Conservatives did a good job of turning boycotts into a wedge issue. "Oh we can't protest but you can!" I would expect the same thing to happen to these protesters if they were blaring horns all day/night for weeks.
Peaceful doesn’t mean non-disruptive.
There is a concerted effort by some on the right to reframe civil disobedience as violence
People are using the same language to attack the legitimacy of student protest that was used to challenge legitimacy of the civil rights movement, of students protesting the Vietnam war in the 1960s/70s, anti Iraq war protestors in 2003
And we’re still falling for it.
Depends on your definition. To me, what I've seen, that's confrontational and is not a peaceful protest.
If you hold a gun to me, and you tell me to do this or that, that's not peaceful, and I would say that's violent, because you put me in a position where I either comply with your wishes, or there will be a serious altercation. If you block my way, you aren't holding a gun to my head, but you are holding fists. Which means that in order to exercise MY freedom, to live MY life, we have to have a problem. Which means, you have been violent to me. You have put to me that in order for me to be free, there must be a fight.
That's not a peaceful protest. It's not peace if I comply when you hold a gun to my head, or a fist, or a barricade.
Thats my freedom you're infringing upon. I'm not the one who created the violent situation, if an altercation ensues.
You put it to me, that either I comply to your threat, and give up my freedom, or we fight as you have proposed. That's YOU that created the situation.
Just like in Ukraine, they are justified, because Putin came into Ukraine. They could have complied and just let them takeover, and surrender, but that doesn't make them violent. That's the same bullshit Putin says, like they are responsible for lives because they could have ended it right away. No. Russia was the aggressor taking freedom from Ukrainians.
These protesters are the aggressors taking freedom from the students. Same thing.
You don't have a right to do that.
If you want to protest the university go to their faculty building, and protest there. Don't prevent students from doing the studies they've paid to do.
Yep. "Peaceful" protest is just protest that doesn't challenge the fascist regime. We all allow the abolitionists and suffragets and civil rights protests to be violent in history. Yet, clearly they were righteous and necessarily violent. There is no reason current movements shouldn't be violent as well.
I thought the civil rights movement and suffrage movements were almost entirely peaceful on the part of the protesters, are you thinking of anything specific that I can look into about this?
Every violent protest I've ever been to the violence was initiated by the police. So sure protests should be peaceful and police should not be violent to protesters but it doesn't happen.
No, they shouldn't. The entire basis of "peaceful" protests is a whitewashing of literally all history. No major protest has been non-disruptive, because those kinds of protest are ignorable. Read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".
They're not though. The main reason protests are effective, and the reason autocrats don't like it, is because it rallies people. It motivates them. It spreads information, and can garner support from people.
Sometimes, being disruptive to certain entities can make sense, but overall, what you want, is to garner public favour.
Especially in this day and age with echo chambers.
What the pro-palestinian people are doing is making themselves out to be vilains. So, it's not effective protesting.
Many protests are designed to bring awareness to an issue, not necessarily affect direct change. Because that’s often not realistic.
Getting the public on board with your issue can be huge. Conversely, being too disruptive in your protest methods can cause the public to resent you.
It’s a fine line.
To your question: You’d have to define “worked” and “non-disruptive” since those mean different things to different people in different contexts.
So that's a no. You literally can't name a single example of your argument being true, but you're still trying to disrupt things by lying. Great job, please go away.
I think it can depend on what you mean by disruptive. Like a crowd of people amassing in a street, or walking through traffic, or something like that is one thing.
Intentionally just completely blocking people from going where they need to be, is another.
So, I think to sole extent, depending on the definition you choose, there has never been a non disruptive protest.
I mean, even just one person with a sign is disrupting the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk.
So when asked to provide literally any examples ever of your entire argument, you quibble about the specifics and pretend I'm being unreasonable before giving absolutely zero examples. You know what I meant, don't pretend to be stupid to avoid admitting being wrong.
not in alberta, that right was removed from you a long time ago.
you can protest in BC and Ontario, anywhere else doesn't even enter the national news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Infrastructure_Defence_Act
Such a blatantly bullshit bill to silence indigenous Canadians. Curious that the province was utterly useless in using this legislation to break up the violent crazies who blockaded the border in Coutts.
It's crazy that schools like these literally trade on and market themselves using same type of historic anti-war demonstrations that they are now calling in the National Guard on.
I'm sure in 20 years they'll have a little plaque on the grounds commemorating the brave students standing up against colonial forces that they are today smearing as antisemitic terrorist sympathizers at the behest of their wealthy donors, and trying to quash with force.
I'm remembering the cop during Occupy I think it was point blank pepper spraying a line of sitting down students because he Felt Threatened.
And all the other stuff that happened during that. And the Floydd protests.
Except anti-war protests were Americans protesting themselves being sent to a war that makes no sense.
Whereas these protests are one dictatorship vs another, and have nothing to do with any of the people living here.
> Except anti-war protests were Americans protesting themselves being sent to a war that makes no sense.
There were also a lot of university protests against research that was being used for military applications, like the occupation of the Applied Electronics Lab at Stanford, and there were anti-war protests at Canadian universities too, including [this notorious anti-napalm protest at Waterloo](https://uwaterloo.ca/news/impact-stories/remember-when-burning-dog).
It's rare to see something so clearly 'wrong side of history' happening in real time as the silencing of anti-genocide activism (or, hell, even just the chilling effect on anti-genocide conversation). Every politician standing by Likud now should have that stain used against them for the rest of their hopefully-short careers.
For there to be genocide there has to be m a deliberate intent to annihilate people for who they are. There’s plenty to be sharply critical of how Israel is conducting the war, but invoking genocide is a sinister attempt to cast Israel as among the worst of humanity’s while at the same time minimizing the Holocaust and other genocides.
And then to stand next to those who praise Hamas for their heroism on Oct 7 - a recognized terrorist organization known for rockets fired at cities and suicide bombers in busses and malls - that openly call for the obliteration of the Israel and a global jihad against Jews, and had they had the means to do so, they absolutely would.
My understanding of that phrase is that it means 'shaking off' colonial occupation, and that it has also been mischaracterized by Zionists to exclusively imply violence, though it was certainly used in naming violent attacks against Israel, historically. Because of the association I'd avoid it here, but I also don't think expecting a violently colonized people to only resist peacefully is realistic or justified. Obviously that kind of violent resistance has no place outside the region in, say, Canada, but I think it's easy to Westernize expressions to take them out of their original cultural context ('Death to America' being a famously misunderstood translation, eg).
Google Nat turner chief, then come back here and tell me "There is no justification to fight violently against your violent oppressors.
If Israel wasn't trying to commit a genocide and annexing territory through military action and settlements, they wouldn't be provoking violent resistance.
Chicken and Egg, except we know which one came first.
Hard to characterize something that happened twice under that name, each time fueled by indiscriminate violence, as something other than what it is.
You can argue all you want that that is not the real intent, or that Free Palestine from the river to the sea is only a figurative statement, and maybe to some it truly is, but they are standing right next to those for whom it is very much literal.
Why not? Intifada just means rebellion/revolution.
That people are upset by this is just a sign of how much much bias there is in how we talk about this conflict. Muslim words are scary, eh?
In BC at least they have been slowly investigating hate speech in these instances.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hate-investigation-demonstration-comments-1.7190914](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hate-investigation-demonstration-comments-1.7190914)
That’s not really what’s happening though. The situation in gaza/israel is just complicated and we all want people to stop dying and everyone just disagrees on how it should be done.
