Student Protests Against Israel Are Wonderful

[Revoltingest]

In the news....

MSN

Excerpted...
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -Police deployed in force on the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) campus on Wednesday morning after Israel supporters attacked a camp set up by pro-Palestinian protesters.
Witness footage from the scene, verified by Reuters, showed people wielding sticks or poles to attack wooden boards being held up as a makeshift barricade to protect the pro-Palestinian protesters, some of whom held placards or umbrellas.
On the other side of the country, police in New York arrested dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators holed up in a building at Columbia University and removed a protest encampment on Tuesday night.

 

[Revoltingest]

To the question of are all protesters at the schools students the answer is a big fat NO.
Many arrested at Columbia University were professional protesters.

NYPD clears Hamilton Hall, encampment at Columbia; dozens arrested: police sources

Columbia University's Hamilton Hall was cleared after the NYPD moved in and made dozens of arrests on campus Tuesday night, according to police sources.

abc7ny.com

"Police sources say most of the protesters arrested were not Columbia students, but rather "mostly professionals.""

They actually receive financial compensation for
protesting? We shall see if this claim holds any water.
I'd expect to find many non-students though, because
the university is open to any who want to enter.

 

[Ignatius A]

Ah, so a history of bad things happening to you CAN factor into a decision to harm civilians?


Considering I've been very explicit in stating that both Hamas and Israel are at moral fault (even in the very last post I made that YOU READ AND RESPONDED TO) this is obviously a complete mischaracterization.


Israel's military occupation left 19 years ago. They still have extremely tight controls on the region to the extent that Israel have greater control on it than even Hamas do.


But the question is: does that justify ANY level of response, up to and including war crimes and mass civilian casualties? Collateral damage, perhaps, can't be avoided when engaging in any kind of military response - especially against a group like Hamas who do not care about civilian casualties (if anything, they celebrate it as martyrdom). But there should be a distinct difference between unavoidable collateral damage and just plain flagrant disregard for civilian casualties. What is being argued is not that Hamas aren't a threat, or that no military response is possible or civilian casualties necessary, but that the military response that IS CURRENTLY ONGOING is disproportionate and carried out in such a way as to suggest a total disregard for the lives of civilians in Gaza, to the extent that what's happening can credibly be called a war crime and allegations of genocide are being made in international courts by multiple countries.


How wrong of me to "whine" over tens of thousands of civilian deaths. What a snowflake I am.

I'm sorry but yes it is wrong of you since the people who put them in harms way and are responsible for their deaths are also the same people who want to eradicate an entire race of people. There is no moral equivalency here. Clearly Hamas is more than willing to sacrifice their own people in order to satiate their bloodlust for the destruction of Jews. This is a HORRIBLE tragedy with both sides doing horrible things but hamas bears a greater share of the responsibility in my opinion. Listening to them complain is like listening to a bank robber complaining he got his pocket picked.

 

[Valjean]

In the news....

MSN

Excerpted...
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -Police deployed in force on the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) campus on Wednesday morning after Israel supporters attacked a camp set up by pro-Palestinian protesters.
Witness footage from the scene, verified by Reuters, showed people wielding sticks or poles to attack wooden boards being held up as a makeshift barricade to protect the pro-Palestinian protesters, some of whom held placards or umbrellas.
On the other side of the country, police in New York arrested dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators holed up in a building at Columbia University and removed a protest encampment on Tuesday night.

The surest way to incite violence in a demonstration is to introduce the police. They're always determined to take control and hassle demonstrators. They can't seem to help themselves. It happens over and over. They never learn.

"Gentlemen, let's get this thing straight, once and for all. The policeman is not here to create disorder. The policeman is here to preserve disorder." -- Mayor Richard Daley. Chicago Democratic National Convention. 1968

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I never said Israel was justified. The issue is the behavior of both sides is not morally equivalent.

I agree. Israel are killing for more people right now.

Hamas has an explicit goal of eradicating Jews and they sacrifice their own citizens to gain support for their genocidal agenda.

