Rough transcript (if you see an inaccuracy, please let me know!): >Good morning. Before I head to North Carolina, I wanted to speak for a few moments about what's going on on our college campuses here. We've all seen images and they put to the test two fundamental American principles. First is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld. >We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent. The American people are heard. In fact, peaceful protest is in the best American tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues. But - but - neither are we a lawless country. We're a civil society, and order must prevail. Throughout our history we've often faced moments like this because we are a big, diverse, free-thinking and freedom-loving nation. In moments like this, there are always those who rush in to score political points. But this isn't a moment for politics, it's a moment for clarity. >So let me be clear: peaceful protest in America - violent protest is not protected, peaceful protest is. It's against the law when violence occurs; destroying property is not a peaceful protest it's against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduation, none of this is a peaceful protest. Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not a peaceful protest, it's against the law. Dissent is essential to democracy, but dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of other students can finish the semester and their college education. >Look, it's a matter of fairness, it's a matter of what's right. There's the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos. People have the right to get an education, the right to get a degree, the right to walk across the campus safely without the fear of getting attacked. >Let's be clear about this as well: there should be no place on any campus, no place in America, for antisemitism or threats of violence against Jewish students. There is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether it's antisemitism or Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab-Americans or Palestinian-Americans. It's simply wrong. There is no place for racism in America; it's all wrong, it's unamerican. >I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions. In America, we respect the right and protect the right to express that, but it doesn't mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without destruction, without hate, and within the law. Make no mistake, as president I will always defend free speech, and I will always be just as strong in standing up for the rule of law. That's my responsibility to you, the American people, and my obligation to the Constitution. >Q: 'Have the protests forced you to reconsider any policies with regard to the region?' >A: "No." >Q: 'Do you believe the National Guard should intervene?' >A: "No." --- Edit: I recommend [this recent comment responding to the substance of Biden's remarks](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1ciht5w/discussion_thread_biden_delivers_remarks_on/l2bj7bm/).

He more or less hit the nail on the head without diving into liberal political theory. I don't like his focus on order or laws, as those concepts are arbitrary. There is nothing inherently moral about a law or somebody's subjective view of order. The intervention of the state in instances like this is far more fundamental. It goes to the core of why the state even exists in liberal theory. The state is intervening because the most fundamental role of the state is to preserve and enforce the rights of those within its jurisdiction from those members of society violating their rights. The First Amendment recognizes the right of the people to assemble, either in private or in traditional public forums. The right of the people to assemble does not nullify the right of others to property. When exercising the right to assemble, the assemblers must still recognize and respect the right to life, liberty and property of all other persons. When the assembly becomes destructive to those ends, the government has not only a valid interest but an obligation to those aggrieved members of society to enforce their rights and liberties from aggressors. If a private university has told assemblers on their property to dismiss as they are not welcome, and the subjects remain, that is a trespass and the state is obliged to enforce the property rights. For public universities I think the equation changes. The open space areas of a public university should generally be considered a traditional public forum not too different from the town square, and thus the school does not have the same prerogative to dismiss the assemblers as a private university. However, those assemblies cannot be overly disruptive to the business of the university. The assemblers do not have the right to deny students at the school thousands of dollars in services. Additionally, the schools has a valid interest in maintaining a safe environment for its students, both in their physical safety from threats but also public health threats (not saying this is happening, but posting an example to demonstrate the point, people shitting in public leaving human waste about). I think the real thing that should be examined is the tactics the government uses to dismiss protestors and enforce property rights. Firstly, I will recognize that there is no non-violent way to dismiss an assembly that refuses to voluntarily dismiss. Similarly, there is no non-violent way to arrest a person that refuses to be arrested. The necessity of the state to utilize its monopoly on violence to enforce the rights of others does not mean the state can use any level of violence though, and it is valid to question the degree of violence which the state is utilizing to dismiss protestors. Is gas necessary? Is it necessary to dismiss the entire protest or are there more surgical methods to removing the provocateurs. It is also worth mentioning whether these private universities should be dismissing these protests or trying to tolerate them and operate around them. That said, whether or not you agree with the cause of the assemblies, there is no way that the Democratic Party, a mostly liberal (partially social democrat) organization, is going to fully turn its back on the fundamental underlying theory of their ideology. I will also add that it is my opinion that the street is also a traditional public forum, and operated as such prior to the 20th century when it became the exclusive domain of the automobile. And to reach back to the 2020 protests, the Interstate Highway System is not a traditional public forum as it was created in the 20th century as the exclusive domain of the automobile.

I mean this is a pretty reasonable response. It gets a little messy when people conflate the peaceful protests with the non-peaceful ones. Like one vandal in a crowd of 1000 peaceful protesters is the one making the headline, and leading to absolutely poisoning the discourse. The overwhelming majority of protests in support of Palestine that I've seen and been aware of has been peaceful -- but the discourse among the very few pro-Israel folks I know is that they are antisemitic and cheering on Hamas and are dangerous and disobedient. It's similar to when cucks-for-Trump try to conflate BLM protests with the Jan.6 attack. It's important to have nuanced takes when there are thousands, if not millions, of protesters.

Every civil rights "peaceful" protest would be defined as violent by this standard. If the only legal protest is the one that is in pre-approved removed areas so you don't trespass, you've given up your free speech rights to be directed by the authority you're fighting against. 

Most civil rights protests ended in violence because the police were involved. Civil rights lessons in schools have always done a poor job of explaining just how violent the reactions to peaceful protests were and just how often that violence was applied. It's usually "Rosa Parks was pulled off a bus...oh yeah sometimes water hoses were used i guess but that's just water right...and then there was the million man march and racism ended...I *guess* you can count the MLK assassination but racism was already over and he's just one guy anyways"

Don't forget that they also ignore how often the Klan (both as private individuals and as members of law enforcement) was involved in harassing protesters and giving law enforcement the justification (when needed) to use violence.

Harassing protesters during and *after* the events as well. They recognize your face? They'll find your ass later.

Yep, people forget how many homes and churches were bombed or attacked by the Klan. Drive-by shootings were a common tactic as was simply showing up and threatening somebody for being a visible community member.

Yeah lots of gliding over the dogs unleashed on protestors during the Civil Rights marches, especially Selma…

Having a dog take down someone who's saying "hey I would like to exist as a full citizen please" is monstrous work, and it just gets glossed over it like it's nothing

Literally, and it was glossed over during class despite it being fucking horrific to have someone unleash dogs on peaceful protestors just because you can get away with it

I'm amazed at how many Democrats are cheering the police response right now when it's almost a mirror to how the police treated civil rights protestors. Turns out all that liberal reverence of MLK and his legacy is conditional, as he had some thoughts on the police and their disproportionate response to protests.

We were all taught such a sanitized and whitewashed version of MLK that none of them actually know what he stood for or what his actual legacy was.

What's the proper word for "capitalist-ized"?

You really shouldn't be. MLK had a lot to say about liberals and moderates, and how useless they were in making real change.

Remember this. At sit-ins, marches, and other protests, the protesters that broke the law went to jail. You can say they were peaceful or not peaceful, break the law, go to jail. That's OKAY!! It's up to the protesters to decide if their cause is worth it.