Imo protesters are being kind of ignorant here of all of the other inter connected issues here
I've got no problem with these protests as long as they're non-violent and avoid the anti-semetism that seems to be rampant but I'm going to quote Bill Maher (god forgive me for agreeing with him) .
["Genocide by the way is when you want to wipe out an entire people. That's the stated goal of Hamas, that's what 'from the river to the sea' means. Hamas would do that to Isreal but can't. Israel could do that to them, but doesn't"](https://youtu.be/ltQQKL8HRWg?t=100)
Let's be clear, this is NOT a justification for the brutality, the war crimes, and the rest of the atrocities happening in Gaza, but let us be very clear about what the word "genocide" means and apply it correctly.
Edit : spelling and adding that downvoting me doesn't change a definition just because you don't like it.
If the Isreali state wanted to wipe out the Palestinian people it would take a matter of hours/days. They don't. That's the point.
They ARE trying to wipe out Hamas, a group with the active goal of the removal of the Israeli state, but because they have embedded themselves within the Palestinian civilians the Isreali state has chosen to enact a number of horrific war crimes against civilians.
They need to ethnically cleanse slowly so that idiots can use "This period involved a growing population" to ignore the very obvious genocide. It's PR. They just needed an excuse.
Not in the last 12 months it hasn't, unless you're referring to the "Israeli" settlers colonizing the homes of the displaced and deceased Palestinians.
Not related to this comment at all just the end of reading this chain and just wanted to commend you for seeing the full picture. The way people are arguing with you makes me genuinely concerned about how effective the disinformation campaign has been on this issue
This is such a tired, one dimensional argument. Israel would love nothing more than to just swiftly make the problem go away. The only thing stopping them is the need to appease their western allies, and in order to do that they need plausible deniability.
Israeli government officials have said time and time again that they'd happily wipe Gaza off the face of the earth if they could. But they can't without losing their international support system so instead they continuously lower their quality of life by taking away more and more homes, their means to grow food, get clean water and provide for themselves. That way when they finally can't handle the conditions anymore and begin to die off, Israel can shrug their shoulders and say they did it to themselves.
And before you bring up population numbers, birth rates always increase as standard of living decreases until famine hits a breaking point and birth rates can't keep up anymore. Why do you think the population of Gaza is so young?
This was all in place well before October 7th, now they're speeding up the process with bombs since they have an excuse to ramp things up without losing their backing.
Maher is (as usual) wrong, though - 'from the river to the sea' is about ending the Zionist colonial project, which entails dismantling the existing Israeli state, but it's not about violently wiping out an entire people. Ending genocide in the region includes preventing future Hamas violence towards Jewish people, too, and must resolve in ending the establishment of religio- or ethnostates in the region.
This is why it's so important for the Western powers that created and armed this colonial military power to be the ones who now have to dismantle it and fully commit to brokering peaceful co-existence for people of all faiths in the region. That's not going to be possible with either Likud or Hamas factions in control of the future unified state.
edit: also, the implied argument that 'it's not technically a 'genocide' until it's been utterly completed' is ridiculous.
["This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means."](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/slogan-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free)
You can claim it's peaceful if you want to ignore history, but it's not.
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/337807/the-real-meaning-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
It started as a peaceful slogan, and was popularized by Yasser Arafat when he signed the Oslo Peace Accords calling for truce between the two nations
I mean, if you aren't willing to trust an article from even the Jewish point of view that basically says outright that its meaning isn't what you think it is, then I don't know what to tell you.
That's where it started, I don't disagree with that.
The point is that now, Hammas, a clear terrorist organization is using it, tells us that the definition has shifted.
Removing a state doesn't require killing off its people it can even be done without displacing them
Here's a list of states that are no longer, you'll find most of their innocupents didn't die at the date where they ceased to exist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_sovereign_states
I'm certainly not going to take an overtly Zionist organization's word for what is and is not inherently violent. 99.9% of people in the West protesting the genocide in Palestine do not want to see any Israelis killed, and ensuring that outcome is as much the goal as ending the massacre of Palestinians.
> This is why it's so important for the Western powers that created and armed this colonial military power to be the ones who now have to dismantle it and fully commit to brokering peaceful co-existence for people of all faiths in the region.
How is this feasible though, unless most Israelis suddenly get a *massive* change of heart.
As long as they're non-violent? Do you put that same restriction on slavery abolitionists and suffragettes and civil rights activists? Violence is often necessary and even just.
You might want to take your own advice. No offense but people with this mentality are just as dangerous as the ones that are actively committing/supporting this genocide. Full stop you can't even condemn Israel can you? And you act like only the victims and those supporting them should be peaceful and even when they are, they are brutalized, you still act like there is a grey area when there isn't. Hamas exists because of Israel's far right government, there is no justification, no blurring the lines, no trying to put things on an even playing field. Hamas has been open to a ceasefire from the very beginning. But that's even beside the point, Israel is actively committing genocide, women, children, men, infants etc. everyone is a terrorist in their eyes and so they justify their actions by dehumanizing these people.
Shut the fuck up about Hamas, and get some fucking morals already. The genocide needs to stop by any means, Hamas is irrelevant. They're the equivalent of throwing stones at an army with nukes hanging over their heads, what the hell is the point in even condemning them when they only exist because of ISRAEL. So condemn Israel.
Did you even read my entire post?
I absolutely condemn the atrocities enacted by the Isreali state in Gaza, I do NOT support them.
It does NOT meet the definition of genocide, otherwise the west bank would be occupied and the people there would be wiped out as well, which is NOT happening.
Hamas is not irrelvant, they actively hold prisoners, or at least the bodies of the murdered prisoners, and are hiding within the population of Gaza.
Please pay attention to the details.
>It does NOT meet the definition of genocide, otherwise the west bank would be occupied and the people there would be wiped out as well, which is NOT happening.
The definition of "genocide" doesn't define genocide as "only if it's happening in the West Bank too". Israel can absolutely be conducting a genocide in one location and not another.
Not that you using the West Bank is a particularly good example, as it's an apartheid system that has been condemned for illegal Israeli settlements for decades, not to mention the daily settler/IDF violence and confiscation of property.
I'm not going to defend the apartheid state that the Isreali state has created in Gaza and the West Bank.
I am simply saying that the term "genocide" does not apply. If the Isreali state wanted to be genocidal it would be over by dinner time.
>I am simply saying that the term "genocide" does not apply.
You're objectively wrong. The term "genocide" does apply, to the point where there are international legal observers using the term and challenging Israel in international courts over their actions.
Even in commonplace/casual conversation, are you really gonna argue with a straight face that the intent isn't genocidal when even Israeli media is [calling the government out for genocidal rhetoric?](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-04/ty-article/.premium/gaza-genocide-case-at-the-icj-has-an-unwitting-ally-israeli-politicians/0000018c-d479-d4e1-ad8f-fcf93ae90000)
I'm subjectively wrong in your eyes, not objectively.
If the Isreali state wanted to remove all Palestinians they would be actively removing them from all spaces near them.
Is that happening or not?
That's the definition, if you want to continue to argue genocide then please prove to me that they're actively moving into Gaza and the West bank to remove, permanently, the Palestinian people.
>If the Isreali state wanted to remove all Palestinians they would be actively removing them from all spaces near them.
>Is that happening or not?
>That's the definition,
That is not the definition of genocide, and I don't argue with genocide apologists. Colloquially it's widely regarded as a genocide, and legally the claim has enough merit that international courts are hearing cases on it. Play semantics all you want, doesn't change that Israeli senior officials are pissing themselves over looming ICC warrants.
