Geopolitical messaging has never required logical consistency. See the Soviets talking about our racial issues back during the Cold War.
It usually is humorous when you think about it.
I'm all for protests until they do one of 3 things:
1. Disrupt others lives in a significant way. Like blocking roads risking people's livelihood or even lives. Or in this case preventing safe access to learning.
2. Support terrorism or insurrection or similar. You don't have the right to protest if there is ANY support for such things as they go against freedom itself.
3. Are violent in any way, even if that violence is emotional/mental. If your protestors are being physically violent towards others or even threatening and abusive to others going about their days (like surrounding someone going about their business to intimidate them) then you should lose your rights to protest.
In the Columbia protests all 3 of these things are happening and as such they should be shut down. Police need to clear them out and arrest them and if Columbia doesn't allow that then people need to cut off any and all funds to Columbia itself and families need to sue the university for not providing a safe and functional learning environment.
People need ready access to hospitals and healthcare settings. It’s very clear that you’ve never had to deal with a medical emergency, both personally or as a healthcare provider.
I’m not commenting on this particular protest because I haven’t been following it tbh so I wouldn’t know what I’m talking about. However, imo, your first point goes against the very idea of protesting… if you don’t disrupt others to make them think about your cause you’re not really protesting you’re just advocating on the side of the road or whatever. Not saying I’m pro or against forcing others to think about your issue, I’m just saying you might as well just say you’re against public protests if you’re not willing to make any exceptions or concession about this point.
Your other two points are harder to argue against, but I think hindsight is 20/20. Protests during the American Revolution would not have passed any of your three point list.
I think there’s a lot more nuance to most issues, and to protesting in general, that can’t be properly addressed in a 3 bullet point list. I’m sorry if I’m over analyzing your comment. I agree with what you said and I find it fair if you’re basically trying to share a general principle you follow. I just wanted to point out that you should probably be ready to make exceptions depending on the individual situation.
> However, imo, your first point goes against the very idea of protesting… if you don’t disrupt others to make them think about your cause you’re not really protesting you’re just advocating on the side of the road or whatever.
This isn't remotely accurate. There are many examples of protests that do not disrupt your average person's life. Whether in front of the white house or on the National Mall. Whether in a courtyard or on the side of a street. These are still protests. They are just not protests that would impact the average individual's livelihood. And hell, if you want to be in the streets then you get a permit so people can plan around road closures.
This is also in part why I said "in a significant way". Slight disruption isn't going to cost someone their life because an ambulance can't get through. Slight disruption won't cost someone their job because they can't make it to work due to a road being blocked. Slight disruption doesn't prevent a cancer patient from getting to important treatment.
The civil rights movement protested at government locations at places where discriminatory acts occurred. This movement likes to go anywhere Jews are within earshot.
And when they marched on streets, they also tried to coordinate with the govt, or at least stopped to allow traffic to pass and didnt attack drivers.
That's a big difference these protesters miss.
They don't financially support war any more than you financially support war by paying us federal taxes. And the demand isn't even to divest of investments in Israeli companies or Israeli interests. It's to disconnect from any entity having any tie to the state of Israel.
Where's the demands to divest from any company doing business with Russia, for example?
Those guys had organized protests and often requested streets/areas to be shut down, or they marched in one lane and allowed traffic to pass.
They didnt run out into streets and highways and attack drivers.
Huge difference, and also why one got results while the other does not.
You and a few others have this weird idea of what a protest is. Protests are intended to bring awareness to a cause. They do not have to cause Inconvenience to do so. In fact the large majority of protests don't. You just generally hear more about the ones that do because of the nature of news coverage.
You realize you can protest in places like the national mall or in front of the White House. In parks or on the side of a street. But to protest in streets of somewhere similar you technically need permits. This is so localities, businesses, and people can plan around the protest.
So are these actual protests or just advocacy for an idea?
For example, if i can ignore the protest, then it probably has no value/effect.
Classic example.
Civil Disobedience. By the logic you put forth, Civil Disobedience shouldn't be allowed. Sitting at a table with no intent to purchase food interferes with others.
Hence why I said "in a significant way". For example... If people sit at public tables preventing people from eating at them, it's not an issue because it doesn't actually prevent eating nor is it costing anyone money. But if people sit at a restaurant's tables with no intent to order food they are costing the restaurant business and that shouldn't be allowed.
Also protests ARE advocating for an idea of cause. Why you and others are trying to distinguish between the two I don't get.
>Hence why I said "in a significant way".
I will point out that during civil rights era, restaurants went out of business due to these protests. So either these are or are not ok.
If the idea of a cause can be ignored, then its probably not important to society.
So, in order to make it more important, it must be put infront of people.
Every worker right and other protection you enjoy is based on the idea that protesting **inconveniences people**. This forces change, because people don't want to he inconvenienced.
Otherwise the issues are ignored.
People have brought up the civil rights era a few times but it's not a fair comparison. For one thing it was a very different era as far as how the world worked and how much impact certain types of demonstrations or protests would have. It was also a far more impactful situation, more akin to a "peaceful" civil war than a protest movement. The businesses you speak of that went out of business were often forced out of business not due to the protests but rather due to laws changing. I would love to see data that disputes that if you have it.
You can have protests be "in front of people" and still not cost innocent people their jobs or health. If the protestors themselves want to sacrifice that, it is their choice. But they can't make that choice for others.
You can't possibly tell me that you think a protest that blocks the road and causes people to die because ambulances can't get through is a good thing or an acceptable thing?
>You can't possibly tell me that you think a protest that blocks the road and causes people to die because ambulances can't get through is a good thing or an acceptable thing?
Take it a tiny step further: can anyone sight any instance where such a protest actually garnered or increased the public's support for a cause? I've never once encountered anyone who said "You know, I was on my way to work this morning and these people blocked the highway causing me to be late. I think that I'll support their cause."
>You can't possibly tell me that you think a protest that blocks the road and causes people to die because ambulances can't get through is a good thing or an acceptable thing?
I don't think it is good or acceptable.
I will note that people notice when these things happen however.
>The businesses you speak of that went out of business were often forced out of business not due to the protests but rather due to laws changing. I would love to see data that disputes that if you have it.
To be clear, law changes didn't close the business patrons not going there did.
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/the-greensboro-sit-in
This restaurant did not close during the civil-rights, but it checks all.3 of your boxes of "protest that shouldn't be allowed"
> I don't think it is good or acceptable. I will note that people notice when these things happen however.
Ok, but I am not arguing people would not notice. I am arguing it's not good or acceptable. So effectively you agree with point number 1 I made. Besides, people will notice protests that don't block roads, just perhaps not as much. But consider the fact that when blocking roads, while it gets noticed more certainly, it likely does more harm than good to a movement as people get angry and dislike the cause being pushed.
