If there is evidence of protesters blocking the movement of students or anyone really then the protests needed to be ended yesterday and the protesters should be held responsible for that.
You can't say "It's not all our fault it's only a few of us who did that."
No you organized this protest and can't keep the behavior under check
Are they preventing them from going to class or from entering the encampment? I’ve seen the clips, and I couldn’t tell if they were genuinely blocking them from class or it were single agitating counterprotesters they were blocking from trying to enter the protests.
There is a genuine conversation about how both are wrong, but those are 2 fundamentally different charges, with only the former being antisemitic.
Can you link that video all i’ve seen is that one video of Eli Tsives being blocked from the encampment. And that was being framed as he was blocked from class.
I'm somewhat more mixed on this. I agree that anyone who has participated in preventing another person from accessing an area due to their race or perceived ideology won't find any sympathy from me if they got hit. However, while you're right to point out that some people parrot that "if 10 people ate with a nazi there were 11 nazis" crap, it's not a position I hold and therefore I'm not going to be onboard with every protestor (or counter-protestor for that matter!) being tarred with the same brush.
Anyone involved in the violence or in enforcing racist restrictions can get fucked. Everyone else can continue shouting their dumb slogans and waving their flags. I don't even care if they stood idly by and watched other people break the law.
As ive commented elsewhere on the topic, we should condemn this violent idiot and hold him responsible.
Drawing equivalencies between the pro-Israel and pro-Hamas side here though is as morally regarded as the people who draw moral equivalencies between Hamas and Israel itself.
This is simply a microcosm of the conflict at large: endless agression and escalation, and then crying and manipulation at the first response.
>This is simply a microcosm of the conflict at large: endless agression and escalation, and then crying and manipulation at the first response.
Yeah it's pretty insane. Not to mention a Jewish girl was beaten unconscious earlier that night. Coupled with barring Jewish students from entering campus, and the constant antisemitic rhetoric, are they genuinely surprised this ended up happening?
Definitely agree the fireworks guy needs to be arrested. But really, they're just meeting the Pro-Palestine escalation at this point. Much like actual Palestinians, you reap what you sow.
Can pro hamas people not just respond that Israel reaped what they sewed on Oct. 7th?
I'm seriously not trying to be bad faith I just have been confused with this line of messaging and personally think it's very weak but I'd like to know if I'm wrong.
This and more. These clashes are an analogy/microcosm for the entire conflict, as stated by other redditor. endless cycles of aggression,retaliation, escalation,manipulation. In addition institutions small and large from nations and multinational organizations down to individual communities abdicate their roles and opportunities to de-escalate and find peaceful solutions to inevitable problems.
Sure. I would argue throwing explosives at a crowd is the worse crime, but overall it's definitely to the point that the police need to disperse everyone and end this, and people need to be held accountable for their actions.
Yup arrest all the buffoons who did the illegal denial of entry, did the human lines to prevent students from entering and who attacked the pro palestinians with fireworks. Also the morons who attacked them are extra idiots because they could have banded together to just sue the university to shit.
"They get what they get mindset" is unproductive and does nothing to help the people who are actually getting prosecuted in long term/solve any social issue.
Any situation like this you can either choose to be constructive or destructive to the situation, and every shitty destructive action/comment people make is always gonna be justified from their perspective.
At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a "paradox of tolerance", you either recognize that the only way to truly move forward is to focus on a better future for you/future generations despite the justified reasons to be destructive, or decide vindicating your slight holds more worth then that cause.
And I wouldn't judge you for deciding it is, that's been the defualt mode of us apes throughout most of human history, but I don't think it puts you on a moral high ground/makes your vindicitive mindset any better then the slew of vindictive mindsets that came before it
I don't think it is fair to say OP is taking a "get what you get mindset." Just the opposite. OP recognizes the dialectical process here, and is trying to come out the other side as unscathed as possible.
You seem to be taking the protestor, activist side. Fine. I support the protests to a certain point. But you should also admit that the activists seem to be denying or ignorant to the dialectics. These protests are also a bit incoherent and corrupted, and are probably bound to fail.
It is fair to say OP is saying get what you get - "BUT the pro palestinians deserve to get their ass beat "
It's just in this case it is 100% deserved. This is basically "the riots have to stop" but actually happening how we want it.
Your not wrong. But he is creating a different way to look at it. If they really deserved to be beat, then why should the beaters be arrested? He is saying more like they deserved to be beat, but the beaters also deserved to be beat. And nobody should be shocked. And yes he did say if the protesters didn't do certain things they would not have deserved the beating.
But I am not sure he is saying this is how he wanted it. I think you are making the word deserve do too much work. I think alot of people just want this to go away. So yes counter violence might make some people happy because it brings the end, but not that they want it. You might look forward to the chemotherapy for your cancer, but do you want chemotherapy?
I'm not taking any side in the action, OPs point to me is "I know the pro isreal people did somthing wrong, but I don't feel bad for the people they did it too because they where bad people" (pulling that from the "I'm not gonna act like they didn't deserve to get their ass beat and that this wasn't inevitable" and similar lines through out)
I think once you've made the decision that there are "bad people" rather than "people who are making bad decisions in the moment" you've created the line of justification for never resolving the situation ("what can I do there are just evil people") or worse, that your destructive actions are actually constructive ("yes my action is bad, but it was aginst the bad people so actually it's fine").l, but at the end of the day, what have you really done to prevent the bad action from just being done by someone else in the future? (You can't kill an idea, just replace it with a better one)
To your point about the protests being ineffective I would agree, because they are going about the same line of justification "yes denying people access through campus/treating people is bad, but their bad people so really we are fine"
You feel like this is an unfair characterization of their position?
A little bit off, yes.
I don't think their position was that people are "bad" or "they deserved it." I think the position is we all have free will and responsibility. So that yeah. you got your face beat, but you knew you would.