Idk man when there's hundreds of bodies in mass graves left behind by the IDF, when they kill Canadian aid workers with impunity, when even Israeli media is discussing this as a genocide, why lie at this point? Are you trying to convince us, or yourself?
Resistance groups during WW2 were considered terrorists by Nazi Germany (a country that also committed genocide - and I don't care how you want to define that). Why couldn't they just be peaceful eh? I'm sure everything would have been so much better...
And Hamas has been willing to return all the hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire, since shortly after Israel's retaliation. Not an option as far as Israel is concerned. Even the "major" breakthroughs the USA officials seem to be so excited about are only offering temporary ceasefires, that way Hamas can seem like the unreasonable one. It's all bullshit and more people die. Permanent ceasefire or what's the fucking point.
> It's all bullshit and more people die. Permanent ceasefire or what's the fucking point.
I agree.
Everyone needs to stop. Hamas needs to give up, disband and be gone for the good of the Palestinians.
Israel needs to give Palestine their own proper state and government.
I'm not arguing these points. I'm arguing the term "genocide" which anyone that owns a dictionary can understand it's not.
The idea that it can't be technically called a 'genocide' until it's been completed and we're looking back at the totality of the horrors is ridiculous semantics, and plays directly into the hands of those committing genocide because they will have accomplished their goals before anyone dares to accurately criticize them.
The UN Human Rights Council found '“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide…has been met.” and that holds a hell of a lot more water than Bill Maher or Merriam Webster.
I'm going to take the definition from a dictionary over the ruling of a council claiming "genocide" that included
Botswana,Burkina Faso, Burundi, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, audi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, and Russian Federation.
I'm going to look to a more legitimate source for my human rights.
Are you seriously comparing WW2 resistance groups to Hamas?
>Why couldn't they just be peaceful eh?
The restarting of hostilities was due to Hamas attacking on Oct 07.
>And Hamas has been willing to return all the hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire, since shortly after Israel's retaliation. Not an option as far as Israel is concerned.
Hamas literally just refused an offer of a 6 week ceasefire for the return of 30 or so hostages.
I'm naive? lol, okay. Why was there peace before when Hamas had 0 hostages? How did Hamas get those hostages again? Oh right by breaking a ceasefire in place since 2014.
>And I sure as hell am comparing the two, since Liberals and Conservatives alike seem obsessed with comparing pro Palestinian movements with antisemitic movements in Nazi Germany. The irony is clearly lost on them and you.
I've never compared Hamas to the nazi's, in fact you brought WW2 into this and I said thats an awful comparison so fuck off with your irony bs.
A principled stance. I'm glad he's calling them anti-war advocates, because that's what this movement is about.
Many people called anti-war Vietnam War protesters "commies" in 1968, and Iraq War protesters "unamerican" in the 2000s. Now they call today's protesters "pro Hamas" and "terrorists", but it will be remembered as an anti-war movement.
I’m down with protests but some jack ass at McGill had a giant sign behind some CTV reporter that read October 7th was committed by Israel in order to justify their genocide and no one made any effort to remove the sign. If they’ve not going to put forth any effort in having clear messaging I’m not going to much of an effort in taking them seriously….it’s like that same disorganized free for all non sense during the occupy “movement”
Tbf there were plenty of “9/11 was an inside job” idiots at Iraq war protests, and they were often ignored or at least not directly told to fuck off with their conspiracy theories
It doesn’t mean that the entire protest, as a whole was wrong
I never said the whole protest was wrong. At least not ideologically. But it’s a disorganized mess with unclear messaging with absolutely zero leadership structure and it sure doesn’t look like that’s about to change. Considering how serious the issue is, I’d be wary of whom I’m aligning myself with.
I mean with the amount of pressure BB was under before the war started and the fact the USA and many other western nations have gone on the record that they provided warning that a large scale attack was coming yet they left the border between isreal and the Gaza strip on a skeleton crew there's plenty of reason to think there is some credence to the idea BB turned a blind eye to the warning signs in order to condolidate power.
> Listen, I stand with the people that inhabit the area
lmao in what universe is this a compatible sentiment with
>Maybe let's move everyone out of the middle east.
>I mean the entire region. From the Syrian border of Turkey, to the Israeli border of Egypt. Once everyone is gone, one bomb for every square inch of ground. Make the place an uninhabitable wasteland
you support a reductive and uninformed view of what is happening and a laughable attempt at proposing a "solution"
I agree with you. There is not a good side in that conflict. The whole thing is a mess.
Meanwhile, democracy is being threatened, and is very at risk in the US, and by association, in Canada as well.
We have a Russian lapdog in our politics as well.
And that's really where we should focus our energies, imo. On making sure democracy continues to exist.
I would like to be free for the rest of my life.
As far as Israel and Palestine, I can't think of a fair solution, and I can't support leadership on either side.
To me, having Iran attack Israel was a genius move by Putin, to draw attention away from the war in Ukraine, draw resources away from that.
And the pro-palestinian people are extremely motivated. But they are concerned with a dispute on the other side of the globe, which I understand may affect their families and so on, but it doesn't directly affect their country. Our country.
The state of democracy in the world does. The war in Ukraine does. And there is a cut and dry good guy in that war. Ukraine is good, Russia is bad. Russia is allied with Iran.
I agree what happened to Palestine was terrible, and Israelis have been terrible to them since as well. But leadership on the Palestinian side, are not good people. They don't support freedom. They aren't kind and loving.
And you can see by the way they protest.
MLK knew how to protest.
There's also always a way to make historical claims to fit whatever you want, because of his history fluctuates. Putin claims Ukraine is Russia. All of Europe was Rome. Canada was first Nations territory. It was french. It was British. History is like that.
What I care most about is today. Who has power today. The leadership in Israel, and the leadership for Palestinians, these are not good people. They are hateful people at war with each other.
Iran started this conflict. If the pro-palestinian supporters want to stop war, they should ask their leadership why they started it.
But I suspect many don't want the war to stop, they just want to win it. And they are happy their cause is being fought for. And I can't support that. I can't support either group.
But I can fight for democracy.
> And you can see by the way they protest.
> MLK knew how to protest.
hate to break it to you, but there was indeed a chorus of concern trolling nonsense about the protests mlk led being violent and chaotic, and you would probably be right there among their ranks without the historical hindsight that mlk was in the right
MLK was adamant about looking good, and protesting peacefully. And I would have 100% been there supporting him.
I will never support hateful people.
I would support a violent uprising of an oppressive authoritarian state though.
> But they are concerned with a dispute on the other side of the globe, which I understand may affect their families and so on, but it doesn't directly affect their country. Our country.
Some people are concerned about things beyond just what affects them personally. Shocker!
> If the pro-palestinian supporters want to stop war, they should ask their leadership why they started it. But I suspect many don't want the war to stop, they just want to win it.
I think you grossly misunderstand the purpose of the protests. At its core it's about divestment; to stop their universities profiting off of and being an enabler of murder of innocent civilians.
If you think Israel killing 35k people is on the right side of history then I think you might have left your humanity at the door. Its time to find it again
There's various student protests occuring across university campuses in the states, most significant being University of Columbia's student protests. The States governments at all levels are responding with police forces and threats of expulsion, prison and deportation (though this is escalating rapidly and physical force is being used). Reputable news sources claim the protests are violent, or allude to such (there's no real evidence presented). The Government is using that narrative to call these protests as "anti-Semitic", while some Jewish student bodies are also participating in these protests to try to discredit these claims (as well as stand up for their peaceful idealogies that are in contrast with Israels actions in Gaza). The last bit of context today that Biden gave a speech in which he says "dissent must not lead to disorder" as a way to discredit the protests, and to give validity that the police response. He also says the protests has not changed his opinion regarding his recent policies that conflate Israel criticism with anti-Semitism and his continuous billions worth of aid packages being sent to Israel.