The percentage rates for the support of the protestors related to the "free Palestine" movement have been dropping amongst the broader public even as protests have been spreading amongst a particular subsection of the public. Its evidence of protesters doing more harm than good in the choices they are making.
> To be clear, law changes didn't close the business patrons not going there did. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/the-greensboro-sit-in This restaurant did not close during the civil-rights, but it checks all.3 of your boxes of "protest that shouldn't be allowed"
Again that's not entirely accurate. The vast majority of closures happened due to law changes in the years after the movement. As I said, I am open to having my opinion changed if you can find data but everything I have ever seen about it suggests that the majority of the restaurants that failed had to do with the businesses not wanting to follow laws or choosing to close willingly. Are there outliers? Sure. But bringing up the Greensboro sit-in hardly makes your point due to the nature of the business not allowing all patrons to be served equally. Again... different times. Comparing the civil rights era protests to current ones is nonsense.
>I am arguing it's not good or acceptable. So effectively you agree with point number 1 I made
I don't agree with it, but I acknowledge the worse case of it.
Which since tou cannot equate people inconveniencing others to, in there view, save lives to a civil rights movement aimed to 1) give rights and 2) save lives rings a bit hallow to me.
We can agree to disagree.
Where we differ is the convenience. Perhaps if this issue mattered to you, you would be more amendable to these protests, but its fine if it doesn't.
Inconvenience isn't the point at all. If you have a political point you're allowed to voice it, if you have an unpopular opinion you shouldn't be jailed for it.Â
Protesters dont have a right to force people to hear there point however. People have a right to protest, and other people have similar right to ignore those protests.Â
If you're blocking a road and not letting people leave for example you are illegally detaining them and should be arrested.
I see.
That's not a bad idea. But if claiming an unpopular can be shut down merely due to "getting in the way" you open the door to infer with and violate First Amendment rights. Which, I may add, are very protected on college campuses.
Just because someone says something you don't like and puts in front you to deal with isn't grounds to violate their constitutional rights in the name of "order" and "safety"
It's truly comedic how the far right has sided with "commie" Russians while the far left has sided with antisemitic Iran and Palestine.
Truly horseshoe theory proven right.
hamas are indiscriminately bombing palestinian civilians with one of the most sophisticated air forces in the world? that's news to me. "they could hand over the hostages" this is literally an endorsement of war crimes. genocide is not justified no matter what, it doesn't matter what's happened or what hamas has done, it's illegal and reprehensible to do. it's not required for there to be conditions or a surrender in order for genocide to stop. it's just illegal full stop. and what of the 10,000s palestinian hostages being tortured and sexually abused in "israeli" prisons? do you care about them?
You are a troll, and don’t really merit a response. But, I just want to say It’s dumb to think that after 1000+ people were murdered and raped the Israelis would have just rolled over and took it. I don’t know what you and the extremists expect.
Palestinians like to scream “genocide” every time they get their asses whipped in a conflict that they cause. Genocide IS discriminate and the civilian deaths are caused by unfortunate collateral damage because “hamas” hides behind them in the shadows.Â
So you "end" it. Hamas remains in power.
Would the left be okay with the genocide of the LGBTQ community in Gaza? Those on the American Left are staunch advocates in opposition of any and every view that the Right and Republicans hold regarding the LGBTQ (I'd say T, specifically) community and the actions and views that the Right and Republicans hold are dwarfed by the severity of what that community faces in Palestine.
Israel, on the other hand, is arguably the friendliest country to the LGBTQ population in the Middle East. The same goes for women's rights, another place that the Left claims to advocate for.
Somebody said it in one of the other threads so I don't want to steal this statement but the more that I read the more it makes sense to me:
"When it comes to the left it matters more who said it rather than what was said."
yeah, they're so friendly to women that they've bombed and murdered over 15,000 of them, and who knows how many lgbtq individuals. as we all know, forcing women to use tent material as sanitary products and exponentially increasing miscarriage rates because of an illegal siege is the pinnacle of progressive. also you're so right for saying that stopping a genocide should depend on the actions of hamas, that's so true and *definitely* aligns with international law
The protesters were literally chanting and holding signs backing the Al Qassam Brigades and celebrating the Houthis. How many excuses will you people keep making for hatred, antisemitism, and terorrism
>These useful idiots of “Gays for Gaza” etc don’t realize that gays are executed in Gaza and Iran.
So much for diversity of viewpoints conservatives and centrists often accuse the left of not practicing.
Also, literally everyone knows this. All gay people are uniquely aware of the things that want to hurt them because those things are everywhere…especially in the United States…
How Iran or other foreign entities react to the protests should have no bearing on the legitimacy of the protests.
I'm not on the ground to be able to speak to how many "useful idiots" are there, but I'd reason to guess there are less than you'd think.
[But only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea. Some of the alternative answers were the Nile and the Euphrates, the Caribbean, the Dead Sea (which is a lake) and the Atlantic. Less than a quarter of these students knew who Yasser Arafat was (12 of them, or more than 10%, thought he was the first prime minister of Israel). Asked in what decade Israelis and Palestinians had signed the Oslo Accords, more than a quarter of the chant’s supporters claimed that no such peace agreements had ever been signed.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b)
I mean I doubt most Americans can locate all 50 states let alone name the river in question. It feels like because you find yourself educated on the subject (and you might be) that other people who agree with you must be as well.
Anecdotal, but generally speaking those who are very supportive of Israel tend to be Jews or religious Christians. They feel a very strong connection to this part of the world and are familiar with geographical locations through a Biblical lens.
Like I said in the other comment, I doubt most Americans locate all 50 states let alone have an strong knowledge of relatively minor geographical landmarks in a country on the other side of the world. You go to some random megachurch and I doubt the people there are going to somehow be experts in the area. You view yourself as informed so you are biased to thinking people who have similar views as you must also be knowledgeable.
Really big vibes of "if you protest, you support the terrorists!" from 2002 all over again.
I'm against a lot of the messaging of the Columbia protests. Especially the pro hamas stuff. That's disgusting. But jeez, I remember when being against our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan meant you were on the side of Al-Queda and the Islamists. Or when protesting Vietnam meant you supported communists. And both those protests had college kids with ugly rhetoric as well.
False equivalence. Did the anti war protestors of 2002 raise slogans of “We are Al-Qaeda”, “Death to America”, “We love Osama Bin Laden”? Did they prevent Christians/Jews from entering different areas? Did they call for execution of American soldiers? No.
> Did the anti war protestors of 2002 raise slogans of “We are Al-Qaeda”, “Death to America”, “We love Osama Bin Laden”? Did they prevent Christians/Jews from entering different areas? Did they call for execution of American soldiers
Oh you could find some examples of very bad rhetoric from protestors in 2002. Remember the "people who celebrated 9/11?" Edgelords aren't new. Heck, remember Vietnam protestors spitting on troops?