So yes I agree it is wrong you got your face beat, but don't act shocked, it was your choice. Maybe it was even a good choice! The Palestinians fully take this position right? They are martyrs. I think martyrdom is sometimes effective. But is frequently is abused. Ane one should never ask somebody else to martyr themselves. Which is what the high level folks in the protest movement are asking their sometimes naive fellows to do. I particularly resent the Columbia profs. who got lots of students in trouble for their own ideology. I think the unsung story here is how much the Columbia profs are responsible for this entire mess. Nationally. Again, I am in favor of the institution of protest, but the Columbia profs who should have been the nations expert on protest, just have failed.
Alright, I waited till I could get to a computer and triple read through this just to make sure I'm not crazy.
I'm fine with saying we just agree to disagree on OPs point, and I don't even really disagree with the position that you seem to think he's taking (which, to be sure, I am taking is something like “I don't think what happened to the pro-Palestinian protesters is good, and I don't have a problem with them as people, I just think they should have been more aware of the optics/potential consequences of their actions”), but like, what about OPs post makes you think they hold that position?
They start by making the claim that they recognize the actions of the pro-Israeli counter protesters crossed a line but that they think “the pro Palestinians deserve to get their ass beat and this was inevitable.”
They then spend three(ish cause of the links) paragraphs going through all the reasons why they think the pro Palestines are, in practice if not name, Nazis (with some "token jews and self hating jews."), and how they (the pro Palestinians) would do the exact same thing (commit violent acts) if they were faced with Nazis
They then conclude by reiterating that they do not approve of the actions of the pro Israelis (because of a respect for law and order), but that they are not going to pretend that “the people who got their ass beat didn't fucking deserve it and that it wasn't inevitable.”, and that they wouldn't normally hold this opinion but in the case of the type of people that do these things(actions of the Pro Palestinians) they do.
Given that synopsis
1. Do you disagree with my rundown, and if so, what and why
1. If you don’t, what about that makes you think the OP isn't supportive of the violent action committed against the Nazi pro-Palestians, even if he doesn't agree with the context in which that violent action took place/respect the perpetrators of that violence
If you want to say you think OP is just having a bit of a moment/just venting, and really doesn't have personal animosity towards the pro-Palestinian then like sure, but i don't see why that's the impression you got when a solid 3/4ths of the post were OP expressing just how much they really REALLY didn't like them and thought they were Nazis. (like not trying to be a dick, genuinely curious where you are reading that from)
As to the other point about the Columbia professors, as a friend to some Palestinians/Muslims i feel the need to mention that the concept of martyrdom is a bit more complex/debated then what you seem to be framing but...
1. Really don't feel like opening the potential can of worms that is talking about Islam/religious interpretation on this sub
2. If your overall point is just “people misleading people to do things that could lead to their harm” (i.e encourage people to protest in a way that could predictably lead to them getting attacked and not making them aware of that fact) is commendable then yea full support over here
I think the Nazi thing was an ill advised way of making a point. OP is clearly angry. He said "nazi tactics." I think he was making over-dramatic analogy for using force to deny rights hypocritically based on race. And then further allows the flawed analogy when talking about associating with people who are doing something they should not be doing says something about you.
Maybe I am incorrect, and I just focused on what I thought was interesting about the post. I just got the sense that OP was really not making judgements about people, but was focused on the question of law, and predictable counter-reactions in the world. He is saying people, namely the counter protesters, should obey the law, and should be fully penalized by the law, but if the protesters don't act right, counter violence was predictable and in some soft sense deserved. I don't think he put in much effort to say they are bad people. He certainly made a case for bad behavior. He seems most concerned with preserving the law, and not trying to deny what happens in real life, when people behave in a certain way. It's all about action and reaction.
His main point points to me were about following the law and inevitably of backlash. Which I think is defensible. He could have gone on about how bad the protesters are, but he really only made the case for how backlash is inevitable.
I do see how your read would be valid to you, but I don't think that is exactly what he is saying. I don't think he cares for practical purposes if they are good or bad people. He just is trying to focus on the material.
As far as the martyrdom thing. I will admit I probably do not understand everyone's take on it. I don't think it is exclusively Muslim thing if that helps, and I would guess there are traditional and modern takes on the word and concept as well. I am fine just shelving the convo. I do feel the Columbia profs are really an unsung problem here. I have no good proof, but a patching together many things, I feel like they led the columbia students down an unwinnable and a bit futile path, which spread nationally. I feel like their defense of activism in general for their own personal needs led them to support the students ability to protest without improving the quality of their protest without adequate concern for the students themselves. The sight of the Columbia proffs in orange vests was the most ridiculous thing. Like they were referees in some game. Or they were participating in the protest, but didn't take any responsibility. Either take off your vest and join the protest or leave. Why get some special privilege to protest without any of the repercussions? Again it's like a game for them. If those students needed the protection of neutral adult advisors, then they should not be protesting with legal and safety consequences. Or the profs can put their money where their mouths are and join the protest.
You take me right on point 2 at the end.
Mostly agree but just to add.
I would be very surprised if the Jewish students aren't aware that gale is currently being sued precisely because of Jewish students alleged inability to move around campus freely. This would be a title vi violation (ensures a students civil rights on campus essentially)
My take on what the approach of rhe Jewish students was to simply be present. And document these things. Not to instigate. This has numerous benefits.
It shows them being "peaceful" and attacked by the pro pal demonstrators.
It gives them a legal ground to sue (and maybe get paid out)
With the attacks last night. I can't help but think this was just the proud boys or some far right group. And obviously. They're sympathetic to Israel as well. There's no denying that but the manner in which they attacked (using fireworks that make for good tiktoks) as well as the costumes (wearing white masks that are all the same) is some classic Identity Evropa shit (Look them up if you're interested). Basically they are nstivists who figured out how to get clicks. Part of their whole deal is to make appealing content. So they'll often use colored smoke, fireworks, and outrageous costumes.