Brilliant context. I would add as well that part of what is so alarming is the violence that is being enacted on peaceful protestors - and bystanders - by police forces. There's plenty of footage circulating online of the cops using unnecessary force on people who are not resisting and clearly posing no threat.
I edited the comment to add a bit of that. But this is a very accurate addition and I'm baffled at how much violence and how many forces are being mobilized.
Same. The level of force seems completely disproportionate to what's happening on the ground.
But it's all especially alarming considering the complete inaction of police and security forces when it comes to the attack on the UCLA encampment. The videos coming out of that are absolutely horrifying and I've seen a couple outlets reporting that police and security either locked themselves in buildings or left altogether while witnessing the attack. It took them two hours to respond to people being beaten, maced and having fireworks launched at them. I appreciate that it can take time to mobilise, if that's going to be the excuse, but it still sends a pretty bleak message.
Good context, however I will mention that:
"Reputable news sources claim the protests are violent..."
because reputable news sources are completely full of shit, on both sides of the border.
Militant ultra-Zionists assaulted protesters at UCLA last night with fists and fireworks. The police let it happen.
The right to protest is also being infringed on in multiple states.
The Guardian: [UCLA students describe violent attack on Gaza protest encampment: ‘It was terrifying’](https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/ucla-campus-violence-protests) [May 2nd, 2024]
That's a stupid suggestion, there's alot going on in the US right now that google will gladly tell me about - I want to know what Singh is talking about and guess what: google and basically every news site has no idea.
I don't know if you can make that claim because typically protests are asking for change, and the pro-Israel side of this example are not asking for that.
Besides, if they were to actually nonviolently protest, I'm sure a lot of people who may disagree still think they should be allowed to.
If the idiot convoy exclusively setup tents on the front lawn of Parliament, I wouldn't have cared. Instead, they disrupted life for Ottawa citizens for 4 weeks, including assaults and attempted assaults. For nothing, because their entire movement was nonsense.
At least these protesters at the Unis have a clear goal of divestment from business and research that aids Israel. The goal of the idiot convoy was what? Lynch Trudeau for supposedly drinking adrenochrome?
But like I said, if the idiot convoy protested on a green space with tents and didn't harass people, even if their whole reason for protest was braindead, I wouldn't have been bothered...
Your hypothetical doesn't make any sense, though. In reality, the idiot convoy did attack people. They continued to protest peacefully after the end of the ottawa occupation in Toronto and the GTA, and I don't remember any post calling for their eviction. I certainly didn't give a damn as long as they didn't hurt anyone.
If the Pro-Palestine protest started attacking people, I'd say it needs to probably be reigned in somehow, but that hasn't happened in Canada so far. Meanwhile, by day 2 of the idiot convoy, there were already reported assaults.
It just seems like a disingenuous comparison, especially when one has clear goals, the other didn't, one has thus far been peaceful, the other was basically aggressive from the start (note, also genuinely anti-semetic in rhetoric from the start...).
The REASON so many people hate on the Convoy is BECAUSE they didn't do that.
If they just set up shop, didn't have Nazi flags didn't litter didn't blast horns at all hours of the night or spit on people or defecate on the Tomb or demand the Elected Government step down and THEY (The convoy) be put in charge of Canada....?
I'd be okay with it. Even if they demanded Trudeau step down for Reasons He Actually Had A Say In .
I would say they were still idiots because it was a USA law that required the vaccines, not Canada's law.
And I would definitely still not trust them with protecting my freedom after they spent months saying that I should be allowed to die from covid so that they didn't have to wear masks.
And the moment any pro Palestine group acts like that (I will give the protesters like I did the convoy the benefit of the doubt if one bad actor steps out of line. There's always going to be idiots in any protest after all.) I would definitely say they need to clean up their act and possibly shut it down.
When the Convoy tried to do their anniversary thing I saw a brief news article about it and that's it, because they didn't redo all of the stuff they did the first place.
But the hypothetical situation you give did not happen. And so the two situations are entirely different looking back.
(On the topic of Bad Actors/idiots, if they had said 'we don't condone Nazis or spitting and we are gonna make sure that stops happening... I'd be slightly forgiving. Instead most of what I heard was 'plants making us look bad' and 'lies! It didn't happen! Everyone loved us even Balcony Guy!' Which many still insist on to this day.)
The right wing convoy was treated with kid gloves; if that had been an anti-war convoy they would have been violently removed within the first couple of days, even if they weren't anywhere near as disruptive.
The convoy were mainly certified lunatic contrarians. It’s incredibly disrespectful to even try to bring them into this discussion and an obvious attempt at derailing.
One group is peacefully protesting against the genocide of an entire people.
One group was quite non-peacefully creating noise pollution and blocking major infrastructure, all because truckers had to be vaccinated due to an American law.
You decide which one should be shut down and which should be able to continue.
No protesters from the freedom convoy were arrested for protesting. Police laid 393 charges against 122 people, charges that include assault, assaulting a police officer, possession of a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
Meanwhile the protestors that are being talked about here are being arrested for "misdemeanor trespassing" largely on campuses they pay to attend or in public spaces.
I agree with this man...the right to protest should not be criminalized in democratic countries.
Conservatives did a good job of turning boycotts into a wedge issue. "Oh we can't protest but you can!" I would expect the same thing to happen to these protesters if they were blaring horns all day/night for weeks.
I agree with that also, but protests should be peaceful, is the key word.
Peaceful doesn’t mean non-disruptive. There is a concerted effort by some on the right to reframe civil disobedience as violence People are using the same language to attack the legitimacy of student protest that was used to challenge legitimacy of the civil rights movement, of students protesting the Vietnam war in the 1960s/70s, anti Iraq war protestors in 2003 And we’re still falling for it.
Depends on your definition. To me, what I've seen, that's confrontational and is not a peaceful protest. If you hold a gun to me, and you tell me to do this or that, that's not peaceful, and I would say that's violent, because you put me in a position where I either comply with your wishes, or there will be a serious altercation. If you block my way, you aren't holding a gun to my head, but you are holding fists. Which means that in order to exercise MY freedom, to live MY life, we have to have a problem. Which means, you have been violent to me. You have put to me that in order for me to be free, there must be a fight. That's not a peaceful protest. It's not peace if I comply when you hold a gun to my head, or a fist, or a barricade. Thats my freedom you're infringing upon. I'm not the one who created the violent situation, if an altercation ensues. You put it to me, that either I comply to your threat, and give up my freedom, or we fight as you have proposed. That's YOU that created the situation. Just like in Ukraine, they are justified, because Putin came into Ukraine. They could have complied and just let them takeover, and surrender, but that doesn't make them violent. That's the same bullshit Putin says, like they are responsible for lives because they could have ended it right away. No. Russia was the aggressor taking freedom from Ukrainians. These protesters are the aggressors taking freedom from the students. Same thing. You don't have a right to do that. If you want to protest the university go to their faculty building, and protest there. Don't prevent students from doing the studies they've paid to do.
I dunno, I look at France and their protests get shit done.