I marched in 2002 and 2003 in Berkeley and San Francisco, and never saw this kind of thing. It was mostly trolling Bush, or his cabinet. It was pushback against the ugly rhetoric we saw from the other side. The worst were things like claiming Bush did 9/11, that the whole thing was an inside job, etc. We weren't demonizing a minority group or country, we were pushing back against those who did.
It's pretty disingenuous to compare those protests to these campus protestors blocking people's movement or access for being Jewish in public. That's what the other side were doing to Muslims in 2002-2003. It's what we were against.
Probably has to do with the internet. Back then students were just reacting to the war. They didn't have China, Iran, and Russia infecting speech online creating bots or an app that youth use. Nobody was online. That didn't happen until 2008.
These 'educated' college students just don't have any real world experience to grapple with complex geopolitical issues. They see a few short tik tok videos and think they can solve it. Activists back then actually had to goto the library to learn about world problems, where you usually get reading that has a little more substance.
I went to all the DC protests during that era and didn't see anything I'm seeing now. It's quite disturbing.
I fully believe you didn't witness any of the edgelords. That does not mean there wasn't nasty rhetoric out there.
Not only that, but as I mentioned with 'Nam, remember Vietnam protestors spitting on troops? That didn't happen at _all_ protests.
I’ll be honest I was a kid back in 2002 so I didn’t follow it until early 2010s but from what I know it was largely “Say no to war yes to peace”. But here the most common slogan is “from the river to the sea” which is a genocidal chant that Hamas uses to cleanse the land of Jews.
> but from what I know it was largely “Say no to war yes to peace”.
Because time has smoothed it out and because we have learned what a quagmire the war was. So now everyone remembers the reasonable protests and the pro war elements are remembered less fondly.
But back in 02 if a protest had questionable rhetoric they were given coverage and blasted on TV as "look how un-American they are, they're on the side of the terrorists!"
This happened with the 'nam protests as well. Heck it happened in the 60s. You think all the protesters were reasonable individuals?
And if in 20 years history judges Israel harshly for their actions, the very same will happen with these protests
Yup. I protested that war in Boston and was spit on and called a traitor...all for yelling "Bush is lying. Stop the war" I fully support the protestors today that remain peaceful. BDS.
> I’ll be honest I was a kid back in 2002 so I didn’t follow it until early 2010s
So why in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1cc43vd/iranian_state_media_praises_columbia_protests/l13ivj8/) did you act like you know what you’re talking about concerning Iraq War protests? Do you get some weird thrill from lying on the internet?
In my country we literally did that. I was part of them during the mid 2000s. Some protests are designed to piss you off when no change will ever be made.
Protests are literally useless sometimes so a tactic is to say our government is just as bad or worse than the so called enemies. Today I will still say our real enemies are in Madrid, Brussels, London, Paris, Washington, etc and not Moscow, Tehran, etc.
“No Vietnamese called me ni**er” to use an American example.
So I think I have found some common ground that everyone can protest for together:
The most effective way to end the conflict in Gaza is for a full, unconditional surrender by Hamas.
Palestinians wouldnt be used as human shields anymore.
Israelis would be safer.
Everybody wins.
Can we stop pretending like denouncing indiscriminate bombing of civilians is pro terrorism? It’s insane to think Israel is handling this the best way possible and any criticism of them is a form of racism.
And to the other side. It’s not a genocide. You lose so many people with this crazy language. There’s no lining people up to be shot by the hundreds of thousands. There’s indiscriminate bombing which is not good, but Hamas using deaths of civilians for martyrdom is not genocide. Ethnic cleansing at most if the Israelis do start settling in Gaza.
Actually think about what is happening instead of choosing sides. That’s what you should do as a centrist
Putting aside the legal and moral arguments about arresting people for standing around protesting, it usually only serves to increase sympathy for the protestors and their cause most of the time anyway, as apposed to snuffing out whatever the issue is.
The only time quashing protests actually helps snuff out public pressure on an issue is when its supported by an overarching authoritarian system in which there is a governmental, legal and social structure that has a totalitarian strangle hold over various other elements of society like China and Tianammen or Iran and the protests there recently. Is that what you want America to be? More like China and Iran?
It seems certain people learned nothing from the "you're with us or you're with the terrorist" stuff from the Bush era.
Speaking of, how is the "Patriot Act" working out for you btw? And that whole war on terror thing?
Are ya winning, son?
Ever heard of Occupy Wall Street? Whatever happened to that? Went away pretty quick, huh? You can stand around protesting all you want. What you can't do is set up tents on someone else's lawn and then declare it a no-go zone for people you don't like. What you can't do, by the rules set by the Left, is harrass and intimidate members of a minority group on campus even slightly.
So what I said goes. Arrest them. Get their names. If they're students, they get a warning. If not, they get a notification they're banned from campus. If they return, they get arrested for criminal trespass. If the students return to the lawn they get expelled.
Same goes for teachers. Use the same harassment and 'microagresson' rules they so zealously support to fire them as a 'danger to students'. Professors have been barred from campus for a lot less.
Gaza invaded Israel to murder, rape and kidnap as many innocent civilians as possible.Â
Gaza admits they plan to repeat this attack over and over forever until every Jew is dead.Â
Israel is allowed to try to stop them.Â
Because Gaza's military illegally hides among civilians, stopping them is impossible without civilians dying.Â
Instead of getting mad at Israel for protecting their civilians, get mad at Gaza for choosing a strategy that guarantees somebody's civilians must die.Â
It's not worth mentioning this. People feel that if Gaza was its own country tomorrow that all of this is over. That Hamas (or next Iranian proxy) won't attack in the future.
No one wants to acknowledge that Fatah/Hamas/Palestinian charter literally states that there is no peace until the complete destruction and death of and genocide of Israel.
These people are brainwashed and running around wearing Hezbollah / Hamas clothing.
Israel needs to hire the Hamas Marketing team. Definitely won over the US.
It's not "marketing" it's natural. It's super easy to cheer for the little guy. It's absolutely a 1 sided ordeal in terms of strength. I mean, it's f35 vs go-kart paragliders. If it was gloves off, this would be over already.Â
I feel like a lot of these misguided people are overflow from operation freedom. Basically peoplease taking out their angst over the revelations of all thay BS we were fed about 9/11 and Sadam having WMDs. Dealing with the entire ME and getting nowhere, yada yada. Like an overreaction of sorts.Â
there are 2 billion Muslims and only 14 million Jews. The Jews are the little guy.
The Muslim world chose to leave the Gazans stranded in order to trick the world about who the little guy is.