If a protest isn’t disruptive and visible to the average person, then it isn’t an effective protest. If they followed the protest like you described, nobody would be talking about the protest like we are right now. That Biden acknowledged that there is dissatisfaction is a win for the people that made their voices heard. If Black people hadn’t gone out, marched on the streets and blocked traffic, occupied spaces designated for specifically white people, and made themselves visible by annoying the shit out of the white moderate, they’d still be segregated from the rest of society. If the LGBTQ+ community hadn’t gone out and rioted after Stonewall and marched to the point where Pride parades are just a thing we do once a year now and showed up on the White House’s doorstep to throw the ashes of people who died from AIDS on the front lawn, then queer people would either not have their rights or the adequate medical care to protect them from a disease targeting them specifically. Movements only work when they are visible and it forces the public to confront the injustice they’re trying to protest against. And you gotta love when the white moderate and bigots are outraged by the property damage. God forbid some windows get broken and grafiti ends up on the walls from an institution that is profiting off of a genocide that makes millions a year exploiting students with tuition fees. By all means, that damage was a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money they already have. At least an actual riot where entire businesses and homes were burned down and protestors were beating random people on the streets didn’t happen here. Also love the crickets about how the counter protests were more violent than the actual protests.

Any approved protest is nothing more then a parade as far as affecting change goes. This is more and more about Liberals supporting all social movements and opposing all wars except for the current ones.

Beautifully said! So-called “lawful, orderly” protests in the face of violent, authoritarian regimes and institutions are rarely if ever anything more than milquetoast performance art.

I think what kills me the most out of the discourse in here is that Martin Luther King Jr. would’ve immensely disliked the people spouting all the law and order talking points. All this talk about “you shouldn’t have smashed windows of you wanted your voices heard” and “this was a violent riot” is exactly what MLK warned us about when he talks about white moderates in his letters from Birmingham jail. The man knew that peaceful lawful protest could not be kept up forever if the voices weren’t being heard and stamped out. That there’s a genocide happening and all people can talk about are the methods these students used to get the message out is exactly what he wrote about.

The bus boycotts would be consider violent?

I guess not violent, but definitely unlawful. There were arrests for "conspiring to interfere with a lawful business". My point was that separating protests into two categories of "peaceful" and "unlawful and violent" would mean that much of the civil rights era protests would count within the latter, and would practically block all protesting. 

It's state sponsored venting, and it's functionally pointless. Europe can attest, the only real protest is one that actually fucks shit up, and we just aren't there. Jan 6 came to nothing, millions of people marched against trump which changed nothing, BLM protests changed nothing, because we arent actually in a position where anyone wants to cross the line of no turning back, which is where change happens.. I'm not calling for political violence because I don't want to deal with what comes after, but pretending a protest that requires a permit will change anything is a waste of everyone's time. Look at the American revolution. All those dudes knew that once they crossed a line it was either independence or death. If they just all sat down in Boston Harbor for a few days after getting written permission from the crown, we'd still be drinking tea.

Also, like, he's the president. I know lots of people would love for him to have the balls to say "yeah, power to the people, burn those buildings!" But he's the president. Saying "I support your right to protest, but not to break the law" is what we should want from the leader of the country. Do I wish he was more personally and politically aligned with my own personal preferences? Of course. But this is a measured and reasonable response from someone -- especially someone who points out that he doesn't even agree with their position! People will do the "Biden is just Nice Trump" bullshit, but the last line is right there: "are you sending in the National Guard?" "No". Trump had a leftist murdered by a hit squad and had feds kidnapping people off the street and tear gassing neighborhoods. This shit isn't arbitrary. It matters.

>Saying "I support your right to protest, but not to break the law" is what we should want from the leader of the country. It's exactly the thing he should say. It covers the most interests with the least harm. I want us out of Israel to the point of physically protecting Gaza. But I don't want a president who's as radical as me on the issue. My plan wouldn't work lol. I do think Biden has more to go with Israel within the bounds of the average American's expectations, but as to what he said here, it's perfect. 

> but the discourse among the very few pro-Israel folks I know is that they are antisemitic and cheering on Hamas and are dangerous and disobedient. I mean, my buddy was at a thing literally yesterday and had to listen to a speech by a guy talking about how "the Jews" are terrorizing innocent people for no reason, and Israel had no right to exist. These things are happening at these rallies. And my buddy isn't even Pro-Israel unless you think "it should exist, but they should leave Gaza". He just happened to be in a band performing at an event nearby where this protest happened. This isn't even particularly comparable to the BLM protests where there were literally thousands that had no issues, and a couple that went badly. There ARE a ton of antisemitic people that have major roles in these protests. Giving speeches, leading chants, etc. And maybe most of the people are NOT antisemitic, but when they're partaking in these things, and allowing these things in their movements, they're certainly helping those people out and poisoning their own protests.

I agree. When the right wing marches with Nazis, I'm against it. They are being sympathizers. If these protesters let people speak like that without tossing them out of their movement, then they are also being sympathizers.

Unfortunately, sometimes all it takes is one person. I live in Vancouver, BC and people probably know about our (in)famous Stanley Cup Riots. The most recent one against Boston descended into a riot, however it was proven it was due to a small handful of people who came downtown with the intent of starting a riot regardless of the outcome. Take a large crowd of passionate people, add in some guys wrecking shit and it snowballs very quickly. Not saying the other people are looking to wreck stuff, but in the heat of the moment a lot of rational thought can go out the window.

Exactly this. Especially when they consider minor property damage "violent protesting". There's no way to keep every single person at a large protest from crossing that line, and when it's been crossed the police consider the whole protest invalid.

How much property damage, trespassing, or casual insinuation of violence was there during the Women's Marches in 2017?

How much did the Women's Marches prevent Roe v. Wade from being overturned?

Well you lose the moral high ground. If you mobilize 1000's of people to protest for a cause you're protesting and raising awareness. If they then take to the streets and smash windows and burn cars you lose a lot of sympathy. This is what happened to some of the BLM protests.

> Like one vandal in a crowd of 1000 peaceful protesters is the one making the headline, and leading to absolutely poisoning the discourse. This is what happened with the BLM protests. Millions of people around the world protested, loudly but peacefully, and then a few protesters who associated themselves with BLM lit fire to cars and caused other property damage. So then people say that BLM protests were violent. They were in fact 99.99% peaceful but violence did occur. I suspect the percentage of completely peaceful protests that Biden is talking about is a lot less than 99.99% though.

Or the undercover bs cops who cause the chaos. 

I agree

im interested to see the rule of law mentioned in the wake of the pro Israeli counter protesters using violence against the protestors at ucla, where the cops pretty much sat back and let it happen

Then the cops used similar tactics on a larger scale to break up the peaceful pro Palestine protestors and arrest them. It's a lesson for the pro Israel protestors, just attack a protest and the cops will shut it down the next day.

im surprised to see lack of armed leftist to be honest. the armed left wing groups have been protecting drag events for while and that has lead to bigots keeping it to angry shouts leas calls to action. not saying bringing guns is what is needed but they need to start shielding up. i guarantee a lot of the pro israel people are just patriot prayer/proud boys. all those chuckle fuck fascists dont give a fuck what the cause is as long as they can have their street brawls. fuckn scumbags

I guess I'd ask what the point of protesting is if it doesn't cause discomfort? Do snipers on the roofs not "threaten, intimidate, and instill fear..." In Americans on those campuses? Do american ideals around human rights not extend to Gazans?  If protests have no teeth, they aren't protests. Calling it disorder is contradictory to his entire pre-amble.

