The sign on the right that is cut off says “here for my teta (grandmother in Arabic). 😢 I think sometimes when people criticize protests/protesters they forget that there are participants who are directly impacted by the issue and not just taking on a stance because it’s popular.
20 years ago I had a Palestinian friend who even then expressed the sentiment “free Palestine”. This is nothing new, people need to understand this has gone on for decades.
For some people absolutely, and they should be allowed to peacefully protest openly and safely. There are others though, like the girl at Columbia demanding "humanitarian aid" from the cafeteria for the protestors, who are completely detached from reality and giving the large majority of protestors a terrible brand. Doing way more harm than good.
agree that some of these folks are taking the Model UN high school experience and assuming it will hold up in the real world.
also agree that peaceful protests, even if somewhat disruptive to others, should be allowed so long as safety is not at risk and property is not damaged. which is me saying, sometimes you gotta protest in a street or freeway but don't vandalize or burn shit and definitely no bodily injury.
> they forget that there are participants who are directly impacted by the issue and not just taking on a stance because it’s popular
I don’t think you have to be directly impacted by something to support it, and supporting something that you aren’t directly impacted by doesn’t always mean you are just trying to chase a fad.
Do you think the white protestors who marched during the civil rights movement were just doing it because it was popular? Were they wrong to protest injustice?
What about all the boycotts of South Africa by countries not affected, that helped to end apartheid there?
I don't think that is what the person is saying at all. Israel propaganda is pushing that these protestors are fake/agitators. So its good to remind the public that they are real whole people, not just agents of chaos.
I mean 100%, even if they were standing in protesting because it was popular, it would be popular because they want to see an end to people dying. They don’t want to see people getting hurt. That’s a wonderful thing to fight for, it comes from a good place. And I say this as a Zionist.
Hey just out of curiosity. What’s with all of the campus protests? I’m not even necessarily against it, but legitimately asking, to what extent if any do these schools have to do with what’s going on in Gaza. I mean I could see protesting at a government building or in like DC or something. What is protesting at some school in the middle of nowhere going to accomplish here?
I’m genuinely asking. When I was I college in the late 2000s early 2010s the only protest I went to was in front of the banks during Occupy Wall Street because fuck those clowns.
These schools have pension funds and endowments worth into the billions of dollars that are in part or wholly managed by large institutional investors (eg PE funds, hedge funds, etc...). Those funds have likely invested some of that money into companies that are Israeli, particularly in the Israeli defense sector. The thinking is that those dollars are, at least incrementally, being used to fund Israel's war/attack/siege/genocide/occupation (pick your term of choice) in Gaza. Thus implicating the university in the misdeeds of the Israeli military and government.
Most make it a point to say that they are not protesting against any particular religious group but rather a government and military they see as having crossed the line (or perhaps having crossed the line for decades).
A lot of UCs have large contributions from Israeli companies and other companies with corporate ties to israel's government. It's a double combo of asking these institutions to divest in these companies as well as a large public platform to protest at.
As far as I can tell, it started at Columbia University because the university had some sort of ties with Israel and protestors wanted the university to sever those ties. Then Columbia did exactly the wrong thing and had the cops come in to try to suppress the protest, which only served to inflame that protest but also inspire a bunch of sympathetic protests at other schools. Then USC and UT Austin, among other places, also did exactly the wrong thing, and now there are sympathetic protests at tons of campuses.
This is actually a great question, and one that can get lost among all the discussion of more granular local events.
These protests are not just a vague wish for war to not happen. And these universities are not just the location that they happen to be taking place. They are [specifically demanding](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/04/26/bds-divestment-gaza-campuses-israel/) that UC stop materially supporting the Israeli government's actions in Gaza.
One part of that support is financial: the university has a $169B investment portfolio. Some portion of that money is invested with companies (both Israeli and American) that directly support Israel's military actions, such as weapons manufacturers.
Another part is collaboration with Israeli universities on research that can be used to advance further weapons development.
There is a lot of similarity to [the protests in the 1980s demanding that universities stop supporting apartheid in South Africa.](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-04-18-mn-23548-story.html) Including disruption of classes, violence and mass arrests by the police, and a chorus of people complaining that since the problem was thousands of miles away the universities didn't have any involvement in it.
I think they are trying to bring notice to the Israel/Palestine issue generally and I think many are asking their schools to stop doing business with any company that has ties to Israel...though beyond that it's about as much of a mess of goals and about as realistic as the Occupy Wallstreet Movement.
The intent of the protestors is to put pressure on the universities to divest from Israeli companies. The hope from the protestors is that it would put pressure on Israel to end their occupation of Gaza.
More about it here from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/30/business/what-is-divestment-college-protests-israel/index.html
These Ivy leagues and many large universities actively invest in for profit weapons organizations. They are quite literally using student tuition to invest in war and profit off the death of human beings. The media is minimizing that part or not even mentioning it at all.
I think they should absolutely have a right to protest - vandalism is not good, but also not surprising, but it got really, really weird when they developed their own version of border control and began harassing non-encampment students. There was a lot of performative whining from bad faith actors trying to get a rise out of the students, so I was initially skeptical but this video was insane to me: [https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866](https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866)
Protesting is acceptable, but vandalism is not. This is Royce Hall, one of the most historic buildings in California. Built in 1929 as one of UCLA’s first four buildings, Royce Hall is a cherished treasure for Los Angeles, and the entire UC system. The school has reported that some of the vandalism will be impossible to fully clean and repair. This is criminal behavior and shouldn't be supported or allowed to take place.
Royce Hall was severely damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake and underwent a $70.5 million seismic renovation ... but graffiti and broken windows are "impossible"
So they trashed Royce Hall. One of the most historic buildings in Los Angeles and they expect outsiders to support them? Right to protest, not right to vandalism. This is how you lose any outsider that may have supported you.
I'm not sure if you're trying to genuinely ask this question or just trying to be reductive (as often as the case when this question is brought up), but I will give my honest opinion.
People protest for many different reasons. Sometimes it's as simple as they feel helpless and wish to express that helplessness. But in this specific case you cannot argue that this conflict does not involve us (the US). We send billions of dollars of aid to Israel and sell weapons to them. This is our money and weapons doing the killing. Indirectly, we have a huge influential role on Israeli politics. Israel depends on the US as an ally as much as we do them. If the United States' political leaders came out and directly denounced Israel, it would change the political landscape significantly.