Which is bad. Unfortunately, it's not Hamas who are paying the price for this, it's the killing of Gazan civilians. That's the issue. You can keep reminding us that Hamas are bad until you're blue in the face, but Hamas' badness has not a single thing to do with actually justifying what Israel have done and are continuing to do. That's the issue.

Israel could do much more to help their own cause but they have a right to defend themselves against eradication.

Do they have a right to commit war crimes?

They have also tried peaceful means in the past to resolve conflict and to disastrous effects.

Like what? Palestine have also tried peaceful means, but their land was still continually illegally annexed.

Unless and until Hamas denounces their desire to eradicate Jews and stop sacrificing their own citizens I have less regard for their position.

I'm not asking you to have regard for the position of Hamas. I'm asking you to express one iota of concern for the civilians of Gaza. You seem very reluctant to do that.

 

[Stevicus]

It's a loose definition to be sure, but I think Islamic terrorists are usually Jihadis. They claim to want to conquer other lands in a holy war. Hamas fits the bill. And to be sure, the US's foreign actions have been horrific for decades. But again, Jihadis have been around since before there was a US. Really Jihadis have been around since the establishment of Islam.

Yes, I agree that the rivalry between the Christian and Muslim worlds has gone on for quite some time. Indirectly, the Muslim incursions into Europe and the taking of Constantinople catalyzed the ages of exploration and colonization.

As the old trope goes, if the Ottoman Turks had not raised the tax on spices coming from the East, there would have been no need for Columbus' voyage to "The Indies," in which case there would have been no conquest or genocide in the Americas. The Ottoman Empire also aggressively expanded into Europe, which led to numerous wars in that region. They had a presence in Crimea and what is now southern Ukraine, and they also had control of the territory which we now know as Israel and the surrounding territories.

Agreed. But I think what we do need to worry about is what I'll call a "soft invasion". There are signs of a soft invasion all over Europe. Large numbers of immigrants who have no interest in assimilating into their host country's culture. Immigrants who hold some core values or beliefs that are counter to the values of the host countries. Misogony, homophobia, and a desire for theocracy come to mind, among others.

Historically, in our nation of immigrants, such issues can be resolved over time. The first generation may not ever fit in, but by the second or third generation, they become fully Americanized. Of course, a major problem in that has existed due to systemic racism, as people who were fully assimilated to the culture were still excluded solely because of their skin color. We've been trying to fix that problem for the past half-century or so, but that's been an uphill battle, too.

In terms of actual numbers, we can look at data on where the US immigrant population comes from: Key findings about U.S. immigrants

Where do immigrants come from?​

Mexico is the top origin country of the U.S. immigrant population. In 2018, roughly 11.2 million immigrants living in the U.S. were from there, accounting for 25% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest origin groups were those from China (6%), India (6%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

By region of birth, immigrants from Asia combined accounted for 28% of all immigrants, close to the share of immigrants from Mexico (25%). Other regions make up smaller shares: Europe, Canada and other North America (13%), the Caribbean (10%), Central America (8%), South America (7%), the Middle East and North Africa (4%) and sub-Saharan Africa (5%).

A lot of people seem to believe that we have a "soft invasion" coming from Mexico and want to erect barriers and walls to keep them all out. But I think we should do just the opposite. I think we need to forge closer and friendlier ties with our neighbors to the south, and form a unified front against some of the power blocs which appear to be forming in the world. With China and Russia kicking up these days, it's hard to tell what could happen.

We need to take a more realistic approach to foreign policy in today's geopolitical climate.

 

[Stevicus]

To the question of are all protesters at the schools students the answer is a big fat NO.
Many arrested at Columbia University were professional protesters.

NYPD clears Hamilton Hall, encampment at Columbia; dozens arrested: police sources

Columbia University's Hamilton Hall was cleared after the NYPD moved in and made dozens of arrests on campus Tuesday night, according to police sources.

abc7ny.com

"Police sources say most of the protesters arrested were not Columbia students, but rather "mostly professionals.""

How does one get a job as a professional protester? Where does one go to apply? Are the pay and benefits any good?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sorry but yes it is wrong of you since the people who put them in harms way and are responsible for their deaths are also the same people who want to eradicate an entire race of people.

