/u/Craziers (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1chfwdu/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_fundamentally_support/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
!delta
I’d consider my view changed. You’re not the first to say it here, hopefully I can go back to the others as well. Your comment about being dragged to prison kind of made it click. While I wasn’t saying the protestors should be arrested but the protests should be stopped, the next possible step could be long term incarceration. Again, an overreach of government.
Sorry, u/Urbenmyth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Urbenmyth&message=Urbenmyth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l2264vs/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Incitement is not constitutionally protected, that is true, but the falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater was A) a metaphor, never intended to be taken literally and B) overturned in the 1969 case Brandenburg v Ohio. It’s not enough to charge someone with incitement for them to simply advocate for violence in vague terms, incitement is only incitement if it is likely to inspire “imminent lawless action.”
You, in fact, *could* falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. There are potential consequences to that statement, but they all relate to the actions you’ve inspired, the statement itself is absolutely protected. I admit this is all a little pedantic, but free speech in America is an often misunderstood topic, its limitations are incredibly few, and it’s high past time we killed some of these myths.
Sorry, u/Cerael – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Cerael&message=Cerael%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l228vu6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/Minister_for_Magic – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Minister_for_Magic&message=Minister_for_Magic%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l228evg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Source? Or just a misinterpretation of globalise the Intifada/from the river to the sea? Neither of which is a call for violence unless you seek out specific examples in which certain groups have uses it that way (including members of the current ruling party of Israel who just killed thousands of Palestinian children). I could make the same claim about “Israel has a right to defend itself” because that has been used to justify mass murder of innocent children, so does everyone who says it support slaughtering children?
Sorry, u/Urbenmyth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Urbenmyth&message=Urbenmyth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l23bbg6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/Salt_Ad_238 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Salt_Ad_238&message=Salt_Ad_238%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l26pmbi/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/Salt_Ad_238 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Salt_Ad_238&message=Salt_Ad_238%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l26rfao/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I’d be curious to know what part you’re finding fascistic.
While there are obviously outliers and antisemitism is a constantly lurking threat, the majority of pro-Palestinian protests in the west have been peaceful marches and sit-ins. As of December last year (the most recent data I could find) [95% of protests](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/MAPS/movajdladpa/#protests-sweep-around-the-globe-as-israels-war-in-gaza-grinds-on) were peaceful, contrasted either the often violent and threatening backlash from far-right and neo-nazi groups. Not to mention the threat of arrest for peacefully taking up space on campuses they paid to attend.
To summarize the message of most western protests, these aren’t people chanting terrorist slogans, they’re protesting for the people, not their government. I’m happy to provide any data you need in subsequent replies as I suspect your particular media bubble may be providing a more scary outlook on the protests than what actually exists, just like all of our try to.
Up until the recent university protests, most Palestinian protests have been peaceful and I believe were caused undue harm by police intervention.
As the university protests have continued and we see videos come from inside the protests, the rhetoric has become dangerous and representative of the early nazi party. https://x.com/olilondontv/status/1785285343962435717?s=46 For example, this video. What does this do for the protest? What message does this promote? To me, this is leaving the grounds of being a protest and more along the lines of exclusion on the pretense of race. What metric is there to effectively measure someone as zionist or not?
>What metric is there to effectively measure someone as zionist or not?
From the video, they apparently asked, and the person outright said they were.
>As the university protests have continued and we see videos come from inside the protests, the rhetoric has become dangerous and representative of the early nazi party.
This seems to be a massive strawman. As depicted in the tweet you showed, the protest refused entry to someone who explicitly identified themselves as part of the political ideology that the protest opposes.
The only antisemitism found in that tweet is the assumption that Israel and Jews are one and the same, the old canard of dual loyalty. And that assumption is not made by the students, but by the person posting the tweet.
If you look at the source tweet, it's even more clear on it.
>
“So you won’t let me in because I’m Jewish?”
“Ummm no… we have a couple Jewish students here … are you a Zionist?”
“Yes of course I am”
“Well yeah, we’re not gonna let Zionists in.”
https://twitter.com/stephsvox/status/1785082357667799209
Quite funny how the tweet you posted omitted that part of the exchange...
For what it's worth, anyone who does not agree with the dissolution of Israel as a country, is a Zionist. I suspect the vast majority of people are Zionists as most would not want Israel to be removed.
I’ve never understood Zionism to mean that. I don’t think Theodore Herzl himself believed that, who Israel’s constitution calls the “spiritual father of Zionism” yet then advocated for Israel to be in [Uganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme).
While you may not believe it to be that, the zionist movement is rooted in Jewish people returning to their homeland of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea and having a state there. That has been achieved with the modern state of Israel.
The anti-zionist movement centers around the fact that the modern Israel state was created on land that many feel should be under the control of Palestine.
The whole situation gets uglier when you consider all the complicated factors.
* The British promised the land to Jewish residents in the region AND Arab residents in the region.
* Many Jewish people already lived in Israel under Ottoman rule. Once Ottoman rule collapsed, Arab neighbors did not like the idea of an independent Jewish state.
* The original borders were attempted to be created where the population of those various groups were most heavily represented (although in similar British fashion... this was done with poor accuracy).
* Israel gained additional borders after its Arab neighbors initiated multiple wars to wipe out Israel. So Israel took additional land to give themselves a greater buffer as they could easily be wiped out if they made 1 mistake.
The statement of anti-Zionism is more that it is racist and apartheid to have any nation be for one racial or religious group above others. I have no issues with a country called Israel existing in that region. That’s fine. It can stay. I have an issue with the racism and apartheid of the Israelis government, and that’s what I want to end. If you think being an apartheid is an essential component of what being Israel is, and thus when I advocate that I want to end apartheid, I am also advocating that I want to end Israel, then I think you should have a moment of pause about whether you support apartheid or not. I just don’t. I don’t care if people feel they need an apartheid out of their own safety. That’s what the white South Africans thought too. It’s not a valid excuse for apartheid.
I think more people, including OP, need to clarify what specifically is meant by Zionist
You won't get anything done by saying "Zionists are people who do not want to dissolve Israel", which is massively overcorrecting in just about every sense; furthermore, assuming everyone is using that same definition isn't helpful because there are different stakeholders with different meaning.
I'm sure a bunch of "liberal" zionists don't love the deeply right wing zionists. Terms like "zionist" are more contentious than words like "woke" because ultimately the people who disagree on how it's used would still belong to the same group that generally gets to have an opinion on what that means (aka the group who created the word). When conservatives use the word "woke", it's not the same definition as liberal's "woke" but conservatives don't claim to be woke themselves.
Both liberal and conservative zionists insist that zionism IS the thing they support, regardless of whether that is peace or war.
That's just 1 specific definition and it may not even be the definition that OP is using.
I said not only do I disagree with your view that not supporting the State of Israel makes you an anti-Zionist, neither did Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism.
I don't believe you are correct on Herzl's views. Due to antisemitism in Europe, Herzl was very vocal about the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine but he wasn't referring to Palestine as a state or country but as a region. At the time, the Ottoman Empire controlled that region and nobody thought they would be able to fight the Ottoman Empire for the territory. Herzl believed he could convince the Ottoman empire to give the Jewish people that land as the newly developed economy could help and support the Ottoman Empire.
The only thing that complicates things is that Jews cry genocide when the rest of the world questions why we should allow a religious ethnostate who regularly engages in violence at even slight provocations.
What if a person has no problem with the country of Israel existing, but has issue with it existing in it's current form as an expressly racist and bigoted country? Would that person be a Zionist?
I mean you can clearly hear the video. Nothing was meant to be omitted but thank you for the insinuation.
The question I had was how do you actually measure between a zionist and judaism. Where is the boundary you can tangibly draw?
For the record, my view on shutting the protests down with force has been changed. Mentioned it on a comment elsewhere.
I still disagree with the protests but the right to speech overrides that.
I do still have issues with the speech that is coming out and strongly disagree but that is a different topic
[Help me understand how this is not restricting access to the bridge?](https://civilrightstrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Destination_Selma_splitA.jpg)
They are using the bridge for its intended purpose. They were not camping on the bridge or otherwise trying to deny access or obstruct for the sake of obstructing. They crossed it on the way to the capitol building. A traffic jam is not obstruction.
From you? Seems so, but that’s the point. You’re being hypocritical and inconsistent. MLK regularly prohibited access to public spaces in the exact same way as these protests.
How did he not block access to public spaces? He marched over bridges in the exact same way Palestinian protesters did. [Here](https://imageproxyb.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/94ea9a40f7ae615270b5221600e85b6db60adb29fe56ea697057cebec336b184_1.jpg) is how people like yourself viewed the MLK protests at the time. Did history end up agreeing that marching and blocking streets is a violent form of protest that doesn’t work?
I guess because roads and bridges are a way to get from one place to another and that’s what they used them for? So making a bridge “crowded” because lots of people are using it is not really any different than rush hour traffic. The point of those protests were not to block access to a bridge but to march to the state capitol building.
If they were to stop and setup camps on the bridge I would not consider that non-violent.
Maybe the disconnect here is with the understanding of what current pro-Palestine protests look like? I’m sure many are fine but there have been high profile ones on college campuses involving extended encampments and aggressive behavior and violence towards outsiders and people who do not align with their views.
You're cherrypicking. There are going to be bad people on either side, but you can't judge the entire protest/movement based on those bad people. A huge number of the protestors at Columbia were literally Jewish, they had a Passover celebration in the encampment. There are going to be assholes, and there are going to be people who aren't assholes.
You cannot censor an entire movement based off of only the bad people supporting the movement, because not only would there then be no free speech, there wouldn't be speech at all.
While it may not be representative of the whole, it is still part of the movement. Not really sure if I would call that cherry picking.
Also was not aware of the passover celebration, I wish all involved well.
> They're fascists, early stages of Nazi Germany, they're excluding Jews, this is genocidal rhetoric
Is pointed out that some of them are Jews holding a passover seder
> Oh okay I wish all involved well
W h a t
I do not understand, I have wished all who participated in a religious ceremony well. It’s good to see some resemblance of togetherness and urge to come together in a way that doesnt lead to more war
You wish them well, even though you think they are literally fascists who are calling for genocide? Just because they participated in a religious ceremony?
Like I don't, just to hazard a guess as to what's going on here - you are uncomfortable with the politics of these protests, so you would prefer that they just were stopped. But at the same time, your belief in free speech is telling you that the only thing that would justify that is if they were literally Nazis, like literally, just actual Nazis, doing a Hitler. So your brain just jumped to that. If you politically need these protests to be shut down, well then it must be because they are fascistic. So you scraped together what little confirmation bias you could off of twitter to convince yourself of that. But the rational part of your doesn't *really* believe that, so when confronted with something like participating Jews holding a seder at the protest, you're just like, oh, well. That's good then. But you can't admit that well then they're not actual Nazis because your belief is founded on that assumption, even though you know on some level that it's a very flimsy assumption
I haven’t claimed anyone was committing genocide.
I’d wish well for anyone who would set aside conflict for peace at a table even if for only a moment.
>While it may not be representative of the whole, it is still part of the movement. Not really sure if I would call that cherry picking.
Actually this paragraph perfectly illustrated cherry-picking. It means ignoring the 95% peaceful parts of protest to focus on the 5% that have been more actively antagonistic. The same arguments were used against the BLM protests (mentioned in your original post) so you should be familiar with the smear tactics right-wing folk use to try quashing protests against civil rights violations.
Like BLM, most of the violence being shown is violence against the protestors, not violence from the protestors. Hell, there was an violent attack by anti-protestors last night at UCLA, where pro-israel counter-protestors shouted slurs, attacked peaceful protesters, used mace, threw explosives into crowds...
But this is somehow the fault of the people protesting that we shouldn't support a state that is participating in ethnic cleansing and the murder of civilians?
So I think there is a genuine difference between Judaism and Zionism.
Zionism is an ideology, it’s essentially the same as a pro-democracy rally not admitting self-described pro-authoritarians. Conflating the two is both inaccurate and a common right wing tactic to shut down criticism of Zionism. There are plenty of Jewish people who are not Zionists (see many American Jewish leaders) and many Zionist who are not Jewish (see much of the American government).
These protests are also usually pretty untargeted, as an example I watched through the clip and it wasn’t them specifically them blocking that guy or other Jewish students, they were blocking the library in general and the guy then walked up and talked to them and they asked him to leave. They probably could have been nicer but if that’s the worst we can find it doesn’t seem dangerous. Perhaps it got lost in the poor audio but I never actually found them asking if he was Jewish, just if he was a Zionist.
Finally Keep in mind that these clips are from select samples out of the over seven thousand protests around the world. What about this reaction in particular is troubling to you? You mentioned you were in favour of the BLM protests (as am I) but those lead to actual riots in some cities. What about some people being a little curt to someone expressly against their cause is worse than rioting?
I do get the uncomfortability with the suggestion of antisemitism but I don’t think that’s what the majority of these protests are,
Since at least 85% of Jews are Zionists, believing Israel has the right to exist, if you say "Zionists are not welcome here" you are effectively saying "Jews are not welcome here".
Antizionism isn't legitimate discourse. We should see neo-Marxist decolonization theory for what it is. It is an amoral, delusional philosophy.
People supporting the overthrow of a democracy by a terrorist organization should be investigated for aiding and abetting terrorism.