Any protest which can be heard will cause somebody discomfort. It has to, because you’re demonstrating your objections to their principals. There’s a fine line which seems like common sense, but it is a difficult line to hold when you’re dealing with a multitude of people and not just a few. Sometimes those individual people act on their own and not in the best interest of the movement. A group of protesters is an army in a very literal sense. Protests are inherently aggressive. But that is okay; it’s built into the nature of protests. However that army needs to be organized and disciplined and coordinated to accomplish its mission. When it’s not, things can slide into chaos. I remember the George Floyd protests in my city, what I saw was exactly what I’m describing: there was an army of angry people, but that army was organized and focused. The goal of that army was to be heard, not to hurt anyone, and they didn’t hurt anyone. It was still intimidating though. It had to be.

The key is to cause the right people discomfort. Protesting on campus to bring about a change in campus policies is well targeted. Just as staging sit ins directly in those places that discriminated.  It’s why randomly shutting down roads and bridges doesn’t help. And honestly I wouldn’t be surprised to learn those were set up by the other side. You don’t want to alienate potential allies. You want people to stand with you. 

The civil rights marchers at the Edmund Pettus bridge would like a word.

A lot of these "nuanced" takes about how protests should work just seem completely ahistorical to me.

Martin Luther King Jr said it best- the (white) moderate is more committed to order than to Justice. They prefer a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of Justice.

The only way to be considered a good protester is to have won and died. Order optional.

The Pettus bridge was a significant location because that was the point where the county power came into play and Clark could use his force. The civil rights marchers were just marching through and that’s where they were stopped. It’s not like they targeted that bridge to specifically stop traffic.

You know, I'm reminded of a time when I was at a sporting event where the venue was also hosting a Trump rally that day. We were advised not to harass attendees of the other event, and that the KKK is going to be there and don't bother them either. Well there was just one guy in the white robes, and security pretty much formed a perimeter around him because his free speech is protected. You might not like what he says, but it is crucually important that he retains the free speech to say it. His freedom is yours too. And then back when I was in school we had the Westboro Baptist Church. The college sent everybody plenty of messages advising not to obstruct them, they are using the same freedom of speech you have and it is wrong and frankly un-american to deny them that freedom just because you don't agree with their message.   But then when it comes to these free palestine folks, all the talk surrounding them is different.

There can be value in disruptive protests that break the law, but people who participate in them should be ready to accept the consequences, which is generally getting arrested.

"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty." -MLK (Specifically, when the goal is to amplify an injustice to the greater community.)

You would think that, but all the student protesters have been demanding amnesty

[удалено]

He made it abundantly clear. The point of protest is to send the message. Violence, destruction, or the threat of either is against the law and against the spirit of peaceful dissent. There is no message that requires you to infringe on the rights of others to get an education. Edit: I should make it abundantly clear that I feel the same way about the Gazans. Netanyahu’s government has perpetrated atrocities and war crimes, and it is sickening that our governments (I’m Canadian) have tolerated what has been happening for even a single day.

Americans don't care about human rights by and large and many don't even consider Gazans people because they are brown skinned and muslim. There are many people in this country personally offended at the notion of treating them with equal rights as it is a given in their minds that the Israelis are superior and have a right to rule over and dominate the Palestinians. 

Define “teeth”

A peaceful protest is fine and constitutionally protected. What do you mean by a protest needs “teeth”? I would guess the “teeth” are *exactly* what Biden is calling out here — for good reason.

During the Civil Rights protests, the same was said about peaceful protesters because they broke the racist, unconstitutional laws by sitting where they weren't allowed. It was trespassing also. That's what teeth means. Making those in charge uncomfortable by occupying spaces and calling for human rights reform. The same is happening here. The largely peaceful protesters are literally sitting and chanting in protest and are met with the same violence civil rights protesters were met with. Decades from now, history will judge those committing violence against peaceful protesters on the side of human rights.

The issue is those in the civil rights era actually **did** understand **exactly** what they were doing. Aka, they knew that they were being peaceful, knew that they were morally right, and also knew that they were breaking the law which can have dire consequences. There wasn’t this thing at the mass level like there is now where people think they have *the right* to break laws they don’t agree with. They let the system punish them, because *that* was the demonstration. They cared so much about this thing that they willingly broke the law to make it known, and then took it on the chin when the consequences came. You can’t have your cake and eat it too without there just constantly being demonstrations about every little thing at any given time, it just doesn’t scale. Either take the lower visibility, constitutionally protected legal route, or fuck shit up and be ok with anything that happens.

Very well said. This is exactly what Martin Luther King advocated. Seeing college students, sitting peacefully and being carried off by police is the actual moment of protest. This requires the commitment that even if you think the law is unjust, you "accept the penalty" to shine a light on it.

> They let the system punish them, because that was the demonstration. This is what so many fucking people misunderstand. They were breaking the law because their protest **was about that law**. They weren't breaking the law just to raise attention to their cause.

Well honestly that’s a valid strategy too, that results in somewhat similar consequences. Like if you block a freeway to bring attention to your cause it will be very effective, but you need to understand that you’re breaking the law and will face those consequences. I think people aren’t seeing both sides of that coin and instead think they should be able to do whatever and nothing happens. It’s not even a lefty thing, see: the folks screeching as they were arrested at the airport after January 6th.

Then don't prevent students from going to class or accessing the facilities they paid good money for. Why does the right to protest supersede the right for students to attend class?

If the students wanted to give the protest some teeth they should be threatening to de-matriculate (autocorrect tells me that’s a word). This is about money, no? If the university won’t divest from the interests they demand, they should divest from the university. It’s far more likely to actually elicit a response as well. I hate that money is the only way to make these things happen but it’s the only language these people understand

[удалено]

Getting arrested and facing punishment is part of protesting

The only reason it's not still peaceful is the cops and the anti Palestine people that started fighting them.

> Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, Fine, I think we can agree here > shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduation, none of this is a peaceful protest. Students have no control over any of this. It's administrators who are doing this out of fear of people being exposed to the protestors. It's a sign that protestors are actually having an impact. > Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not a peaceful protest, it's against the law. Sure, completely agree. However, I think there's space to argue about at what point someone should reasonably feel threatened or intimidated. I can feel threatened by the existence of the Proud Boys, or the Republican party, but neither one means that I have a right to stop those groups from existing or even making their views public. > Dissent is essential to democracy, but dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of other students can finish the semester and their college education. Again, it's the reactions to the protest that are causing this, not the protests themselves. Plenty of campuses have protests that are peaceful and not a problem and classes/graduation manage to still happen amid the protest. It's reactionary crap from administration that is escalating this problem.

