a much better job of following the laws of war than the IDF, despite their limited resources. I cannot understand how anyone can justify the deliberate, targeted assassination of men whose identity and non-combatant status was well known to the IDF, both in the days before the murders, and in the crucial seconds before the “shoot to kill” order was issued by the cowardly officer, who denied the services of many medical personnel, including his own willing medics, who sat for 20 hours just yards away as Ibrahim slowly bled to death, to protect himself. I call on Isreal to release his name, rank, and serial number to the international press.

Same fundamentalism. Same madness.

I am a little confused. Ron is trying to drum up support for a student who went to his school. The end. As anyone who is involved in fundraising or advertising can tell you, you want to appeal to as many people as possible, so as to maximize your donations. We once did a humorous advertisement (having nothing to do with politics) featuring the classic Che image. We were asked to remove it lest we offend people. I would argue most people recognize the Che image as pop art, not an endorsement of Che or a political value. However, when advertising or appealing for funds the goal is to try and keep it as safe as possible. This is what Ron did. If he went off on a tirade about the evil ZOG and how they are bad bad people, I can think of many people who might not donate to Amer’s cause because this sentiment offends them. You can tell me how they are all wrong and blind to the evil regime, but it doesn’t change the way they feel. Ron did link to many articles and sites. Please look at all these various posts. No one is convincing anyone of anything political. What they are doing is taking attention away from the need to support Amer in this difficult time. Had Ron presented a take that was pro Hamas he would have offended people. Had he presented it as pro Israeli he would have offended people. By trying not to offend anyone, it saddens me to see that people have hijacked his intentions and rendered the whole thing political, with little regard as to the impact this might have on donations to someone who needs them. Certainly the personal attacks on Ron himself are sure to change his opinion and make everyone else see your point of view… From my perspective no one will read Ron’s plea and not look into the subject and form their own opinions. Again, from the pro-Israel side he could have talked about how Amer’s family was killed while Israel was trying to protect its citizens. If he was pro-Hamas he could talk about how Amer’s family was killed by vicious oppressors. Both these options are easily accessible in the news and have been for some time. Neither would have succeeded in promoting a prayer service and funds for Amers cause.

Just a though

You disrespect a Middlebury graduate by describing what was done to his family as a “tragedy.” It is appropriately called a war crime committed by the IDF.

I think you’re all very small.

This isn’t about using this butchery for political ends, it’s about the truth which you are quite deliberately prevaricating in an act of moral and political cowardice.

Excessive force, you say? I am sure if you were in Amer’s place and it was your brothers murdered in cold blood for the actions of militants in their midst, that you would also characterize it as mere “excessive force,” all while remaining reluctant to identify their killers and obfuscating all over the place – hiding behind a cowardly veneer of ‘neutrality.’

Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you. You deserve all the lambasting done here, I hope you learned something.

Honestly, I don’t know how such cowardly people sleep at night.

What is the meaning of Zionism? It’s nothing more than the will of the Jewish people to obtain a territory. Professor Anne Marie THIESSE from La Sorbonne University made various researches about the initiation of National movements in the XIX century. Her result: Zionism worked just like French nationalism.

It’s highly surprising to see those who seem to be supporting the Palestinian national movement to deny the right of a Jewish State to exist. Do I have to remind you that Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East? Do I have to remind you that Israel gives the same rights to all of its citizens?
So what is your point? Promoting Hamas ways of fighting or democratic values?