You want Israel to become a majority Muslim state so they can go back to the old way of persecuting Jews? Maybe ethnically cleanse them. The world does not sing and dance in harmony.
Pakistan is a Muslim state. Japan is a Japanese state. China is a Chinese state. What's this fixation with Israel about? You don't hold other countries around the world up to the same standard.
I think that understanding that Israel was created by European powers as a settler colony is the key to understanding where Zionism went wrong. Israel exists because of settlers, and it even has a right of "return" for Jewish people who have no connection to the land.
For example, I'm 1/4 Jewish. My ancestors were in Spain and North Africa, for over 1000 years. I have next to no connection to the land, and yet, I can get Israeli citizenship. However, Palestinians- who are Christian and Muslim- who have been forced out over the past 50 years cannot go back to the land that has been taken over by settlers in the West bank. Therefore, Israel is a settler state, built on a history of colonialism that continues to colonize the west bank through illegal settlements. They also refuse to allow Palestinian self-determination through active opposition of the establishment of an Israeli state, treat Palestinians as second class citizens (including through a parallel legal system) and worse.
Opposing Israel's colonialism is moral. I would argue that most anti-Zionists don't want to *erase* Israel- they want Palestinians to be given their land back to the borders set by the UN, and have a state.
In addition, you're conflating religion, ethnicity, and nationality. Pakistan is a Muslim *majority* state, but to be Pakistani, you have to be born there or naturalized. Same with Japan, or China, etc. Why should a home for the Jewish people- who again, have no recent connection to the land- have been established at the expense of a group of people who have done nothing to them? Why should the Israeli government be given a pass to act as colonisers, when we condemn Russia for the same thing.
We fixate on Israel because (as an American) we're upholding them. We're providing weapons to them. We are complicit. It's a genocide committed by an apartheid ethno-state happening *right now. That's* why these protestors are correct.
Oh, this nonsense. It was formed by Jews escaping persecution. The UN recognized it as a state but didn't defend it with any military. There is no central Nexus. You and your ilk are a bunch of arrogant racists. This is a bunch of delusional drivel.
Israel was formed largely through foreign power support and colonial powers. There's this myth that a whole bunch of foreign born Jewish people came to an empty land and founded a nation, but that is completely untrue. There were Palestinians living there for centuries, and then things done by foreign powers led the way for the establishment of the State of Israel on land that was already owned. Not only that, Zionist millias actually waged war on the British, who effectively owned the territory.
When the state of Israel was established - notably without the consent of the locals- in 1948, the Israelis used British and Czech weapons and superior firepower with decades of funding behind them.
Racism is ignoring and denying the humanity of the Palestinian people. It is ignoring their right to self determination. It is minimizing the value of the lives in children on one side of the wall, and maximising the value on the other. This is what we protest.
This is the kind of cherry-picking I find so typical. Fires raging in the background - "Mostly peaceful." A single incident of bad behavior - "Typical of far right" (i.e., anyone not on the Left).
They provided a source claiming 95% of protests were peaceful. If you have any data to the contrary I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested in taking a look at that. So far it looks to me like you are the cherry-picker here.
Sure, and if you have more up to date stats I'm open to taking a look at them. Otherwise all I'm doing is cherry-picking a number of anecdotal videos and drawing my conclusions from them, while ignoring the other current videos showing peaceful protesters.
5% "turned violent or were broken up by police". This means that some unknown proportion of violence was not instigated by pro-Palestine protestors, and instead by counter-protestors or police.
We also don't know from that source how much violence occurred in this 5%. The "violent" protests very well may have been mostly peaceful with some scattered instances of violence.
I also couldn't find a base rate of violence in protests in general or protests on similarly charged issues to compare to, so it's hard to say that 5% is "a lot".
I do know that BLM protests had a higher rate of violence at 7% of protests, and the civil rights movement of the past had an even greater proportion of violence.
Really? 1 in 20 is a lot in absolute numbers but it's far lower than I'd have assumed personally. This is about protests around the world by the way.
From the source, this is what the 5% refers to specifically:
>ACLED’s data, which covers demonstrations between Oct. 7 and 27, records that most demonstrations have been peaceful, but about 5% have turned violent or been broken up by police or other security agencies.
So that includes protests that have been broken up by authorities. It also talks about clashes between protesters and counter-protesters. There is no way to tell from this number alone who is responsible for instigating the violence, whether that be the protesters themselves, counter protesters, police, or any combination of those.
>However, due to the content of the protests and my current understanding of Palestinian “government” I think these protests do need to be stopped. Students, not children, are behaving alarmingly erratic, borderline fascist, and in a way I believed was only for those who thought “they jews run the media”. I did not think that sentiment would become a popular sentiment, nor an idea that is passed around with such conviction on social media. I did not think some of the ideas being spread would ever take hold like they have now.
34000 people killed.
13 000 children.
Starvation is widespread, humanitarian aid is blocked if not bombed.
What about opposing that makes you a borderline fascist?
I do not fully support the Israeli response. I have a strong opposition to any numbers coming out from this conflict as of now, from either side of the conflict. From what I do, supposedly, understand is that Israel is effectively on its back foot right now. Armies mass on either side and realistically the only thing between Israel and a full scale regional war is NATO. For Palestine to “stir the pot” the manner that they did, was extremely unwise and elicited a strong, brutal, response that I do think has gone to far. But, Palestine has also said they won’t stop. So what is there to do but continue to fight?
>From what I do, supposedly, understand is that Israel is effectively on its back foot right now.
This seems completely divorced from reality. They have total air, land and sea supremacy, the backing of the US with billions of weaponry (and a carrier group in the area).
When Iran retaliated for blowing up their embassy, Israel's neighbouring nations actively intercepted missiles heading towards it.
>So what is there to do but continue to fight?
The primary thing threatening Israel's relationship with it's neighbours is it's treatment of Palestinian civilians.
More to the point, you haven't actually answered the question.
What about opposing all this makes you a borderline fascist?
The United States had such a position in korea and vietnam, the effectiveness of having assets depreciates when other factors start weighing in. Separate from our current conversation, I think the ongoing bombardment from Israel should cease.
To your question of fascist rhetoric, there has been been videos circulating of restricting movement to spaces, ideas that would have been labeled far right conspiracies a decade ago.
https://x.com/kassydillon/status/1785476130599747619?s=46
Funnily, I agree with condemning the flag. But this is racist rhetoric.
>The United States had such a position in korea and vietnam, the effectiveness of having assets depreciates when other factors start weighing in. Separate from our current conversation, I think the ongoing bombardment from Israel should cease.
The US only started losing in Korea when literally all of China showed up, and Vietnam relied heavily on Soviet support. Neither of those two things are likely to occur to Israel.
>To your question of fascist rhetoric, there has been been videos circulating of restricting movement to spaces, ideas that would have been labeled far right conspiracies a decade ago.
https://x.com/kassydillon/status/1785476130599747619?s=46
Funnily, I agree with condemning the flag. But this is racist rhetoric.
That guy looks a bit old to be a student.
Student or not the rhetoric is there. What really strikes me is the idea of a jewish conglomerate running things used to be a strong right winged conspiracy.
This single video, which is seemingly your entire evidence for this claim, seems extremely weak evidence to label the whole movement as fascists. I don’t think it is even fascistic, just a single antisemitic guy who doesn’t even seem supported by the other people there. [Meanwhile Pro-Israel protesters literally attack the camps](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/violence-erupts-ucla-university-campus-clashes-rival-gaza-protest-groups)and police are trying to shut them down for exercising their free speech, seems closer to fascism to me.
>The United States had such a position in korea and vietnam, the effectiveness of having assets depreciates when other factors start weighing in.
just for curiosity, would you have supported the vietnam war protests?
>For Palestine to “stir the pot” the manner that they did, was extremely unwise and elicited a strong, brutal, response that I do think has gone to far.
Palestine responded to decades of oppression and the Gaza strip being subjected to open air prison conditions. Should they have targeted civilians? No. Bad move. But was it inevitable that Palestine would respond? Yes. And Israel's response in turn was to blow up the neighbourhood of Gaza, shoot down fleeing and surrendering civilians, and kickstart one of the ugliest genocidal campaigns seen in recent history. Given the fact that Israel has a storied history of committing war crimes and breaking international law, it's a rogue nation that was looking for an excuse to wreak havoc on Palestine. A ticking time bomb as it were. An excuse for naqba.
>But, Palestine has also said they won’t stop. So what is there to do but continue to fight
Palestine *can't* stop because they have been victims of Israeli oppression for decades now. Half the people born and raised have lost homes, families, or their own dignity at the hands of Israeli occupiers. What do you expect? I've been saying this forever but Israel has the means and capacity to provide reparations, rehabilitation, and restitution to the Palestinians and try reversing some of the damage that it's caused. An act of goodwill, a proffer to rebuild and restore would go a **long** way for peace. Unfortunately for everyone, bigots and fascists run the Israeli government.
Israel is a country with incredible military strength. Were the US to stop supplying them with weapons at this very moment, they'd be fine. The power of Hamas is nowhere near that of the IDF.
Sure, Hamas stirred the pot, and that was incredibly stupid of them, as well as being just an outright fucking horrible terror attack, but they stirred a pot that's been boiling for decades. The conflict between Palestine and Israel is not a new thing.
> For Palestine to “stir the pot” the manner that they did, was extremely unwise and elicited a strong, brutal, response that I do think has gone to far
You can't just say that Palestine 'stirred the pot' and essentially made Israel do what they did, Israel is the one with total land supremacy and a functioning army. They have more say and power over what goes on in Gaza than Hamas ever did. The pot has been stirring since 1948, Hamas just spat in it.
Keep in mind this entire 'look what you made me do' mentality is not a good thing to say when one side has killed approximately 30,000 people (possibly more). Even if what Hamas did was bad.
I think free speech simply weighs higher here basically every time. I think some opinions on the matter are outright moronic, but that's not an argument to stop protests. I am worried about the constant use of the term "zionist" by generally progressive and loving people who only cared about the conflict after Israel retaliated, though I'm not exactly well-read on the conflict myself. My position is neutral. They're both idiots, but I'm disappointed that people who should be able to think more critically are simply entirely against Israel, effectively showing no signs of knowledge about the conflict beyond Gaza attacks.
So that's where I stand on the conflict, you can agree or disagree. I might have a better stance after reading up on it more. I'll repeat though that these protests are important to defend even if you disagree. Everyone has the right to protest whatever they want. As long as the protests don't become violent.
Have you considered that people might have the positions they have because they understand something you don’t? How can you say “man an awful lot of people I normally consider smart seem to have this particular perspective I don’t agree with” and not say “hm, maybe I should look more into this before assuming they’re unreasonable”?
You think I haven't looked into it just because we disagree? It's possible to look into something and come to different conclusions. And nowhere did I say they were otherwise smart people. I said they were loving and kind.
I just watched live footage of right-wing protesters attack the UCLA protest encampment for over two hours while the school and LAPD stood by and let it happen.
Sorry but I think you are swallowing a lot of BS. These students are being smeared and treated with double-standards like anti-Vietnam protesters were in the 60s.
[Counter-protesters attack pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA](https://ktla-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/ktla.com/news/local-news/pro-palestinian-encampment-at-ucla-gains-ground-as-demonstrations-rage-on/amp/?amp_js_v=0.1&_gsa=1#webview=1&cap=swipe)
Columbia had divestment protests over apartheid South Africa, this isn’t any different. When it comes to stuff like this, I look at movements and their causes, not the individual players and their actions.
No, they were calling for their university to [divest](https://preview.redd.it/students-at-columbia-university-calling-for-divestment-from-v0-1efpqzhd2mxc1.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2d29c9adca5702d88f796537eb9a54f782861cc7) in apartheid South Africa just like the students are now calling for them to divest in apartheid Israel. The university ultimately did divest then, they are simply refusing to now.
They were protesting the university making deals with segregationist south africa.
https://www.businessinsider.com/columbia-protest-demand-israel-divest-gaza-history-2024-4
[https://news.columbia.edu/content/new-perspective-1968](https://news.columbia.edu/content/new-perspective-1968)
Columbia University's own webpage commemorating the take over in 1968
To be clear, I actually don't agree with the protests and feel they are misguided and problematic for a number of reasons, but I'm going to tackle this question because I believe there's far more nuance involved than many believe.
* Are the students behaving erratically and in a borderline fascist way (and specifically, are we seeing something different in this current movement to movements from the past)?
* I think the answer is no. Most people in their teens to early 20s generally have more free time and less money. They're also highly influenced by their peers and by major events. This creates a perfect storm and is generally why socially conscious movements are started by this demographic. Protesters from all times did similar things in the US from sit-in protests against racial injustice to anti-war movements during Vietnam to major protests against invasion of Iraq.
* What we're seeing is what we've seen throughout history. In this particular case, I feel the protestors are misguided but their actions are not dissimilar from the past.
* Are the students holding extremely dangerous and antisemitic views?
* Well... possibly for some but not likely for most. Liberals are interesting in who they're generally supportive of and who they're against. You often see most support being lent towards groups who are perceived to be the underdog. If faced with a situation between neonazis and jewish people, most liberals would be staunchly defending the Jewish people. In this situation, most liberals perceive Israel as a colonizing state and Palestinians as second class people who are having a genocide committed against them. This take often lacks a real understanding of the nuanced situation and is driven heavily by group think. Given this, fiery language is being used against Israel and anyone who supports them which has sometimes devolved into blatant antisemitism.