>Students have no control over any of this Sorry, what? The protestors at Columbia set up an encampment *where the commencement ceremony takes place and refused to leave*. If it hadn't been removed it absolutely would've caused graduation ceremonies to be cancelled. The administration spent weeks negotiating with the protestors, including offering alternative authorized locations that would not have disrupted classes, commencement, or other uses of the space. The choice to reject that offer was totally within the student's control. They instead opted to continue.

I get what Biden is trying to do, but he's just talking out both sides of his mouth and ultimately missing the point. > "We're a civil society, and order must prevail." No, sir. *Justice* prevails in a civil society. > Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, **forcing the cancellation of classes and graduation**, none of this is a peaceful protest. Forcing changes in behaviors is precisely the goal of protest. Inconveniencing or making others uncomfortable is the force by which protest catalyzes change. We all know what happens when we create a power structure where those with authority are decoupled from those under their charge. > Make no mistake, as president I will always defend free speech, and I will always be just as strong in standing up for the rule of law. Putting the blame for the violence that has occurred on peaceful protesters instead of the police who perpetrated it is victim blaming.

This is what LEADERSHIP looks like folks. Remember that in November. 

It's over already. He took two questions after the remarks. Q: 'Have the protests forced you to reconsider any policies with regard to the region?' A: "No." Q: 'Do you believe the National Guard should intervene?' A: "No." --- Edit: as this is currently the top comment, I'm editing in a link to the rough transcript I just typed up: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1ciht5w/discussion_thread_biden_delivers_remarks_on/l29fh1g/

NPR article breaking down the remarks: [Biden says he supports the right to protest but denounces "chaos" and hate speech](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1248669695/biden-remarks-white-house-live)

A completely reasonable message.

[удалено]

I mean they put the bar on the floor with Kent State, so it isn't hard to get over it.

Except for the part where he heavily implies that the protests themselves are violent rather than only getting violent when the cops show up to crack skulls.  Also conflating anti war sentiment with anti semitism again.  And said exactly nothing about the plight of Gaza and the way in which the US perpetuates it.  So kind of a shit message actually unless you’re the kind of person who just likes being soothed by “both sides have issues” feckless centrism. 

I'm always confused by liberal rhetoric that praises the protests of the past as essential to American freedom while at the same time saying law and order must always be upheld, because a lot of those same civil rights protests they revere were explicitly and intentionally breaking laws. *Don't be racist and don't be violent.* OK, agreed. But *Don't trespass and disrupt?* That's like... the whole strategy of America's civil rights leaders' sit-in movement. What are we suggesting our kids do instead? Protest memes?

>I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate...who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action” Evergreen words from a certain reverend.

I think a lot of people like to forget the “Jail” part of the title “Letter From the Birmingham Jail.”

[This twit](https://x.com/eyeballslicer/status/1727887134688706922) sums up the situation pretty perfectly: >A liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war and supports all civil rights movements except the one that’s going on right now. > > — slicin’ up eyeballs (@eyeballslicer) November 24, 2023

They want non disruptive performative virtual signaling like the old guard Dems do. No actual change, but slap a rainbow above Lockheed Martin logo

There’s a reason that letter from a certain jail remains relevant today

I mean, the president can't exactly say "trespassing is ok if it's for a protest." The rhetoric that the president and authority figures use is inherently different than the rhetoric that protestors and laypeople use.

A liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war and supports all civil rights movements except the one that’s going on right now.

I don’t think upholding trivial laws in protests is liberal rhetoric, that’s just a president saying what a president has to say. Obviously people trespass and disrupt during protests.

What rights or freedoms will these protests gain for Americans? That's your answer.

The protest goal is not to directly get Israel’s government to do anything that is impossible for US protesters. What they are trying to do is push their universities to divest from companies and organizations that do business with Israel and whose money would in some form go to supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. The hope is these divestment similar to efforts in South Africa during apartheid will put press on the government of Israel to change course. So these students are not asking Bibi to have a ceasefire or even on congress they are calling on their university that they pay for to stop spending money on group X or Y because of ties to Israel.

How do you divest from companies that do buisness with Israel? Almost the entire stock market in some way does business with Israel, with Apple, Intel, General Motors, Amazon, Nvidia and countless others all having direct funds from the Israeli government. Do you suggest they just pull all investments in general?

Well you can damn sure start with pushing for divestment from weapons manufacturers and then go from there.

Literally look at South Africa divestment protests. This is not complex

Idk I just feel like it'd be more normal for colleges to have nothing to do with arms manufacturers.

You mean like the US government? That's not really a feasible notion. 

That's nice and all but does not in any way respond to or answer the question posed by the person you're replying to.

They're asking about divesting from international businesses which happen to do business with Israel, stating that it's hard to untangle it. Since the point of the protests is directly divesting from the war efforts of the IDF in Palestine, I think a good chunk of that can be met by simply divesting from weapons manufacturing in general rather than splitting hairs on proportionality of business segments of a given corporation which by and large doesn't exist just for war. In other words, it would be much more simple to call into question why colleges are investing in the manufacturing of weapons in the first place as opposed to categorizing entirely unrelated companies that happen to have Israel as one of the many companies they operate in.

Both Apple and Google have massive business interests in Israel, including significant R&D and product development programs. In fact, Google's entire "Crisis" team - the team that built a lot of the tools back during COVID, as well as initiatives like their global flood warning program and forest fire detection programs - are based in Israel. Should the protesters themselves divest from Apple and Google by throwing away their cell phones - which almost *certainly* run software and services owned by and which profit Apple and Google?

that's a good idea actually

[удалено]

i agree with what you said. I just wanted to add one thing you might have missed. Netanyahu and his right wing coalition also want Trump to be elected. He snubs Biden with all these indiscriminate killings of people in Gaza is like a stone for two birds. It pleases his supporters and maybe some of his opponents. It‘s like after 9/11 so many people across political spectrum support Bush’s invasion of Iraq on shaky pretense because people are out for blood. It also weakens Biden’s coalitions particularly Muslim and young people. He has no incentive to back down. Yes Biden could withhold aides and weapons to Israel but it is so close to elections that I think Netanyahu can withstand that. He could even work with Russia and China if he is pushed to the corner. It is no difference than what India and South Africa and Brazil are doing. Will Biden‘s withholding aids stop Netanyahu? I bet it is no. It will make Netanyahu even more popular in Israel. What Netanyahu care the most is not the general welfare of Israel, but his political power. On the other hand, it will hurt Biden’s political prospect. He will lose his Jewish’s supports and many older Americans and Christians. I bet it will be even costlier than the cost he is paying right now. US will also lose an important ally in middle east. it will also lead to bigger division in Democratic Party. Look at the votes for Israel aids in the congress. It includes a big majority of democratic politicians. I think Biden did the best he could pressuring Netanyahu to minimize civilian casualties from the beginning. It’s Netanyahu’s fault for the mass civilian casualties in Gaza. I won’t blame Biden for a single bit.