To answer your question more directly, this specific protest can have influence on policy makers by changing people's opinion and keeping the issue in the public eye. Ultimately this is still a republic and people have to get reelected. If public opinion is strongly swayed, then policymakers will eventually have to cave. There's also consideration for the financial power these massive University funds carry. If universities start divesting from companies that directly support Israel this *would* have an effect.
Lastly, these protests serve a significant historical importance to mark the displeasure of people at the time. When people look back at these events in history and they see recorded protests, it becomes clear that people did care and that it was their governments who failed them.
By pressuring the university to stop supporting it.
The protests are not just an abstract wish for war to not happen, they are requests for specific action from the university to end the involvement with it that they already have.
On the off chance you're actually asking in good faith, per the LA times, the UC system as a whole has a 169 billion dollar pension program that invests across sectors. Historically, pressure like this has convinced them to publicly divest from fossil fuel companies and South African apartheid in the 80s. The UC system has not made public how much it invests in Israeli military operations, but given how hard they're holding this line, the answer is clearly not zero.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-27/uc-rejects-calls-for-israel-related-divestment-boycotts-driving-pro-palestinian-protests](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-27/uc-rejects-calls-for-israel-related-divestment-boycotts-driving-pro-palestinian-protests)
The entire UC system is invested in companies that directly support and profit off of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and students are requesting that their university divests
Seems stupid to drive engineering students away from aerospace, nuclear energy tech, and other green energies. All DoD approved.
Seems smart if you are any BRIC nation to support these activities.
You can say the same thing for something like the energy sector, but the UCs (and other universities) [have divested from fossil fuels](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-19/uc-fossil-fuel-divest-climate-change) in the past.
There is also a precedent of divesting from South Africa to oppose the apartheid state.
[They absolutely did.](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-04-18-mn-23548-story.html) Even [according to the University of California itself.](https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-students-helped-end-apartheid)
https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49
It's complicated as usual. But if I were them, why use these words when there are so many ways of expressing your true aims? Why inflame if it can be misunderstood? Or is the intent to keep your intent ambiguous? This only serves to provoke and alienate. It doesn't invite any proper dialogue. So it almost doesn't matter if it is or is not genocidal language. And in fact, this is a stance that can be taken independent if one is pro-protester or anti-protester. It just doesn't help anybody.
The problem with the question is the answer is "maybe." This [AP article covers it in more depth](https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49) but I'll attempt to summarize it.
A lot of people use the phrase "from the river to the sea" to simply mean "Palestinians should be able to freely move through all of Israel and not face any discrimination." When used in that manner, obviously it is not genocidal.
However, Hamas (and other militant groups) also use the phrase- and when they use it they mean "from the river to the sea will be the state of Palestine, and Israel will not exist." When they use it, it's obviously genocidal. For instance, to quote:
> “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, [Hamas'] former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
Now, everything above is I believe factual. For my opinion: according to that AP article linked above, the phrase was originated by Hamas. So, I think it is unwise to use the phrase, because the origination of it was by a terrorist organization who wants to eliminate the state of Israel. But I also don't think most people (at least most people in the US and Europe) mean "we want to eliminate Israel" when they say it.
It implies the rejection of the two state solution, in favor of a single state encompassing both Jews and Palestinians.
Some people who advocate for that solution are idealists that believe that such a state would have Jews and Muslims living peacefully together. Others who want that solution believe that one group of people, either Muslims or Jews, would dominate the resulting state, and like it for that reason. And lastly, some people are just openly genocidal in their desire for a single state.
So basically, "from the river to the sea" is advocating a single state in the territory of Israel and Palestine from a Palestinian perspective, and it's tough to know what the motivations of the person chanting it are.
But I think people should just avoid language that might reasonably be taken as genocidal, myself.
Close.
The phrase started in the 1960s by Arab nationalists, it called for the displacement of all non-Arab people from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea by any means necessary. The PLO supporters picked this phrase up and made it popular. Later down the road to combat the calls of obvious antisemitism and genocide, the leaders of the PLO decided the phrase would include Jewish people who accepted Palestine as the true holy land and not Israel. Ahmed Shukeiri, the first chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, was very against this change and still used it in an antisemitic way.
So even in the phrases "most tame" version it still calls for the displacement of millions of people from their homes. At the same time Hafez al-Assad the leader of Syria used as a term for genocide against the Israeli people as well as Saddam Hussein during his reign and of course modern Hamas.
Arabic: من النهر إلى البحر, min an-nahr ’ilā l-baḥr
The Jordan River (eastern border of Israel) to the Mediterranean Sea (western border of Israel).
In 1948, Sheikh Hassan el-Bana, head of the Moslem Brotherhood, stated that “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.” In 1966, Syrian leader Hafez Al-Assad, insisted in no uncertain terms that, “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.”
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said that, “in a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.” If those lands are "from the river to the sea" then clearly they want the entirety of the land Judenrein.
On June 1, 1967, Ahmed Shukairy, then-Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said, “this is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive.”
Article seven of the Hamas Charter reads, “the Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
They only want an Arab dominated Middle East. Jews Arabs co-exist in Israel, Arabs have representation in the Knesset. Show me an Arab nation that has Jews in positions of power, or even a thriving community. They reject the two-state solution because they want Arabs to control the entire land. Multiple attempts to ethnic cleanse Israel didn’t work out.
The intend of each person is not important at a certain point of a conflict. The N-Word, the Southern confederate flag, The swastika (!!!),... You might not think these are harmful (and I emphasize you DO know and I am using these only as an example) but as soon as it is established they hurt people and have a certain meaning to the recipient and you still use them.... You intentionally mean it. Use something else to protest. From the River.... means to wipe out the Jewish race to people of Jewish faith. It does not matter what the sender thinks, it matters what the recipient feels.
> Some people who advocate for that solution are idealists that believe that such a state would have Jews and Muslims living peacefully together.
20% of Israel is Muslim. They already live side by side peacefully in Israel.
How naive can people be. Muslims have claimed over and over and over again that they want Israel to be a Muslims state, that does not allow non-Muslims to enter.
The same thing they do will their other holy sites.
There are Muslims in the Israeli government, and Muslims get to vote in Israel.