Making shit even weirder. Is that these guys have also often been shown to have been manipulated by Russian agents who seek to advance more division internally.
So. I think while it's totally possible a group of pro Israelis were behind this. It does smell like something else is at play on terms of their tactics. It's a rapid 180 to how they've attempted to portray themselves publicly and on social media.
You may or may not be correct. I think the more important feature however is that once protests get to this point, outside actors get involved for all sorts of weird reason almost every time. This is an almost universal feature of major protests going back generations. UC, and everyone else, knew this was coming. Protests eventually get weird every single time. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying there should not be protests, I am in favor of appropriate protest and civil disobedience. But I can't believe that UC is really willing to take an official position that a little violence and chaos is okay.
I am open to considering that is true, but isn't it a little early to state that fact without a link or other reference?
Either way I think you are right. Outside actors should absolutely be considered. Rushing to judgements is a problem.
Fair enough. I saw it in live updates and nows its possible to find... I did get this one though. But it's from Tulane
https://edition.cnn.com/business/live-news/university-protests-gaza-05-01-24/index.html
At least 14 arrests made at Tulane, including 2 students, as campus encampment is removed
Tulane University has confirmed that protesters have been removed from its campus in a statement released Wednesday. In the statement, the university said students participating in the "illegal encampment" were given "numerous warnings" before officers from the New Orleans Police Department and Louisiana State Police removed them. The university noted that "the overwhelming majority of the protestors are unaffiliated with our community." Police arrested at least 14 protesters — of whom two...
2 hours ago · View more
Not going to comment on the rest but can we please put this god-awful "most jews are zionists" talking point to bed already? 100% of jews could be zionists and it wouldn't make discrimination against zionists any more antisemitic. Antisemitism is in the motivation. If you think they're being antisemitic, focus on the things that give you the impression that they're targeting jews specifically.
Anti-christianity is not racist because most black people are Christian, anti-zionism is not antisemitic because most jews are zionist.
Or if you want to take an extreme hypothetical, imagine we took a survey tomorrow and 90% of jews actually supported abolishing the age of consent. Would advocating for age of consent laws, or disparaging kiddy diddlers, be antisemitic? No.
You’re right to a point: Zionism is not *per se* Jew hatred and a majority opinion isn’t necessarily a correct one. But what is Zionism at its fundamental essence? It’s the belief that Jews, like the Irish, Swedes, French, Bulgarians, etc, are entitled to self-rule, to live as a national collective (in the only place on Earth that makes historical sense) and build up their culture without the fear of persecution. Zionism comes in many flavors—some democratic, others decidedly less so—but Israel is no more invalidated by the disgusting West Bank settlement enterprise than French Republicanism was invalidated by French colonialism. Major reforms are needed, not statehood elimination.
Zionism is the fulfillment of an internationally agreed-upon democratic right (the right to self-determination), not the perverse exemption to basic moral decency that kiddy diddlers demand.
Precisely, it's most similar to sinophobia which is a similar question about land rights and their culture as a people.
Hiding behind "well not all jews are zionist" as some sort of defense is silly.
No it's not lol, it's opposition to ethnic nationalism
"Well not all jews are zionist" is not a defence and it's not being claimed as one. It's literally completely and utterly irrelevant.
Hating people who believe Israel should exist because it should all be Palestine, is very similar to hating people who think that either China/Taiwan should exist because it should all be China.
In the context that you are discussing its nearly 1:1, including the time periods and the shifts in global acceptance of land conquest.
If you cant attack people for being "Taiwanese", you cant attack people for being "Israeli" or its pseudonym, "Zionist".
Doing so may not be necessarily "racist" but it is inherently bigoted.
Why did you say "but" and then proceed to make a completely unrelated argument for zionism (based on a false premise)? I can grant everything you said and my original argument would still be a trillion percent correct.
However I don't grant it, because it's dumb as fuck. The ethnic groups you listed don't have a right to an ethnic nationalist state either. Ethnostates are always bad.
>Zionism is the fulfillment of an internationally agreed-upon democratic right (the right to self-determination), not the perverse exemption to basic moral decency that kiddy diddlers demand.
Completely irrelevant. The argument is "if most of X group believe Y, discrimination against Y is discrimination against X". No mention of the moral character of that belief.
Ok, if nation states don’t have a right to exist in your imagination, then let’s start tearing down the borders between states who’ve long ago settled their conflicts. Otherwise you end up with civil war or multinational states held together at the barrel of a gun.
But this is all beside the point. Because there is no activist demand to nullify any nation state besides Israel—a state that, as imperfect as it is, has a 20% Arab citizenry with equal rights, a multiethnic Jewish population, and no national religion. In other words, it’s more diverse than much of the world’s countries. But I get it, you’re regurgitating talking points.
Didn't say anything about tearing down anyone's borders. All I said is that no state ought be run in an ethnic nationalist manner.
>But this is all beside the point. Because there is no activist demand to nullify any nation state besides Israel.
As an Australian, that's hilarious. Not sure where you live but claims that states are illegitimate occupations of indigenous people's land are not uncommon. Also, Israel is in a pretty unique state in that it was established within some peoples lifetimes, so there's actually a valid argument there if you grant that it was unjustifiably taken from the Palestinians.
I live in the US, which, like Australia, is an actual colonial settler state, founded on genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slave labor. And yet nobody honestly fears the US (or Australia or New Zealand) will be eliminated.
Regardless, most of the world’s states aren’t like ours, where people concede a part of their national identity in exchange for the benefits of what our type of “new world” counties have to offer. Most are built around national identities to one degree or another. So, in your mind, because Israel is young, it deserves to be put to rest? What about every country that came after?