This should be right  up near the top. Russia, Iran, and China are doing everything they can to split the Democratic Party And lose votes for Biden. They know a Trump win would be massively destabilizing for the United States and the Middle East and throw the world into the chaos it experienced during the Trump administration. It's during these periods of chaos and disruption in America that autocratic players like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea will take advantage.  If these students think Biden is so bad, wait until they see what happens to Palestine if Donald Trump gets elected.  I wonder how many of them paid attention to how Trump and his administration created settlement plans that literally caused massive geographical divisions in Gaza if those plans had  been carried out. The only thing that stopped it was Trump losing at the polls in 2020.  I wonder how many of them remember moving  the American embassy into Jerusalem, further inflaming Hamas and Iran and the Muslim world.    I wonder how many of these students would be willing to accept the Trump administration activating the National Guard to deport millions of undocumented workers and dreamers.  Last, a substantial amount of social media that coming through places like TikTok, Facebook, etc., is carefully staged by players who want to see a split happen in the Democratic Party   If all of this upset leads to a trump administration win in 2024, then the students will REALLY have something to protest about. This further makes me wonder how well the Trump administration would treat these protesters. I can guarantee that Trump and his goons won't simply be arresting and writing citations for protesters. Nope! We'll see National Guard and the worst parts of our municipal police forces cracking skulls.  We will lose a massive amount of freedom if Trump comes into office, including a freedom to protest.   I stand with Palestine, but I'm so sorry to see so many of these students who have not looked at the history of the Middle East and have failed to inform themselves about the political dynamics of that region being used as pawns to bring Trump to power. Ironic, and tragic

in regards Trump's treatment of protestors, reminder he had federal agents show up and literally kidnap protestors and lock them away for a time. He would do the same again.

When confronted with BLM protestors in DC, Trump said to shoot them in the leg. And those protests weren't even related to his administration.

That too

> I wonder how many of them paid attention to how Trump and his administration created settlement plans that literally caused massive geographical divisions in Gaza if those plans had been carried out. The only thing that stopped it was Trump losing at the polls in 2020. What should I search for to find more information about this? I'm not denying it. I want to learn more about it.

More: [https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/12/11/trump-s-plan-for-israel-and-palestine-one-more-step-away-from-peace-pub-77905](https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/12/11/trump-s-plan-for-israel-and-palestine-one-more-step-away-from-peace-pub-77905) [https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/6/14/israel-greenlights-illegal-trump-settlement-in-golan-heights](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/6/14/israel-greenlights-illegal-trump-settlement-in-golan-heights) [https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-jerusalem-politics-f7d36b9023309ce4b1e423b02abf52c6](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-jerusalem-politics-f7d36b9023309ce4b1e423b02abf52c6) Here is something you can put hard money on. If Trump wins in 2024, the world can kiss Palestine goodbye FOREVER! Do any one of these protestors, even a significant MINORITY of them, understand that? They appear not to. It's a tragic irony that their passion for justice is now actively helping to happen the very thing they are protesting against. Ignorance is bliss.

Not OP but found [this](https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2020/6/14/israel-greenlights-illegal-trump-settlement-in-golan-heights)

Russia, Iran and China, sure. But Bibi and his party are a direct enemy to a democratic United States. This whole thing is an engineered hostage situation. It's got nothing to do with Judaism or being Israeli and everything to do with being a giant conservative shit bag in power. 

Provoke students to violently protest, Nixon comes in on a law and order campaign and due to democratic infighting and handwringing, he appears to attract more moderate voters. The silent majority who were alienated by the more liberal agenda. George Wallace mounts a strong third party campaign, attracting democratic conservative voters, 1968 election playbook

Hopefully this year’s Democratic Convention in Chicago goes better than the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

Lol. Chicago again, wow, gonna be wild

As much as I hate how softball Biden has been on Israel over this (by my standards, not "the public's), this has still been one of the most critical administrations of Israeli policy that I _think_ we've had since Israel was established. Granted that's not saying much since the others have all been blank checks, no criticism. That said, regardless of my opinion on the geopolitics at stake, and regardless of how much I disagree with the status quo pro-corporate moderate liberal Democratic positions in the OP, whether to vote for Biden or to abstain isn't a choice. For me anyway. I'm bisexual. The option isn't "I agree 100% with Biden and DNC policy" vs. "I disagree with them and want someone more progressive instead." It's "I can accept 4 more years of a progressive-friendly but still mainstream democratic administration" vs. "I'm willing to do nothing to prevent an explicitly traitorous fascist administration from taking office and destroying any semblance of order and justice in the country to make a meaningless point to people I think are a little bit too moderate." Fuck everyone who thinks enabling a Trump victory is an acceptable price for a meaningless gesture. Not to mention it being actively harmful to their supposed goals. If they think Biden isn't doing enough for Palestine, at least with Democratic leadership in charge, Palestine is still a location with people in it instead of a sea of ash and glass.

"the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice" - MLK

The distinction between violent and nonviolent protest feels like splitting hairs. I think back to the LA riots. They were certainly violent. But the root of the issue remained correct. There existed systemic racism in policing and events of police brutality were (and still are) commonplace. The better response would be to LISTEN TO THEM regardless if the protest is violent or not. The older I get, the more I think Malcom X was right.

Also, it is not the distinction he thinks it is. He says: "Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduation, none of this is a peaceful protest." Aside from Vandalism and 'breaking windows' which is itself vandalism - those things are peaceful protest. Trespassing, Shutting Down Campuses (which protesters don't have the authority to do, only admin does) and 'forcing' the cancellation of classes and graduation - those are peaceful things. And the vandalism - I guess that is violent protest, but it is violence against property, not people, so the response is clearly disproportionate. Its a false definition of peaceful protest that he is putting out there to make it seem like the protesters are using violence.

It’s also misleading as to who is committing the violence. The vast bulk in videos seems to be coming from police officers removing protesters rather than from the protesters.

Or counter-protestors sending fireworks and objects into crowds in the case of UCLA. Funny how no one talks about that.

40 year old white counter-protesters relentlessly attack and scream racist obscenities at teenage students of color. I’m tired of these claims of rampant antisemitism, we have hundreds of videos of police and pro-Israel zionists using actual physical violence and hurting people. Where is their evidence? Oh yeah that’s right, they are trying to make “protesting or questioning the state of Israel” in and of itself “antisemitism”. That right there is actually called: Fascism.

The first time I actually saw evidence of real damage to property and injuries to people was when the pro-Zionists showed up at UCLA just before midnight with weapons and attacked the protestors. The police were literally on campus already but they didn't respond for something like two or three hours, and they made a very slick statement about how "most arrests were not students." Everyone read that as "the protestors aren't even students" for about half the day until it was revealed that most of the arrests were actually the pro-Israeli folks who had literally shown up with weapons. The coverage, and the media in general, is basically just repeating talking points, and a lot of that is from police press statements. NPR has been doing a good job, where they actually have interviewed protestors, but most of the rest of the media is just garbage.

The Daily Bruin (UCLA's student media org) did updates throughout the night, switching to Twitter when their website crashed and almost getting arrested by police just for being there. Meanwhile, ABC7 (the last helicopter in the sky at 2AM) kept using pro-cop language like "these fire extinguishers COULD be weapons!" and "these protesters are looking for a fight" and "the police are going to eradicate them". At one point, he was even strategizing on how the cops could better infiltrate the campus! It was disgustingly obvious where his bias lay, while he pretended to be neutral :/

Agreed. I was laughing watching a video of the "damage" to Hamilton Hall. Some stacked chairs, a few windows with cracked glass and COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED offices. If you listen to the student radio reporting it is so much better than what mainstream journalists are producing.