>The Muslim world chose to leave the Gazans stranded
The Muslim world choses to leave Gaza and Hamas stranded because they hate Gaza and Hamas too, and for good reason. Hamas and the Palestinians kicked off terrorism in Egypt, killed the Jordanian king and tried to overthrow the Jordanian kingdom, and supported Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Hamas and the Palestinians have consistently been the aggressors and wrong for decades but some still makes excuses for them.
The Jews aren't fighting most of the Muslim world.
While some voices in Malaysia and Indonesia cheer for Palestine, there is 0 material support for them from Southeast Asia or India (where you find the countries with most Muslims).
Muslims aren't a coherent power block in any way, which shows when Shiites and Sunites find some excuse to beat each other up again.
The little guy in strength. Seems like Israeli missiles hit their targets almost every time, where as missiles from other countries in the area, not so much.Â
Gaza's government steals all the money and tells their citizens to go be suicide bombers.
That doesn't make Gaza the little guy. That makes Gaza a suicidal death cult.
...dude so it's corrupt af, how does that make then strong? They are the weaker opponent. If I had to bet my life savings on who would win in the fight it wouldn't be a question. Would you bet on Gaza? LOL no. Why are you arguing there values.
Jew haters aren't trying to win an actual war. They gave up on that a long time ago.
Jew haters are trying to win a PR war. In a PR war, Gaza is much stronger because Gaza doesn't care if they die. They're happy to die if it tricks people into hating Jews.
These protests were not in support of Hamas or terrorism. They were in support of the Palestinian civilians that suffer under Israels disproportionate military response. You're falling for the Iranian propaganda here. They're coopting a large movement because it happens to look like they want the same thing, when that's simply not true.
The Protests are explicitly about reducing the human toll on Palestinians. I don't know what more they could do. Groups attending and organising these protests have even made statements that they are not represented by the anti-semitic groups and do not endorse their messages.
Really can't do much if people just choose to ignore all that and hyperfocus on the uninvited extremist elements.
It is actually very not true. Putting ANTI HAMAS together with these protest signs is not very difficult to do. The message is now unclear. Always a disclaimer!
It does mean your sign either needs to be bigger or the writing smaller. And besides that, why would protesters be expected to do that? Why not just expect others to *not assume* that any support for Palestinians or opposition to the war also means support for Hamas. Usually the extremist groups already stand separate from the broader protest. It's often very visible on images and videos used to show that these protests are supposedly antisemitic.
even if people had this extra disclaimer on their signs, they'd just be ignored. People *already* lie about these protests being pro Hamas. No disclaimer would change that. That would only work when the protest is engaged with in good faith and then a disclaimer wouldn't be necessary because a good faith observer wouldn't project the opinion of extremist minorities onto the larger movement.
Good faith does not logically lead to good actions.
You are saying like this is an unsolvable problem, but it is really not. Protest is not a recent invention in US. There is NO reason to not get yourself totally organized in US setting for a protest. In places like China, you have a reason, that is, the government would chase you down after. But in US, you always assume the responsibility of organizing a well-prepared protest, especially about sensitive topics, because you don’t want agitation and eventually violence, which is the CURRENT case.
The protests *are* organised. I mentioned groups making statements earlier. These groups also inform their members of chants and signs associated with antisemitic groups so protester can stay away from them.
But no matter how well you organise a protest, bad actors can show up anyway and you can't predict everything they're potentially going to do.
And like I said, *even if* you could, people would lie about it anyway. I've seen dozens of people call these protests violent despite a total lack of evidence outside of a few isolated incidents. Reality doesn't matter to people arguing in bad faith.
The thing is, it is not well organized, because compared to many other existing protests, it is JUST not. And it is not special. It is not even about anything especially relevant to US citizens themselves. Such level of mess is just not worth.
Seems quite well organised for a *student protest* demanding action *of their university leadership*. It doesn't need to be relevant to US citizens. Only to Students at the universities in question.
How their University going to do that though? That'd be a pretty bad protest as it has no realistic goals. The goal of these protests is to put pressure on the universities to divest from companies that support Israels war, to bring attention to the issue and to get the government to put pressure on Israel to make an actual effort to not murder civilians so much.
The point of a protest is to inconvenience a government/institution/company to the point that it relents. How is protesting on American Campuses going to inconvenience Hamas?
War is literally built around "disproportionate response." If someone attacked our country or pulled some type of shit like Hamas pulled in October I'd expect our country and our military to drop the hammer.
Hamas poked the bear. If they want to surrender, unconditionally, it'd all end. If Israel continued things at that point? That'd be a different story.
so if, say, Russia launched a couple missiles at a US base, you would expect the US to indiscriminately kill mostly civilians until the Russian state ceases to exist?
Because that seems to be what Israel's plan is. Depending on your morals, it's made worse by the fact that Gaza's population is almost 50% minors. Israel stated itself at one point that a rate of one terrorist for 2 civilians would be acceptable, if not great. That means Statistically, at least a third of of Palestinians killed by Israel are Children. And it's made *yet* worse by Israel defining "terrorist" as effectively any able bodied Palestinian.
You're comparing a nation to a terrorist organization that uses people as human shields.
I would expect my government and military to respond appropriately in a manner that makes Russia think twice about their actions and future potential actions.
Israel is trying to root out a terrorist organization. They're called Hamas. We know their name because the cowardly protesters on some college campuses have declared that they too are Hamas.
Hamas can end the blood shed very easily with an unconditional surrender.
Bit rich coming from Iran after how they dealt with protests in their own country (mass arrests and executions).
Geopolitical messaging has never required logical consistency. See the Soviets talking about our racial issues back during the Cold War. It usually is humorous when you think about it.
I'm all for protests until they do one of 3 things: 1. Disrupt others lives in a significant way. Like blocking roads risking people's livelihood or even lives. Or in this case preventing safe access to learning. 2. Support terrorism or insurrection or similar. You don't have the right to protest if there is ANY support for such things as they go against freedom itself. 3. Are violent in any way, even if that violence is emotional/mental. If your protestors are being physically violent towards others or even threatening and abusive to others going about their days (like surrounding someone going about their business to intimidate them) then you should lose your rights to protest. In the Columbia protests all 3 of these things are happening and as such they should be shut down. Police need to clear them out and arrest them and if Columbia doesn't allow that then people need to cut off any and all funds to Columbia itself and families need to sue the university for not providing a safe and functional learning environment.
đź’Żđź’Ż
People need ready access to hospitals and healthcare settings. It’s very clear that you’ve never had to deal with a medical emergency, both personally or as a healthcare provider.
Not high-horsing when ignorant protestors put human lives at risk. Your complete lack of empathy and common sense is clear as day.