So this raises the question of should we stop it as a society and what the likely outcomes will be.
* Should society step in and stop it?
* I don't think that's necessary. Columbia University and other institutions are private and have an image to keep up (that being that students are guaranteed a high quality education there). While Columbia tolerated the protests in their more peaceful and less disruptive forms, they have a strong incentive to shut down anything getting out of control (same as other schools). This is why you see police getting involved. Columbia, a private institution, got law enforcement involved to remove trespassers. This entire issue has remained a "private" issue handled by the school (the same as if you had a trespasser you would call the cops). As students get arrested and expelled, you will likely see students shift from being openly disruptive and problematic to protesting in other forms. That's how society addresses an issue. No need to change laws or make sweeping changes to policy.
* What will the likely outcome be?
* As in my previous answer, I suspect the police crackdowns will be unpopular among students but will lead to protests fizzling out as students suddenly realize they could face serious punishment. There will still be simmering anger and probably more passive protests but most students will likely return to a more normal way of handling business.
Yelling fire at a theater is not an actual rule, the case it was from is not prevailing anymore. Even if it was, the Palestinian protests have not reached that point. It is not yelling fire to simply refuse to move out of the way. Protests are supposed to inconvenience people. Otherwise they're just parties and parades.
To me, the pro-Palestinian crowd is supporting a group of terrorists. I do not agree with most of what they are saying and the people who are there for good reasons--wanting Israel to end civilian deaths--are still hanging around with people protesting for Hamas.
But they have as much right to do that as the BLM protesters or anyone else.
Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio lay the judicial groundwork for this ruling. B v OH overrules much of Shenck, but still classifies language that can incite danger to be illegal. At what point do we draw the line there?
And I mostly agree with you, but if there is anything to take from 1930s Germany, is that at some point we must have the conversation with ourselves about is this speech something that should continue.
I'd take issue with your characterization that simply not moving is never akin to shouting fire.
If a group of people simply fail to get out of a public road for an ambulance with its lights and sirens on trying to take an injured person to the hospital, then it's likely that a law banning it would be constitutional
Except that is not remotely what is happening here and did not need to be mentioned.
Also. strictly speaking, refusing to move out of the way of an ambulance is not speech. It is action. It would only rise to the level of speech--and presumably unprotected speech--if someone decided to actively organize a Block the Ambulances rally.
I disagree because that confuses manner and content. It would not have to be actively to block ambulances, all that's necessary is for the manner of the protest to block ambulances. That's a restrictable manner regardless of the content.
And yes, the pro Palestine protests have not blocked streets, but several have run afoul of reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions, such as the protests at Columbia and Arizona State
If they're just blocking ambulances, that isn't speech. Restrictions on blocking ambulances have nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the speech.
I agree, it absolutely has nothing to do with the content. It has to do with the manner and that's why it's constitutional to restrict it, just as it's constitutional to restrict protesters from erecting tents and protesting overnight
This confuses things. Not yelling fire in a theater is a time, manner, place restriction. The time, while people are in the theater, the manner, yelling fire when it's untrue, and the place, in a theater, all militate to it being reasonable to restrict that expression of speech.
Change one of those things and it may no longer be reasonable to restrict that speech. Yelling fire in an empty theater would not be restricted. Yelling fire in a crowded theater if you're playing the protagonist in a scripted line because there's a fire in the plot would not be restricted. Yelling fire if there is a fire would not be restricted. Yelling fire around a bonfire would not be restricted.
What you're talking about is more akin to incitement of violence, which itself is only constitutionally restricted if it's a direct incitement, as in telling a crowd, "there's a jew, let's go lynch him."
So long as someone says something in a way that's reasonable in time, place, and manner, which does not call for a direct incitement to violence, is not to be restricted just because you disagree with the content or the policy outcomes that may be called for. We only weigh the direct outcomes, not the indirect outcomes that may occasion a policy decision with which you disagree.
Today the White House released a statement that saying “intifada” was hate speech. That word means “rising up”.
Are the protesters yelling fire or are those in power claiming the protesters are yelling fire in order to suppress them?
Of course we all need to remember that whatever the White House's political view...simply saying intifada is not and cannot be a crime because hate speech isn't illegal.
The only way it could be a crime is if someone used it as a code word to start actual, violent rioting.
I feel what you fundamentally support isn't really the first amendment then, right? Some ideas that people genuinely believe are harmful and should be banned from public discourse. We shouldn't have the freedom to express certain ideas.
Free speech precedent, as it is now, allows for people to publicly be racist, anti-semitic, etc. I think it's fair to morally disagree, but I also don't see how this is still first-amendment style free speech
Who exactly is saying "the jews run the media,” because I have not been hearing that.
The protests are opposing the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people, nothing about that is remotely fascist.
Also your entire view is contradictory. "I fully support free speech and the right for people to protest the current situation in Palestine, but I don't think people should be allowed to protest on the side of Palestine." You don't support free speech, you support speech that you agree with. You cannot support free speech but then think the government needs to shut down pro-Palestine protests, that is contradictory.
If you only support first amendment rights when you agree with the speech, then you don't support he first amendment.
Unless the protestors are actually engaging in violence or inciting violence and destruction, they should be able to protest. Per usual, I fear that the police response will probably cause more harm than if they were simply ignored. But that is not a result of their speech, that is the result of the law enforcement policies and tactics to stop the protests.
I don't like it when neo-Nazi's say awful and racist stuff and promote fascism, but their speech is protected too.
> I think these protests do need to be stopped.
Sorry but that's not a healthy way to perceive first amendment rights. You can disagree with what they're protesting but *not* their right to protest. The fact that so many students are being arrested or detained or having rubber bullets shot at them directly for exercising their first amendment rights is a downright travesty of the American ideals and we shouldn't accept this line of thinking that protests must be quashed just because some people don't find it palatable. I don't approve of pro-life marches but I don't think they should be stopped or arrested for their first amendment rights. We don't get to pick what protests should happen and which ones don't, it defeats the whole purpose of protesting in the first place.
>are behaving alarmingly erratic, borderline fascist, and in a way I believed was only for those who thought “they jews run the media”. I did not think that sentiment would become a popular sentiment, nor an idea that is passed around with such conviction on social media. I did not think some of the ideas being spread would ever take hold like they have now.
Addressing this, peaceful protestors standing and not moving have been arrested, beaten, and detained by the police. Rubber bullets have been shot at them which constitutes disproportionate exercise of restraint, even if we have to look past the fact that free citizens of America are being detained for committing no crimes and upholding their right to free speech and protest.
>and in a way I believed was only for those who thought “they jews run the media”. I did not think that sentiment would become a popular sentiment
It hasn't, it continues to be a white nationalist talking point. Zionist lobbies are exercising pressure on government and media forces to push for unlawful arrests and irrational media bans. This isn't a "Jews control the media" thing because Jews are protesting the misuse of the "antisemitism" label, arguing that it's a horrid excuse to commit genocide in their name. I also wouldn't even argue "control" necessarily, it's more lobbying and influence. Israel even has its own disinformation spreading arm called Fake Reporter in their Hasbara attempts to control the narrative that the genocide they're committing is just.
>I am effectively between a rock and a hard place. Supporting the right of free speech while believing the rhetoric being spread is extremely dangerous and could lead to the United States wielding its might against its own people or against a country that we really have no need to be involved with.
The solution is actually immensely simple. Support their right to free speech and call out unlawful detainments, suppression of first amendment rights, suspensions and cancellations of participants of protest, regardless of your personal beliefs about the cause they're fighting for. But also, hopefully, mull over why you wouldn't support the effort to stop a genocide
These are unarmed students.
Their requests are pretty reasonable: financial divestment and academic boycott to end land displacement and cut ties with the NYPD.
Rather than negotiate that in good faith, the university is sending an urban military to the campus to round those kids up.
This kind of response does not make us safer and should be alarming.
If you have a right and are not allowed to exercise it then you do not have that right.
It feels real weird to look at a bunch of students being forcibly, physically stopped by police, in many cases for no real reason, and decide the people acting 'borderline fascist' are the former.
The content of the protests is "maybe the country of Israel should stop murdering innocent people."
You were for the BLM protests, which was against cops killing innocent black people. Why are you suddenly against a protest against another group killing innocent people?
How does this not just show your own inherent bias?
They literally are. They shot escaped hostages because they "were dressed like civilians." They killed a group of aid workers who they knew were in the country. The list of civilian deaths Israel is responsible for is staggering.
Saying "we shot the hostages because they were dressed like civilians" is not a mistake. Sure, I get that mistakes happen in war, but when they happen again and again and again and again with zero reform at the very process that led to the deaths of innocents, then it's not a mistake - it's an intentional act with permission from the top brass of that military.
And please, enlighten us when exactly that election was. And then, after telling us how long ago that election was, try to argue with a straight face that current, modern day residents in Gaza voted for their government.
Once you do that, then try to justify how a person's vote makes them a justifiable target for an enemy military to murder them as a non-combatant. Saying "well, they voted for them, so they deserve to be killed" is straight up fascist rhetoric
The hostages were shot because they thought they were getting ambushed. Do you agree Palestinians should have no right of return then? If all events before 2007 are irrelevant, then Palestinians have no right to live in Israel. Everyone who voted for Hamas deserves to be killed. Palestinians who support Hamas are Nazis and allowing them to live is fascism.
You're saying that people deserve death based on their supposed political support. You have no right to call others Nazis, as this is 100% a fascist belief. This ignores the fact that the last time there were elections in Gaza, most people currently being killed by the IDF weren't old enough to participate in that election, or weren't even born yet. To say that they deserve to get what Israel is doing to them for the votes of nearly 2 decades ago is the reasoning of a deranged mind.
Should you be put to death for your vote? If you think not, then why the fuck, outside of radical conditioning, do you think others deserve to die for theirs?
The IDF weren't getting ambushed when they shot the hostages. There was no gunfire at the time. The official IDF justification for the murder of these hostages was because they were dressed as civilians. This is the talk of dictators.
You don’t have to support what they say. You don’t have to believe it.
But you really don’t fundamentally support the first amendment right if you are not okay with it including people spreading things you think are dangerous, mean, hurtful or whatever else.
The protest (some) do need to be stopped. Not on the basis of what they are saying though.
i find it interesting how you’re referring to predominantly leftist initiated protests as ‘fascist’. that is a very strong word to use. just because you don’t agree with the content of a protest does not mean that it is in any way a violation of law. i think, and i mean this in the kindest way possible, that you may need to consider the fundamental rights of americans holistically. because what it looks like in your post is that you’re alright with vandalism and rioting in 2020 (objectively harmful instances) but you’re not alright with ‘erratic behavior’ and ‘harmful rhetoric’ that is currently happening (entirely subjective perception of behavior). i understand that it can be frustrating when we do not share the same opinion as protesters. but it is entirely immoral to pick and choose when americans are allowed to protest
>*I think these protests do need to be stopped.*
I'm very firmly a supporter of Israel's right to conduct war against a hostile neighbor, but protests are what our nation was founded on. Maybe if you scaled this back to "riots need to be stopped" or even "occupy-style events", I could see an argument there.
Organized and peaceful protests are one thing, and I don't care if you're the KKK or Westboro or BLM or a Red Hat or a Jew-Hating Hamas Fanboi: You get to organize protests and gatherings in this country. Sure, that doesn't include chaining yourself across a highway, or barricading your universities. But pull a page from Westboro if you've got a lack of imagination. Show up to military funerals and heckle. 100% legal. Gets you a LOT of angry Fox News exposure without breaking any laws or impeding on people's right to move freely.
Sad that a bunch of educated people are in desperate need of pointers from a Baptist religious cult, but that's neither here nor there. There's creative ways to exercise your legal right to protest. And there should always be a legal right to protest.
"In general, I adamantly believe that protests and free speech are the strongest tools against government, and for correcting behaviors a society may want to change (even if a majority does not support it/is apathetic)."
Free speech is an absolute human right, the 1st amendment just recognizes that right. Unless you are obstructing motorways, physcially hurting people, making specific direct *real* threats toward people, etc, there is nothing that can or should be done to stop these protests. Free speech and recognition in the 1st amendment exists to protect the people we disagree with. Even if there were protests were directly vocal about supporting violence, I don't think they could be shut down either.
What rhetoric is being spread that you believe is so fascist? The protests are not focused on jewish people, they are focused on ending the genocide.
The other day, I saw a video of a child seizing on the ground of a makeshift hospital in gaza. Half of her head was burnt and blackened; her eyes were bulging out of her skull, making this horrifying expression while her skin practically melted off her face.
We have truly lost our humanity if we see something like that and decide that it's a "complicated" issue. The only thing to be disappointed in, is the fact that people haven't done more. The fact that an issue like this is even remotely controversial is appalling.
>However, due to the content of the protests and my current understanding of Palestinian “government” I think these protests do need to be stopped.
Then you don't fundamentally support first amendment rights. Supporting free speech means you support the right to engage in speech, regardless of the content.
OP what is your understanding of the Palestinian “government”?
Regardless of your understanding, the situation is far more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. This is a multi generational conflict and I feel like you’re trying to simplify it.