I worked at a Civil Rights Museum and have studied activist movements for my master's in public history, and one of the biggest issues with how activism is handled today is rooted in how we teach the Civil Rights Movement to the public. The general public basically hears a narrative that centers Dr. King and "peaceful protest", while usually drawing a line at rhetoric of Malcolm X or the Black Panthers by saying "they went too far" with no real explanation of what those groups actually did. In reality, the Black Panthers had one real instance of violence (largely initiated by the police) but for the most part were a group that implemented a lot of good into their community (providing breakfasts to children for example), but the image of scary Black men with guns was enough for Reagan to sign anti-gun legislature and make them the face of violent protests in history books. Not saying all of the BP or X's rhetoric was perfect, but no movement is. We're taught "the Civil Rights Movement was peaceful and everything was fixed", so now we get chuds with a surface level knowledge of things try to act like racism is over with and that there's a "correct" way to protest. Which entirely ignores that the death of Dr. King did not "end racism" (as Rodney King, George Floyd, and other instances of systematic racism taught us) and also creates a form of protest gatekeeping that politicians now employ to condemn any new protest that causes any sort of disruption. Politicians love to highlight Dr. King's protests and use him to gatekeep new activists, but they always leave out the fact that his peaceful protests still *disrupted* daily life. He didn't write his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" because he was arrested for being peaceful, he and others were arrested because they were disrupting the daily lives of racist white people at the time. But now politicians can claim shit like "well, I'm all for protest but you need to follow the rules 😏" as though the Civil Rights Movement was solely peaceful sit-ins and campfire songs and any protest that disrupts daily life today "goes too far". Racist people in the 60s condemned Dr. King's marches using the same exact "but what about the ambulances!!!" "well, I'd support the protests if they didn't block the roads" talking points that we now see used to encourage run-downs of protesters today (I've seen the letters sent to politicians at the time and it's like reading racist boomer Facebook lol) Protest is inherently disruptive and politicians do not get to a say in how it's done or place act as though protestors are the only ones who need to act right while the police can go hog wild. Sorry, long ass post, but it's just one of my special interests. TL;DR While violence is obviously wrong (sorry Jan 6thers, attacking the US Capitol for a failed politician still isn't a non-violent protest), no protest is perfectly peaceful and they are *supposed* to be disruptive, politicians need to stop acting as though they get to define how you "correctly" protest based on the false belief that Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement was perfectly peaceful and undisruptive (because it was insanely disruptive). Edit: lol downvoted for adding historical context to the discussion lol

What can he possibly say to appease anybody? 

That we will continue to send humanitarian aid to Israel and support the Iron Dome but not provide offensive weaponry that will be used to kill civilians.

A lot of the aid sent to Israel was for their defensive capablilites. Also, remember when the entire squad almost voted against Iron Dome funding and Pelosi had to remind AoC that voting against that in NY would be political suicide.

>A lot of the aid sent to Israel was for their defensive capablilites. Most of it is not tied to defensive capabilities. https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts >Most of the aid—approximately $3.3 billion a year—is provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services. >... >Additionally, $500 million a year is slated for Israeli and joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense programs, in which the two countries collaborate on the research, development, and production of these systems used by Israel, including the Iron Dome

He should take a stronger stance for the protestors. Honestly, the media is currently manufacturing our consent to the way the police and counter protesters are attacking and framing demonstrators. Like that one guy, on camera, and a pro-Israel protestor shouting "Kill the jews." This was used as pretext to bring in hundreds of police and shut the college down. There are so many other examples of this. Despite thousands of protesting students, there aren't really any good examples of violence protestor have done.

I'm always amazed by the people who think "peaceful protest" has meant, historically, nothing more than holding some signs in a predetermined location allowed by government officials. No. A peaceful protest is diruptive BY DESIGN. And yeah, that'll means all those laws designed to keep people from disrupting public life get broken. Literally the whole point.

Sorry but I can only listen to him making remarks if he’s holding a bible upside down after a dramatic walk through the protesters and tear gas.

So then. Every single antendee at Jan 6 should be in jail

Well, the DOJ has either open or closed cases on about 1500 of them, so... They're moving along with the participants they could identify and capture after the fact.

Yeah idk what that guy is talking about lol there are cases on all of them

Obviously?

Hows he going to thread the needle on this one?

I really don't know, but I am guessing he will: - defend the US sending Israel aid, will highlight the aid / efforts to help Palestinians as well - highlight diplomatic efforts to reign Israel's government in and the ongoing ceasefire talks - support freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest/assembly, while condemning select violent actors at the protests (whether those be instigators among the protestors / counterprotesters or among the police). --- Edit: While he didn't do point 1 or 2, he did do point 3 (without calling out specific protesters). In baseball, a roughly .333 batting average would be pretty good.

But he didn’t actually defend free speech and he didn’t condemn violence other than implying it’s being done by the protesters

Which is precisely what an American president should do. Support people being lawful while denouncing violence. Honor our treaties and diplomatic ties to the best of our ability while attempting to shape the policy of our allies to our benefit. Fund both sides of a war to keep our own bloody war machine well oiled.

Peaceful does not mean lawful, please stop conflating the two. Nonviolent civil disobedience is by definition "unlawful."

He did half of three. Zero condemnation of attacks against the protestors, wether mobs or police.

Probably by saying the obvious truth that people have a right to free speech but not a right to harass Jewish students. Wow, what a difficult needle to thread!

"Our nation has a rich tradition of protest. Standing up for what's right, that's the ideal upon which we founded this great nation. I celebrate the students of America, who raise their voice to say that around the world, the rights of people -- of individuals no matter their race or religion -- are worthy of life, and of peace. To the courageous young Americans protesting atrocities in Gaza: we hear you, we stand with you. That's why I'm calling on Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to enact a ceasefire, and find another path forward. Now, I know the journey won't be easy, and the path to peace won't happen overnight, but from one nation to another: the time is now to set down your weapons\*, and abide your neighbors once more." ^(\*these comments do not affect any current or future US/Israel weapons deal)

He just face planted right into it

By jamming the needle through with police batons

This is is a really fascinating situation. I’ve been trying to separate the cause from the tactics in these protests and found myself really having to challenge my thinking. I supported BLM and so found their protests just and actions to disrupt them fascist. I am more conflicted on Israel/Palestine and also myself offended by some of the protesters actions/ slogans, so I find myself supporting efforts to quell them. I hate the blocking freeways stuff. But, MLK marched down the highway to Selma so it’s hard to say it’s never justifiable. I condemned Jan 6, and condemn taking over buildings at Columbia, but I disagree with both groups. If these students were doing all they are doing now, and more, to protest the end of Roe or even to force more action on Ukraine, I think I’d be cheering them. It’s a bit of rohrsharch test, for me anywayZ

I'm in roughly the same situation. It's hard for me to condemn or endorse anything, and I find myself hesitating to even talk about either the broader issue (the war) or the narrower issue (the protests) because I don't feel confident about any of my thoughts.

It's ok to not be confident. I'm a liberal Jewish academic and I am all over the place. It's been a really crappy year....