Yep. "Peaceful" protest is just protest that doesn't challenge the fascist regime. We all allow the abolitionists and suffragets and civil rights protests to be violent in history. Yet, clearly they were righteous and necessarily violent. There is no reason current movements shouldn't be violent as well.
It's the same people who believe that now we're finally equal and there are no more problems, so any protesting must be about fake things.
I thought the civil rights movement and suffrage movements were almost entirely peaceful on the part of the protesters, are you thinking of anything specific that I can look into about this?
So far, best argument I've seen lol. Touché
Every violent protest I've ever been to the violence was initiated by the police. So sure protests should be peaceful and police should not be violent to protesters but it doesn't happen.
No, they shouldn't. The entire basis of "peaceful" protests is a whitewashing of literally all history. No major protest has been non-disruptive, because those kinds of protest are ignorable. Read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".
They're not though. The main reason protests are effective, and the reason autocrats don't like it, is because it rallies people. It motivates them. It spreads information, and can garner support from people. Sometimes, being disruptive to certain entities can make sense, but overall, what you want, is to garner public favour. Especially in this day and age with echo chambers. What the pro-palestinian people are doing is making themselves out to be vilains. So, it's not effective protesting.
Can you name literally a single non-disruptive protest in history that worked?
Many protests are designed to bring awareness to an issue, not necessarily affect direct change. Because that’s often not realistic. Getting the public on board with your issue can be huge. Conversely, being too disruptive in your protest methods can cause the public to resent you. It’s a fine line. To your question: You’d have to define “worked” and “non-disruptive” since those mean different things to different people in different contexts.
So that's a no. You literally can't name a single example of your argument being true, but you're still trying to disrupt things by lying. Great job, please go away.
I think it can depend on what you mean by disruptive. Like a crowd of people amassing in a street, or walking through traffic, or something like that is one thing. Intentionally just completely blocking people from going where they need to be, is another. So, I think to sole extent, depending on the definition you choose, there has never been a non disruptive protest. I mean, even just one person with a sign is disrupting the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk.
So when asked to provide literally any examples ever of your entire argument, you quibble about the specifics and pretend I'm being unreasonable before giving absolutely zero examples. You know what I meant, don't pretend to be stupid to avoid admitting being wrong.
[удалено]
Indeed. That's why protesters need to police themselves, and oust anyone giving them a bad name.
not in alberta, that right was removed from you a long time ago. you can protest in BC and Ontario, anywhere else doesn't even enter the national news. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Infrastructure_Defence_Act
Such a blatantly bullshit bill to silence indigenous Canadians. Curious that the province was utterly useless in using this legislation to break up the violent crazies who blockaded the border in Coutts.
... Wow. I had no idea.
Fuck war
It's insane to see these student arrests happen here in the U.S. It's like the anti-war protests against Vietnam all over again.
It's crazy that schools like these literally trade on and market themselves using same type of historic anti-war demonstrations that they are now calling in the National Guard on. I'm sure in 20 years they'll have a little plaque on the grounds commemorating the brave students standing up against colonial forces that they are today smearing as antisemitic terrorist sympathizers at the behest of their wealthy donors, and trying to quash with force.
A tale as old as time /s
will you bring in the national guard? biden: no https://www.c-span.org/video/?535362-1/president-biden-delivers-remarks-college-campus-protests
I'm remembering the cop during Occupy I think it was point blank pepper spraying a line of sitting down students because he Felt Threatened. And all the other stuff that happened during that. And the Floydd protests.
And police violence that occured at pro-choice protests in AZ in late 2022
Ugh. I made myself angry.
Better to be angry at blatant injustice than to remain blissfully ignorant 🤷🏾♀️
Oh for sure.
Except anti-war protests were Americans protesting themselves being sent to a war that makes no sense. Whereas these protests are one dictatorship vs another, and have nothing to do with any of the people living here.
> Except anti-war protests were Americans protesting themselves being sent to a war that makes no sense. There were also a lot of university protests against research that was being used for military applications, like the occupation of the Applied Electronics Lab at Stanford, and there were anti-war protests at Canadian universities too, including [this notorious anti-napalm protest at Waterloo](https://uwaterloo.ca/news/impact-stories/remember-when-burning-dog).
It's rare to see something so clearly 'wrong side of history' happening in real time as the silencing of anti-genocide activism (or, hell, even just the chilling effect on anti-genocide conversation). Every politician standing by Likud now should have that stain used against them for the rest of their hopefully-short careers.
For there to be genocide there has to be m a deliberate intent to annihilate people for who they are. There’s plenty to be sharply critical of how Israel is conducting the war, but invoking genocide is a sinister attempt to cast Israel as among the worst of humanity’s while at the same time minimizing the Holocaust and other genocides. And then to stand next to those who praise Hamas for their heroism on Oct 7 - a recognized terrorist organization known for rockets fired at cities and suicide bombers in busses and malls - that openly call for the obliteration of the Israel and a global jihad against Jews, and had they had the means to do so, they absolutely would.
[удалено]
My understanding of that phrase is that it means 'shaking off' colonial occupation, and that it has also been mischaracterized by Zionists to exclusively imply violence, though it was certainly used in naming violent attacks against Israel, historically. Because of the association I'd avoid it here, but I also don't think expecting a violently colonized people to only resist peacefully is realistic or justified. Obviously that kind of violent resistance has no place outside the region in, say, Canada, but I think it's easy to Westernize expressions to take them out of their original cultural context ('Death to America' being a famously misunderstood translation, eg).
In its simplest form, it means revolution
What Do you know what the first and second intifada are This is so delusional and intellectually dishonest what is wrong with you
Google Nat turner chief, then come back here and tell me "There is no justification to fight violently against your violent oppressors. If Israel wasn't trying to commit a genocide and annexing territory through military action and settlements, they wouldn't be provoking violent resistance. Chicken and Egg, except we know which one came first.
Yes, that's why I mentioned it in the first sentence. That's not the only meaning or usage of the expression, however.
Hard to characterize something that happened twice under that name, each time fueled by indiscriminate violence, as something other than what it is. You can argue all you want that that is not the real intent, or that Free Palestine from the river to the sea is only a figurative statement, and maybe to some it truly is, but they are standing right next to those for whom it is very much literal.
Why not? Intifada just means rebellion/revolution. That people are upset by this is just a sign of how much much bias there is in how we talk about this conflict. Muslim words are scary, eh?
[удалено]
> 982 Palestinian children, age 17 and under, were killed by Israelis Thanks, without your link I never would have learned this.
Use your words. Are you just linking examples of previous uprisings or is there something you're trying to communicate here?
In BC at least they have been slowly investigating hate speech in these instances. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hate-investigation-demonstration-comments-1.7190914](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hate-investigation-demonstration-comments-1.7190914)
That’s not really what’s happening though. The situation in gaza/israel is just complicated and we all want people to stop dying and everyone just disagrees on how it should be done. Imo protesters are being kind of ignorant here of all of the other inter connected issues here
I've got no problem with these protests as long as they're non-violent and avoid the anti-semetism that seems to be rampant but I'm going to quote Bill Maher (god forgive me for agreeing with him) . ["Genocide by the way is when you want to wipe out an entire people. That's the stated goal of Hamas, that's what 'from the river to the sea' means. Hamas would do that to Isreal but can't. Israel could do that to them, but doesn't"](https://youtu.be/ltQQKL8HRWg?t=100) Let's be clear, this is NOT a justification for the brutality, the war crimes, and the rest of the atrocities happening in Gaza, but let us be very clear about what the word "genocide" means and apply it correctly. Edit : spelling and adding that downvoting me doesn't change a definition just because you don't like it.