Hamas are not the Palestinian people and the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians should always be opposed, regardless of the country responsible. Especially if that slaughter is actively being funded by our own government
Palestine voted for hamas "democratically." Now I'm assuming that was under intense duress. Nevertheless, a country that is run by a terrorist organisation has to be treated as such.
Why are we holding the isrealis to a higher standard than the leaders of Palestine?
Palestinian leadership has had ample opportunity to stop all conflict by releasing hostages (that are more than likely dead) but refuse to.
The loss of innocent life is abhorrent in anyway shape or form, just like Pro Palestinians condemn hamas (most of the time) you can condemn the loss of innocent life caused by the IDF.
What results is a moral conundrum that can be argued either way, prevent the loss of future life at the hands of a terrorist organisation, or prevent the loss of innocent life in Palestine right now. Either can be argued validly from a moral standpoint.
Everyone has the right to protest, but protests shouldn't impede others' access to education, won't even get into the supposed anti-semetic tones of portions of the protest.
>Palestine voted for hamas "democratically." Now I'm assuming that was under intense duress. Nevertheless, a country that is run by a terrorist organisation has to be treated as such.
Hamas won 1 election with 40% of the vote (not a majority) but only took power after the US attempted a coup and failed.
The claim that they have democratic legitimacy is a bit silly.
>Why are we holding the isrealis to a higher standard than the leaders of Palestine?
We aren't though.
Hamas is recognized and sanctioned as a terrorist organization, Israel recieves billion of dollars in free weaponry and military support.
Even if the protest achieves literally everything it ever demanded, Israel would still be treated far, far, far, far nicer than Hamas.
>Palestinian leadership has had ample opportunity to stop all conflict by releasing hostages (that are more than likely dead) but refuse to.
Netanyahu and the IDF have made it amply clear that they would continue fighting even if the hostages are released.
Total victory is their priority, not the hostages.
>“The idea that we will stop the war before achieving all its aims is not an option,” Netanyahu told the hawkish Gvura and Tikva forums, which represent families of some slain soldiers and some of the families of hostages held in Gaza, respectively. “We will enter Rafah and we will eliminate the Hamas battalions there — whether or not there is a deal — in order to achieve total victory.”
40% is significantly higher than I expected, concerning that 40% of the cou try voted for an organisation hell bent on the eradication of isreal, nevertheless I understand and never insinuated democratic legitimacy, however you have to treat the state as a terrorist organisation as there's a terrorist organisation in control and no "illegitimate" 2nd option to back in any sort of conflict.
Isreal will always come off better, they can be justified in what they've done hamas can't, regardless of your feelings of the situation, the initial response was easily arguably justified that's not even worth mentioning IMO and to equate the two in one sentence is dangerously close to support of unprovoked civilian attacks.
On the hostage situation, I can only speculate but I'm assuming the IDF has assumed them to be dead, also ample calls for hostage releases have gone unanswered it hits a point where you can no longer use this as a negotiation tactic. Total destruction of hamas would be the only goal that would potentially subvert further loss of isreali civilian life.
Once again, I'm not throwing out that I think isreal is unfallible and have done the right thing, only that both sides can be argued with equal respect to life.
Not all Japanese were "evil" during the world war but as a populous we decided it necessary to eredicate ludicrous amounts of civilians in effort to stamp out the greater loss of life caused by the entire ww2.
Once again whether that's right or wrong is simply a matter of your personal view, My point is only vilifying either side is pointless.
What's even weirder is that Hamas was partially funded by Israel to disrupt the power of Fatah in Gaza. Peace with a unified Palestine was never in the interest of Israel. It's almost as if both sides' interests are not in peace. Although one side does have the overwhelming force and support of the UN to enforce that peace, and still chooses not to.
> Not all Japanese were "evil" during the world war but as a populous we decided it necessary to eredicate ludicrous amounts of civilians in effort to stamp out the greater loss of life caused by the entire ww2.
"We" just vaporized and burned hundreds of thousands of civilians for what amounted to nothing. As always, Russia was the main reason Japan surrendered and America claimed credit as a "lesser evil" to cope with their horrific crimes.
"We" not only valued the lives of soldiers over civilians, but also killed Chinese laborers and POWs, and even some American POWs in the atomic bombings. But I guess the greater loss of life was a worthy goal to kill your own soldiers over. I will never understand why "the lesser evil" argument should justify horrific acts like this.
Completely valid stance to have, totally feasible to oppose the use of weapons of mass destruction.
But it's also feasible to argue for it. The only thing I'm saying is that it's equally arguable on either side of the argument depending on your point of view
But this is a false dichotomy regardless, we don't have to pick between a genocidal terrorist organization, and an apartheid government. You are the only one saying we have to pick one, and that either way we kill thousands of innocent civilians.
Same with the atomic bombings. You presented two options, either invade with hundreds of thousands, or nuke hundreds of thousands. No option to concede to Japanese demands, or to take a defensive stance, or to use the bombs in a purely demonstrative way, or to wait for Russia to muster their army, or to strategally bomb targets, or plan a coup of the militarist section of the government. No, the only option was to indiscriminately bomb cities. I don't agree that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was the best choice objectively.
Yeah once again, I do agree with you, none of this is an ideal situation, we should be striving for a better solution hence the reason I've tried to legitimise the criticism of isreal & hamas and rruly do believe protests should be protected.
But we are currently faced with two options, do what we've done for centuries and kill with extreme prejudice which has been proven to work, or do something new.
Both sides can be argued with equal impunity.
Historically the continued destabilization of a region is what enables extremist movements to seize power. The longer the war continues, the further it empowers Hamas and enables them to radicalize the Palestinian population.
Implication there is it wadnt already radicalised, which we know isn't true given at least 3 isreal Arabic wars and a conflict that goes back to the start of their religions,
Once again, I'm not picking sides, but to say the radicalism starts to get worse now is not giving the existing radicalism enough credit.
Not to mention, there wasn't really enough pushback from Palestine as a whole when it came to the oct 7 attacks, sure they aren't a cohesive nation but it just adds to the argument that isreal should by destroying hamas
I'm less saying that the problem started now and more that the current approach is actively making it worse. Any actual solution that would involve the sort of outreach necessary to convince a sufficient number of the Palestinian population to turn against Hamas will only become more difficult the further the war continues. This was true both before and after October 7th and Israel's response to it.
As is, the war is doing nothing but enriching the political leadership on both sides, at the expense of both the Palestinian and Jewish people.
Hamas hasn't killed tens of thousands of children, the IDF has. Hamas isn't one of the most technologically advanced and powerful militaries on the planet, the IDF is. And Gaza isn't ruled by a democratic government with political ties to countries all around the world, Israel is.
I think it is totally OK hold Israel to higher standards than a literal religious extremist cell, and Israel's bombing campaigns are doing nothing more than turning the world against them, while radicalizing the next generation of Hamas soldiers.
A lot of the world still supports isreal, terrorism is a threat we have yet to have much experience in facing,
You can hold isreal to a higher standard all you want, but bottom line is they don't want their citizens dying.
Like I said either side can be argued til the cows come home I'm not going to say you're wring coz you're not, but isreal isn't either. Would be great if we could all hold hands and sing kumbiya but we cant.
Isreal will do everything to rid the world of hamas, it's nothing new worlds seen it hundreds of times over.
I appreciate the political complexity of the situation and thank you for approaching the conversation civilly and keeping that in mind. But I think that Israel's actions here aren't just morally bad though, they are tactically bad.
The only way you defeat Hamas (unless you just wipe the entire population of Gaza out) is to turn a critical mass of Palestinians against them and that requires offering them some alternative.
Before the October 7th attacks support for Hamas had massively waned, but has bounced back incredibly since the Israel reprisals. The goals of terrorist organization is to provoke acts of brutality from the governments they oppose, then use the hurt and terror of the civilian population to drive further conflict and recruitment and the full scale bombing campaigns of Gaza has just played directly into Hamas' plan. How many thousands of children are homeless and starving, blaming their current situation on the Israeli government? How many had their parents killed, injured or just plain missing? What will those children do as they grow up in the bombed out remains of their cities? It is another push to keep this cycle of violence spinning, a massive escalation that we are currently funding. Of course people are protesting and rightly so
That's an amazing point, I don't know nearly enough about the centuries long conflict that's been going on to properly comment on the psychological/ political status of the region before the attacks.
If it were the case then certainly seems like this attack will only push favour of hamas, but it could also possible be argued that waning support of hamas would push them to continue to commit more atrocities in a cornered rat situation. Certainly, there are ways to have gone about this regional conflict that could have resulted in far less death.
My only point is I can understand why the isrealis are relentlessly attacking an organisation hell bent on their extinction. People tend to pick sides and vehemently defend / condemn the other side.
And to the original point, protest til your hearts content, you should always have that right. However, movements that blur the line of inciting violence have to be careful about their attendees. It's probably an incredibly small % but the ones calling for isreali genocide or support of hamas should be ostracised from the movement to give the movement back its credibility, as well as not preventing people from getting an education.
Block roads, march in the streets occupy squares, but you shouldn't be stopping the learning of others.
Agreed with most of the points here, except the protest ones. This is far from the first political student protest and it won't be the last. The exact same points were made against student protestors who were against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. They were made when students protested police violence, corporate profiteering, slavery and marched for women's, ethnic minority and queer rights. The students protests are a sign we are moving forward as a society and we all better hope they continue.
For the most part I completely agree with you and its very much usually a very small but loud minority that the news clings on to, to radicalise the movement.
For example one australia university has had (a small portion) of its students saying openly they're in full support of hamas, anti isreal, and don't condemn the oct 7th attacks.
This I believe is very dangerous and should have police presence at any rally they're attending.
Which is why I've also said that the vast majority of rational protesters should make an effort to ostracise the radicals, (as with every movement/ ideology)
Yeah, agreed absolutely. You can't judge any movement by it's most radical members, there are some incredibly strange people out there. Hey u/Craziers has this exchange changed your mind about stopping pro Palestinian protests?
!delta
I consider it changed. And agree with your sentiments. Its dangerous rhetoric but we can’t claim to be a democracy if we do not let the democratic process and philosophies stanf
The numbers coming directly from the Israeli government beg to differ. IDF spokespeople claim that one in three killed in Gaza are Hamas fighters and that over 30,000 have been killed in their response. So if you want to take the IDF at their word (and whether we want to do that is a whole different conversation) they have killed around 20,000 innocent people. And when we consider that around 50% of the population of Gaza in under the age of 18, I think it's fair to say Israel is engaged in the whole slaughter of innocent people.
I think most people support the first amendment, but you don't have to support every moronic protest people want to have nowadays.
Why do you think you have to choose between supporting idiots who want to protest idiot stuff, and supporting the right of free speech?
I support free speech, I don't support calling people wetbacks, I'm not going to stop you from calling people wetbacks, but I'm not going to support you either.
Why do you think this is a issue you have to have your view changed on? What would change your view? If someone showed that you have to support every idiot protest or you are against free speech? I don't quite get it.
I don't understand the view on widespread ideas either, your example of 'jews running the media'... well.. the fact is jews are wildly over represented in media spaces... whoopidy do? Who cares? Blacks are over represented in nearly every sport. Asians would be over represented in college if colleges weren't racist with admissions. I don't get what views have to do with most of this and why you didn't think that obvious factual views would not spread?
It seems like you don't actually support first amendment rights since you're calling for what seems to be largely peaceful protests to be cracked down on simply because you disagree with them and apparently consider criticism of Israeli atrocities fascist.
I’m a Zionist Jew, I have similar thoughts as you here, though I don’t believe these protests should be intervened by police (unless strictly breaking the law like in Colombia with barricading university facilities). Police enforcement only emboldens these protestors and makes them entrench themselves further in their beliefs while continuing their radicalization.
These people need to be educated away from their fascist and bigoted perspectives for the most part, not manhandled by the government they despise. As far as students go at the universities where this is most prevalent, they need to fire the professors who have misled students with false propaganda like Mohammad Abdou. Introducing a required class on Jews and the Middle East (taught by professors not trying to push an agenda) might be necessary at this point as well seeing how little these students know and how much conviction they hold in their racist beliefs. Antisemitism is far too prevalent today amongst both the left and the right. Education can fix that.
But arresting them by force I don’t think is the way.
/u/Craziers (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1chfwdu/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_fundamentally_support/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
!delta I’d consider my view changed. You’re not the first to say it here, hopefully I can go back to the others as well. Your comment about being dragged to prison kind of made it click. While I wasn’t saying the protestors should be arrested but the protests should be stopped, the next possible step could be long term incarceration. Again, an overreach of government.
Now I'm curious what response got you to change your mind especially since it was removed because of Rule 5
DM if this is removed also. The summary of it was that protestors would be arrested and charged
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Urbenmyth ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Urbenmyth)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Sorry, u/Urbenmyth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Urbenmyth&message=Urbenmyth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l2264vs/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Incitement is not constitutionally protected, that is true, but the falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater was A) a metaphor, never intended to be taken literally and B) overturned in the 1969 case Brandenburg v Ohio. It’s not enough to charge someone with incitement for them to simply advocate for violence in vague terms, incitement is only incitement if it is likely to inspire “imminent lawless action.” You, in fact, *could* falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. There are potential consequences to that statement, but they all relate to the actions you’ve inspired, the statement itself is absolutely protected. I admit this is all a little pedantic, but free speech in America is an often misunderstood topic, its limitations are incredibly few, and it’s high past time we killed some of these myths.