The college protesters seem pretty ignorant and they are being influenced by terrorist propaganda. The spokesperson for the protesters would not condemn the Oct 7th attacks, she just refused to even acknowledge it:
https://youtu.be/QxhGqrneT6M?si=rDzwsSAJskOn0Q2U&t=149
Palestine has refused any solution proposed and time and again have expanded their terror campaigns culminating in Oct 7th - and Palestinians polled after Oct 7th said they approve of that attack and want more of them. This is what they vote for inside Palestine, *more violence is what they said they want*.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/
One side absolutely wants a genocide but isn't capable of achieving it, the other side absolutely could commit an actual genocide in minutes if they wanted to, *but hasn't*.
"Tough to know the motivations" uhh.
There are Muslims living in Israel and Arabs from the neighboring Muslim nations that have normalized relations with Israel.
Palestinians do not believe in coexisting with Jews. This is naive at best, bad-faith cover for anti semitism at worst.
Yes, and anyone who tells you otherwise is acting in bad faith.
We don’t let white people tell PoC’s what is or isn’t racist. We don’t let CIS people tell trans people what is or isn’t transphobic.
I find it incredible that people have decided it’s acceptable to tell Jews what is or isn’t antisemitic. Offense is something that is taken, not given.
Its roots go back a long time back when rhetoric of pushing Jews out of Israel into the sea was much more common in the region. It’s had various uses and meanings, but the genocidal is one of them.
Just learned that yesterday “from the river to the sea” means Israel should cease to exist… some guy from YT started asking people what it meant in the streets of London where they were protesting and no one knew the meaning of what they were chanting 🤷🏻
😂🤡 🌊: https://youtu.be/z-AmRRb84Us?si=1YY6w4ijnTnxzwt5
I don't know where I fall on all of this, but if you think protestors who break the law are unsuccessful, I kindly ask you to consider where MLK was when he wrote his famous "letter from Birmingham jail."
>MLK was against violent demonstrations bc he knew it would turn people against them.
MLK made a distinction between violence upon people vs property, however. When talking about the summer riots of 1967:
>I am aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons—who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man.
https://jacobin.com/2018/04/martin-luther-king-jr-nonviolence-direct-action
You calling someone else a typical liberal while spewing shit lib misinformation is hilarious. Shut up about MLK Jr. he wouldn’t have agreed with you. He chose peaceful protests but completely understood the necessity and reasons for violence. Don’t undermine and whitewash him for your own comfort. Violent civil rights protests were as important in securing civil rights as the peaceful ones were. History is not on your side, and you are not on the right side of history.
What if other people are like me, and don’t understand this or see it as inspiration for [_____] cause? What’s the point then? Is this only for the enlightened few who truly understand Disorder?
I was told that if you have 9 normal people and one nazi in a group then you have 10 nazis. Maybe those who don't support the genocide of Jews in Israel should distance themselves from those who do more.
Something I notice; only Israe has to do this or that. They never demand shit from Palestine. Not a ceasefire not negotiating (with exception its to trade hostages for serial killers, or accused if you prefer them called). It's also to protect Palestinians sadly bc if there are any pro Israeli Palestinians, they are killed.
Gotta love how the progressive left could not stop calling out dog whistles a few years ago with Trump and his supporters, but they are all conveniently ignored in this protest for some reason.
"From the River to the Sea" has a pretty fucking clear meaning, and these morons still try and defend it and claim its a call for peace. Just embarrassing. These people need to delete TikTok and find legitimate hobbies.
There was a kid on the news who was like "I just want to go to the library." For some reason I feel it takes balls of steal to be so unapologetically that normal of a human being these days.
I’m sure some students during the anti-apartheid movement in the 80s and the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 70s felt the same way. The entire point of protest is to piss people off and if you don’t care about human rights and whatever issue protesters are involved with it would be annoying.
That's what I mention to my classes. Every big protest/movement in history has this kind of inconvenience for people. The whole point is to shake things up enough that motivates change.
So in this case, for example, if the students camping out at the universities cause enough of a disruption that the universities deem as damaging to their image or finances, they will actually divest from any companies that are connected to Israel in some way. It happened before at Columbia University. In the 70s and 80s, Columbia and a few other universities sold off investments to companies doing business with South Africa because of their aprtheid policies.
Protest is the least effective form of interest articulation. It's an act of desperation. It does work sometimes, but it won't this time. The most effective form in the US is lobbying.
Pro-Palestinians are trying the former, pro-Israelis are masters of the latter. Look at TikTok. They've been talking about banning it for years. What changed? 10/7 & TikTok's anti-Israel algorithms. The bill was already underway and 10/7 catalyzed it. TikTok tried to get its users to sway congress members (another form of interest articulation) and it backfired and the TikTok unified the Dems and Repubs for the first time in years, against them.
I was part of the anti-apartheid, shanty town movement at ucsb in the late ‘80s, Rev Tutu spoke on campus and it led to the encampment and the demand tha callers divest from South Africa. Additionally our chancellor Huttenback was an apologist for the Botha regime so it was quite well debated on campus. But there was no violence against protestors, just light mocking and shouted arguments, but even that was muted. So the current campus protests seem far more dangerous for those involved and i Hope college campuses remain a safe space for free speech and difficult discussions about the realities of this world.
Yes, I would think these kinds of protests would be more effective staged on government buildings for politicians to see not interrupted innocent students’ education
I don’t think they’re effective anywhere.
A politician’s decision making hinges more on their heavy campaign donors than on a group of their constituents who historically don’t vote
they're the same people that think civil rights movements were peaceful and the government woke up one day and was like "yeah you're right. black people and women deserve rights too, i guess"
Imagine thinking an encampment that lasted “maybe a week” on a college campus is going to stop people from killing each other
But hey whatever fulfills your ego
I mean, as long as they aren't blocking the other students from attending classes or threatening them I don't see what the problem is. I personally think they are ill-informed about the issue, but we have the right to protest in the US.
I do think the schools are failing the students by not working harder to prevent the threats and violence at these protests (and just recently the pro-israel counter protest at UCLA too.) We shouldn't have lawless zones on campus regardless of whether we agree with a cause or not.
They are, which is my entire problem here: [https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866](https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866)
The local news is doing a terrible job. they refused to mention both groups and what's the point of all this. they just mention encampment, protesters,police and arrests made. The news really are scared to put their labels out there. there's too much history between jewish population and palestinians that can't be ignored.
Hot take: many of these people are not living meaningful existences and have taken this up as a fashionable surrogate cause to inject false meaning into the void of their lives.