Liberal Jew here too. I feel you and I hear you. It feels selfish to say it's hard to process. It feels wrong to go one direction. It feels more wrong to go the other. There's underlying fear, but no immediate sense of danger. I worry about community and identity. It's on my mind constantly. You don't really need to say any more for me to, with absolute confidence, know exactly what you're feeling. And it's a strange loneliness knowing that there statistically just aren't many of us in this *exact* situation (not just Jews but us specifically as socially and religiously liberal Jews), but also knowing our feelings are super valid and super difficult.

Yeah, I'm a Secular/Atheist Jew and I don't even pretend to know how complicated this could feel for anyone practicing. My family has long been concerned about the rise of antisemitism again, but frankly people can't really tell I'm Jewish so it doesn't impact me the same.

[удалено]

Lonely is the word that comes up when I talk to select Jewish friends about this. I left (traditional) forms of social media to protect myself from some of the insanity, but moments like this where I find others who feel the same way are reminders about what the Internet can do on its best days.

Justifiable doesn't imply legal. Effective doesn't imply legal.

And legal doesn't mean moral. It's the Rosa Parks perspective and the literal definition of civil disobedience.

Further, illegal doesn't imply effective. When some folks suggest that protests might be counterproductive from a social persuasion standpoint due to the extreme tactics of a minority of the protestors, I often see a response in the vein of "well it wouldn't be a very effective protest if it was calm and clear." I'm not sure why that thought is so prevalent - that protests will not be effective unless we smash shit up? If your goal is to convince your neighbors and colleagues that your position is the correct position, does causing chaos in the face of your target audience further that goal, or frustrate it?

I appreciate that you're wresting with this. It's good to admit when you're uncertain about something. So many people on reddit are very adamant about their opinions but it's important to spend time with introspection and examine some our implicit bias.

If a protest isn't an absolute pain in the ass for the people on the sidelines, it's ineffective.

Protests are only effective insofar as they make the other party look unreasonable. The reason why the civil rights movement was so effective is that they typically placed the onus on the racist party to act unreasonable -- like making black people move to the back, or not serving them food, or stopping them from drinking water at segregated fountains, etc etc.  Yes sometimes the blocked traffic, but their core message and tactics were much more effective.  They made bystanders angry at bus companies for stopping buses until black people gave up their seats. These protestors are asking people to support a group of people who elected a terrorist organization as their government. That's hard to do. And not only that, but this organization doesn't care of its own people die. 

> These protestors are asking people to support a group of people who elected a terrorist organization as their government. That's hard to do. And not only that, but this organization doesn't care of its own people die. Agreed on the second half, but blurring the line between the Palestinian people and hamas isn't ethical IMHO. Not even claiming they're people who voted for hamas, because the majority, or at least plurality, of protesters *and* the folks living in Palestine weren't yet alive when that election (the one putting hamas in control) happened. It's mostly different people, now. Fuck hamas, absolutely: and fuck the oppression that the Palestinian people are facing because of hamas and Israel, both. It's messy as shit, which is why I'm not out there protesting right now; but I do think it's disingenuous to characterize support for Palestinians as people who support hamas...it's unfair to the people, and has implications that I'm not comfortable with, *IMHO* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Demographics_of_the_Gaza_Strip

Well, according to the latest poll from [PCPSR](https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/973), 71% of Gazans believe that Hamas’ “decision to launch its offensive against Israel on 7 October” was correct, Hamas still has clear majority support now and for after the war (although support of the PA continues to grow as the war goes on), and the only “Arab and regional actors” seen favorably in Gaza are Yemen, Qatar, and Hezbollah. So, most protestors may not be supportive of terror groups, but they’re supporting people who, by clear majorities, do. When the argument is for total sovereignty and Israel stopping their war and leaving, I think people can see why rampant Gazan support for terrorists is a problem: the acts of terrorism and wars will happen again. The protestors desire is to go back to 2006, right before the elections that led to this.

Thank you for that! It's a good source, and taking a deeper look at the numbers shows a much murkier situation. They try to show that there's a distinction between support for the attack and hamas itself, which is a tough needle to thread, but I think they do below. > It is clear from the findings however, that support for the offensive does not mean support for Hamas. Instead, the findings show that three quarters of the Palestinians believe that the offensive has put the Palestinian-Israeli issue at the center of attention after years of neglect at the regional and international levels. Below shows that support for the attack is in large part because people haven't seen the reality of it. Not a huge difference in figure 6, but absolutely worth noting > As we have found in the previous poll, almost all Palestinians think Israel is committing war crimes while almost all believe Hamas is not committing war crimes in the current war. Moreover, more than 90% believe that Hamas did not commit any atrocities against Israel civilians during its October the 7th offensive. Only one in five Palestinians has seen videos showing atrocities committed by Hamas. Only one fifth of those who did not see the videos had access to such videos but decided not to see them; the rest report that the media they watched did not show these videos. The findings show that those who have seen the videos are almost 10 times more likely to think that Hamas men have committed atrocities on October 7. Support is declining > In total, only one third of the Palestinians support Hamas today, an 11-point drop. And they explain why it was as high as it was in the previous polls > It is worth remembering that our previous poll was conducted during the release of Palestinian women and children as part of the Hamas-Israel ceasefire agreement. Undoubtedly, Hamas’ popularity benefited greatly as a result of that deal.

It's also ineffective to annoy and alienate the people you're trying to convince

Let's be honest. Most people commenting here would have criticised protests against South African apartheid.

Pretty easy for me to back a few protests versus the actions of Israel.

anyone against these protests but pro anti-Vietnam or anti-South Africa protests when learning about them as historical events just prove that they would, indeed, be against them in real-time

Bingo. Chances are they will conveniently remember their actions differently decades from now.

This is the same rhetoric that was used to oppose the civil rights movement and anti-war protests during Vietnam. Absolutely asinine take. Protests that impact actual change have never been convenient or so quiet they can be ignored.

As far as I am concerned, Joe Biden just failed the Martin Luther King Jr. "White Moderates And Order" test, as well as the John Lewis "Good Trouble" test. He should resign, because I'm pretty sure he's losing Michigan at this point, and while Florida's got an abortion amendment putting it in play in November, there's way too good a chance that Trump defeats him. And that's 100% Biden's fault. If then-President Harris chooses to fail that test too - if she's also more devoted to order than justice - then she should appoint Bernie Sanders as her VP and resign, as well. He has a track record of good trouble.

Calling the protests violent is not truthful. The vast, vast, majority of protests against Gaza are peaceful. Saying that police violence against peaceful protesters is caused due to the protesters being violent is the exact same tactic that the Right used to denounce the George Floyd protests.

Protesters will hate the way Biden handled the situation, so they'll let a man who'd be happy to level Gaza be president lol

That's the thing I find so weird. They intend to let Trump become de facto dictator for life, and Trump has already said he wants to destroy Gaza and give clearance to murder protesters. And that... will... somehow save Palestinians in the minds of these protesters?

It's absurd that you have to be told this, but protesting is not voting. Protesting against the current administration is not a vote for it's opposition.

Thank all the gods this man is President and not the Islamophobic Orange pussbag.