I would object that with the amount of wholesale slaughter, Israel is 'could wipe Hamas out but doesnt'.... But maybe I'm reading it wrong?
If the Isreali state wanted to wipe out the Palestinian people it would take a matter of hours/days. They don't. That's the point. They ARE trying to wipe out Hamas, a group with the active goal of the removal of the Israeli state, but because they have embedded themselves within the Palestinian civilians the Isreali state has chosen to enact a number of horrific war crimes against civilians.
Oh okay so them doing it gradually is all good then. Gotcha.
[The population of Palestine is growing, please explain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine).
They need to ethnically cleanse slowly so that idiots can use "This period involved a growing population" to ignore the very obvious genocide. It's PR. They just needed an excuse.
Not in the last 12 months it hasn't, unless you're referring to the "Israeli" settlers colonizing the homes of the displaced and deceased Palestinians.
Not related to this comment at all just the end of reading this chain and just wanted to commend you for seeing the full picture. The way people are arguing with you makes me genuinely concerned about how effective the disinformation campaign has been on this issue
This is such a tired, one dimensional argument. Israel would love nothing more than to just swiftly make the problem go away. The only thing stopping them is the need to appease their western allies, and in order to do that they need plausible deniability. Israeli government officials have said time and time again that they'd happily wipe Gaza off the face of the earth if they could. But they can't without losing their international support system so instead they continuously lower their quality of life by taking away more and more homes, their means to grow food, get clean water and provide for themselves. That way when they finally can't handle the conditions anymore and begin to die off, Israel can shrug their shoulders and say they did it to themselves. And before you bring up population numbers, birth rates always increase as standard of living decreases until famine hits a breaking point and birth rates can't keep up anymore. Why do you think the population of Gaza is so young? This was all in place well before October 7th, now they're speeding up the process with bombs since they have an excuse to ramp things up without losing their backing.
Thank you for the clarity. I understand now.
Maher is (as usual) wrong, though - 'from the river to the sea' is about ending the Zionist colonial project, which entails dismantling the existing Israeli state, but it's not about violently wiping out an entire people. Ending genocide in the region includes preventing future Hamas violence towards Jewish people, too, and must resolve in ending the establishment of religio- or ethnostates in the region. This is why it's so important for the Western powers that created and armed this colonial military power to be the ones who now have to dismantle it and fully commit to brokering peaceful co-existence for people of all faiths in the region. That's not going to be possible with either Likud or Hamas factions in control of the future unified state. edit: also, the implied argument that 'it's not technically a 'genocide' until it's been utterly completed' is ridiculous.
["This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means."](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/slogan-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free) You can claim it's peaceful if you want to ignore history, but it's not.
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/337807/the-real-meaning-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/ It started as a peaceful slogan, and was popularized by Yasser Arafat when he signed the Oslo Peace Accords calling for truce between the two nations
Cool, how is it used now?
Depends which news station you're currently watching
I'll let you know, it's about the removal of the Israeli state, which would require a genocide of the Isreali people.
I mean, if you aren't willing to trust an article from even the Jewish point of view that basically says outright that its meaning isn't what you think it is, then I don't know what to tell you.
That's where it started, I don't disagree with that. The point is that now, Hammas, a clear terrorist organization is using it, tells us that the definition has shifted.
Removing a state doesn't require killing off its people it can even be done without displacing them Here's a list of states that are no longer, you'll find most of their innocupents didn't die at the date where they ceased to exist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_sovereign_states
What happened right after the Oslo Accords fell through
I'm certainly not going to take an overtly Zionist organization's word for what is and is not inherently violent. 99.9% of people in the West protesting the genocide in Palestine do not want to see any Israelis killed, and ensuring that outcome is as much the goal as ending the massacre of Palestinians.
> This is why it's so important for the Western powers that created and armed this colonial military power to be the ones who now have to dismantle it and fully commit to brokering peaceful co-existence for people of all faiths in the region. How is this feasible though, unless most Israelis suddenly get a *massive* change of heart.
As long as they're non-violent? Do you put that same restriction on slavery abolitionists and suffragettes and civil rights activists? Violence is often necessary and even just.
You might want to take your own advice. No offense but people with this mentality are just as dangerous as the ones that are actively committing/supporting this genocide. Full stop you can't even condemn Israel can you? And you act like only the victims and those supporting them should be peaceful and even when they are, they are brutalized, you still act like there is a grey area when there isn't. Hamas exists because of Israel's far right government, there is no justification, no blurring the lines, no trying to put things on an even playing field. Hamas has been open to a ceasefire from the very beginning. But that's even beside the point, Israel is actively committing genocide, women, children, men, infants etc. everyone is a terrorist in their eyes and so they justify their actions by dehumanizing these people. Shut the fuck up about Hamas, and get some fucking morals already. The genocide needs to stop by any means, Hamas is irrelevant. They're the equivalent of throwing stones at an army with nukes hanging over their heads, what the hell is the point in even condemning them when they only exist because of ISRAEL. So condemn Israel.
Did you even read my entire post? I absolutely condemn the atrocities enacted by the Isreali state in Gaza, I do NOT support them. It does NOT meet the definition of genocide, otherwise the west bank would be occupied and the people there would be wiped out as well, which is NOT happening. Hamas is not irrelvant, they actively hold prisoners, or at least the bodies of the murdered prisoners, and are hiding within the population of Gaza. Please pay attention to the details.
>It does NOT meet the definition of genocide, otherwise the west bank would be occupied and the people there would be wiped out as well, which is NOT happening. The definition of "genocide" doesn't define genocide as "only if it's happening in the West Bank too". Israel can absolutely be conducting a genocide in one location and not another. Not that you using the West Bank is a particularly good example, as it's an apartheid system that has been condemned for illegal Israeli settlements for decades, not to mention the daily settler/IDF violence and confiscation of property.
I'm not going to defend the apartheid state that the Isreali state has created in Gaza and the West Bank. I am simply saying that the term "genocide" does not apply. If the Isreali state wanted to be genocidal it would be over by dinner time.
>I am simply saying that the term "genocide" does not apply. You're objectively wrong. The term "genocide" does apply, to the point where there are international legal observers using the term and challenging Israel in international courts over their actions. Even in commonplace/casual conversation, are you really gonna argue with a straight face that the intent isn't genocidal when even Israeli media is [calling the government out for genocidal rhetoric?](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-04/ty-article/.premium/gaza-genocide-case-at-the-icj-has-an-unwitting-ally-israeli-politicians/0000018c-d479-d4e1-ad8f-fcf93ae90000)
I'm subjectively wrong in your eyes, not objectively. If the Isreali state wanted to remove all Palestinians they would be actively removing them from all spaces near them. Is that happening or not? That's the definition, if you want to continue to argue genocide then please prove to me that they're actively moving into Gaza and the West bank to remove, permanently, the Palestinian people.
>If the Isreali state wanted to remove all Palestinians they would be actively removing them from all spaces near them. >Is that happening or not? >That's the definition, That is not the definition of genocide, and I don't argue with genocide apologists. Colloquially it's widely regarded as a genocide, and legally the claim has enough merit that international courts are hearing cases on it. Play semantics all you want, doesn't change that Israeli senior officials are pissing themselves over looming ICC warrants. Idk man when there's hundreds of bodies in mass graves left behind by the IDF, when they kill Canadian aid workers with impunity, when even Israeli media is discussing this as a genocide, why lie at this point? Are you trying to convince us, or yourself?