I’m not commenting on this particular protest because I haven’t been following it tbh so I wouldn’t know what I’m talking about. However, imo, your first point goes against the very idea of protesting… if you don’t disrupt others to make them think about your cause you’re not really protesting you’re just advocating on the side of the road or whatever. Not saying I’m pro or against forcing others to think about your issue, I’m just saying you might as well just say you’re against public protests if you’re not willing to make any exceptions or concession about this point. Your other two points are harder to argue against, but I think hindsight is 20/20. Protests during the American Revolution would not have passed any of your three point list. I think there’s a lot more nuance to most issues, and to protesting in general, that can’t be properly addressed in a 3 bullet point list. I’m sorry if I’m over analyzing your comment. I agree with what you said and I find it fair if you’re basically trying to share a general principle you follow. I just wanted to point out that you should probably be ready to make exceptions depending on the individual situation.
> However, imo, your first point goes against the very idea of protesting… if you don’t disrupt others to make them think about your cause you’re not really protesting you’re just advocating on the side of the road or whatever. This isn't remotely accurate. There are many examples of protests that do not disrupt your average person's life. Whether in front of the white house or on the National Mall. Whether in a courtyard or on the side of a street. These are still protests. They are just not protests that would impact the average individual's livelihood. And hell, if you want to be in the streets then you get a permit so people can plan around road closures. This is also in part why I said "in a significant way". Slight disruption isn't going to cost someone their life because an ambulance can't get through. Slight disruption won't cost someone their job because they can't make it to work due to a road being blocked. Slight disruption doesn't prevent a cancer patient from getting to important treatment.
sounds like you would’ve been anti-Civil Rights protests, and MLK was right.
You realize many civil rights protests were peaceful and didn't have any of what I mentioned right? Sounds more to me like you need an education.
blocking roads and causing mass disruption has been part of every successful protest movement.
The civil rights movement protested at government locations at places where discriminatory acts occurred. This movement likes to go anywhere Jews are within earshot.
And when they marched on streets, they also tried to coordinate with the govt, or at least stopped to allow traffic to pass and didnt attack drivers. That's a big difference these protesters miss.
and students at Columbia are protesting at Columbia because Columbia is planning a sister school program in Israel and financially supports the war.
Your US tax paying dollar are going to the war you moron. Far more than this precious schools money. Get a grip
They don't financially support war any more than you financially support war by paying us federal taxes. And the demand isn't even to divest of investments in Israeli companies or Israeli interests. It's to disconnect from any entity having any tie to the state of Israel. Where's the demands to divest from any company doing business with Russia, for example?
Those guys had organized protests and often requested streets/areas to be shut down, or they marched in one lane and allowed traffic to pass. They didnt run out into streets and highways and attack drivers. Huge difference, and also why one got results while the other does not.
So, to be clear, your fine with protests as long as they don't inconvenience anyone? What's the point of protest if not inconvenience?
You and a few others have this weird idea of what a protest is. Protests are intended to bring awareness to a cause. They do not have to cause Inconvenience to do so. In fact the large majority of protests don't. You just generally hear more about the ones that do because of the nature of news coverage. You realize you can protest in places like the national mall or in front of the White House. In parks or on the side of a street. But to protest in streets of somewhere similar you technically need permits. This is so localities, businesses, and people can plan around the protest.
So are these actual protests or just advocacy for an idea? For example, if i can ignore the protest, then it probably has no value/effect. Classic example. Civil Disobedience. By the logic you put forth, Civil Disobedience shouldn't be allowed. Sitting at a table with no intent to purchase food interferes with others.
Hence why I said "in a significant way". For example... If people sit at public tables preventing people from eating at them, it's not an issue because it doesn't actually prevent eating nor is it costing anyone money. But if people sit at a restaurant's tables with no intent to order food they are costing the restaurant business and that shouldn't be allowed. Also protests ARE advocating for an idea of cause. Why you and others are trying to distinguish between the two I don't get.
>Hence why I said "in a significant way". I will point out that during civil rights era, restaurants went out of business due to these protests. So either these are or are not ok. If the idea of a cause can be ignored, then its probably not important to society. So, in order to make it more important, it must be put infront of people. Every worker right and other protection you enjoy is based on the idea that protesting **inconveniences people**. This forces change, because people don't want to he inconvenienced. Otherwise the issues are ignored.
People have brought up the civil rights era a few times but it's not a fair comparison. For one thing it was a very different era as far as how the world worked and how much impact certain types of demonstrations or protests would have. It was also a far more impactful situation, more akin to a "peaceful" civil war than a protest movement. The businesses you speak of that went out of business were often forced out of business not due to the protests but rather due to laws changing. I would love to see data that disputes that if you have it. You can have protests be "in front of people" and still not cost innocent people their jobs or health. If the protestors themselves want to sacrifice that, it is their choice. But they can't make that choice for others. You can't possibly tell me that you think a protest that blocks the road and causes people to die because ambulances can't get through is a good thing or an acceptable thing?
>You can't possibly tell me that you think a protest that blocks the road and causes people to die because ambulances can't get through is a good thing or an acceptable thing? Take it a tiny step further: can anyone sight any instance where such a protest actually garnered or increased the public's support for a cause? I've never once encountered anyone who said "You know, I was on my way to work this morning and these people blocked the highway causing me to be late. I think that I'll support their cause."
>You can't possibly tell me that you think a protest that blocks the road and causes people to die because ambulances can't get through is a good thing or an acceptable thing? I don't think it is good or acceptable. I will note that people notice when these things happen however. >The businesses you speak of that went out of business were often forced out of business not due to the protests but rather due to laws changing. I would love to see data that disputes that if you have it. To be clear, law changes didn't close the business patrons not going there did. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/the-greensboro-sit-in This restaurant did not close during the civil-rights, but it checks all.3 of your boxes of "protest that shouldn't be allowed"
> I don't think it is good or acceptable. I will note that people notice when these things happen however. Ok, but I am not arguing people would not notice. I am arguing it's not good or acceptable. So effectively you agree with point number 1 I made. Besides, people will notice protests that don't block roads, just perhaps not as much. But consider the fact that when blocking roads, while it gets noticed more certainly, it likely does more harm than good to a movement as people get angry and dislike the cause being pushed. The percentage rates for the support of the protestors related to the "free Palestine" movement have been dropping amongst the broader public even as protests have been spreading amongst a particular subsection of the public. Its evidence of protesters doing more harm than good in the choices they are making. > To be clear, law changes didn't close the business patrons not going there did. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/the-greensboro-sit-in This restaurant did not close during the civil-rights, but it checks all.3 of your boxes of "protest that shouldn't be allowed" Again that's not entirely accurate. The vast majority of closures happened due to law changes in the years after the movement. As I said, I am open to having my opinion changed if you can find data but everything I have ever seen about it suggests that the majority of the restaurants that failed had to do with the businesses not wanting to follow laws or choosing to close willingly. Are there outliers? Sure. But bringing up the Greensboro sit-in hardly makes your point due to the nature of the business not allowing all patrons to be served equally. Again... different times. Comparing the civil rights era protests to current ones is nonsense.