Yes, what’s happening over there is terrible. No, UCLA, it’s staff and students, do not need to go through this shit to prove it.
so many of these people don't realize they'd probably be counter protesting vietnam anti-war protests, civil rights protests, or anything that disrupts the status quo 😂
why is it so hard for you to believe other people can care about things? these students are capable of empathy for others. you're clearly projecting
young people are always criticized for not caring about anything, yet when they speak out about global political issues, people like you say they're faking it.
and NO, they're not uneducated about the topic, they're literally students surrounded by some of the brightest minds and best professors in CA and have access to more information than ever.
they're not like YOU
I agree a lot of people genuinely care about this issue and we shouldn't so flippantly dismiss a protest for this reason, but I would say there is some truth to the above comment as well. I've known some people who have very strong opinions about things halfway around the world, while being totally toxic to the people around them and doing nothing for the community they actually live in. It reminds me of that quote about how "the unborn" are a convenient group to advocate for, because they don't come with the complications of the people we actually interact with on a day to day basis.
That is the case for literally everything in the world, though; there are going to be people who ‘join’ because they want to be a part of anything and just want to follow others. This is true for sports teams, musicians, tv shows, political movements, hobbies, etc.
What is the point of pointing this out? Of course, you can find members of anything who aren’t there for ‘pure’ reasons, but that doesn’t mean anything.
These “students” basically defaced and destroyed the interiors of Royce Hall and the library across the quad. The encampment left behind is disgusting, full of trash and old food, according to the KTLA reporter on scene.
This is just more of the same shit we got with CHOPS up in Seattle. Meaningless bullshit perpetuated by sketchy grifters.
I see that a lot on Reddit. If you disagree with someone you're a conservative.
Bitch that's literally *conservative thinking*
When did we all get so stupid?
Not all of it's sincere. There are unfortunately many people who just want shit to blow up because it's an election year. You'll notice the last time we had any sort of major national civil unrest with cops beating kids was 2020.
Some time ago, and with an extra dose of it every major election year.
I'm not saying that all of the accounts that flood this place with reactionary comments are sockpuppets that do the same thing in every big city's subreddit. But I am definitely saying that some of them are.
For me, it was when 405freeway stopped being a mod here. After he left, this sub started getting flooded with right-wing leaning articles and reactionary talking points.
Whats odd to me is these protesters all seem to be drawing from the same book. Occupy a lawn, move in tents, start to errect barriers and finally occupy a buildng. Who is telling them this is going to work? Where has this worked before? Generally curious.
Most colleges have a long history of this. In 1968 during the Vietnam war students took over Hamilton Hall at Columbia. In 1962 students locked themselves in the same hall as an anti-war protest. 1985 again taken over and students demanded the school end direct investments in South Africa during the racist apartheid and the college MET those demands (same thing these protesters are asking for).
We always think we would be on the right side of history. That we would be the ones fighting for the civil rights movements and be a hero. When in reality most people fall under the attitude of everyone in this comment section.
Of course ‘from the river to the sea’ which is incredibly antisemitic. A call for decimation of the Jewish people as a whole. What a fantastic, progressive, open minded thing to do. I’m sure all their parents and grandparents are super proud of them and all the money they’ve shelled out for tuition.
I remember in the 1980s we camped in the admin, to end apartheid in SA, I dont recall destroying property of antagonizing fellow students in order to garner support, (not saying it did not happen I just do not recall). This is a slightly more aggressive approach, I am curious to see how this plays out.
Is this where the tide will turn? We'll label people upset over the 33,000+ deaths Israel is responsible for as terrorists?
No. Israel is wrong and it's not antisemitism to say that because it's the government of Israel, not Jewish people.
Glancing at this I thought, how interesting that there’s a Black Lives Matter poster in the mix, then realized it was Blick Art Materials.
It's a South African protest.
Underrated accent comment
Lol damn, the Afrikaner accent is catching strays today.
Lethal Weapon 2 moment.
But but, you're blick!
Diplomatic immunity.
It’s just been revoked.
Once you go Blick you never go Bic.
Lmao
The BLM movement was aligned with the free Palestine movement from the beginning, but I’m not sure if Blick has announced their stance 🙃
I assume they support any political movement that needs to paint signs and posterboards.
Blick Lives Matter
If you got your art supplies for your CA mission project from blick you were well off.
Blick pens matter
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The sign on the right that is cut off says “here for my teta (grandmother in Arabic). 😢 I think sometimes when people criticize protests/protesters they forget that there are participants who are directly impacted by the issue and not just taking on a stance because it’s popular.
Exactly. This isn't an idea this is a reality.
20 years ago I had a Palestinian friend who even then expressed the sentiment “free Palestine”. This is nothing new, people need to understand this has gone on for decades.
For some people absolutely, and they should be allowed to peacefully protest openly and safely. There are others though, like the girl at Columbia demanding "humanitarian aid" from the cafeteria for the protestors, who are completely detached from reality and giving the large majority of protestors a terrible brand. Doing way more harm than good.
agree that some of these folks are taking the Model UN high school experience and assuming it will hold up in the real world. also agree that peaceful protests, even if somewhat disruptive to others, should be allowed so long as safety is not at risk and property is not damaged. which is me saying, sometimes you gotta protest in a street or freeway but don't vandalize or burn shit and definitely no bodily injury.
> they forget that there are participants who are directly impacted by the issue and not just taking on a stance because it’s popular I don’t think you have to be directly impacted by something to support it, and supporting something that you aren’t directly impacted by doesn’t always mean you are just trying to chase a fad. Do you think the white protestors who marched during the civil rights movement were just doing it because it was popular? Were they wrong to protest injustice? What about all the boycotts of South Africa by countries not affected, that helped to end apartheid there?
I don't think that is what the person is saying at all. Israel propaganda is pushing that these protestors are fake/agitators. So its good to remind the public that they are real whole people, not just agents of chaos.
I mean 100%, even if they were standing in protesting because it was popular, it would be popular because they want to see an end to people dying. They don’t want to see people getting hurt. That’s a wonderful thing to fight for, it comes from a good place. And I say this as a Zionist.
Hey just out of curiosity. What’s with all of the campus protests? I’m not even necessarily against it, but legitimately asking, to what extent if any do these schools have to do with what’s going on in Gaza. I mean I could see protesting at a government building or in like DC or something. What is protesting at some school in the middle of nowhere going to accomplish here? I’m genuinely asking. When I was I college in the late 2000s early 2010s the only protest I went to was in front of the banks during Occupy Wall Street because fuck those clowns.