Once again, you're incapable of talking about anything other than how bad Hamas is. Let's try an analogy.

"Oh my god, some bank robbers just held some people hostage, and the police raided the bank and shot everyone, including the hostages!"
"Well, the ones responsible for their deaths are the same ones who wanted to rob a bank and hold civilians hostage."

The above logic is directly analogous to the logic you're using now. I keep asking you how to justify Israel's actions in killing tens of thousands of civilians, and your reaction every time is just Hamas are bad and do bad things. How does that absolve Israel in any way? It's perfectly reasonable to say "What Hamas did was evil and deserved military response" and also believe "these ongoing military operations are disproportionate, cause far too much harm to civilians, and are not being conducted responsibly", just as it's perfectly reasonable to assess the above scenario and say "The bank robbers clearly caused the issue, but the police in their irresponsible and careless handling of the situation should be held to account."

This isn't that complicated.

There is no moral equivalency here. Clearly Hamas is more than willing to sacrifice their own people in order to satiate their bloodlust for the destruction of Jews.

And clearly Israel is more than willing to kill civilians.

Apparently, you think that's fine?

This is a HORRIBLE tragedy with both sides doing horrible things

Boom. That's literally all you need to say.

but hamas bears a greater share of the responsibility in my opinion.

Okay, so they have a GREATER share, but what responsibility to you believe Israel hold, and in what ways could they conduct themselves to LESSEN the harm they do? Who, right now, is DIRECTLY causing more harm? Hamas, who are choosing to hide in a densely populated city filled with civilians, or the IDF who seem perfectly okay with continuing to drop bombs on those civilians?

Listening to them complain is like listening to a bank robber complaining he got his pocket picked.

Firstly, weird that you went to a bank robber analogy too. I used the analogy above before reading this bit.

Secondly, no it's not. Because, again, my issue is not with Hamas' misfortunes. My issue is with Gazan civilians being killed. It's more like someone complaining when someone robs a bank, and then a police officer shoots them and several innocent bystanders, and then suggest that their killing of bystanders is totally okay because they got the robber.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok 19 years. How many Palestinians live in Israel? How many Jews live in Gaza?

What does that matter? Why would the ethnographic details of these two states, in any way, be relevant to whether or not they are conducting illegal or unjustified actions against each other?

 

[icehorse]

A lot of people seem to believe that we have a "soft invasion" coming from Mexico and want to erect barriers and walls to keep them all out. But I think we should do just the opposite. I think we need to forge closer and friendlier ties with our neighbors to the south, and form a unified front against some of the power blocs which appear to be forming in the world. With China and Russia kicking up these days, it's hard to tell what could happen.

We need to take a more realistic approach to foreign policy in today's geopolitical climate.

I think the cultures and values of central and south Americans are far more aligned with those in the US.

Islamic culture is simply very different. I can say without making any value judgments that westerners simply disagree with Muslims on many key values. Why would any country want to import large numbers of people whose values are at odds with their own?

Immigration is not a right, it is a privilege.

 

[Pogo]

The surest way to incite violence in a demonstration is to introduce the police. They're always determined to take control and hassle demonstrators. They can't seem to help themselves. It happens over and over. They never learn.

"Gentlemen, let's get this thing straight, once and for all. The policeman is not here to create disorder. The policeman is here to preserve disorder." -- Mayor Richard Daley. Chicago Democratic National Convention. 1968

Americas mayor before Rudy Guiliani.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I can say without making any value judgments that westerners simply disagree with Muslims on many key values.

I wonder whether I should say this to the subset of Muslims I've known who are for LGBT rights, separation of religion and state law, trans rights, and gender equality, or the millions of Muslims who live peacefully in secular societies and respect the law while contributing to the country. Or should I say it to the subset of "Westerners" who are against all of those things—a subset who, incidentally, also often tend to have anti-immigrant views that propagate stereotypes and overgeneralizations while claiming to stand for the very same "Western values" that they repudiate in their politics?