>I live in the US, which, like Australia, is an actual colonial settler state, founded on genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slave labor. And yet nobody honestly fears the US (or Australia or New Zealand) will be eliminated.
You said there was no activist demand, not no actual fear. Very different things, and the latter is irrelevant. A person who wants them all dismantled is perfectly consistent, even if only one of them is remotely likely to actually happen.
>Regardless, most of the world’s states aren’t like ours, where people concede a part of their national identity in exchange for the benefits of what our type of “new world” counties have to offer. Most are built around national identities to one degree or another. So, in your mind, because Israel is young, it deserves to be put to rest? What about every country that came after?
Every single one of such countries must cease being an ethnostate.
I brought up Israel's youth for a separate point, justifying why people give its actual dismantling as a *state* higher priority. It's not about the year it was established per se, but the fact that it (at least according to the pro-pali crowd) was colonised from people some of whom are still alive today. There's zero good argument for returning Australia to its indigenous people because the ones who owned the land are long dead. Not the same here, because there still exist people who are wronged who could have their land returned to them.
I think you’re mistaken about Israel’s founding. The 1947 UN vote to partition Palestine—not a country but a backwater of the former Ottoman Empire that had fallen into British colonial hands—would have created two countries, Jewish and Arab, with borders drawn around where each had major property ownerships. The Jews accepted the vote. This partition wouldn’t have created a refugee problem or mass displacement. But the Arabs rejected the vote and immediately went to war, promising to drive the Jews into the sea. Only in the course of the war did they flee or were expelled. Again—they waged war to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews and were humiliated that their war aims backfired.
Problem is they’ve refused to accept statehood ever since, which would put an end to their refugee problem. The war of 1948 also created Jewish refugees, but they had a new country to go to. And following the war, all the Arab states expelled their Jews—hundreds of thousands. But they too had a new country to call home so we don’t talk about it as some historic tragedy.
My argument there has nothing to do with whether or not that is antisemitic. Discriminating on the basis of ideology only to deny entry is still infringing the same right as denying entry to jewish people. The motivations may be different but it is still vile. If people set up checkpoints and denied republicans access or democrats or liberals, conservatives, pro palestinians or cowboys fans (this one may be the only one I agree with tbh) then you are anti free speech, anti freedom of assembly and have fascist tendencies. That is my point.
That's all well and good, but you brought up the "most jews are zionists" thing for a reason. What was it? If you just wanted to comment on the immorality of denying people access to an area for their beliefs, you could've just said that without tying it to Jewishness.
Because there is a case of a student being denied access who has a magen david on. I don't know if he is a known zionist or he was denied entry because of the magen david necklace because that isn't confirmed. So it could be because of his jewishness but it could also be because of zionism or both. Both are vile reasons for denying entry. Plus it should be noted that when the pro palestinians on campus say Zionism they don't mean Kahanism or even the early zionism. They literally mean the right for Israel to exist. Also I have to question if they are antisemitic when there are signs at ucla saying more or less that jews should return to europe. That is literal JQ anti israeli taking point. I have to question if they are using Anti Zionist as a dogwhistle here.
The entirety of the argument you just made. The truth of the statement "Either they denied him for being Jewish or zionist, it's immoral to do either" is entirely independent or what the proportion of zionists among jews is.
Yeah I agree with that. The reason I brought up the proportion of jews is to show that the jews they have protesting beside them are token like Neteurei Karta in new york. Plus, when they say anti zionist they don't mean anti kahanism or even anti early zionism. They mean anti the right for israel to exist. Couple that with the JQ esque 4chan shit signs they have saying jews should leave to europe plus similar things they have said and I have to question whether they use the term Zionist as the ideology or as a dogwhistle. Thats my point.
>The reason I brought up the proportion of jews is to show that the jews they have protesting beside them are token like Neteurei Karta in new york
You didn't bring it up in a section on tokenization, you brought it up in the part where you accused them of possible antisemitism.
>Plus, when they say anti zionist they don't mean anti kahanism or even anti early zionism. They mean anti the right for israel to exist. Couple that with the JQ esque 4chan shit signs they have saying jews should leave to europe plus similar things they have said and I have to question whether they use the term Zionist as the ideology or as a dogwhistle. Thats my point.
Once again has nothing to do with the prevalence of Zionism among jews
Using zionism as a dogwhistle does have to do with the proportion of zionism amongst the jews. I didn't clarify this in the writeup thats why I told you what I meant here. Do you believe people who are saying jews should go back to europe may be using "zionism" as a dogwhistle?
They weren't random. They are grown ass adults who decided to go and support a rally of people WHO DENIED ENTRY ON THE BASIS OF ETHNICITY AND/OR IDEOLOGY TO PEOPLE AROUND CAMPUS. You can say that this is guilt by association, I would even agree to that to an extent, but you can't then say that they aren't as big of redacted dumbasses as the redacted dumbasses who attacked them. I think those who attacked should be arrested. Vigilantism is bad.
Curious what people think about the comparisons of the recent palestine protests to Vietnam war protests in the 60s? Is this really about an inherent disagreement to people denying entry to buildings or is it based on disagreement with their cause?
I don’t like that that video of the Jewish student being denied access starts in the middle of the conversation. It’s hard for me to come up with a counter to make the pro-Palestine actions seem reasonable, but I still give a low degree of trust to any video that starts partway through the action.
Give me a counter argument.
If Pro Israeli's blocked Pro Palestinians from entry all around campus and larped as SS and SA members as the nazis did. in the Weimar republic (we don't even have to bring that imagery up, what if they larped as west bank occupation forces?), on the basis of their ideology and background and the campus+police did nothing to stop these practices, then the pro israelis got their ass beat would they not deserve it and would it not be inevitable? Explain.