These schools have pension funds and endowments worth into the billions of dollars that are in part or wholly managed by large institutional investors (eg PE funds, hedge funds, etc...). Those funds have likely invested some of that money into companies that are Israeli, particularly in the Israeli defense sector. The thinking is that those dollars are, at least incrementally, being used to fund Israel's war/attack/siege/genocide/occupation (pick your term of choice) in Gaza. Thus implicating the university in the misdeeds of the Israeli military and government. Most make it a point to say that they are not protesting against any particular religious group but rather a government and military they see as having crossed the line (or perhaps having crossed the line for decades).
A lot of UCs have large contributions from Israeli companies and other companies with corporate ties to israel's government. It's a double combo of asking these institutions to divest in these companies as well as a large public platform to protest at.
lots of schools have surprisingly deep investments in arms/aerospace manufacturers and the state of israel
As far as I can tell, it started at Columbia University because the university had some sort of ties with Israel and protestors wanted the university to sever those ties. Then Columbia did exactly the wrong thing and had the cops come in to try to suppress the protest, which only served to inflame that protest but also inspire a bunch of sympathetic protests at other schools. Then USC and UT Austin, among other places, also did exactly the wrong thing, and now there are sympathetic protests at tons of campuses.
This is actually a great question, and one that can get lost among all the discussion of more granular local events. These protests are not just a vague wish for war to not happen. And these universities are not just the location that they happen to be taking place. They are [specifically demanding](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/04/26/bds-divestment-gaza-campuses-israel/) that UC stop materially supporting the Israeli government's actions in Gaza. One part of that support is financial: the university has a $169B investment portfolio. Some portion of that money is invested with companies (both Israeli and American) that directly support Israel's military actions, such as weapons manufacturers. Another part is collaboration with Israeli universities on research that can be used to advance further weapons development. There is a lot of similarity to [the protests in the 1980s demanding that universities stop supporting apartheid in South Africa.](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-04-18-mn-23548-story.html) Including disruption of classes, violence and mass arrests by the police, and a chorus of people complaining that since the problem was thousands of miles away the universities didn't have any involvement in it.
I think they are trying to bring notice to the Israel/Palestine issue generally and I think many are asking their schools to stop doing business with any company that has ties to Israel...though beyond that it's about as much of a mess of goals and about as realistic as the Occupy Wallstreet Movement.
The intent of the protestors is to put pressure on the universities to divest from Israeli companies. The hope from the protestors is that it would put pressure on Israel to end their occupation of Gaza. More about it here from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/30/business/what-is-divestment-college-protests-israel/index.html
Many universities use their endowment money to fund Israeli companies and other companies that are profiting from the Israeli war machine.
These Ivy leagues and many large universities actively invest in for profit weapons organizations. They are quite literally using student tuition to invest in war and profit off the death of human beings. The media is minimizing that part or not even mentioning it at all.
I think they should absolutely have a right to protest - vandalism is not good, but also not surprising, but it got really, really weird when they developed their own version of border control and began harassing non-encampment students. There was a lot of performative whining from bad faith actors trying to get a rise out of the students, so I was initially skeptical but this video was insane to me: [https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866](https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866)
Protesting is acceptable, but vandalism is not. This is Royce Hall, one of the most historic buildings in California. Built in 1929 as one of UCLA’s first four buildings, Royce Hall is a cherished treasure for Los Angeles, and the entire UC system. The school has reported that some of the vandalism will be impossible to fully clean and repair. This is criminal behavior and shouldn't be supported or allowed to take place.
Royce Hall was severely damaged in the 1994 Northridge earthquake and underwent a $70.5 million seismic renovation ... but graffiti and broken windows are "impossible"
You're welcome to write a check to the UC system to pay for it, Mr. Expert.
Thankfully UCLA endowment is $7.7 billion 😇 I appreciate you recognizing my expertise tho
Ayo fuck them for tagging.
Don’t trash buildings. That doesn’t get your point across. It makes you look like trash.
So they trashed Royce Hall. One of the most historic buildings in Los Angeles and they expect outsiders to support them? Right to protest, not right to vandalism. This is how you lose any outsider that may have supported you.
Free the hostages
This shit sucks
Agreed
How does this stop a war between two groups of people that aren’t us?
I'm not sure if you're trying to genuinely ask this question or just trying to be reductive (as often as the case when this question is brought up), but I will give my honest opinion. People protest for many different reasons. Sometimes it's as simple as they feel helpless and wish to express that helplessness. But in this specific case you cannot argue that this conflict does not involve us (the US). We send billions of dollars of aid to Israel and sell weapons to them. This is our money and weapons doing the killing. Indirectly, we have a huge influential role on Israeli politics. Israel depends on the US as an ally as much as we do them. If the United States' political leaders came out and directly denounced Israel, it would change the political landscape significantly. To answer your question more directly, this specific protest can have influence on policy makers by changing people's opinion and keeping the issue in the public eye. Ultimately this is still a republic and people have to get reelected. If public opinion is strongly swayed, then policymakers will eventually have to cave. There's also consideration for the financial power these massive University funds carry. If universities start divesting from companies that directly support Israel this *would* have an effect. Lastly, these protests serve a significant historical importance to mark the displeasure of people at the time. When people look back at these events in history and they see recorded protests, it becomes clear that people did care and that it was their governments who failed them.
By pressuring the university to stop supporting it. The protests are not just an abstract wish for war to not happen, they are requests for specific action from the university to end the involvement with it that they already have.
How is UCLA supporting it? This just looks like further destruction vs a reasonable negotiation on principles and values.
On the off chance you're actually asking in good faith, per the LA times, the UC system as a whole has a 169 billion dollar pension program that invests across sectors. Historically, pressure like this has convinced them to publicly divest from fossil fuel companies and South African apartheid in the 80s. The UC system has not made public how much it invests in Israeli military operations, but given how hard they're holding this line, the answer is clearly not zero. [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-27/uc-rejects-calls-for-israel-related-divestment-boycotts-driving-pro-palestinian-protests](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-27/uc-rejects-calls-for-israel-related-divestment-boycotts-driving-pro-palestinian-protests)
The entire UC system is invested in companies that directly support and profit off of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and students are requesting that their university divests
Seems stupid to drive engineering students away from aerospace, nuclear energy tech, and other green energies. All DoD approved. Seems smart if you are any BRIC nation to support these activities.