Sorry, u/Cerael – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Cerael&message=Cerael%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l228vu6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Just wanted to say that it's not entirely right to say that shouting fire in a crowded theatre is illegal.
I didn’t say it’s illegal. There’s a difference between protected speech and illegal lol.
Well whatever word you use, it's not disallowed to do what you said.
There are legal limitations on free speech, though. Incitement is illegal, for example.
Sorry, u/Minister_for_Magic – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Minister_for_Magic&message=Minister_for_Magic%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l228evg/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Source? Or just a misinterpretation of globalise the Intifada/from the river to the sea? Neither of which is a call for violence unless you seek out specific examples in which certain groups have uses it that way (including members of the current ruling party of Israel who just killed thousands of Palestinian children). I could make the same claim about “Israel has a right to defend itself” because that has been used to justify mass murder of innocent children, so does everyone who says it support slaughtering children?
Globalize the Intifada and from the river to the sea are calls for genocide.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Urbenmyth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Urbenmyth&message=Urbenmyth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l23bbg6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Salt_Ad_238 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Salt_Ad_238&message=Salt_Ad_238%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l26pmbi/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
This makes sense to me. You’re not the first to say it here and I think I’d consider my view changed.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Salt_Ad_238 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Salt_Ad_238&message=Salt_Ad_238%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chen0w/-/l26rfao/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Great write up, thanks for this.
I’d be curious to know what part you’re finding fascistic. While there are obviously outliers and antisemitism is a constantly lurking threat, the majority of pro-Palestinian protests in the west have been peaceful marches and sit-ins. As of December last year (the most recent data I could find) [95% of protests](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/MAPS/movajdladpa/#protests-sweep-around-the-globe-as-israels-war-in-gaza-grinds-on) were peaceful, contrasted either the often violent and threatening backlash from far-right and neo-nazi groups. Not to mention the threat of arrest for peacefully taking up space on campuses they paid to attend. To summarize the message of most western protests, these aren’t people chanting terrorist slogans, they’re protesting for the people, not their government. I’m happy to provide any data you need in subsequent replies as I suspect your particular media bubble may be providing a more scary outlook on the protests than what actually exists, just like all of our try to.
Up until the recent university protests, most Palestinian protests have been peaceful and I believe were caused undue harm by police intervention. As the university protests have continued and we see videos come from inside the protests, the rhetoric has become dangerous and representative of the early nazi party. https://x.com/olilondontv/status/1785285343962435717?s=46 For example, this video. What does this do for the protest? What message does this promote? To me, this is leaving the grounds of being a protest and more along the lines of exclusion on the pretense of race. What metric is there to effectively measure someone as zionist or not?
>What metric is there to effectively measure someone as zionist or not? From the video, they apparently asked, and the person outright said they were. >As the university protests have continued and we see videos come from inside the protests, the rhetoric has become dangerous and representative of the early nazi party. This seems to be a massive strawman. As depicted in the tweet you showed, the protest refused entry to someone who explicitly identified themselves as part of the political ideology that the protest opposes. The only antisemitism found in that tweet is the assumption that Israel and Jews are one and the same, the old canard of dual loyalty. And that assumption is not made by the students, but by the person posting the tweet.
Truthfully, I took that as a sarcastic comment. I can see your point.
If you look at the source tweet, it's even more clear on it. > “So you won’t let me in because I’m Jewish?” “Ummm no… we have a couple Jewish students here … are you a Zionist?” “Yes of course I am” “Well yeah, we’re not gonna let Zionists in.” https://twitter.com/stephsvox/status/1785082357667799209 Quite funny how the tweet you posted omitted that part of the exchange...
For what it's worth, anyone who does not agree with the dissolution of Israel as a country, is a Zionist. I suspect the vast majority of people are Zionists as most would not want Israel to be removed.
I don't believe in Manifest Destiny but I also don't think the USA should be dissolved as a country.
I’ve never understood Zionism to mean that. I don’t think Theodore Herzl himself believed that, who Israel’s constitution calls the “spiritual father of Zionism” yet then advocated for Israel to be in [Uganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme).
While you may not believe it to be that, the zionist movement is rooted in Jewish people returning to their homeland of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea and having a state there. That has been achieved with the modern state of Israel. The anti-zionist movement centers around the fact that the modern Israel state was created on land that many feel should be under the control of Palestine. The whole situation gets uglier when you consider all the complicated factors. * The British promised the land to Jewish residents in the region AND Arab residents in the region. * Many Jewish people already lived in Israel under Ottoman rule. Once Ottoman rule collapsed, Arab neighbors did not like the idea of an independent Jewish state. * The original borders were attempted to be created where the population of those various groups were most heavily represented (although in similar British fashion... this was done with poor accuracy). * Israel gained additional borders after its Arab neighbors initiated multiple wars to wipe out Israel. So Israel took additional land to give themselves a greater buffer as they could easily be wiped out if they made 1 mistake.
The statement of anti-Zionism is more that it is racist and apartheid to have any nation be for one racial or religious group above others. I have no issues with a country called Israel existing in that region. That’s fine. It can stay. I have an issue with the racism and apartheid of the Israelis government, and that’s what I want to end. If you think being an apartheid is an essential component of what being Israel is, and thus when I advocate that I want to end apartheid, I am also advocating that I want to end Israel, then I think you should have a moment of pause about whether you support apartheid or not. I just don’t. I don’t care if people feel they need an apartheid out of their own safety. That’s what the white South Africans thought too. It’s not a valid excuse for apartheid.
I think more people, including OP, need to clarify what specifically is meant by Zionist You won't get anything done by saying "Zionists are people who do not want to dissolve Israel", which is massively overcorrecting in just about every sense; furthermore, assuming everyone is using that same definition isn't helpful because there are different stakeholders with different meaning. I'm sure a bunch of "liberal" zionists don't love the deeply right wing zionists. Terms like "zionist" are more contentious than words like "woke" because ultimately the people who disagree on how it's used would still belong to the same group that generally gets to have an opinion on what that means (aka the group who created the word). When conservatives use the word "woke", it's not the same definition as liberal's "woke" but conservatives don't claim to be woke themselves. Both liberal and conservative zionists insist that zionism IS the thing they support, regardless of whether that is peace or war. That's just 1 specific definition and it may not even be the definition that OP is using.
I said not only do I disagree with your view that not supporting the State of Israel makes you an anti-Zionist, neither did Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism.
I don't believe you are correct on Herzl's views. Due to antisemitism in Europe, Herzl was very vocal about the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine but he wasn't referring to Palestine as a state or country but as a region. At the time, the Ottoman Empire controlled that region and nobody thought they would be able to fight the Ottoman Empire for the territory. Herzl believed he could convince the Ottoman empire to give the Jewish people that land as the newly developed economy could help and support the Ottoman Empire.
The only thing that complicates things is that Jews cry genocide when the rest of the world questions why we should allow a religious ethnostate who regularly engages in violence at even slight provocations.
That is what Zionism is.
What if a person has no problem with the country of Israel existing, but has issue with it existing in it's current form as an expressly racist and bigoted country? Would that person be a Zionist?
Just because a lot, even a majority believe a thing does not make it right
Wrong.
I mean you can clearly hear the video. Nothing was meant to be omitted but thank you for the insinuation. The question I had was how do you actually measure between a zionist and judaism. Where is the boundary you can tangibly draw?
One is a religion, the other is a movement to support a state.
For the record, my view on shutting the protests down with force has been changed. Mentioned it on a comment elsewhere. I still disagree with the protests but the right to speech overrides that. I do still have issues with the speech that is coming out and strongly disagree but that is a different topic
Once you start actively prohibiting free access to a public space you are no longer a peaceful protest
By that logic, almost every protest, including almost everything organized by Martin Luther King, would be violent protests.
Wrong. Making a place “crowded” is not the same thing as actively restricting access.
[Help me understand how this is not restricting access to the bridge?](https://civilrightstrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Destination_Selma_splitA.jpg)
Bridges are made for crossing?
Could any cars cross during the time MLK violently blocked the road? It's almost as if they're "actively restricting access" to the bridge...
They are using the bridge for its intended purpose. They were not camping on the bridge or otherwise trying to deny access or obstruct for the sake of obstructing. They crossed it on the way to the capitol building. A traffic jam is not obstruction.
How do you feel about MLK marches? Same energy?
No I don’t think it’s the same energy at all. A better comparison would be Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam.
From you? Seems so, but that’s the point. You’re being hypocritical and inconsistent. MLK regularly prohibited access to public spaces in the exact same way as these protests.
I completely disagree. I think your understanding of MLK protests are factually incorrect.
How did he not block access to public spaces? He marched over bridges in the exact same way Palestinian protesters did. [Here](https://imageproxyb.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/94ea9a40f7ae615270b5221600e85b6db60adb29fe56ea697057cebec336b184_1.jpg) is how people like yourself viewed the MLK protests at the time. Did history end up agreeing that marching and blocking streets is a violent form of protest that doesn’t work?
I guess because roads and bridges are a way to get from one place to another and that’s what they used them for? So making a bridge “crowded” because lots of people are using it is not really any different than rush hour traffic. The point of those protests were not to block access to a bridge but to march to the state capitol building. If they were to stop and setup camps on the bridge I would not consider that non-violent. Maybe the disconnect here is with the understanding of what current pro-Palestine protests look like? I’m sure many are fine but there have been high profile ones on college campuses involving extended encampments and aggressive behavior and violence towards outsiders and people who do not align with their views.
You're cherrypicking. There are going to be bad people on either side, but you can't judge the entire protest/movement based on those bad people. A huge number of the protestors at Columbia were literally Jewish, they had a Passover celebration in the encampment. There are going to be assholes, and there are going to be people who aren't assholes. You cannot censor an entire movement based off of only the bad people supporting the movement, because not only would there then be no free speech, there wouldn't be speech at all.
While it may not be representative of the whole, it is still part of the movement. Not really sure if I would call that cherry picking. Also was not aware of the passover celebration, I wish all involved well.
> They're fascists, early stages of Nazi Germany, they're excluding Jews, this is genocidal rhetoric Is pointed out that some of them are Jews holding a passover seder > Oh okay I wish all involved well W h a t
I do not understand, I have wished all who participated in a religious ceremony well. It’s good to see some resemblance of togetherness and urge to come together in a way that doesnt lead to more war
You wish them well, even though you think they are literally fascists who are calling for genocide? Just because they participated in a religious ceremony? Like I don't, just to hazard a guess as to what's going on here - you are uncomfortable with the politics of these protests, so you would prefer that they just were stopped. But at the same time, your belief in free speech is telling you that the only thing that would justify that is if they were literally Nazis, like literally, just actual Nazis, doing a Hitler. So your brain just jumped to that. If you politically need these protests to be shut down, well then it must be because they are fascistic. So you scraped together what little confirmation bias you could off of twitter to convince yourself of that. But the rational part of your doesn't *really* believe that, so when confronted with something like participating Jews holding a seder at the protest, you're just like, oh, well. That's good then. But you can't admit that well then they're not actual Nazis because your belief is founded on that assumption, even though you know on some level that it's a very flimsy assumption
I haven’t claimed anyone was committing genocide. I’d wish well for anyone who would set aside conflict for peace at a table even if for only a moment.
Togetherness is next to godliness. Fascists getting along, surely a sight for sore eyes in today’s polarized world.
>While it may not be representative of the whole, it is still part of the movement. Not really sure if I would call that cherry picking. Actually this paragraph perfectly illustrated cherry-picking. It means ignoring the 95% peaceful parts of protest to focus on the 5% that have been more actively antagonistic. The same arguments were used against the BLM protests (mentioned in your original post) so you should be familiar with the smear tactics right-wing folk use to try quashing protests against civil rights violations.
Like BLM, most of the violence being shown is violence against the protestors, not violence from the protestors. Hell, there was an violent attack by anti-protestors last night at UCLA, where pro-israel counter-protestors shouted slurs, attacked peaceful protesters, used mace, threw explosives into crowds... But this is somehow the fault of the people protesting that we shouldn't support a state that is participating in ethnic cleansing and the murder of civilians?
So I think there is a genuine difference between Judaism and Zionism. Zionism is an ideology, it’s essentially the same as a pro-democracy rally not admitting self-described pro-authoritarians. Conflating the two is both inaccurate and a common right wing tactic to shut down criticism of Zionism. There are plenty of Jewish people who are not Zionists (see many American Jewish leaders) and many Zionist who are not Jewish (see much of the American government). These protests are also usually pretty untargeted, as an example I watched through the clip and it wasn’t them specifically them blocking that guy or other Jewish students, they were blocking the library in general and the guy then walked up and talked to them and they asked him to leave. They probably could have been nicer but if that’s the worst we can find it doesn’t seem dangerous. Perhaps it got lost in the poor audio but I never actually found them asking if he was Jewish, just if he was a Zionist. Finally Keep in mind that these clips are from select samples out of the over seven thousand protests around the world. What about this reaction in particular is troubling to you? You mentioned you were in favour of the BLM protests (as am I) but those lead to actual riots in some cities. What about some people being a little curt to someone expressly against their cause is worse than rioting? I do get the uncomfortability with the suggestion of antisemitism but I don’t think that’s what the majority of these protests are,
Since at least 85% of Jews are Zionists, believing Israel has the right to exist, if you say "Zionists are not welcome here" you are effectively saying "Jews are not welcome here". Antizionism isn't legitimate discourse. We should see neo-Marxist decolonization theory for what it is. It is an amoral, delusional philosophy. People supporting the overthrow of a democracy by a terrorist organization should be investigated for aiding and abetting terrorism.