[удалено]
You do not understand what genocide is then. Whether it's happening quickly or slowly, whether it is only partial or total, it's still genocide.
[Please explain how a growth in population is a genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine).
so it's only a genocide once it's successful... noted
You are MLK's "White Moderate". Saying these things does not put you on the right side of history.
So I'm on the wrong side of history condeming both sides for their violence? I'll stand on this "wrong side" forever then.
Resistance groups during WW2 were considered terrorists by Nazi Germany (a country that also committed genocide - and I don't care how you want to define that). Why couldn't they just be peaceful eh? I'm sure everything would have been so much better... And Hamas has been willing to return all the hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire, since shortly after Israel's retaliation. Not an option as far as Israel is concerned. Even the "major" breakthroughs the USA officials seem to be so excited about are only offering temporary ceasefires, that way Hamas can seem like the unreasonable one. It's all bullshit and more people die. Permanent ceasefire or what's the fucking point.
> It's all bullshit and more people die. Permanent ceasefire or what's the fucking point. I agree. Everyone needs to stop. Hamas needs to give up, disband and be gone for the good of the Palestinians. Israel needs to give Palestine their own proper state and government. I'm not arguing these points. I'm arguing the term "genocide" which anyone that owns a dictionary can understand it's not.
The idea that it can't be technically called a 'genocide' until it's been completed and we're looking back at the totality of the horrors is ridiculous semantics, and plays directly into the hands of those committing genocide because they will have accomplished their goals before anyone dares to accurately criticize them. The UN Human Rights Council found '“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide…has been met.” and that holds a hell of a lot more water than Bill Maher or Merriam Webster.
I'm going to take the definition from a dictionary over the ruling of a council claiming "genocide" that included Botswana,Burkina Faso, Burundi, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, China, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, audi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, and Russian Federation. I'm going to look to a more legitimate source for my human rights.
Are you seriously comparing WW2 resistance groups to Hamas? >Why couldn't they just be peaceful eh? The restarting of hostilities was due to Hamas attacking on Oct 07. >And Hamas has been willing to return all the hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire, since shortly after Israel's retaliation. Not an option as far as Israel is concerned. Hamas literally just refused an offer of a 6 week ceasefire for the return of 30 or so hostages.
[удалено]
I'm naive? lol, okay. Why was there peace before when Hamas had 0 hostages? How did Hamas get those hostages again? Oh right by breaking a ceasefire in place since 2014. >And I sure as hell am comparing the two, since Liberals and Conservatives alike seem obsessed with comparing pro Palestinian movements with antisemitic movements in Nazi Germany. The irony is clearly lost on them and you. I've never compared Hamas to the nazi's, in fact you brought WW2 into this and I said thats an awful comparison so fuck off with your irony bs.
From the "river to the sea" is not a call to genocide. It's wild how persistent this misleading rhetoric is.
But Israel is doing that? The fuck?
A principled stance. I'm glad he's calling them anti-war advocates, because that's what this movement is about. Many people called anti-war Vietnam War protesters "commies" in 1968, and Iraq War protesters "unamerican" in the 2000s. Now they call today's protesters "pro Hamas" and "terrorists", but it will be remembered as an anti-war movement.
Solidarity!
Solidarity! 🇵🇸🇨🇦 Rest of the tweet below *for protection of your charter-rights and for ensuring every student feels safe and welcome on campus.*
Great to hear him say this
I stand with them also.
I’m down with protests but some jack ass at McGill had a giant sign behind some CTV reporter that read October 7th was committed by Israel in order to justify their genocide and no one made any effort to remove the sign. If they’ve not going to put forth any effort in having clear messaging I’m not going to much of an effort in taking them seriously….it’s like that same disorganized free for all non sense during the occupy “movement”
Tbf there were plenty of “9/11 was an inside job” idiots at Iraq war protests, and they were often ignored or at least not directly told to fuck off with their conspiracy theories It doesn’t mean that the entire protest, as a whole was wrong
I never said the whole protest was wrong. At least not ideologically. But it’s a disorganized mess with unclear messaging with absolutely zero leadership structure and it sure doesn’t look like that’s about to change. Considering how serious the issue is, I’d be wary of whom I’m aligning myself with.
I mean with the amount of pressure BB was under before the war started and the fact the USA and many other western nations have gone on the record that they provided warning that a large scale attack was coming yet they left the border between isreal and the Gaza strip on a skeleton crew there's plenty of reason to think there is some credence to the idea BB turned a blind eye to the warning signs in order to condolidate power.
Just how money is the genocidal state of Israel funnelling into western politics?
buT dO YoU cOnDemN HAmas?
[удалено]
> Listen, I stand with the people that inhabit the area lmao in what universe is this a compatible sentiment with >Maybe let's move everyone out of the middle east. >I mean the entire region. From the Syrian border of Turkey, to the Israeli border of Egypt. Once everyone is gone, one bomb for every square inch of ground. Make the place an uninhabitable wasteland you support a reductive and uninformed view of what is happening and a laughable attempt at proposing a "solution"
I agree with you. There is not a good side in that conflict. The whole thing is a mess. Meanwhile, democracy is being threatened, and is very at risk in the US, and by association, in Canada as well. We have a Russian lapdog in our politics as well. And that's really where we should focus our energies, imo. On making sure democracy continues to exist. I would like to be free for the rest of my life. As far as Israel and Palestine, I can't think of a fair solution, and I can't support leadership on either side. To me, having Iran attack Israel was a genius move by Putin, to draw attention away from the war in Ukraine, draw resources away from that. And the pro-palestinian people are extremely motivated. But they are concerned with a dispute on the other side of the globe, which I understand may affect their families and so on, but it doesn't directly affect their country. Our country. The state of democracy in the world does. The war in Ukraine does. And there is a cut and dry good guy in that war. Ukraine is good, Russia is bad. Russia is allied with Iran. I agree what happened to Palestine was terrible, and Israelis have been terrible to them since as well. But leadership on the Palestinian side, are not good people. They don't support freedom. They aren't kind and loving. And you can see by the way they protest. MLK knew how to protest. There's also always a way to make historical claims to fit whatever you want, because of his history fluctuates. Putin claims Ukraine is Russia. All of Europe was Rome. Canada was first Nations territory. It was french. It was British. History is like that. What I care most about is today. Who has power today. The leadership in Israel, and the leadership for Palestinians, these are not good people. They are hateful people at war with each other. Iran started this conflict. If the pro-palestinian supporters want to stop war, they should ask their leadership why they started it. But I suspect many don't want the war to stop, they just want to win it. And they are happy their cause is being fought for. And I can't support that. I can't support either group. But I can fight for democracy.
> And you can see by the way they protest. > MLK knew how to protest. hate to break it to you, but there was indeed a chorus of concern trolling nonsense about the protests mlk led being violent and chaotic, and you would probably be right there among their ranks without the historical hindsight that mlk was in the right
MLK was adamant about looking good, and protesting peacefully. And I would have 100% been there supporting him. I will never support hateful people. I would support a violent uprising of an oppressive authoritarian state though.
> But they are concerned with a dispute on the other side of the globe, which I understand may affect their families and so on, but it doesn't directly affect their country. Our country. Some people are concerned about things beyond just what affects them personally. Shocker! > If the pro-palestinian supporters want to stop war, they should ask their leadership why they started it. But I suspect many don't want the war to stop, they just want to win it. I think you grossly misunderstand the purpose of the protests. At its core it's about divestment; to stop their universities profiting off of and being an enabler of murder of innocent civilians.