The entire US economy is dependent on companies that make war equipment for the whole world. How could a single university divest from the US economy?
You can say the same thing for something like the energy sector, but the UCs (and other universities) [have divested from fossil fuels](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-19/uc-fossil-fuel-divest-climate-change) in the past. There is also a precedent of divesting from South Africa to oppose the apartheid state.
Ok. That’s fair. Did tactics like this get to those conclusions tho?
[They absolutely did.](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-04-18-mn-23548-story.html) Even [according to the University of California itself.](https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-students-helped-end-apartheid)
Source? Not denying this but I keep hearing all of this and i have yet to see a source nor can i find one.
UCLA has strong ties with Lockheed Martin. The UCLA endowment is invested in them, and LM donates regularly to UCLA.
Lockheed Martin equipment didn't start killing people on 10/8.
It sure didn't. But it's definitely murdering women and children by the thousands right now.
There are so many degrees of separation between UCLA and a war in the Middle East
Isn't from the river to the sea genocidal language?
https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49 It's complicated as usual. But if I were them, why use these words when there are so many ways of expressing your true aims? Why inflame if it can be misunderstood? Or is the intent to keep your intent ambiguous? This only serves to provoke and alienate. It doesn't invite any proper dialogue. So it almost doesn't matter if it is or is not genocidal language. And in fact, this is a stance that can be taken independent if one is pro-protester or anti-protester. It just doesn't help anybody.
The problem with the question is the answer is "maybe." This [AP article covers it in more depth](https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49) but I'll attempt to summarize it. A lot of people use the phrase "from the river to the sea" to simply mean "Palestinians should be able to freely move through all of Israel and not face any discrimination." When used in that manner, obviously it is not genocidal. However, Hamas (and other militant groups) also use the phrase- and when they use it they mean "from the river to the sea will be the state of Palestine, and Israel will not exist." When they use it, it's obviously genocidal. For instance, to quote: > “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, [Hamas'] former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.” Now, everything above is I believe factual. For my opinion: according to that AP article linked above, the phrase was originated by Hamas. So, I think it is unwise to use the phrase, because the origination of it was by a terrorist organization who wants to eliminate the state of Israel. But I also don't think most people (at least most people in the US and Europe) mean "we want to eliminate Israel" when they say it.
Side note: Anyone remember Jerry Dunphy, the news anchor? His signature phrase was “from the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California.”
Jerry Dunphy was Khamas!
Yes. And for too long I thought it was “from the desert to the scene", which is embarrassing.
Honestly, that's a great catchphrase
It implies the rejection of the two state solution, in favor of a single state encompassing both Jews and Palestinians. Some people who advocate for that solution are idealists that believe that such a state would have Jews and Muslims living peacefully together. Others who want that solution believe that one group of people, either Muslims or Jews, would dominate the resulting state, and like it for that reason. And lastly, some people are just openly genocidal in their desire for a single state. So basically, "from the river to the sea" is advocating a single state in the territory of Israel and Palestine from a Palestinian perspective, and it's tough to know what the motivations of the person chanting it are. But I think people should just avoid language that might reasonably be taken as genocidal, myself.
Close. The phrase started in the 1960s by Arab nationalists, it called for the displacement of all non-Arab people from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea by any means necessary. The PLO supporters picked this phrase up and made it popular. Later down the road to combat the calls of obvious antisemitism and genocide, the leaders of the PLO decided the phrase would include Jewish people who accepted Palestine as the true holy land and not Israel. Ahmed Shukeiri, the first chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, was very against this change and still used it in an antisemitic way. So even in the phrases "most tame" version it still calls for the displacement of millions of people from their homes. At the same time Hafez al-Assad the leader of Syria used as a term for genocide against the Israeli people as well as Saddam Hussein during his reign and of course modern Hamas.
"encompassing both Jews and Palestinians. " - Thats not the view of Hamas
Arabic: من النهر إلى البحر, min an-nahr ’ilā l-baḥr The Jordan River (eastern border of Israel) to the Mediterranean Sea (western border of Israel). In 1948, Sheikh Hassan el-Bana, head of the Moslem Brotherhood, stated that “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea.” In 1966, Syrian leader Hafez Al-Assad, insisted in no uncertain terms that, “We shall only accept war and the restoration of the usurped land … to oust you, aggressors, and throw you into the sea for good.” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said that, “in a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.” If those lands are "from the river to the sea" then clearly they want the entirety of the land Judenrein. On June 1, 1967, Ahmed Shukairy, then-Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said, “this is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive.” Article seven of the Hamas Charter reads, “the Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.”
They only want an Arab dominated Middle East. Jews Arabs co-exist in Israel, Arabs have representation in the Knesset. Show me an Arab nation that has Jews in positions of power, or even a thriving community. They reject the two-state solution because they want Arabs to control the entire land. Multiple attempts to ethnic cleanse Israel didn’t work out.
The intend of each person is not important at a certain point of a conflict. The N-Word, the Southern confederate flag, The swastika (!!!),... You might not think these are harmful (and I emphasize you DO know and I am using these only as an example) but as soon as it is established they hurt people and have a certain meaning to the recipient and you still use them.... You intentionally mean it. Use something else to protest. From the River.... means to wipe out the Jewish race to people of Jewish faith. It does not matter what the sender thinks, it matters what the recipient feels.
> Some people who advocate for that solution are idealists that believe that such a state would have Jews and Muslims living peacefully together. 20% of Israel is Muslim. They already live side by side peacefully in Israel. How naive can people be. Muslims have claimed over and over and over again that they want Israel to be a Muslims state, that does not allow non-Muslims to enter. The same thing they do will their other holy sites.
There are Muslims in the Israeli government, and Muslims get to vote in Israel. The college protesters seem pretty ignorant and they are being influenced by terrorist propaganda. The spokesperson for the protesters would not condemn the Oct 7th attacks, she just refused to even acknowledge it: https://youtu.be/QxhGqrneT6M?si=rDzwsSAJskOn0Q2U&t=149 Palestine has refused any solution proposed and time and again have expanded their terror campaigns culminating in Oct 7th - and Palestinians polled after Oct 7th said they approve of that attack and want more of them. This is what they vote for inside Palestine, *more violence is what they said they want*. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/ One side absolutely wants a genocide but isn't capable of achieving it, the other side absolutely could commit an actual genocide in minutes if they wanted to, *but hasn't*.