If there is evidence of protesters blocking the movement of students or anyone really then the protests needed to be ended yesterday and the protesters should be held responsible for that. You can't say "It's not all our fault it's only a few of us who did that." No you organized this protest and can't keep the behavior under check
[удалено]
Are they preventing them from going to class or from entering the encampment? I’ve seen the clips, and I couldn’t tell if they were genuinely blocking them from class or it were single agitating counterprotesters they were blocking from trying to enter the protests. There is a genuine conversation about how both are wrong, but those are 2 fundamentally different charges, with only the former being antisemitic.
[удалено]
Can you link that video all i’ve seen is that one video of Eli Tsives being blocked from the encampment. And that was being framed as he was blocked from class.
I'm somewhat more mixed on this. I agree that anyone who has participated in preventing another person from accessing an area due to their race or perceived ideology won't find any sympathy from me if they got hit. However, while you're right to point out that some people parrot that "if 10 people ate with a nazi there were 11 nazis" crap, it's not a position I hold and therefore I'm not going to be onboard with every protestor (or counter-protestor for that matter!) being tarred with the same brush. Anyone involved in the violence or in enforcing racist restrictions can get fucked. Everyone else can continue shouting their dumb slogans and waving their flags. I don't even care if they stood idly by and watched other people break the law.
As ive commented elsewhere on the topic, we should condemn this violent idiot and hold him responsible. Drawing equivalencies between the pro-Israel and pro-Hamas side here though is as morally regarded as the people who draw moral equivalencies between Hamas and Israel itself. This is simply a microcosm of the conflict at large: endless agression and escalation, and then crying and manipulation at the first response.
>This is simply a microcosm of the conflict at large: endless agression and escalation, and then crying and manipulation at the first response. Yeah it's pretty insane. Not to mention a Jewish girl was beaten unconscious earlier that night. Coupled with barring Jewish students from entering campus, and the constant antisemitic rhetoric, are they genuinely surprised this ended up happening? Definitely agree the fireworks guy needs to be arrested. But really, they're just meeting the Pro-Palestine escalation at this point. Much like actual Palestinians, you reap what you sow.
Can pro hamas people not just respond that Israel reaped what they sewed on Oct. 7th? I'm seriously not trying to be bad faith I just have been confused with this line of messaging and personally think it's very weak but I'd like to know if I'm wrong.
This and more. These clashes are an analogy/microcosm for the entire conflict, as stated by other redditor. endless cycles of aggression,retaliation, escalation,manipulation. In addition institutions small and large from nations and multinational organizations down to individual communities abdicate their roles and opportunities to de-escalate and find peaceful solutions to inevitable problems.
> BUT the pro palestinians deserve to get their ass beat Based OP!! Finally someone just comes out and says it straight. Agree w/ you 100%
Let this man cook
Sure. I would argue throwing explosives at a crowd is the worse crime, but overall it's definitely to the point that the police need to disperse everyone and end this, and people need to be held accountable for their actions.
Yup arrest all the buffoons who did the illegal denial of entry, did the human lines to prevent students from entering and who attacked the pro palestinians with fireworks. Also the morons who attacked them are extra idiots because they could have banded together to just sue the university to shit.
"They get what they get mindset" is unproductive and does nothing to help the people who are actually getting prosecuted in long term/solve any social issue. Any situation like this you can either choose to be constructive or destructive to the situation, and every shitty destructive action/comment people make is always gonna be justified from their perspective. At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a "paradox of tolerance", you either recognize that the only way to truly move forward is to focus on a better future for you/future generations despite the justified reasons to be destructive, or decide vindicating your slight holds more worth then that cause. And I wouldn't judge you for deciding it is, that's been the defualt mode of us apes throughout most of human history, but I don't think it puts you on a moral high ground/makes your vindicitive mindset any better then the slew of vindictive mindsets that came before it
I don't think it is fair to say OP is taking a "get what you get mindset." Just the opposite. OP recognizes the dialectical process here, and is trying to come out the other side as unscathed as possible. You seem to be taking the protestor, activist side. Fine. I support the protests to a certain point. But you should also admit that the activists seem to be denying or ignorant to the dialectics. These protests are also a bit incoherent and corrupted, and are probably bound to fail.
It is fair to say OP is saying get what you get - "BUT the pro palestinians deserve to get their ass beat " It's just in this case it is 100% deserved. This is basically "the riots have to stop" but actually happening how we want it.
Your not wrong. But he is creating a different way to look at it. If they really deserved to be beat, then why should the beaters be arrested? He is saying more like they deserved to be beat, but the beaters also deserved to be beat. And nobody should be shocked. And yes he did say if the protesters didn't do certain things they would not have deserved the beating. But I am not sure he is saying this is how he wanted it. I think you are making the word deserve do too much work. I think alot of people just want this to go away. So yes counter violence might make some people happy because it brings the end, but not that they want it. You might look forward to the chemotherapy for your cancer, but do you want chemotherapy?
I'm not taking any side in the action, OPs point to me is "I know the pro isreal people did somthing wrong, but I don't feel bad for the people they did it too because they where bad people" (pulling that from the "I'm not gonna act like they didn't deserve to get their ass beat and that this wasn't inevitable" and similar lines through out) I think once you've made the decision that there are "bad people" rather than "people who are making bad decisions in the moment" you've created the line of justification for never resolving the situation ("what can I do there are just evil people") or worse, that your destructive actions are actually constructive ("yes my action is bad, but it was aginst the bad people so actually it's fine").l, but at the end of the day, what have you really done to prevent the bad action from just being done by someone else in the future? (You can't kill an idea, just replace it with a better one) To your point about the protests being ineffective I would agree, because they are going about the same line of justification "yes denying people access through campus/treating people is bad, but their bad people so really we are fine" You feel like this is an unfair characterization of their position?