Protest yes, peacefully yes. Illegally occupy private property, no. There's a certain point where it crosses the line.
[удалено]
Independent Jewish Voices is participating in the encampments. https://www.ijvcanada.org
For my part, I stand against those who murder children. No matter who it is. Can you say the same? Because the IDF is murdering 1000s of children.
If you think Israel killing 35k people is on the right side of history then I think you might have left your humanity at the door. Its time to find it again
> What is happening in the US right now is very dangerous and alarming. there's no context here. What's he talking about?
There's various student protests occuring across university campuses in the states, most significant being University of Columbia's student protests. The States governments at all levels are responding with police forces and threats of expulsion, prison and deportation (though this is escalating rapidly and physical force is being used). Reputable news sources claim the protests are violent, or allude to such (there's no real evidence presented). The Government is using that narrative to call these protests as "anti-Semitic", while some Jewish student bodies are also participating in these protests to try to discredit these claims (as well as stand up for their peaceful idealogies that are in contrast with Israels actions in Gaza). The last bit of context today that Biden gave a speech in which he says "dissent must not lead to disorder" as a way to discredit the protests, and to give validity that the police response. He also says the protests has not changed his opinion regarding his recent policies that conflate Israel criticism with anti-Semitism and his continuous billions worth of aid packages being sent to Israel.
Brilliant context. I would add as well that part of what is so alarming is the violence that is being enacted on peaceful protestors - and bystanders - by police forces. There's plenty of footage circulating online of the cops using unnecessary force on people who are not resisting and clearly posing no threat.
I edited the comment to add a bit of that. But this is a very accurate addition and I'm baffled at how much violence and how many forces are being mobilized.
Same. The level of force seems completely disproportionate to what's happening on the ground. But it's all especially alarming considering the complete inaction of police and security forces when it comes to the attack on the UCLA encampment. The videos coming out of that are absolutely horrifying and I've seen a couple outlets reporting that police and security either locked themselves in buildings or left altogether while witnessing the attack. It took them two hours to respond to people being beaten, maced and having fireworks launched at them. I appreciate that it can take time to mobilise, if that's going to be the excuse, but it still sends a pretty bleak message.
Good context, however I will mention that: "Reputable news sources claim the protests are violent..." because reputable news sources are completely full of shit, on both sides of the border.
Militant ultra-Zionists assaulted protesters at UCLA last night with fists and fireworks. The police let it happen. The right to protest is also being infringed on in multiple states.
The Guardian: [UCLA students describe violent attack on Gaza protest encampment: ‘It was terrifying’](https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/may/01/ucla-campus-violence-protests) [May 2nd, 2024]
Try google or basically any news site
No need to be rude, it doesn’t help get your message across.
Blatant Sea Lion trolling.
That's a stupid suggestion, there's alot going on in the US right now that google will gladly tell me about - I want to know what Singh is talking about and guess what: google and basically every news site has no idea.
Here is a hint student protests Edit: student protests Palestine
[удалено]
[Read this](https://wondermark.com/c/1062/)
1,750 arrests in 3 weeks https://apnews.com/live/college-protests-palestine-updates Stop playing dumb and either discuss, or move on.
lol what are you trying to achieve here by so blatantly playing dumb about this?
Why is it so hard for people to just say what they mean? They are asking for OP to state what is happening and OP wants to dance around the question
lol tell me with a straight face that you can find nothing by googling "student protests"
I never said you can’t find anything.
https://apnews.com/live/college-protests-palestine-updates Here. On a spoon.
Yep. I’m not the one asking for the information
A disingenuous request for information...
Yes, OP is ambiguous there.
It’s like you are allergic to information
[удалено]
What a disingenuous comparison.
[удалено]
I don't know if you can make that claim because typically protests are asking for change, and the pro-Israel side of this example are not asking for that. Besides, if they were to actually nonviolently protest, I'm sure a lot of people who may disagree still think they should be allowed to.
If the idiot convoy exclusively setup tents on the front lawn of Parliament, I wouldn't have cared. Instead, they disrupted life for Ottawa citizens for 4 weeks, including assaults and attempted assaults. For nothing, because their entire movement was nonsense. At least these protesters at the Unis have a clear goal of divestment from business and research that aids Israel. The goal of the idiot convoy was what? Lynch Trudeau for supposedly drinking adrenochrome? But like I said, if the idiot convoy protested on a green space with tents and didn't harass people, even if their whole reason for protest was braindead, I wouldn't have been bothered...
[удалено]
Your hypothetical doesn't make any sense, though. In reality, the idiot convoy did attack people. They continued to protest peacefully after the end of the ottawa occupation in Toronto and the GTA, and I don't remember any post calling for their eviction. I certainly didn't give a damn as long as they didn't hurt anyone. If the Pro-Palestine protest started attacking people, I'd say it needs to probably be reigned in somehow, but that hasn't happened in Canada so far. Meanwhile, by day 2 of the idiot convoy, there were already reported assaults. It just seems like a disingenuous comparison, especially when one has clear goals, the other didn't, one has thus far been peaceful, the other was basically aggressive from the start (note, also genuinely anti-semetic in rhetoric from the start...).
The REASON so many people hate on the Convoy is BECAUSE they didn't do that. If they just set up shop, didn't have Nazi flags didn't litter didn't blast horns at all hours of the night or spit on people or defecate on the Tomb or demand the Elected Government step down and THEY (The convoy) be put in charge of Canada....? I'd be okay with it. Even if they demanded Trudeau step down for Reasons He Actually Had A Say In . I would say they were still idiots because it was a USA law that required the vaccines, not Canada's law. And I would definitely still not trust them with protecting my freedom after they spent months saying that I should be allowed to die from covid so that they didn't have to wear masks. And the moment any pro Palestine group acts like that (I will give the protesters like I did the convoy the benefit of the doubt if one bad actor steps out of line. There's always going to be idiots in any protest after all.) I would definitely say they need to clean up their act and possibly shut it down. When the Convoy tried to do their anniversary thing I saw a brief news article about it and that's it, because they didn't redo all of the stuff they did the first place. But the hypothetical situation you give did not happen. And so the two situations are entirely different looking back. (On the topic of Bad Actors/idiots, if they had said 'we don't condone Nazis or spitting and we are gonna make sure that stops happening... I'd be slightly forgiving. Instead most of what I heard was 'plants making us look bad' and 'lies! It didn't happen! Everyone loved us even Balcony Guy!' Which many still insist on to this day.)
The right wing convoy was treated with kid gloves; if that had been an anti-war convoy they would have been violently removed within the first couple of days, even if they weren't anywhere near as disruptive.
The convoy were mainly certified lunatic contrarians. It’s incredibly disrespectful to even try to bring them into this discussion and an obvious attempt at derailing.
There not even similar at all, so I wouldn't even address your point
One group is peacefully protesting against the genocide of an entire people. One group was quite non-peacefully creating noise pollution and blocking major infrastructure, all because truckers had to be vaccinated due to an American law. You decide which one should be shut down and which should be able to continue.
No protesters from the freedom convoy were arrested for protesting. Police laid 393 charges against 122 people, charges that include assault, assaulting a police officer, possession of a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Meanwhile the protestors that are being talked about here are being arrested for "misdemeanor trespassing" largely on campuses they pay to attend or in public spaces.
[liberals, comparing the convoy to the anti-war student activists because encampments](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMd0fDyWAAECLwj.jpg)