Neither Muslims nor people from Western countries are monolithic or homogeneous in terms of values and beliefs. Each group includes over a billion people. Attempting to put them all in the same box more often than not seems to me a form of xenophobic dog whistle or oversimplification tinged with supremacism.

 

[Ignatius A]

What does that matter? Why would the ethnographic details of these two states, in any way, be relevant to whether or not they are conducting illegal or unjustified actions against each other?

It matters a great deal. The fact is nearly 2 million Palestinians live in Israel. The willingness of Jews to live with Palestinians only degrades your moral equivalency argument. It's another indication that Hamas bears a greater share of the responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves. Again Israel isnt blameless but they certainly aren't like Hamas.

 

[Ignatius A]

Once again, you're incapable of talking about anything other than how bad Hamas is. Let's try an analogy.

"Oh my god, some bank robbers just held some people hostage, and the police raided the bank and shot everyone, including the hostages!"
"Well, the ones responsible for their deaths are the same ones who wanted to rob a bank and hold civilians hostage."

The above logic is directly analogous to the logic you're using now. I keep asking you how to justify Israel's actions in killing tens of thousands of civilians, and your reaction every time is just Hamas are bad and do bad things. How does that absolve Israel in any way? It's perfectly reasonable to say "What Hamas did was evil and deserved military response" and also believe "these ongoing military operations are disproportionate, cause far too much harm to civilians, and are not being conducted responsibly", just as it's perfectly reasonable to assess the above scenario and say "The bank robbers clearly caused the issue, but the police in their irresponsible and careless handling of the situation should be held to account."

This isn't that complicated.


And clearly Israel is more than willing to kill civilians.

Apparently, you think that's fine?


Boom. That's literally all you need to say.


Okay, so they have a GREATER share, but what responsibility to you believe Israel hold, and in what ways could they conduct themselves to LESSEN the harm they do? Who, right now, is DIRECTLY causing more harm? Hamas, who are choosing to hide in a densely populated city filled with civilians, or the IDF who seem perfectly okay with continuing to drop bombs on those civilians?


Firstly, weird that you went to a bank robber analogy too. I used the analogy above before reading this bit.

Secondly, no it's not. Because, again, my issue is not with Hamas' misfortunes. My issue is with Gazan civilians being killed. It's more like someone complaining when someone robs a bank, and then a police officer shoots them and several innocent bystanders, and then suggest that their killing of bystanders is totally okay because they got the robber.

If you actually cared about gazan civilians you would demand Hamas denounce their explicit goal of eradicating Jews and you would demand they immediately cease using their own citizens as shields. Hamas doesn't have the least bit of concern for their own citizens but were supposed to believe they want to live peacefully with a group of people they have explicitly said they want to eradicate?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It matters a great deal. The fact is nearly 2 million Palestinians live in Israel. The willingness of Jews to live with Palestinians only degrades your moral equivalency argument. It's another indication that Hamas bears a greater share of the responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves. Again Israel isnt blameless but they certainly aren't like Hamas.

How does it do any of those things whatsoever? Where exactly is the logic in "Gaza is less ethnographically varied than Israel THEREFORE war crimes against Gazans are fine"? Are you aware of WHY these differences exist? Were you aware of Jewish right to return, and the lack of a Palestinian/Muslim right to return? Are you aware of the strict travel laws in Gaza?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you actually cared about gazan civilians you would demand Hamas denounce their explicit goal of eradicating Jews and you would demand they immediately cease using their own citizens as shields.

I would very much like them to stop doing that, but tell me exactly what would my demands achieve? Hamas are effectively a terrorist cell. International outcry and protest tend not to work on them. Meanwhile, protesting against democratic governments funded by international arms sales is actually a thing that can be done, because America rescinding funding for Israel may actually encourage Israel to stop killing civilians so brazenly. Right now, the consequences for Hamas have been that tens of thousands of Gazans are dead and over 70% of Gazan homes have been destroyed, and it still hasn't lead them in any significant change towards not being genocidal or letting loose a significant number of hostages. So what does that tell you?