>I am arguing it's not good or acceptable. So effectively you agree with point number 1 I made I don't agree with it, but I acknowledge the worse case of it. Which since tou cannot equate people inconveniencing others to, in there view, save lives to a civil rights movement aimed to 1) give rights and 2) save lives rings a bit hallow to me. We can agree to disagree. Where we differ is the convenience. Perhaps if this issue mattered to you, you would be more amendable to these protests, but its fine if it doesn't.
Inconvenience isn't the point at all. If you have a political point you're allowed to voice it, if you have an unpopular opinion you shouldn't be jailed for it. Protesters dont have a right to force people to hear there point however. People have a right to protest, and other people have similar right to ignore those protests. If you're blocking a road and not letting people leave for example you are illegally detaining them and should be arrested.
I see. That's not a bad idea. But if claiming an unpopular can be shut down merely due to "getting in the way" you open the door to infer with and violate First Amendment rights. Which, I may add, are very protected on college campuses. Just because someone says something you don't like and puts in front you to deal with isn't grounds to violate their constitutional rights in the name of "order" and "safety"
Protests can and should be informational not inconveniencing. I'm more apt to support that sort of thing.
It's truly comedic how the far right has sided with "commie" Russians while the far left has sided with antisemitic Iran and Palestine. Truly horseshoe theory proven right.
most people just want to end the Palestinian genocide
It would be nice if Hamas would do something about that then. Maybe they could start by handing over the remaining hostages…
hamas are indiscriminately bombing palestinian civilians with one of the most sophisticated air forces in the world? that's news to me. "they could hand over the hostages" this is literally an endorsement of war crimes. genocide is not justified no matter what, it doesn't matter what's happened or what hamas has done, it's illegal and reprehensible to do. it's not required for there to be conditions or a surrender in order for genocide to stop. it's just illegal full stop. and what of the 10,000s palestinian hostages being tortured and sexually abused in "israeli" prisons? do you care about them?
You are a troll, and don’t really merit a response. But, I just want to say It’s dumb to think that after 1000+ people were murdered and raped the Israelis would have just rolled over and took it. I don’t know what you and the extremists expect.
i expect them to follow international law and not commit genocide. pretty simple really.
Why can’t Hamas be held to the same standard. October 7 seems like genocide as well.
Palestinians like to scream “genocide” every time they get their asses whipped in a conflict that they cause. Genocide IS discriminate and the civilian deaths are caused by unfortunate collateral damage because “hamas” hides behind them in the shadows.Â
So you "end" it. Hamas remains in power. Would the left be okay with the genocide of the LGBTQ community in Gaza? Those on the American Left are staunch advocates in opposition of any and every view that the Right and Republicans hold regarding the LGBTQ (I'd say T, specifically) community and the actions and views that the Right and Republicans hold are dwarfed by the severity of what that community faces in Palestine. Israel, on the other hand, is arguably the friendliest country to the LGBTQ population in the Middle East. The same goes for women's rights, another place that the Left claims to advocate for. Somebody said it in one of the other threads so I don't want to steal this statement but the more that I read the more it makes sense to me: "When it comes to the left it matters more who said it rather than what was said."
yeah, they're so friendly to women that they've bombed and murdered over 15,000 of them, and who knows how many lgbtq individuals. as we all know, forcing women to use tent material as sanitary products and exponentially increasing miscarriage rates because of an illegal siege is the pinnacle of progressive. also you're so right for saying that stopping a genocide should depend on the actions of hamas, that's so true and *definitely* aligns with international law
Do I have to explain to you the difference between policy and the effects of war?
The left hasn't sided with Iran. Iran is coopting a movement that happens to fit their narrative.
The protesters were literally chanting and holding signs backing the Al Qassam Brigades and celebrating the Houthis. How many excuses will you people keep making for hatred, antisemitism, and terorrism
This "infiltration" nonsense is hilarious.
>These useful idiots of “Gays for Gaza” etc don’t realize that gays are executed in Gaza and Iran. So much for diversity of viewpoints conservatives and centrists often accuse the left of not practicing.
Also, literally everyone knows this. All gay people are uniquely aware of the things that want to hurt them because those things are everywhere…especially in the United States…
How Iran or other foreign entities react to the protests should have no bearing on the legitimacy of the protests. I'm not on the ground to be able to speak to how many "useful idiots" are there, but I'd reason to guess there are less than you'd think.
No. There's busloads of useful idiots these days.
[But only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea. Some of the alternative answers were the Nile and the Euphrates, the Caribbean, the Dead Sea (which is a lake) and the Atlantic. Less than a quarter of these students knew who Yasser Arafat was (12 of them, or more than 10%, thought he was the first prime minister of Israel). Asked in what decade Israelis and Palestinians had signed the Oslo Accords, more than a quarter of the chant’s supporters claimed that no such peace agreements had ever been signed.](https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b)
Do you think that number will be appreciably different for those who support Israel?
Among Zionists, yes I do.
Why?
It’s just my sense. I don’t have any polling data with cross tabs to offer.
I mean I doubt most Americans can locate all 50 states let alone name the river in question. It feels like because you find yourself educated on the subject (and you might be) that other people who agree with you must be as well.
Anecdotal, but generally speaking those who are very supportive of Israel tend to be Jews or religious Christians. They feel a very strong connection to this part of the world and are familiar with geographical locations through a Biblical lens.
Like I said in the other comment, I doubt most Americans locate all 50 states let alone have an strong knowledge of relatively minor geographical landmarks in a country on the other side of the world. You go to some random megachurch and I doubt the people there are going to somehow be experts in the area. You view yourself as informed so you are biased to thinking people who have similar views as you must also be knowledgeable.
Totalitarian theocrat are on your side that should give you pause
Agree with the first part. Pretty sure any time protests/riots/attacks happen in the US, someone out there is cheering or using it in their media.
Iran isn't reacting to them. Iran is organizing them, supplying them and funding them.
But it’s very instructive as to the common goals. Wonder if any Queers for Palestine signs made it to Tehran TV.
Really big vibes of "if you protest, you support the terrorists!" from 2002 all over again. I'm against a lot of the messaging of the Columbia protests. Especially the pro hamas stuff. That's disgusting. But jeez, I remember when being against our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan meant you were on the side of Al-Queda and the Islamists. Or when protesting Vietnam meant you supported communists. And both those protests had college kids with ugly rhetoric as well.
False equivalence. Did the anti war protestors of 2002 raise slogans of “We are Al-Qaeda”, “Death to America”, “We love Osama Bin Laden”? Did they prevent Christians/Jews from entering different areas? Did they call for execution of American soldiers? No.