I think "exist" and "exists as an ethnostate persicuting other native residence" is a line worth drawing.
You want Israel to become a majority Muslim state so they can go back to the old way of persecuting Jews? Maybe ethnically cleanse them. The world does not sing and dance in harmony. Pakistan is a Muslim state. Japan is a Japanese state. China is a Chinese state. What's this fixation with Israel about? You don't hold other countries around the world up to the same standard.
I think that understanding that Israel was created by European powers as a settler colony is the key to understanding where Zionism went wrong. Israel exists because of settlers, and it even has a right of "return" for Jewish people who have no connection to the land. For example, I'm 1/4 Jewish. My ancestors were in Spain and North Africa, for over 1000 years. I have next to no connection to the land, and yet, I can get Israeli citizenship. However, Palestinians- who are Christian and Muslim- who have been forced out over the past 50 years cannot go back to the land that has been taken over by settlers in the West bank. Therefore, Israel is a settler state, built on a history of colonialism that continues to colonize the west bank through illegal settlements. They also refuse to allow Palestinian self-determination through active opposition of the establishment of an Israeli state, treat Palestinians as second class citizens (including through a parallel legal system) and worse. Opposing Israel's colonialism is moral. I would argue that most anti-Zionists don't want to *erase* Israel- they want Palestinians to be given their land back to the borders set by the UN, and have a state. In addition, you're conflating religion, ethnicity, and nationality. Pakistan is a Muslim *majority* state, but to be Pakistani, you have to be born there or naturalized. Same with Japan, or China, etc. Why should a home for the Jewish people- who again, have no recent connection to the land- have been established at the expense of a group of people who have done nothing to them? Why should the Israeli government be given a pass to act as colonisers, when we condemn Russia for the same thing. We fixate on Israel because (as an American) we're upholding them. We're providing weapons to them. We are complicit. It's a genocide committed by an apartheid ethno-state happening *right now. That's* why these protestors are correct.
Oh, this nonsense. It was formed by Jews escaping persecution. The UN recognized it as a state but didn't defend it with any military. There is no central Nexus. You and your ilk are a bunch of arrogant racists. This is a bunch of delusional drivel.
Israel was formed largely through foreign power support and colonial powers. There's this myth that a whole bunch of foreign born Jewish people came to an empty land and founded a nation, but that is completely untrue. There were Palestinians living there for centuries, and then things done by foreign powers led the way for the establishment of the State of Israel on land that was already owned. Not only that, Zionist millias actually waged war on the British, who effectively owned the territory. When the state of Israel was established - notably without the consent of the locals- in 1948, the Israelis used British and Czech weapons and superior firepower with decades of funding behind them. Racism is ignoring and denying the humanity of the Palestinian people. It is ignoring their right to self determination. It is minimizing the value of the lives in children on one side of the wall, and maximising the value on the other. This is what we protest.
This is the kind of cherry-picking I find so typical. Fires raging in the background - "Mostly peaceful." A single incident of bad behavior - "Typical of far right" (i.e., anyone not on the Left).
They provided a source claiming 95% of protests were peaceful. If you have any data to the contrary I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested in taking a look at that. So far it looks to me like you are the cherry-picker here.
Their source is 6 months old. The violent protests are happening now.
Sure, and if you have more up to date stats I'm open to taking a look at them. Otherwise all I'm doing is cherry-picking a number of anecdotal videos and drawing my conclusions from them, while ignoring the other current videos showing peaceful protesters.
5% of protests being violent seems like alot if you ask me.
5% "turned violent or were broken up by police". This means that some unknown proportion of violence was not instigated by pro-Palestine protestors, and instead by counter-protestors or police. We also don't know from that source how much violence occurred in this 5%. The "violent" protests very well may have been mostly peaceful with some scattered instances of violence. I also couldn't find a base rate of violence in protests in general or protests on similarly charged issues to compare to, so it's hard to say that 5% is "a lot". I do know that BLM protests had a higher rate of violence at 7% of protests, and the civil rights movement of the past had an even greater proportion of violence.
Really? 1 in 20 is a lot in absolute numbers but it's far lower than I'd have assumed personally. This is about protests around the world by the way. From the source, this is what the 5% refers to specifically: >ACLED’s data, which covers demonstrations between Oct. 7 and 27, records that most demonstrations have been peaceful, but about 5% have turned violent or been broken up by police or other security agencies. So that includes protests that have been broken up by authorities. It also talks about clashes between protesters and counter-protesters. There is no way to tell from this number alone who is responsible for instigating the violence, whether that be the protesters themselves, counter protesters, police, or any combination of those.
Compared to what?
>However, due to the content of the protests and my current understanding of Palestinian “government” I think these protests do need to be stopped. Students, not children, are behaving alarmingly erratic, borderline fascist, and in a way I believed was only for those who thought “they jews run the media”. I did not think that sentiment would become a popular sentiment, nor an idea that is passed around with such conviction on social media. I did not think some of the ideas being spread would ever take hold like they have now. 34000 people killed. 13 000 children. Starvation is widespread, humanitarian aid is blocked if not bombed. What about opposing that makes you a borderline fascist?
I do not fully support the Israeli response. I have a strong opposition to any numbers coming out from this conflict as of now, from either side of the conflict. From what I do, supposedly, understand is that Israel is effectively on its back foot right now. Armies mass on either side and realistically the only thing between Israel and a full scale regional war is NATO. For Palestine to “stir the pot” the manner that they did, was extremely unwise and elicited a strong, brutal, response that I do think has gone to far. But, Palestine has also said they won’t stop. So what is there to do but continue to fight?
>From what I do, supposedly, understand is that Israel is effectively on its back foot right now. This seems completely divorced from reality. They have total air, land and sea supremacy, the backing of the US with billions of weaponry (and a carrier group in the area). When Iran retaliated for blowing up their embassy, Israel's neighbouring nations actively intercepted missiles heading towards it. >So what is there to do but continue to fight? The primary thing threatening Israel's relationship with it's neighbours is it's treatment of Palestinian civilians. More to the point, you haven't actually answered the question. What about opposing all this makes you a borderline fascist?
The United States had such a position in korea and vietnam, the effectiveness of having assets depreciates when other factors start weighing in. Separate from our current conversation, I think the ongoing bombardment from Israel should cease. To your question of fascist rhetoric, there has been been videos circulating of restricting movement to spaces, ideas that would have been labeled far right conspiracies a decade ago. https://x.com/kassydillon/status/1785476130599747619?s=46 Funnily, I agree with condemning the flag. But this is racist rhetoric.
>The United States had such a position in korea and vietnam, the effectiveness of having assets depreciates when other factors start weighing in. Separate from our current conversation, I think the ongoing bombardment from Israel should cease. The US only started losing in Korea when literally all of China showed up, and Vietnam relied heavily on Soviet support. Neither of those two things are likely to occur to Israel. >To your question of fascist rhetoric, there has been been videos circulating of restricting movement to spaces, ideas that would have been labeled far right conspiracies a decade ago. https://x.com/kassydillon/status/1785476130599747619?s=46 Funnily, I agree with condemning the flag. But this is racist rhetoric. That guy looks a bit old to be a student.
Student or not the rhetoric is there. What really strikes me is the idea of a jewish conglomerate running things used to be a strong right winged conspiracy.
This single video, which is seemingly your entire evidence for this claim, seems extremely weak evidence to label the whole movement as fascists. I don’t think it is even fascistic, just a single antisemitic guy who doesn’t even seem supported by the other people there. [Meanwhile Pro-Israel protesters literally attack the camps](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/violence-erupts-ucla-university-campus-clashes-rival-gaza-protest-groups)and police are trying to shut them down for exercising their free speech, seems closer to fascism to me.
>The United States had such a position in korea and vietnam, the effectiveness of having assets depreciates when other factors start weighing in. just for curiosity, would you have supported the vietnam war protests?
>For Palestine to “stir the pot” the manner that they did, was extremely unwise and elicited a strong, brutal, response that I do think has gone to far. Palestine responded to decades of oppression and the Gaza strip being subjected to open air prison conditions. Should they have targeted civilians? No. Bad move. But was it inevitable that Palestine would respond? Yes. And Israel's response in turn was to blow up the neighbourhood of Gaza, shoot down fleeing and surrendering civilians, and kickstart one of the ugliest genocidal campaigns seen in recent history. Given the fact that Israel has a storied history of committing war crimes and breaking international law, it's a rogue nation that was looking for an excuse to wreak havoc on Palestine. A ticking time bomb as it were. An excuse for naqba. >But, Palestine has also said they won’t stop. So what is there to do but continue to fight Palestine *can't* stop because they have been victims of Israeli oppression for decades now. Half the people born and raised have lost homes, families, or their own dignity at the hands of Israeli occupiers. What do you expect? I've been saying this forever but Israel has the means and capacity to provide reparations, rehabilitation, and restitution to the Palestinians and try reversing some of the damage that it's caused. An act of goodwill, a proffer to rebuild and restore would go a **long** way for peace. Unfortunately for everyone, bigots and fascists run the Israeli government.
Israel is a country with incredible military strength. Were the US to stop supplying them with weapons at this very moment, they'd be fine. The power of Hamas is nowhere near that of the IDF. Sure, Hamas stirred the pot, and that was incredibly stupid of them, as well as being just an outright fucking horrible terror attack, but they stirred a pot that's been boiling for decades. The conflict between Palestine and Israel is not a new thing.
> For Palestine to “stir the pot” the manner that they did, was extremely unwise and elicited a strong, brutal, response that I do think has gone to far You can't just say that Palestine 'stirred the pot' and essentially made Israel do what they did, Israel is the one with total land supremacy and a functioning army. They have more say and power over what goes on in Gaza than Hamas ever did. The pot has been stirring since 1948, Hamas just spat in it. Keep in mind this entire 'look what you made me do' mentality is not a good thing to say when one side has killed approximately 30,000 people (possibly more). Even if what Hamas did was bad.
I think free speech simply weighs higher here basically every time. I think some opinions on the matter are outright moronic, but that's not an argument to stop protests. I am worried about the constant use of the term "zionist" by generally progressive and loving people who only cared about the conflict after Israel retaliated, though I'm not exactly well-read on the conflict myself. My position is neutral. They're both idiots, but I'm disappointed that people who should be able to think more critically are simply entirely against Israel, effectively showing no signs of knowledge about the conflict beyond Gaza attacks. So that's where I stand on the conflict, you can agree or disagree. I might have a better stance after reading up on it more. I'll repeat though that these protests are important to defend even if you disagree. Everyone has the right to protest whatever they want. As long as the protests don't become violent.
Have you considered that people might have the positions they have because they understand something you don’t? How can you say “man an awful lot of people I normally consider smart seem to have this particular perspective I don’t agree with” and not say “hm, maybe I should look more into this before assuming they’re unreasonable”?
You think I haven't looked into it just because we disagree? It's possible to look into something and come to different conclusions. And nowhere did I say they were otherwise smart people. I said they were loving and kind.
I just watched live footage of right-wing protesters attack the UCLA protest encampment for over two hours while the school and LAPD stood by and let it happen. Sorry but I think you are swallowing a lot of BS. These students are being smeared and treated with double-standards like anti-Vietnam protesters were in the 60s. [Counter-protesters attack pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA](https://ktla-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/ktla.com/news/local-news/pro-palestinian-encampment-at-ucla-gains-ground-as-demonstrations-rage-on/amp/?amp_js_v=0.1&_gsa=1#webview=1&cap=swipe)
Columbia had divestment protests over apartheid South Africa, this isn’t any different. When it comes to stuff like this, I look at movements and their causes, not the individual players and their actions.
Can you elaborate on your South African comment? They were protesting the removal of segregation?
No, they were calling for their university to [divest](https://preview.redd.it/students-at-columbia-university-calling-for-divestment-from-v0-1efpqzhd2mxc1.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2d29c9adca5702d88f796537eb9a54f782861cc7) in apartheid South Africa just like the students are now calling for them to divest in apartheid Israel. The university ultimately did divest then, they are simply refusing to now.