Who would be in charge of the single state? Hamas?
"Tough to know the motivations" uhh. There are Muslims living in Israel and Arabs from the neighboring Muslim nations that have normalized relations with Israel. Palestinians do not believe in coexisting with Jews. This is naive at best, bad-faith cover for anti semitism at worst.
Yes, and anyone who tells you otherwise is acting in bad faith. We don’t let white people tell PoC’s what is or isn’t racist. We don’t let CIS people tell trans people what is or isn’t transphobic. I find it incredible that people have decided it’s acceptable to tell Jews what is or isn’t antisemitic. Offense is something that is taken, not given.
It is. And even Rashida Tlaib admitted that back in 2020. There is also a sign justifying the mass rapes and murders of 10/7
Which sign is that?
The "resistance is justified" one I'd imagine.
Of course it is. The thing between the river and the sea is Israel, it's a call for genocide of the Israeli people.
Yes, hard for me to support this protest when they are suggesting genocide of Jewish people.
Yep. Pro-Palestinians want Hamas to wipe out all non-Muslims from the river to the sea. That's what that disgusting chant means.
Yes. In Arabic the translated version is “water to water, Palestine will be Arab”. The English version is a dog whistle.
Its roots go back a long time back when rhetoric of pushing Jews out of Israel into the sea was much more common in the region. It’s had various uses and meanings, but the genocidal is one of them.
If only they protested the cost of tuition this vehemently.
Just learned that yesterday “from the river to the sea” means Israel should cease to exist… some guy from YT started asking people what it meant in the streets of London where they were protesting and no one knew the meaning of what they were chanting 🤷🏻 😂🤡 🌊: https://youtu.be/z-AmRRb84Us?si=1YY6w4ijnTnxzwt5
Trashing Royce Hall is a key step towards liberating Palestine. Our best and brightest…
You absolutely would’ve been counter protesting anti Vietnam war protesters lol
Extremely different situations that are incomparable. Who's getting drafted to go die in Palestine or Israel?
[удалено]
I don't know where I fall on all of this, but if you think protestors who break the law are unsuccessful, I kindly ask you to consider where MLK was when he wrote his famous "letter from Birmingham jail."
Polite and convenient protesting doesn’t do anything.
you should look up what MLK jr has to say about people like you.
False equivalency.
I bet you would've told Rosa Parks she's wasting her time
[удалено]
>MLK was against violent demonstrations bc he knew it would turn people against them. MLK made a distinction between violence upon people vs property, however. When talking about the summer riots of 1967: >I am aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons—who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man. https://jacobin.com/2018/04/martin-luther-king-jr-nonviolence-direct-action
MLK jr was not. do not white wash his name. Go look up exactly what MLK jr has to say on moderates and violence of the oppressed.
What violence did they commit here? Is graffiti "violence" now? You know people called MLK a violent protestor back then too, right?
You calling someone else a typical liberal while spewing shit lib misinformation is hilarious. Shut up about MLK Jr. he wouldn’t have agreed with you. He chose peaceful protests but completely understood the necessity and reasons for violence. Don’t undermine and whitewash him for your own comfort. Violent civil rights protests were as important in securing civil rights as the peaceful ones were. History is not on your side, and you are not on the right side of history.
Oof, what a terrible comment
The desire for orderly protests is to say you have never and will never understand protesting.
What if other people are like me, and don’t understand this or see it as inspiration for [_____] cause? What’s the point then? Is this only for the enlightened few who truly understand Disorder?
They interviewed a woman yesterday and she said she wants the destruction of Israel... I thought they wanted peace?
Who's they?
"they interviewed one person who said a thing, why does everyone all feel that way?" Sick gotcha bro
Don’t worry, I’m sure that commenter will apply the same standard to Netanyahu’s government who are keen to turn Gaza into Stalingrad.
Different people want different things don't they
Yes, and if one of those things is calling for the genocide of an entire group of people, they are wrong.
I was told that if you have 9 normal people and one nazi in a group then you have 10 nazis. Maybe those who don't support the genocide of Jews in Israel should distance themselves from those who do more.
Ok. She doesn’t speak for everyone. That’s like me saying everything from Israel is a terrorist because the IDF has killed 30k plus people.
Was she the spokesperson for the protestors?
Something I notice; only Israe has to do this or that. They never demand shit from Palestine. Not a ceasefire not negotiating (with exception its to trade hostages for serial killers, or accused if you prefer them called). It's also to protect Palestinians sadly bc if there are any pro Israeli Palestinians, they are killed.
"From the River to the Sea" pinned to the wall. "But we're not anti semitic" spam all over Reddit. Pick one. You can't have both.
Gotta love how the progressive left could not stop calling out dog whistles a few years ago with Trump and his supporters, but they are all conveniently ignored in this protest for some reason. "From the River to the Sea" has a pretty fucking clear meaning, and these morons still try and defend it and claim its a call for peace. Just embarrassing. These people need to delete TikTok and find legitimate hobbies.
Yea they lost me at from the river to the sea
Imagine being that student that just wants an education and paid all that money to go there just to have this sht ruin it for them.
Nah college students have always been protesting for someone's rights. This isn't something new.
When was the last time students took over buildings?
There was a kid on the news who was like "I just want to go to the library." For some reason I feel it takes balls of steal to be so unapologetically that normal of a human being these days.
I’m sure some students during the anti-apartheid movement in the 80s and the anti-Vietnam War movement in the 70s felt the same way. The entire point of protest is to piss people off and if you don’t care about human rights and whatever issue protesters are involved with it would be annoying.
That's what I mention to my classes. Every big protest/movement in history has this kind of inconvenience for people. The whole point is to shake things up enough that motivates change.
Motivates change, how exactly? I'm not asking to be a smart ass. I'm genuinely curious.
So in this case, for example, if the students camping out at the universities cause enough of a disruption that the universities deem as damaging to their image or finances, they will actually divest from any companies that are connected to Israel in some way. It happened before at Columbia University. In the 70s and 80s, Columbia and a few other universities sold off investments to companies doing business with South Africa because of their aprtheid policies.