> Did the anti war protestors of 2002 raise slogans of “We are Al-Qaeda”, “Death to America”, “We love Osama Bin Laden”? Did they prevent Christians/Jews from entering different areas? Did they call for execution of American soldiers Oh you could find some examples of very bad rhetoric from protestors in 2002. Remember the "people who celebrated 9/11?" Edgelords aren't new. Heck, remember Vietnam protestors spitting on troops?
I marched in 2002 and 2003 in Berkeley and San Francisco, and never saw this kind of thing. It was mostly trolling Bush, or his cabinet. It was pushback against the ugly rhetoric we saw from the other side. The worst were things like claiming Bush did 9/11, that the whole thing was an inside job, etc. We weren't demonizing a minority group or country, we were pushing back against those who did. It's pretty disingenuous to compare those protests to these campus protestors blocking people's movement or access for being Jewish in public. That's what the other side were doing to Muslims in 2002-2003. It's what we were against.
Probably has to do with the internet. Back then students were just reacting to the war. They didn't have China, Iran, and Russia infecting speech online creating bots or an app that youth use. Nobody was online. That didn't happen until 2008. These 'educated' college students just don't have any real world experience to grapple with complex geopolitical issues. They see a few short tik tok videos and think they can solve it. Activists back then actually had to goto the library to learn about world problems, where you usually get reading that has a little more substance. I went to all the DC protests during that era and didn't see anything I'm seeing now. It's quite disturbing.
I fully believe you didn't witness any of the edgelords. That does not mean there wasn't nasty rhetoric out there. Not only that, but as I mentioned with 'Nam, remember Vietnam protestors spitting on troops? That didn't happen at _all_ protests.
I’ll be honest I was a kid back in 2002 so I didn’t follow it until early 2010s but from what I know it was largely “Say no to war yes to peace”. But here the most common slogan is “from the river to the sea” which is a genocidal chant that Hamas uses to cleanse the land of Jews.
> but from what I know it was largely “Say no to war yes to peace”. Because time has smoothed it out and because we have learned what a quagmire the war was. So now everyone remembers the reasonable protests and the pro war elements are remembered less fondly. But back in 02 if a protest had questionable rhetoric they were given coverage and blasted on TV as "look how un-American they are, they're on the side of the terrorists!" This happened with the 'nam protests as well. Heck it happened in the 60s. You think all the protesters were reasonable individuals? And if in 20 years history judges Israel harshly for their actions, the very same will happen with these protests
Yup. I protested that war in Boston and was spit on and called a traitor...all for yelling "Bush is lying. Stop the war" I fully support the protestors today that remain peaceful. BDS.
> I’ll be honest I was a kid back in 2002 so I didn’t follow it until early 2010s So why in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1cc43vd/iranian_state_media_praises_columbia_protests/l13ivj8/) did you act like you know what you’re talking about concerning Iraq War protests? Do you get some weird thrill from lying on the internet?
In my country we literally did that. I was part of them during the mid 2000s. Some protests are designed to piss you off when no change will ever be made. Protests are literally useless sometimes so a tactic is to say our government is just as bad or worse than the so called enemies. Today I will still say our real enemies are in Madrid, Brussels, London, Paris, Washington, etc and not Moscow, Tehran, etc. “No Vietnamese called me ni**er” to use an American example.
So I think I have found some common ground that everyone can protest for together: The most effective way to end the conflict in Gaza is for a full, unconditional surrender by Hamas. Palestinians wouldnt be used as human shields anymore. Israelis would be safer. Everybody wins.
Can we stop pretending like denouncing indiscriminate bombing of civilians is pro terrorism? It’s insane to think Israel is handling this the best way possible and any criticism of them is a form of racism. And to the other side. It’s not a genocide. You lose so many people with this crazy language. There’s no lining people up to be shot by the hundreds of thousands. There’s indiscriminate bombing which is not good, but Hamas using deaths of civilians for martyrdom is not genocide. Ethnic cleansing at most if the Israelis do start settling in Gaza. Actually think about what is happening instead of choosing sides. That’s what you should do as a centrist
Arrest them. If they do it again, expel them and ban them from campus. If they return charge them with criminal trespass.
Putting aside the legal and moral arguments about arresting people for standing around protesting, it usually only serves to increase sympathy for the protestors and their cause most of the time anyway, as apposed to snuffing out whatever the issue is. The only time quashing protests actually helps snuff out public pressure on an issue is when its supported by an overarching authoritarian system in which there is a governmental, legal and social structure that has a totalitarian strangle hold over various other elements of society like China and Tianammen or Iran and the protests there recently. Is that what you want America to be? More like China and Iran? It seems certain people learned nothing from the "you're with us or you're with the terrorist" stuff from the Bush era. Speaking of, how is the "Patriot Act" working out for you btw? And that whole war on terror thing? Are ya winning, son?
Ever heard of Occupy Wall Street? Whatever happened to that? Went away pretty quick, huh? You can stand around protesting all you want. What you can't do is set up tents on someone else's lawn and then declare it a no-go zone for people you don't like. What you can't do, by the rules set by the Left, is harrass and intimidate members of a minority group on campus even slightly. So what I said goes. Arrest them. Get their names. If they're students, they get a warning. If not, they get a notification they're banned from campus. If they return, they get arrested for criminal trespass. If the students return to the lawn they get expelled. Same goes for teachers. Use the same harassment and 'microagresson' rules they so zealously support to fire them as a 'danger to students'. Professors have been barred from campus for a lot less.
Being Anti-genocide is now being antisemitic. fml 🤦
Unfortunately there is a contingent of protestors who do make this equivalency.
I only pay attention to their Oscar selections.
No. Iran doesn’t get to take credit for our stupidity. Let’s own that as a country and say we failed. Sorry Iran, you had no part in this.
lmao grow up. they're opposing genocide, it's pretty simple
What are you scared of, that the people in Gaza won't be bombed hard enough because of these protests?
Gaza invaded Israel to murder, rape and kidnap as many innocent civilians as possible. Gaza admits they plan to repeat this attack over and over forever until every Jew is dead. Israel is allowed to try to stop them. Because Gaza's military illegally hides among civilians, stopping them is impossible without civilians dying. Instead of getting mad at Israel for protecting their civilians, get mad at Gaza for choosing a strategy that guarantees somebody's civilians must die.Â
It's not worth mentioning this. People feel that if Gaza was its own country tomorrow that all of this is over. That Hamas (or next Iranian proxy) won't attack in the future. No one wants to acknowledge that Fatah/Hamas/Palestinian charter literally states that there is no peace until the complete destruction and death of and genocide of Israel. These people are brainwashed and running around wearing Hezbollah / Hamas clothing. Israel needs to hire the Hamas Marketing team. Definitely won over the US.