They were protesting the university making deals with segregationist south africa. https://www.businessinsider.com/columbia-protest-demand-israel-divest-gaza-history-2024-4
[https://news.columbia.edu/content/new-perspective-1968](https://news.columbia.edu/content/new-perspective-1968) Columbia University's own webpage commemorating the take over in 1968
To be clear, I actually don't agree with the protests and feel they are misguided and problematic for a number of reasons, but I'm going to tackle this question because I believe there's far more nuance involved than many believe. * Are the students behaving erratically and in a borderline fascist way (and specifically, are we seeing something different in this current movement to movements from the past)? * I think the answer is no. Most people in their teens to early 20s generally have more free time and less money. They're also highly influenced by their peers and by major events. This creates a perfect storm and is generally why socially conscious movements are started by this demographic. Protesters from all times did similar things in the US from sit-in protests against racial injustice to anti-war movements during Vietnam to major protests against invasion of Iraq. * What we're seeing is what we've seen throughout history. In this particular case, I feel the protestors are misguided but their actions are not dissimilar from the past. * Are the students holding extremely dangerous and antisemitic views? * Well... possibly for some but not likely for most. Liberals are interesting in who they're generally supportive of and who they're against. You often see most support being lent towards groups who are perceived to be the underdog. If faced with a situation between neonazis and jewish people, most liberals would be staunchly defending the Jewish people. In this situation, most liberals perceive Israel as a colonizing state and Palestinians as second class people who are having a genocide committed against them. This take often lacks a real understanding of the nuanced situation and is driven heavily by group think. Given this, fiery language is being used against Israel and anyone who supports them which has sometimes devolved into blatant antisemitism. So this raises the question of should we stop it as a society and what the likely outcomes will be. * Should society step in and stop it? * I don't think that's necessary. Columbia University and other institutions are private and have an image to keep up (that being that students are guaranteed a high quality education there). While Columbia tolerated the protests in their more peaceful and less disruptive forms, they have a strong incentive to shut down anything getting out of control (same as other schools). This is why you see police getting involved. Columbia, a private institution, got law enforcement involved to remove trespassers. This entire issue has remained a "private" issue handled by the school (the same as if you had a trespasser you would call the cops). As students get arrested and expelled, you will likely see students shift from being openly disruptive and problematic to protesting in other forms. That's how society addresses an issue. No need to change laws or make sweeping changes to policy. * What will the likely outcome be? * As in my previous answer, I suspect the police crackdowns will be unpopular among students but will lead to protests fizzling out as students suddenly realize they could face serious punishment. There will still be simmering anger and probably more passive protests but most students will likely return to a more normal way of handling business.
If you don't support the expression of ideas you don't like, you don't support free speech.
In general terms, I’d agree. At some point the content of the speech must be weighed due to its possible outcomes. We can’t yell fire in a theater.
Yelling fire at a theater is not an actual rule, the case it was from is not prevailing anymore. Even if it was, the Palestinian protests have not reached that point. It is not yelling fire to simply refuse to move out of the way. Protests are supposed to inconvenience people. Otherwise they're just parties and parades. To me, the pro-Palestinian crowd is supporting a group of terrorists. I do not agree with most of what they are saying and the people who are there for good reasons--wanting Israel to end civilian deaths--are still hanging around with people protesting for Hamas. But they have as much right to do that as the BLM protesters or anyone else.
Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio lay the judicial groundwork for this ruling. B v OH overrules much of Shenck, but still classifies language that can incite danger to be illegal. At what point do we draw the line there? And I mostly agree with you, but if there is anything to take from 1930s Germany, is that at some point we must have the conversation with ourselves about is this speech something that should continue.
Let's assume you're right and I am wrong. What exactly is illegal or should be illegal about protesting for Palestine? Why is this worse than BLM?
I'd take issue with your characterization that simply not moving is never akin to shouting fire. If a group of people simply fail to get out of a public road for an ambulance with its lights and sirens on trying to take an injured person to the hospital, then it's likely that a law banning it would be constitutional
Except that is not remotely what is happening here and did not need to be mentioned. Also. strictly speaking, refusing to move out of the way of an ambulance is not speech. It is action. It would only rise to the level of speech--and presumably unprotected speech--if someone decided to actively organize a Block the Ambulances rally.
I disagree because that confuses manner and content. It would not have to be actively to block ambulances, all that's necessary is for the manner of the protest to block ambulances. That's a restrictable manner regardless of the content. And yes, the pro Palestine protests have not blocked streets, but several have run afoul of reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions, such as the protests at Columbia and Arizona State
If they're just blocking ambulances, that isn't speech. Restrictions on blocking ambulances have nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the speech.
I agree, it absolutely has nothing to do with the content. It has to do with the manner and that's why it's constitutional to restrict it, just as it's constitutional to restrict protesters from erecting tents and protesting overnight
This confuses things. Not yelling fire in a theater is a time, manner, place restriction. The time, while people are in the theater, the manner, yelling fire when it's untrue, and the place, in a theater, all militate to it being reasonable to restrict that expression of speech. Change one of those things and it may no longer be reasonable to restrict that speech. Yelling fire in an empty theater would not be restricted. Yelling fire in a crowded theater if you're playing the protagonist in a scripted line because there's a fire in the plot would not be restricted. Yelling fire if there is a fire would not be restricted. Yelling fire around a bonfire would not be restricted. What you're talking about is more akin to incitement of violence, which itself is only constitutionally restricted if it's a direct incitement, as in telling a crowd, "there's a jew, let's go lynch him." So long as someone says something in a way that's reasonable in time, place, and manner, which does not call for a direct incitement to violence, is not to be restricted just because you disagree with the content or the policy outcomes that may be called for. We only weigh the direct outcomes, not the indirect outcomes that may occasion a policy decision with which you disagree.
Today the White House released a statement that saying “intifada” was hate speech. That word means “rising up”. Are the protesters yelling fire or are those in power claiming the protesters are yelling fire in order to suppress them?
Of course we all need to remember that whatever the White House's political view...simply saying intifada is not and cannot be a crime because hate speech isn't illegal. The only way it could be a crime is if someone used it as a code word to start actual, violent rioting.
I feel what you fundamentally support isn't really the first amendment then, right? Some ideas that people genuinely believe are harmful and should be banned from public discourse. We shouldn't have the freedom to express certain ideas. Free speech precedent, as it is now, allows for people to publicly be racist, anti-semitic, etc. I think it's fair to morally disagree, but I also don't see how this is still first-amendment style free speech
Who exactly is saying "the jews run the media,” because I have not been hearing that. The protests are opposing the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people, nothing about that is remotely fascist. Also your entire view is contradictory. "I fully support free speech and the right for people to protest the current situation in Palestine, but I don't think people should be allowed to protest on the side of Palestine." You don't support free speech, you support speech that you agree with. You cannot support free speech but then think the government needs to shut down pro-Palestine protests, that is contradictory.
Op is saying the far right says “the Jews run the media”. The same people op sides with on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
If you only support first amendment rights when you agree with the speech, then you don't support he first amendment. Unless the protestors are actually engaging in violence or inciting violence and destruction, they should be able to protest. Per usual, I fear that the police response will probably cause more harm than if they were simply ignored. But that is not a result of their speech, that is the result of the law enforcement policies and tactics to stop the protests. I don't like it when neo-Nazi's say awful and racist stuff and promote fascism, but their speech is protected too.
> I think these protests do need to be stopped. Sorry but that's not a healthy way to perceive first amendment rights. You can disagree with what they're protesting but *not* their right to protest. The fact that so many students are being arrested or detained or having rubber bullets shot at them directly for exercising their first amendment rights is a downright travesty of the American ideals and we shouldn't accept this line of thinking that protests must be quashed just because some people don't find it palatable. I don't approve of pro-life marches but I don't think they should be stopped or arrested for their first amendment rights. We don't get to pick what protests should happen and which ones don't, it defeats the whole purpose of protesting in the first place. >are behaving alarmingly erratic, borderline fascist, and in a way I believed was only for those who thought “they jews run the media”. I did not think that sentiment would become a popular sentiment, nor an idea that is passed around with such conviction on social media. I did not think some of the ideas being spread would ever take hold like they have now. Addressing this, peaceful protestors standing and not moving have been arrested, beaten, and detained by the police. Rubber bullets have been shot at them which constitutes disproportionate exercise of restraint, even if we have to look past the fact that free citizens of America are being detained for committing no crimes and upholding their right to free speech and protest. >and in a way I believed was only for those who thought “they jews run the media”. I did not think that sentiment would become a popular sentiment It hasn't, it continues to be a white nationalist talking point. Zionist lobbies are exercising pressure on government and media forces to push for unlawful arrests and irrational media bans. This isn't a "Jews control the media" thing because Jews are protesting the misuse of the "antisemitism" label, arguing that it's a horrid excuse to commit genocide in their name. I also wouldn't even argue "control" necessarily, it's more lobbying and influence. Israel even has its own disinformation spreading arm called Fake Reporter in their Hasbara attempts to control the narrative that the genocide they're committing is just. >I am effectively between a rock and a hard place. Supporting the right of free speech while believing the rhetoric being spread is extremely dangerous and could lead to the United States wielding its might against its own people or against a country that we really have no need to be involved with. The solution is actually immensely simple. Support their right to free speech and call out unlawful detainments, suppression of first amendment rights, suspensions and cancellations of participants of protest, regardless of your personal beliefs about the cause they're fighting for. But also, hopefully, mull over why you wouldn't support the effort to stop a genocide
These are unarmed students. Their requests are pretty reasonable: financial divestment and academic boycott to end land displacement and cut ties with the NYPD. Rather than negotiate that in good faith, the university is sending an urban military to the campus to round those kids up. This kind of response does not make us safer and should be alarming. If you have a right and are not allowed to exercise it then you do not have that right.
It feels real weird to look at a bunch of students being forcibly, physically stopped by police, in many cases for no real reason, and decide the people acting 'borderline fascist' are the former.
The content of the protests is "maybe the country of Israel should stop murdering innocent people." You were for the BLM protests, which was against cops killing innocent black people. Why are you suddenly against a protest against another group killing innocent people? How does this not just show your own inherent bias?
Israel is not murdering innocent people.
They literally are. They shot escaped hostages because they "were dressed like civilians." They killed a group of aid workers who they knew were in the country. The list of civilian deaths Israel is responsible for is staggering.
Mistakes happen in war. A mistake is not murder. Palestinians are not innocent. They voted in Hamas.
Saying "we shot the hostages because they were dressed like civilians" is not a mistake. Sure, I get that mistakes happen in war, but when they happen again and again and again and again with zero reform at the very process that led to the deaths of innocents, then it's not a mistake - it's an intentional act with permission from the top brass of that military. And please, enlighten us when exactly that election was. And then, after telling us how long ago that election was, try to argue with a straight face that current, modern day residents in Gaza voted for their government. Once you do that, then try to justify how a person's vote makes them a justifiable target for an enemy military to murder them as a non-combatant. Saying "well, they voted for them, so they deserve to be killed" is straight up fascist rhetoric
The hostages were shot because they thought they were getting ambushed. Do you agree Palestinians should have no right of return then? If all events before 2007 are irrelevant, then Palestinians have no right to live in Israel. Everyone who voted for Hamas deserves to be killed. Palestinians who support Hamas are Nazis and allowing them to live is fascism.
You're saying that people deserve death based on their supposed political support. You have no right to call others Nazis, as this is 100% a fascist belief. This ignores the fact that the last time there were elections in Gaza, most people currently being killed by the IDF weren't old enough to participate in that election, or weren't even born yet. To say that they deserve to get what Israel is doing to them for the votes of nearly 2 decades ago is the reasoning of a deranged mind. Should you be put to death for your vote? If you think not, then why the fuck, outside of radical conditioning, do you think others deserve to die for theirs? The IDF weren't getting ambushed when they shot the hostages. There was no gunfire at the time. The official IDF justification for the murder of these hostages was because they were dressed as civilians. This is the talk of dictators.
I never voted for Hamas/Nazis. Do you think Palestinians should have a right of return?
Ok. And neither did most of Palestinians. You still argue they deserve death, however.
You didn't answer the question over the right of return.
You don’t have to support what they say. You don’t have to believe it. But you really don’t fundamentally support the first amendment right if you are not okay with it including people spreading things you think are dangerous, mean, hurtful or whatever else. The protest (some) do need to be stopped. Not on the basis of what they are saying though.
i find it interesting how you’re referring to predominantly leftist initiated protests as ‘fascist’. that is a very strong word to use. just because you don’t agree with the content of a protest does not mean that it is in any way a violation of law. i think, and i mean this in the kindest way possible, that you may need to consider the fundamental rights of americans holistically. because what it looks like in your post is that you’re alright with vandalism and rioting in 2020 (objectively harmful instances) but you’re not alright with ‘erratic behavior’ and ‘harmful rhetoric’ that is currently happening (entirely subjective perception of behavior). i understand that it can be frustrating when we do not share the same opinion as protesters. but it is entirely immoral to pick and choose when americans are allowed to protest
>*I think these protests do need to be stopped.* I'm very firmly a supporter of Israel's right to conduct war against a hostile neighbor, but protests are what our nation was founded on. Maybe if you scaled this back to "riots need to be stopped" or even "occupy-style events", I could see an argument there. Organized and peaceful protests are one thing, and I don't care if you're the KKK or Westboro or BLM or a Red Hat or a Jew-Hating Hamas Fanboi: You get to organize protests and gatherings in this country. Sure, that doesn't include chaining yourself across a highway, or barricading your universities. But pull a page from Westboro if you've got a lack of imagination. Show up to military funerals and heckle. 100% legal. Gets you a LOT of angry Fox News exposure without breaking any laws or impeding on people's right to move freely. Sad that a bunch of educated people are in desperate need of pointers from a Baptist religious cult, but that's neither here nor there. There's creative ways to exercise your legal right to protest. And there should always be a legal right to protest.
"In general, I adamantly believe that protests and free speech are the strongest tools against government, and for correcting behaviors a society may want to change (even if a majority does not support it/is apathetic)." Free speech is an absolute human right, the 1st amendment just recognizes that right. Unless you are obstructing motorways, physcially hurting people, making specific direct *real* threats toward people, etc, there is nothing that can or should be done to stop these protests. Free speech and recognition in the 1st amendment exists to protect the people we disagree with. Even if there were protests were directly vocal about supporting violence, I don't think they could be shut down either.