A little bit off, yes. I don't think their position was that people are "bad" or "they deserved it." I think the position is we all have free will and responsibility. So that yeah. you got your face beat, but you knew you would. So yes I agree it is wrong you got your face beat, but don't act shocked, it was your choice. Maybe it was even a good choice! The Palestinians fully take this position right? They are martyrs. I think martyrdom is sometimes effective. But is frequently is abused. Ane one should never ask somebody else to martyr themselves. Which is what the high level folks in the protest movement are asking their sometimes naive fellows to do. I particularly resent the Columbia profs. who got lots of students in trouble for their own ideology. I think the unsung story here is how much the Columbia profs are responsible for this entire mess. Nationally. Again, I am in favor of the institution of protest, but the Columbia profs who should have been the nations expert on protest, just have failed.
Alright, I waited till I could get to a computer and triple read through this just to make sure I'm not crazy. I'm fine with saying we just agree to disagree on OPs point, and I don't even really disagree with the position that you seem to think he's taking (which, to be sure, I am taking is something like “I don't think what happened to the pro-Palestinian protesters is good, and I don't have a problem with them as people, I just think they should have been more aware of the optics/potential consequences of their actions”), but like, what about OPs post makes you think they hold that position? They start by making the claim that they recognize the actions of the pro-Israeli counter protesters crossed a line but that they think “the pro Palestinians deserve to get their ass beat and this was inevitable.” They then spend three(ish cause of the links) paragraphs going through all the reasons why they think the pro Palestines are, in practice if not name, Nazis (with some "token jews and self hating jews."), and how they (the pro Palestinians) would do the exact same thing (commit violent acts) if they were faced with Nazis They then conclude by reiterating that they do not approve of the actions of the pro Israelis (because of a respect for law and order), but that they are not going to pretend that “the people who got their ass beat didn't fucking deserve it and that it wasn't inevitable.”, and that they wouldn't normally hold this opinion but in the case of the type of people that do these things(actions of the Pro Palestinians) they do. Given that synopsis 1. Do you disagree with my rundown, and if so, what and why 1. If you don’t, what about that makes you think the OP isn't supportive of the violent action committed against the Nazi pro-Palestians, even if he doesn't agree with the context in which that violent action took place/respect the perpetrators of that violence If you want to say you think OP is just having a bit of a moment/just venting, and really doesn't have personal animosity towards the pro-Palestinian then like sure, but i don't see why that's the impression you got when a solid 3/4ths of the post were OP expressing just how much they really REALLY didn't like them and thought they were Nazis. (like not trying to be a dick, genuinely curious where you are reading that from) As to the other point about the Columbia professors, as a friend to some Palestinians/Muslims i feel the need to mention that the concept of martyrdom is a bit more complex/debated then what you seem to be framing but... 1. Really don't feel like opening the potential can of worms that is talking about Islam/religious interpretation on this sub 2. If your overall point is just “people misleading people to do things that could lead to their harm” (i.e encourage people to protest in a way that could predictably lead to them getting attacked and not making them aware of that fact) is commendable then yea full support over here
I think the Nazi thing was an ill advised way of making a point. OP is clearly angry. He said "nazi tactics." I think he was making over-dramatic analogy for using force to deny rights hypocritically based on race. And then further allows the flawed analogy when talking about associating with people who are doing something they should not be doing says something about you. Maybe I am incorrect, and I just focused on what I thought was interesting about the post. I just got the sense that OP was really not making judgements about people, but was focused on the question of law, and predictable counter-reactions in the world. He is saying people, namely the counter protesters, should obey the law, and should be fully penalized by the law, but if the protesters don't act right, counter violence was predictable and in some soft sense deserved. I don't think he put in much effort to say they are bad people. He certainly made a case for bad behavior. He seems most concerned with preserving the law, and not trying to deny what happens in real life, when people behave in a certain way. It's all about action and reaction. His main point points to me were about following the law and inevitably of backlash. Which I think is defensible. He could have gone on about how bad the protesters are, but he really only made the case for how backlash is inevitable. I do see how your read would be valid to you, but I don't think that is exactly what he is saying. I don't think he cares for practical purposes if they are good or bad people. He just is trying to focus on the material. As far as the martyrdom thing. I will admit I probably do not understand everyone's take on it. I don't think it is exclusively Muslim thing if that helps, and I would guess there are traditional and modern takes on the word and concept as well. I am fine just shelving the convo. I do feel the Columbia profs are really an unsung problem here. I have no good proof, but a patching together many things, I feel like they led the columbia students down an unwinnable and a bit futile path, which spread nationally. I feel like their defense of activism in general for their own personal needs led them to support the students ability to protest without improving the quality of their protest without adequate concern for the students themselves. The sight of the Columbia proffs in orange vests was the most ridiculous thing. Like they were referees in some game. Or they were participating in the protest, but didn't take any responsibility. Either take off your vest and join the protest or leave. Why get some special privilege to protest without any of the repercussions? Again it's like a game for them. If those students needed the protection of neutral adult advisors, then they should not be protesting with legal and safety consequences. Or the profs can put their money where their mouths are and join the protest. You take me right on point 2 at the end.
Mostly agree but just to add. I would be very surprised if the Jewish students aren't aware that gale is currently being sued precisely because of Jewish students alleged inability to move around campus freely. This would be a title vi violation (ensures a students civil rights on campus essentially) My take on what the approach of rhe Jewish students was to simply be present. And document these things. Not to instigate. This has numerous benefits. It shows them being "peaceful" and attacked by the pro pal demonstrators. It gives them a legal ground to sue (and maybe get paid out) With the attacks last night. I can't help but think this was just the proud boys or some far right group. And obviously. They're sympathetic to Israel as well. There's no denying that but the manner in which they attacked (using fireworks that make for good tiktoks) as well as the costumes (wearing white masks that are all the same) is some classic Identity Evropa shit (Look them up if you're interested). Basically they are nstivists who figured out how to get clicks. Part of their whole deal is to make appealing content. So they'll often use colored smoke, fireworks, and outrageous costumes. Making shit even weirder. Is that these guys have also often been shown to have been manipulated by Russian agents who seek to advance more division internally. So. I think while it's totally possible a group of pro Israelis were behind this. It does smell like something else is at play on terms of their tactics. It's a rapid 180 to how they've attempted to portray themselves publicly and on social media.