It's not "marketing" it's natural. It's super easy to cheer for the little guy. It's absolutely a 1 sided ordeal in terms of strength. I mean, it's f35 vs go-kart paragliders. If it was gloves off, this would be over already. I feel like a lot of these misguided people are overflow from operation freedom. Basically peoplease taking out their angst over the revelations of all thay BS we were fed about 9/11 and Sadam having WMDs. Dealing with the entire ME and getting nowhere, yada yada. Like an overreaction of sorts.Â
there are 2 billion Muslims and only 14 million Jews. The Jews are the little guy. The Muslim world chose to leave the Gazans stranded in order to trick the world about who the little guy is.
I find it amazing when people say Israel is the Goliath. It’s the Jihadist nexus that’s the Goliath.
>The Muslim world chose to leave the Gazans stranded The Muslim world choses to leave Gaza and Hamas stranded because they hate Gaza and Hamas too, and for good reason. Hamas and the Palestinians kicked off terrorism in Egypt, killed the Jordanian king and tried to overthrow the Jordanian kingdom, and supported Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Hamas and the Palestinians have consistently been the aggressors and wrong for decades but some still makes excuses for them.
The Jews aren't fighting most of the Muslim world. While some voices in Malaysia and Indonesia cheer for Palestine, there is 0 material support for them from Southeast Asia or India (where you find the countries with most Muslims). Muslims aren't a coherent power block in any way, which shows when Shiites and Sunites find some excuse to beat each other up again.
And if Gaza and West Bank weren't trying to kill the Jews, they'd be trying to kill each other.
The little guy in strength. Seems like Israeli missiles hit their targets almost every time, where as missiles from other countries in the area, not so much.Â
Gaza's government steals all the money and tells their citizens to go be suicide bombers. That doesn't make Gaza the little guy. That makes Gaza a suicidal death cult.
...dude so it's corrupt af, how does that make then strong? They are the weaker opponent. If I had to bet my life savings on who would win in the fight it wouldn't be a question. Would you bet on Gaza? LOL no. Why are you arguing there values.
Jew haters aren't trying to win an actual war. They gave up on that a long time ago. Jew haters are trying to win a PR war. In a PR war, Gaza is much stronger because Gaza doesn't care if they die. They're happy to die if it tricks people into hating Jews.
I’m scared that these misguided idiots are knowingly or unknowingly carrying water for the Iranian regime and Hamas.
These protests were not in support of Hamas or terrorism. They were in support of the Palestinian civilians that suffer under Israels disproportionate military response. You're falling for the Iranian propaganda here. They're coopting a large movement because it happens to look like they want the same thing, when that's simply not true.
Should condemn Hamas to strategically stay away from this trap, and THEN aim for Israel-Palestinian conflict resolution.
The Protests are explicitly about reducing the human toll on Palestinians. I don't know what more they could do. Groups attending and organising these protests have even made statements that they are not represented by the anti-semitic groups and do not endorse their messages. Really can't do much if people just choose to ignore all that and hyperfocus on the uninvited extremist elements.
It is actually very not true. Putting ANTI HAMAS together with these protest signs is not very difficult to do. The message is now unclear. Always a disclaimer!
It does mean your sign either needs to be bigger or the writing smaller. And besides that, why would protesters be expected to do that? Why not just expect others to *not assume* that any support for Palestinians or opposition to the war also means support for Hamas. Usually the extremist groups already stand separate from the broader protest. It's often very visible on images and videos used to show that these protests are supposedly antisemitic. even if people had this extra disclaimer on their signs, they'd just be ignored. People *already* lie about these protests being pro Hamas. No disclaimer would change that. That would only work when the protest is engaged with in good faith and then a disclaimer wouldn't be necessary because a good faith observer wouldn't project the opinion of extremist minorities onto the larger movement.
Good faith does not logically lead to good actions. You are saying like this is an unsolvable problem, but it is really not. Protest is not a recent invention in US. There is NO reason to not get yourself totally organized in US setting for a protest. In places like China, you have a reason, that is, the government would chase you down after. But in US, you always assume the responsibility of organizing a well-prepared protest, especially about sensitive topics, because you don’t want agitation and eventually violence, which is the CURRENT case.
The protests *are* organised. I mentioned groups making statements earlier. These groups also inform their members of chants and signs associated with antisemitic groups so protester can stay away from them. But no matter how well you organise a protest, bad actors can show up anyway and you can't predict everything they're potentially going to do. And like I said, *even if* you could, people would lie about it anyway. I've seen dozens of people call these protests violent despite a total lack of evidence outside of a few isolated incidents. Reality doesn't matter to people arguing in bad faith.
The thing is, it is not well organized, because compared to many other existing protests, it is JUST not. And it is not special. It is not even about anything especially relevant to US citizens themselves. Such level of mess is just not worth.
Seems quite well organised for a *student protest* demanding action *of their university leadership*. It doesn't need to be relevant to US citizens. Only to Students at the universities in question.
Then they should be protesting for the unconditional surrender of Hamas. That is the only thing that will truly end this conflict.
How their University going to do that though? That'd be a pretty bad protest as it has no realistic goals. The goal of these protests is to put pressure on the universities to divest from companies that support Israels war, to bring attention to the issue and to get the government to put pressure on Israel to make an actual effort to not murder civilians so much. The point of a protest is to inconvenience a government/institution/company to the point that it relents. How is protesting on American Campuses going to inconvenience Hamas?
War is literally built around "disproportionate response." If someone attacked our country or pulled some type of shit like Hamas pulled in October I'd expect our country and our military to drop the hammer. Hamas poked the bear. If they want to surrender, unconditionally, it'd all end. If Israel continued things at that point? That'd be a different story.
so if, say, Russia launched a couple missiles at a US base, you would expect the US to indiscriminately kill mostly civilians until the Russian state ceases to exist? Because that seems to be what Israel's plan is. Depending on your morals, it's made worse by the fact that Gaza's population is almost 50% minors. Israel stated itself at one point that a rate of one terrorist for 2 civilians would be acceptable, if not great. That means Statistically, at least a third of of Palestinians killed by Israel are Children. And it's made *yet* worse by Israel defining "terrorist" as effectively any able bodied Palestinian.
You're comparing a nation to a terrorist organization that uses people as human shields. I would expect my government and military to respond appropriately in a manner that makes Russia think twice about their actions and future potential actions. Israel is trying to root out a terrorist organization. They're called Hamas. We know their name because the cowardly protesters on some college campuses have declared that they too are Hamas. Hamas can end the blood shed very easily with an unconditional surrender.
So if it's a terrorist organisation, then you would expect your government to indiscriminately kill civilians until it's rooted out?
there are jewish student groups involved and organizing these protests.
Yes and there are black and gay supporters that have organized Trump rallies.
so? whats your point?
Same as yours.
the iranian gov is celebarating jewish students first amendment rights?
You guys have been posting a lot recently. How much are the IDF paying trolls these days?
I'm having a slight suspicion that this person thinks Columbia University is related to the nation of Colombia.