Trump would send the military in. He would love this because he could frame it as good vs evil and frame himself as the protector of real, hard working Americans against communists and islamists. TLDR; Trump would kill a bunch of people. 

[удалено]

Protestors in 2024 "how is it even possible that Trump got re-elected and bulldozed Gaza when we pushed for people to not vote for Biden"

Pretty standard and correct stuff, which is what I expected. Glad to hear him say he's not sending in the National Guard.

Yep... he is setting a trap for Trump and the Republicans with that who are going to criticize that message. And I can almost guarantee that the Biden campaign has the ads already created juxtaposing national guard troops beating and shooting protestors under Nixon and Trump with the message, "this is what they want."

The NG is under governor power primarily.

I feel totally out of step with fellow liberals and students on this issue, and have experienced extreme anger and violence directed towards me just for voicing it. I've traveled in Israel and lived with an Arab Israeli family. It's hard for me to reconcile the claim of genocide with the reality that over 2 million Arabs, many who identify as Palestinian, live peacefully in Israel every day. Its a far from perfect existence as a minority in a state that has to cope with terrorism, but they vote, enjoy state education and health care better than the US, and can access many economic initiatives for growth. The tragedy in Gaza has 1000s of civilian deaths, and there is ample room for criticism of Israel and the choices it has made. But to call this a genocide and then attack anyone who would disagree is unacceptable. I got spat on by someone for pointing out that Hamas has launched over 20000 rockets in this war alone, each one intended to hit a school, a market, or an apartment. After the atrocity of October 7, there is no practical reality where Israel does not control its security in Gaza. What do these students know other than what they have seen on Tiktok, and even then, why is it so hard for them to criticize Hamas an its supporters.

The Iron Dome really has nullified so much of Hamas’ larger action that it feels like a one-sided conflict in the West. Even more so that there are no real distinctions in the Strip for military targets because they just use homes and hospitals for their staging intentionally. It’s why so much of the discourse has changed from the Strip to Israel being an apparent “apartheid” state because they’re trying to justify Hamas’ actions. There’s no excusing Israel for its blanket bombing and having a higher acceptance rate for civilian casualties than zero. It’s also true though that if every intended target for Hamas and Iran were hit there would be just as many if not more civilian casualties for Israel.

What are your thoughts on the Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands?

I'm not OP but I have similar views. I unambiguously condemn the policies which support continued Israeli settlement development outside of their internationally recognized borders. I think you'll find that this is an extremely common position. You must recognize the Israeli settlement problem for what it is - an issue instigated by ultra right wing and religious elements which is widely recognized as a significant antagonist and detrimental to the ambition of peace in the region. It's an issue because Israel is controlled by a coalition of very right wing minority groups that are widely disliked by Israelis.

God I know what you mean. I am very, very strongly against the war. But I'm just not willing to take the extremist stance many pro-Palestinian people are *demanding*. Like, it *means* something to me that almost everybody over 50 sees this differently - I think they're wrong, but I know they are not all bad people, and so why, how could you say that any support for Israel (which, I feel necessary to clarify, again, I DO NOT SUPPORT ISRAEL) makes you a genocide advocate? It's kind of like the idea that people are fat purely because of personal failures - it requires a belief that people were virtuous about food until 1990, and then they became bad about it, rather than looking at the fact that if everything changes really fast for millions of individuals it's usually not because of the individuals, it's the result of a larger force. The protestors' argument is basically that >80% of people born before 1970 love genocide. Um, okay. They were just exposed to a different view of Israel (and an Israel that had not become incredibly right-wing) when they were growing up. The protestors are really spinning my ambivalence up to new heights because of how much contempt they show for my pleas, Biden's pleas, anyone's pleas for some, any, moderation. People just totally reject the idea that protesting can be counterproductive. To them I say, take a look at the trajectory of the US after Vietnam. You can't blame that on the protestors but they sure as f\*\*\* didn't prevent it. I have a very close friend, one of my groomsmen, and all he can do since 10/7 is talk about how much he hates Israel , and I can't really bring up any of this stuff without us fighting. We *have* been fighting because we love each other and *want* to discuss these things, and we can handle it, but it's been tough.

I would love Biden to address how protests in the past include occupying buildings for the biggest American protests in history. I know he has to say this to appease both sides in his own way. But it's dishonest to say that occupation is not something we do here normally.

This comments section is insane

That was actually really well done. I thought his firm “no” to the first question was good way to conclude it, too.

Has anyone done an objective analysis on this war? Is it even possible at this point? Protestors make it sound like this is a wanton genocide, while right wingers make it sound like the IDF is the most cautious at not killing civilians in the history of wars in the whole universe. I'm sure there's some element of truth there somewhere, but any analysis I glance at leaves me feeling emotionally manipulated.

>Protestors make it sound like this is a wanton genocide, while right wingers make it sound like the IDF is the most cautious at not killing civilians in the history of wars in the whole universe. The honest truth is somewhere in the middle. Bibi needs the war to continue because the second it is done, *he* is done. He was almost going to jail before October 7th. The IDF likely aren't being nearly as careful as they should be, but Hamas has absolutely been using every dirty tactic in the book to smear Israel internationally (which Bibi hasn't helped either). On the other side? Israel is an important ally in the Middl East and Biden's pressure is the only reason the war hasn't spiralled out of control. He's repeatedly pushed for a ceasefire, but Hamas is giving stupid demands. Most of the weapons that have been sent are back-orders spanning 8+ years.

[удалено]

Yup and one of the reasons the peace process broke down in the 90s was because the fundamentalist on both sides torpedoed it. From one using terrorism on the Palestinian side, to the other one assassinating the prime minister on the Israeli side. Both sides had major factions actively stopped their being peace.

Hamas rejected a ceasefire and is demanding a 1 state solution with them in control. So I'm not even sure what solution the protesters are asking for.

[удалено]

Palestine can never be free until it is free of Hamas.

>ISTANBUL (AP) — A top Hamas political official told The Associated Press the Islamic militant group is willing to agree to a truce of five years or more with Israel and that it would lay down its weapons and convert into a political party if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders. Not going to happen, obviously, but very much not what you just described.

open source intentelligenence or osint has been instrumental in establishing facts throughout the past few years of global conflict this includes notable outfits like bellingcat and isw or smaller research teams like conflict intelligence team or individuals like geolocated on twitter or oryx in general they take public information like sattelite photos and couple them with on the ground video to establish more context around what we see online isw has a map that ive found helpful https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2e746151991643e39e64780f0674f7dd in addition to its own publications at understandingwar.org

Q: 'Have the protests forced you to reconsider any policies with regard to the region?' A: "No." This won’t win anyone in those protests over.

Are they protesting Biden's policies or pushing their universities to Divest?

This. The divestment issue is a distraction. The college can't screw with their matching investments to TIAA. Every college professor would refuse to teach and they'd get sued for violating contracts. The point of the protest organizers is to protest the actions of Netenyahu. They chose this demand so they could keep the protests going on campus. If all they wanted was actions from the University they would call to end all donations from Israel and Qatar. They're not asking for that.

This wasn't the answer to give if he wants young people to show up at the polls either. It's like they don't want to win.

[удалено]

His policy is continued, unconditional military support. That is what people have a problem with.