Again, to use my bank robber analogy earlier, this is akin to "Well, if you really care about the hostages being killed by police, you should have been demanding the bank robber release them!". That literally is just completely ignoring any culpability on the part of the people who actively shot the hostages.

Hamas doesn't have the least bit of concern for their own citizens but were supposed to believe they want to live peacefully with a group of people they have explicitly said they want to eradicate?

You still can't talk about anything other than how bad Hamas is. You literally are incapable of talking about anything else, aren't you?

You have no actual moral position beyond "Hamas bad", and anything Israel do that results in thousands of civilian deaths is just completely avoided by you.

Admit it. You just think Gazans deserve to die.

 

[Ignatius A]

I wonder whether I should say this to the subset of Muslims I've known who are for LGBT rights, separation of religion and state law, trans rights, and gender equality, or the millions of Muslims who live peacefully in secular societies and respect the law while contributing to the country. Or should I say it to the subset of "Westerners" who are against all of those things—a subset who, incidentally, also often tend to have anti-immigrant views that propagate stereotypes and overgeneralizations while claiming to stand for the very same "Western values" that they repudiate in their politics?

Neither Muslims nor people from Western countries are monolithic or homogeneous in terms of values and beliefs. Each group includes over a billion people. Attempting to put them all in the same box more often than not seems to me a form of xenophobic dog whistle or oversimplification tinged with supremacism.

Interesting post. I wonder if you could clarify something so I can better understand your position. You said something about a subset of "Westerners" having "...anti-immigrant views that propagate stereotypes and overgeneralizations...". I am a "Westerner" and I oppose the uncontrolled influx of immigrants we have coming across the southern border of the US which I consider illegal. I am quite fine with legal immigration. That is people approaching a point of entry and following the legally determined steps to gain entrance I to America. Now that you know my position would you say that I am a Westerners having "...anti-immigrant views that propagate stereotypes and overgeneralizations...". ?

 

[icehorse]

I wonder whether I should say this to the subset of Muslims I've known who are for LGBT rights, separation of religion and state law, trans rights, and gender equality, or the millions of Muslims who live peacefully in secular societies and respect the law while contributing to the country. Or should I say it to the subset of "Westerners" who are against all of those things—a subset who, incidentally, also often tend to have anti-immigrant views that propagate stereotypes and overgeneralizations while claiming to stand for the very same "Western values" that they repudiate in their politics?

Neither Muslims nor people from Western countries are monolithic or homogeneous in terms of values and beliefs. Each group includes over a billion people. Attempting to put them all in the same box more often than not seems to me a form of xenophobic dog whistle or oversimplification tinged with supremacism.

Of course I agree.

But I'm talking about broad policies here. About 1/3 of all Muslims are Islamists. It's the Islamists I'm talking about. Why would a western country want to allow lots of Islamists to immigrate?

So what to do with the 2/3 of Muslims who are not Islamists? How about you guys create a denomination (or some sort of subset), of Islam that is explicitly NOT Islamist, that explicitly denounces Islamism? There is an organization of Muslims in the west that is doing that, they are called the Muslim Reform Movement.

 

[Ignatius A]

How does it do any of those things whatsoever? Where exactly is the logic in "Gaza is less ethnographically varied than Israel THEREFORE war crimes against Gazans are fine"?

I didn't say they were fine. Why do you people do that? Why do you attach your assumptions to the words others? Frankly it's lazy and unproductive.

What that tell us is Israel is far more tolerant of Palestinians than Hamas is of jews. It's almost has if you purposely ignore the desire of hamas to eradicate Jews.

 

[Ignatius A]

Of course I agree.

But I'm talking about broad policies here. About 1/3 of all Muslims are Islamists. It's the Islamists I'm talking about. Why would a western country want to allow lots of Islamists to immigrate?

So what to do with the 2/3 of Muslims who are not Islamists? How about you guys create a denomination (or some sort of subset), of Islam that is explicitly NOT Islamist, that explicitly denounces Islamism? There is an organization of Muslims in the west that is doing that, they are called the Muslim Reform Movement.

Because you're "mean" if you don't want radical islamists in your country.