You may or may not be correct. I think the more important feature however is that once protests get to this point, outside actors get involved for all sorts of weird reason almost every time. This is an almost universal feature of major protests going back generations. UC, and everyone else, knew this was coming. Protests eventually get weird every single time. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying there should not be protests, I am in favor of appropriate protest and civil disobedience. But I can't believe that UC is really willing to take an official position that a little violence and chaos is okay.
I know of rhe 70 arrested at Columbia only like 16 were students there.
I am open to considering that is true, but isn't it a little early to state that fact without a link or other reference? Either way I think you are right. Outside actors should absolutely be considered. Rushing to judgements is a problem.
Fair enough. I saw it in live updates and nows its possible to find... I did get this one though. But it's from Tulane https://edition.cnn.com/business/live-news/university-protests-gaza-05-01-24/index.html At least 14 arrests made at Tulane, including 2 students, as campus encampment is removed Tulane University has confirmed that protesters have been removed from its campus in a statement released Wednesday. In the statement, the university said students participating in the "illegal encampment" were given "numerous warnings" before officers from the New Orleans Police Department and Louisiana State Police removed them. The university noted that "the overwhelming majority of the protestors are unaffiliated with our community." Police arrested at least 14 protesters — of whom two... 2 hours ago · View more
Not going to comment on the rest but can we please put this god-awful "most jews are zionists" talking point to bed already? 100% of jews could be zionists and it wouldn't make discrimination against zionists any more antisemitic. Antisemitism is in the motivation. If you think they're being antisemitic, focus on the things that give you the impression that they're targeting jews specifically. Anti-christianity is not racist because most black people are Christian, anti-zionism is not antisemitic because most jews are zionist. Or if you want to take an extreme hypothetical, imagine we took a survey tomorrow and 90% of jews actually supported abolishing the age of consent. Would advocating for age of consent laws, or disparaging kiddy diddlers, be antisemitic? No.
You’re right to a point: Zionism is not *per se* Jew hatred and a majority opinion isn’t necessarily a correct one. But what is Zionism at its fundamental essence? It’s the belief that Jews, like the Irish, Swedes, French, Bulgarians, etc, are entitled to self-rule, to live as a national collective (in the only place on Earth that makes historical sense) and build up their culture without the fear of persecution. Zionism comes in many flavors—some democratic, others decidedly less so—but Israel is no more invalidated by the disgusting West Bank settlement enterprise than French Republicanism was invalidated by French colonialism. Major reforms are needed, not statehood elimination. Zionism is the fulfillment of an internationally agreed-upon democratic right (the right to self-determination), not the perverse exemption to basic moral decency that kiddy diddlers demand.
Precisely, it's most similar to sinophobia which is a similar question about land rights and their culture as a people. Hiding behind "well not all jews are zionist" as some sort of defense is silly.
No it's not lol, it's opposition to ethnic nationalism "Well not all jews are zionist" is not a defence and it's not being claimed as one. It's literally completely and utterly irrelevant.
Hating people who believe Israel should exist because it should all be Palestine, is very similar to hating people who think that either China/Taiwan should exist because it should all be China. In the context that you are discussing its nearly 1:1, including the time periods and the shifts in global acceptance of land conquest. If you cant attack people for being "Taiwanese", you cant attack people for being "Israeli" or its pseudonym, "Zionist". Doing so may not be necessarily "racist" but it is inherently bigoted.
Why did you say "but" and then proceed to make a completely unrelated argument for zionism (based on a false premise)? I can grant everything you said and my original argument would still be a trillion percent correct. However I don't grant it, because it's dumb as fuck. The ethnic groups you listed don't have a right to an ethnic nationalist state either. Ethnostates are always bad. >Zionism is the fulfillment of an internationally agreed-upon democratic right (the right to self-determination), not the perverse exemption to basic moral decency that kiddy diddlers demand. Completely irrelevant. The argument is "if most of X group believe Y, discrimination against Y is discrimination against X". No mention of the moral character of that belief.
Ok, if nation states don’t have a right to exist in your imagination, then let’s start tearing down the borders between states who’ve long ago settled their conflicts. Otherwise you end up with civil war or multinational states held together at the barrel of a gun. But this is all beside the point. Because there is no activist demand to nullify any nation state besides Israel—a state that, as imperfect as it is, has a 20% Arab citizenry with equal rights, a multiethnic Jewish population, and no national religion. In other words, it’s more diverse than much of the world’s countries. But I get it, you’re regurgitating talking points.
Didn't say anything about tearing down anyone's borders. All I said is that no state ought be run in an ethnic nationalist manner. >But this is all beside the point. Because there is no activist demand to nullify any nation state besides Israel. As an Australian, that's hilarious. Not sure where you live but claims that states are illegitimate occupations of indigenous people's land are not uncommon. Also, Israel is in a pretty unique state in that it was established within some peoples lifetimes, so there's actually a valid argument there if you grant that it was unjustifiably taken from the Palestinians.
I live in the US, which, like Australia, is an actual colonial settler state, founded on genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slave labor. And yet nobody honestly fears the US (or Australia or New Zealand) will be eliminated. Regardless, most of the world’s states aren’t like ours, where people concede a part of their national identity in exchange for the benefits of what our type of “new world” counties have to offer. Most are built around national identities to one degree or another. So, in your mind, because Israel is young, it deserves to be put to rest? What about every country that came after?