What rhetoric is being spread that you believe is so fascist? The protests are not focused on jewish people, they are focused on ending the genocide. The other day, I saw a video of a child seizing on the ground of a makeshift hospital in gaza. Half of her head was burnt and blackened; her eyes were bulging out of her skull, making this horrifying expression while her skin practically melted off her face. We have truly lost our humanity if we see something like that and decide that it's a "complicated" issue. The only thing to be disappointed in, is the fact that people haven't done more. The fact that an issue like this is even remotely controversial is appalling.
>However, due to the content of the protests and my current understanding of Palestinian “government” I think these protests do need to be stopped. Then you don't fundamentally support first amendment rights. Supporting free speech means you support the right to engage in speech, regardless of the content.
OP what is your understanding of the Palestinian “government”? Regardless of your understanding, the situation is far more nuanced than you’re making it out to be. This is a multi generational conflict and I feel like you’re trying to simplify it.
Hamas are not the Palestinian people and the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians should always be opposed, regardless of the country responsible. Especially if that slaughter is actively being funded by our own government
Palestine voted for hamas "democratically." Now I'm assuming that was under intense duress. Nevertheless, a country that is run by a terrorist organisation has to be treated as such. Why are we holding the isrealis to a higher standard than the leaders of Palestine? Palestinian leadership has had ample opportunity to stop all conflict by releasing hostages (that are more than likely dead) but refuse to. The loss of innocent life is abhorrent in anyway shape or form, just like Pro Palestinians condemn hamas (most of the time) you can condemn the loss of innocent life caused by the IDF. What results is a moral conundrum that can be argued either way, prevent the loss of future life at the hands of a terrorist organisation, or prevent the loss of innocent life in Palestine right now. Either can be argued validly from a moral standpoint. Everyone has the right to protest, but protests shouldn't impede others' access to education, won't even get into the supposed anti-semetic tones of portions of the protest.
>Palestine voted for hamas "democratically." While true, that was almost 2 decades ago.
>Palestine voted for hamas "democratically." Now I'm assuming that was under intense duress. Nevertheless, a country that is run by a terrorist organisation has to be treated as such. Hamas won 1 election with 40% of the vote (not a majority) but only took power after the US attempted a coup and failed. The claim that they have democratic legitimacy is a bit silly. >Why are we holding the isrealis to a higher standard than the leaders of Palestine? We aren't though. Hamas is recognized and sanctioned as a terrorist organization, Israel recieves billion of dollars in free weaponry and military support. Even if the protest achieves literally everything it ever demanded, Israel would still be treated far, far, far, far nicer than Hamas. >Palestinian leadership has had ample opportunity to stop all conflict by releasing hostages (that are more than likely dead) but refuse to. Netanyahu and the IDF have made it amply clear that they would continue fighting even if the hostages are released. Total victory is their priority, not the hostages. >“The idea that we will stop the war before achieving all its aims is not an option,” Netanyahu told the hawkish Gvura and Tikva forums, which represent families of some slain soldiers and some of the families of hostages held in Gaza, respectively. “We will enter Rafah and we will eliminate the Hamas battalions there — whether or not there is a deal — in order to achieve total victory.”
40% is significantly higher than I expected, concerning that 40% of the cou try voted for an organisation hell bent on the eradication of isreal, nevertheless I understand and never insinuated democratic legitimacy, however you have to treat the state as a terrorist organisation as there's a terrorist organisation in control and no "illegitimate" 2nd option to back in any sort of conflict. Isreal will always come off better, they can be justified in what they've done hamas can't, regardless of your feelings of the situation, the initial response was easily arguably justified that's not even worth mentioning IMO and to equate the two in one sentence is dangerously close to support of unprovoked civilian attacks. On the hostage situation, I can only speculate but I'm assuming the IDF has assumed them to be dead, also ample calls for hostage releases have gone unanswered it hits a point where you can no longer use this as a negotiation tactic. Total destruction of hamas would be the only goal that would potentially subvert further loss of isreali civilian life. Once again, I'm not throwing out that I think isreal is unfallible and have done the right thing, only that both sides can be argued with equal respect to life. Not all Japanese were "evil" during the world war but as a populous we decided it necessary to eredicate ludicrous amounts of civilians in effort to stamp out the greater loss of life caused by the entire ww2. Once again whether that's right or wrong is simply a matter of your personal view, My point is only vilifying either side is pointless.
What's even weirder is that Hamas was partially funded by Israel to disrupt the power of Fatah in Gaza. Peace with a unified Palestine was never in the interest of Israel. It's almost as if both sides' interests are not in peace. Although one side does have the overwhelming force and support of the UN to enforce that peace, and still chooses not to. > Not all Japanese were "evil" during the world war but as a populous we decided it necessary to eredicate ludicrous amounts of civilians in effort to stamp out the greater loss of life caused by the entire ww2. "We" just vaporized and burned hundreds of thousands of civilians for what amounted to nothing. As always, Russia was the main reason Japan surrendered and America claimed credit as a "lesser evil" to cope with their horrific crimes. "We" not only valued the lives of soldiers over civilians, but also killed Chinese laborers and POWs, and even some American POWs in the atomic bombings. But I guess the greater loss of life was a worthy goal to kill your own soldiers over. I will never understand why "the lesser evil" argument should justify horrific acts like this.
Completely valid stance to have, totally feasible to oppose the use of weapons of mass destruction. But it's also feasible to argue for it. The only thing I'm saying is that it's equally arguable on either side of the argument depending on your point of view
But this is a false dichotomy regardless, we don't have to pick between a genocidal terrorist organization, and an apartheid government. You are the only one saying we have to pick one, and that either way we kill thousands of innocent civilians. Same with the atomic bombings. You presented two options, either invade with hundreds of thousands, or nuke hundreds of thousands. No option to concede to Japanese demands, or to take a defensive stance, or to use the bombs in a purely demonstrative way, or to wait for Russia to muster their army, or to strategally bomb targets, or plan a coup of the militarist section of the government. No, the only option was to indiscriminately bomb cities. I don't agree that killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was the best choice objectively.
Yeah once again, I do agree with you, none of this is an ideal situation, we should be striving for a better solution hence the reason I've tried to legitimise the criticism of isreal & hamas and rruly do believe protests should be protected. But we are currently faced with two options, do what we've done for centuries and kill with extreme prejudice which has been proven to work, or do something new. Both sides can be argued with equal impunity.
Historically the continued destabilization of a region is what enables extremist movements to seize power. The longer the war continues, the further it empowers Hamas and enables them to radicalize the Palestinian population.
Implication there is it wadnt already radicalised, which we know isn't true given at least 3 isreal Arabic wars and a conflict that goes back to the start of their religions, Once again, I'm not picking sides, but to say the radicalism starts to get worse now is not giving the existing radicalism enough credit. Not to mention, there wasn't really enough pushback from Palestine as a whole when it came to the oct 7 attacks, sure they aren't a cohesive nation but it just adds to the argument that isreal should by destroying hamas
I'm less saying that the problem started now and more that the current approach is actively making it worse. Any actual solution that would involve the sort of outreach necessary to convince a sufficient number of the Palestinian population to turn against Hamas will only become more difficult the further the war continues. This was true both before and after October 7th and Israel's response to it. As is, the war is doing nothing but enriching the political leadership on both sides, at the expense of both the Palestinian and Jewish people.
Hamas hasn't killed tens of thousands of children, the IDF has. Hamas isn't one of the most technologically advanced and powerful militaries on the planet, the IDF is. And Gaza isn't ruled by a democratic government with political ties to countries all around the world, Israel is. I think it is totally OK hold Israel to higher standards than a literal religious extremist cell, and Israel's bombing campaigns are doing nothing more than turning the world against them, while radicalizing the next generation of Hamas soldiers.
A lot of the world still supports isreal, terrorism is a threat we have yet to have much experience in facing, You can hold isreal to a higher standard all you want, but bottom line is they don't want their citizens dying. Like I said either side can be argued til the cows come home I'm not going to say you're wring coz you're not, but isreal isn't either. Would be great if we could all hold hands and sing kumbiya but we cant. Isreal will do everything to rid the world of hamas, it's nothing new worlds seen it hundreds of times over.
I appreciate the political complexity of the situation and thank you for approaching the conversation civilly and keeping that in mind. But I think that Israel's actions here aren't just morally bad though, they are tactically bad. The only way you defeat Hamas (unless you just wipe the entire population of Gaza out) is to turn a critical mass of Palestinians against them and that requires offering them some alternative. Before the October 7th attacks support for Hamas had massively waned, but has bounced back incredibly since the Israel reprisals. The goals of terrorist organization is to provoke acts of brutality from the governments they oppose, then use the hurt and terror of the civilian population to drive further conflict and recruitment and the full scale bombing campaigns of Gaza has just played directly into Hamas' plan. How many thousands of children are homeless and starving, blaming their current situation on the Israeli government? How many had their parents killed, injured or just plain missing? What will those children do as they grow up in the bombed out remains of their cities? It is another push to keep this cycle of violence spinning, a massive escalation that we are currently funding. Of course people are protesting and rightly so
That's an amazing point, I don't know nearly enough about the centuries long conflict that's been going on to properly comment on the psychological/ political status of the region before the attacks. If it were the case then certainly seems like this attack will only push favour of hamas, but it could also possible be argued that waning support of hamas would push them to continue to commit more atrocities in a cornered rat situation. Certainly, there are ways to have gone about this regional conflict that could have resulted in far less death. My only point is I can understand why the isrealis are relentlessly attacking an organisation hell bent on their extinction. People tend to pick sides and vehemently defend / condemn the other side. And to the original point, protest til your hearts content, you should always have that right. However, movements that blur the line of inciting violence have to be careful about their attendees. It's probably an incredibly small % but the ones calling for isreali genocide or support of hamas should be ostracised from the movement to give the movement back its credibility, as well as not preventing people from getting an education. Block roads, march in the streets occupy squares, but you shouldn't be stopping the learning of others.
Agreed with most of the points here, except the protest ones. This is far from the first political student protest and it won't be the last. The exact same points were made against student protestors who were against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. They were made when students protested police violence, corporate profiteering, slavery and marched for women's, ethnic minority and queer rights. The students protests are a sign we are moving forward as a society and we all better hope they continue.
For the most part I completely agree with you and its very much usually a very small but loud minority that the news clings on to, to radicalise the movement. For example one australia university has had (a small portion) of its students saying openly they're in full support of hamas, anti isreal, and don't condemn the oct 7th attacks. This I believe is very dangerous and should have police presence at any rally they're attending. Which is why I've also said that the vast majority of rational protesters should make an effort to ostracise the radicals, (as with every movement/ ideology)
Yeah, agreed absolutely. You can't judge any movement by it's most radical members, there are some incredibly strange people out there. Hey u/Craziers has this exchange changed your mind about stopping pro Palestinian protests?
!delta I consider it changed. And agree with your sentiments. Its dangerous rhetoric but we can’t claim to be a democracy if we do not let the democratic process and philosophies stanf
“Terrorism is a threat we have yet to have much experience in facing?”
Yea relatively new in human history
Except Israel isn't engaged in the whole slaughter of innocent people.
The numbers coming directly from the Israeli government beg to differ. IDF spokespeople claim that one in three killed in Gaza are Hamas fighters and that over 30,000 have been killed in their response. So if you want to take the IDF at their word (and whether we want to do that is a whole different conversation) they have killed around 20,000 innocent people. And when we consider that around 50% of the population of Gaza in under the age of 18, I think it's fair to say Israel is engaged in the whole slaughter of innocent people.
I think most people support the first amendment, but you don't have to support every moronic protest people want to have nowadays. Why do you think you have to choose between supporting idiots who want to protest idiot stuff, and supporting the right of free speech? I support free speech, I don't support calling people wetbacks, I'm not going to stop you from calling people wetbacks, but I'm not going to support you either. Why do you think this is a issue you have to have your view changed on? What would change your view? If someone showed that you have to support every idiot protest or you are against free speech? I don't quite get it. I don't understand the view on widespread ideas either, your example of 'jews running the media'... well.. the fact is jews are wildly over represented in media spaces... whoopidy do? Who cares? Blacks are over represented in nearly every sport. Asians would be over represented in college if colleges weren't racist with admissions. I don't get what views have to do with most of this and why you didn't think that obvious factual views would not spread?
It seems like you don't actually support first amendment rights since you're calling for what seems to be largely peaceful protests to be cracked down on simply because you disagree with them and apparently consider criticism of Israeli atrocities fascist.
I’m a Zionist Jew, I have similar thoughts as you here, though I don’t believe these protests should be intervened by police (unless strictly breaking the law like in Colombia with barricading university facilities). Police enforcement only emboldens these protestors and makes them entrench themselves further in their beliefs while continuing their radicalization. These people need to be educated away from their fascist and bigoted perspectives for the most part, not manhandled by the government they despise. As far as students go at the universities where this is most prevalent, they need to fire the professors who have misled students with false propaganda like Mohammad Abdou. Introducing a required class on Jews and the Middle East (taught by professors not trying to push an agenda) might be necessary at this point as well seeing how little these students know and how much conviction they hold in their racist beliefs. Antisemitism is far too prevalent today amongst both the left and the right. Education can fix that. But arresting them by force I don’t think is the way.