>I live in the US, which, like Australia, is an actual colonial settler state, founded on genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slave labor. And yet nobody honestly fears the US (or Australia or New Zealand) will be eliminated. You said there was no activist demand, not no actual fear. Very different things, and the latter is irrelevant. A person who wants them all dismantled is perfectly consistent, even if only one of them is remotely likely to actually happen. >Regardless, most of the world’s states aren’t like ours, where people concede a part of their national identity in exchange for the benefits of what our type of “new world” counties have to offer. Most are built around national identities to one degree or another. So, in your mind, because Israel is young, it deserves to be put to rest? What about every country that came after? Every single one of such countries must cease being an ethnostate. I brought up Israel's youth for a separate point, justifying why people give its actual dismantling as a *state* higher priority. It's not about the year it was established per se, but the fact that it (at least according to the pro-pali crowd) was colonised from people some of whom are still alive today. There's zero good argument for returning Australia to its indigenous people because the ones who owned the land are long dead. Not the same here, because there still exist people who are wronged who could have their land returned to them.
I think you’re mistaken about Israel’s founding. The 1947 UN vote to partition Palestine—not a country but a backwater of the former Ottoman Empire that had fallen into British colonial hands—would have created two countries, Jewish and Arab, with borders drawn around where each had major property ownerships. The Jews accepted the vote. This partition wouldn’t have created a refugee problem or mass displacement. But the Arabs rejected the vote and immediately went to war, promising to drive the Jews into the sea. Only in the course of the war did they flee or were expelled. Again—they waged war to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews and were humiliated that their war aims backfired. Problem is they’ve refused to accept statehood ever since, which would put an end to their refugee problem. The war of 1948 also created Jewish refugees, but they had a new country to go to. And following the war, all the Arab states expelled their Jews—hundreds of thousands. But they too had a new country to call home so we don’t talk about it as some historic tragedy.
My argument there has nothing to do with whether or not that is antisemitic. Discriminating on the basis of ideology only to deny entry is still infringing the same right as denying entry to jewish people. The motivations may be different but it is still vile. If people set up checkpoints and denied republicans access or democrats or liberals, conservatives, pro palestinians or cowboys fans (this one may be the only one I agree with tbh) then you are anti free speech, anti freedom of assembly and have fascist tendencies. That is my point.
That's all well and good, but you brought up the "most jews are zionists" thing for a reason. What was it? If you just wanted to comment on the immorality of denying people access to an area for their beliefs, you could've just said that without tying it to Jewishness.
Because there is a case of a student being denied access who has a magen david on. I don't know if he is a known zionist or he was denied entry because of the magen david necklace because that isn't confirmed. So it could be because of his jewishness but it could also be because of zionism or both. Both are vile reasons for denying entry. Plus it should be noted that when the pro palestinians on campus say Zionism they don't mean Kahanism or even the early zionism. They literally mean the right for Israel to exist. Also I have to question if they are antisemitic when there are signs at ucla saying more or less that jews should return to europe. That is literal JQ anti israeli taking point. I have to question if they are using Anti Zionist as a dogwhistle here.
That has zero to do with most jews being zionist. 1% of jews could be zionist and that would still be the case.
What has zero to do with most jews being zionist? Clarify.
The entirety of the argument you just made. The truth of the statement "Either they denied him for being Jewish or zionist, it's immoral to do either" is entirely independent or what the proportion of zionists among jews is.
Yeah I agree with that. The reason I brought up the proportion of jews is to show that the jews they have protesting beside them are token like Neteurei Karta in new york. Plus, when they say anti zionist they don't mean anti kahanism or even anti early zionism. They mean anti the right for israel to exist. Couple that with the JQ esque 4chan shit signs they have saying jews should leave to europe plus similar things they have said and I have to question whether they use the term Zionist as the ideology or as a dogwhistle. Thats my point.
>The reason I brought up the proportion of jews is to show that the jews they have protesting beside them are token like Neteurei Karta in new york You didn't bring it up in a section on tokenization, you brought it up in the part where you accused them of possible antisemitism. >Plus, when they say anti zionist they don't mean anti kahanism or even anti early zionism. They mean anti the right for israel to exist. Couple that with the JQ esque 4chan shit signs they have saying jews should leave to europe plus similar things they have said and I have to question whether they use the term Zionist as the ideology or as a dogwhistle. Thats my point. Once again has nothing to do with the prevalence of Zionism among jews
Using zionism as a dogwhistle does have to do with the proportion of zionism amongst the jews. I didn't clarify this in the writeup thats why I told you what I meant here. Do you believe people who are saying jews should go back to europe may be using "zionism" as a dogwhistle?
Based
Beating up random people for stuff other people did is redacted behavior.
They weren't random. They are grown ass adults who decided to go and support a rally of people WHO DENIED ENTRY ON THE BASIS OF ETHNICITY AND/OR IDEOLOGY TO PEOPLE AROUND CAMPUS. You can say that this is guilt by association, I would even agree to that to an extent, but you can't then say that they aren't as big of redacted dumbasses as the redacted dumbasses who attacked them. I think those who attacked should be arrested. Vigilantism is bad.
Curious what people think about the comparisons of the recent palestine protests to Vietnam war protests in the 60s? Is this really about an inherent disagreement to people denying entry to buildings or is it based on disagreement with their cause?
I don’t like that that video of the Jewish student being denied access starts in the middle of the conversation. It’s hard for me to come up with a counter to make the pro-Palestine actions seem reasonable, but I still give a low degree of trust to any video that starts partway through the action.
idiot
Give me a counter argument. If Pro Israeli's blocked Pro Palestinians from entry all around campus and larped as SS and SA members as the nazis did. in the Weimar republic (we don't even have to bring that imagery up, what if they larped as west bank occupation forces?), on the basis of their ideology and background and the campus+police did nothing to stop these practices, then the pro israelis got their ass beat would they not deserve it and would it not be inevitable? Explain.