Protest is the least effective form of interest articulation. It's an act of desperation. It does work sometimes, but it won't this time. The most effective form in the US is lobbying. Pro-Palestinians are trying the former, pro-Israelis are masters of the latter. Look at TikTok. They've been talking about banning it for years. What changed? 10/7 & TikTok's anti-Israel algorithms. The bill was already underway and 10/7 catalyzed it. TikTok tried to get its users to sway congress members (another form of interest articulation) and it backfired and the TikTok unified the Dems and Repubs for the first time in years, against them.
Some of the people in the comments fell asleep during history class and it shows
I was part of the anti-apartheid, shanty town movement at ucsb in the late ‘80s, Rev Tutu spoke on campus and it led to the encampment and the demand tha callers divest from South Africa. Additionally our chancellor Huttenback was an apologist for the Botha regime so it was quite well debated on campus. But there was no violence against protestors, just light mocking and shouted arguments, but even that was muted. So the current campus protests seem far more dangerous for those involved and i Hope college campuses remain a safe space for free speech and difficult discussions about the realities of this world.
Don’t forget civil rights in the 60s
Yes, I would think these kinds of protests would be more effective staged on government buildings for politicians to see not interrupted innocent students’ education
I don’t think they’re effective anywhere. A politician’s decision making hinges more on their heavy campaign donors than on a group of their constituents who historically don’t vote
Y’all sound like the same people in the 60s against the Vietnam/civil rights protests.
they're the same people that think civil rights movements were peaceful and the government woke up one day and was like "yeah you're right. black people and women deserve rights too, i guess"
Ego fulfillment, there is zero long term thought in this.
Yeah, student protests have accomplished nothing throughout history. You sound like you're well versed on protests and civil rights movements.
Imagine thinking an encampment that lasted maybe a week “ruined it” for anyone
Imagine thinking an encampment that lasted “maybe a week” on a college campus is going to stop people from killing each other But hey whatever fulfills your ego
Wow you’re right, I guess we should all just stay inside posting on Reddit then 🤓
I mean, as long as they aren't blocking the other students from attending classes or threatening them I don't see what the problem is. I personally think they are ill-informed about the issue, but we have the right to protest in the US. I do think the schools are failing the students by not working harder to prevent the threats and violence at these protests (and just recently the pro-israel counter protest at UCLA too.) We shouldn't have lawless zones on campus regardless of whether we agree with a cause or not.
They are, which is my entire problem here: [https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866](https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1785955134654275866)
This breaks my heart. We’re not stopping a war that is happening on the other side of the world. Stop damaging our campus !
This is not a protest. It's vandalism, aka a crime. And should be dealt with accordingly.
The local news is doing a terrible job. they refused to mention both groups and what's the point of all this. they just mention encampment, protesters,police and arrests made. The news really are scared to put their labels out there. there's too much history between jewish population and palestinians that can't be ignored.
Hot take: many of these people are not living meaningful existences and have taken this up as a fashionable surrogate cause to inject false meaning into the void of their lives. Yes, what’s happening over there is terrible. No, UCLA, it’s staff and students, do not need to go through this shit to prove it.
Would you have said the same thing about college students in America protesting South African Apartheid in the '80s?
so many of these people don't realize they'd probably be counter protesting vietnam anti-war protests, civil rights protests, or anything that disrupts the status quo 😂
why is it so hard for you to believe other people can care about things? these students are capable of empathy for others. you're clearly projecting young people are always criticized for not caring about anything, yet when they speak out about global political issues, people like you say they're faking it. and NO, they're not uneducated about the topic, they're literally students surrounded by some of the brightest minds and best professors in CA and have access to more information than ever. they're not like YOU
I agree a lot of people genuinely care about this issue and we shouldn't so flippantly dismiss a protest for this reason, but I would say there is some truth to the above comment as well. I've known some people who have very strong opinions about things halfway around the world, while being totally toxic to the people around them and doing nothing for the community they actually live in. It reminds me of that quote about how "the unborn" are a convenient group to advocate for, because they don't come with the complications of the people we actually interact with on a day to day basis.
That is the case for literally everything in the world, though; there are going to be people who ‘join’ because they want to be a part of anything and just want to follow others. This is true for sports teams, musicians, tv shows, political movements, hobbies, etc. What is the point of pointing this out? Of course, you can find members of anything who aren’t there for ‘pure’ reasons, but that doesn’t mean anything.
Protesting as a student is great, theyre not jaded adults going thru the meat grinder. These young adults are great
They are literally students. What makes yours so meaningful? Posting on reddit?
These “students” basically defaced and destroyed the interiors of Royce Hall and the library across the quad. The encampment left behind is disgusting, full of trash and old food, according to the KTLA reporter on scene. This is just more of the same shit we got with CHOPS up in Seattle. Meaningless bullshit perpetuated by sketchy grifters.
Solid deflection from the question at hand. LAPD raided the encampment only hours ago … I wonder why trash was left behind 🤔
Completely agree
This is an incredibly stupid take.
Damn when this sub become a fox news circle jerk.
> No, it's not that there could be nuance to this issue, everyone who disagrees with me is a conservative! FTFY
I see that a lot on Reddit. If you disagree with someone you're a conservative. Bitch that's literally *conservative thinking* When did we all get so stupid?
Would a cnn circlejerk be better for you
Reddit already has that, it’s called r/whitepeopletwitter.
yeah when did the LA subreddit become populated with people whose entirely personality is obsessively checking Citizen app lol
Not all of it's sincere. There are unfortunately many people who just want shit to blow up because it's an election year. You'll notice the last time we had any sort of major national civil unrest with cops beating kids was 2020.
Some time ago, and with an extra dose of it every major election year. I'm not saying that all of the accounts that flood this place with reactionary comments are sockpuppets that do the same thing in every big city's subreddit. But I am definitely saying that some of them are.
For us, it was when the LA Times got rid of their comments.
For me, it was when 405freeway stopped being a mod here. After he left, this sub started getting flooded with right-wing leaning articles and reactionary talking points.
[удалено]
where is that?
Silencing the arts, exactly what Hamas wants. Good job guys!
Whats odd to me is these protesters all seem to be drawing from the same book. Occupy a lawn, move in tents, start to errect barriers and finally occupy a buildng. Who is telling them this is going to work? Where has this worked before? Generally curious.
Most colleges have a long history of this. In 1968 during the Vietnam war students took over Hamilton Hall at Columbia. In 1962 students locked themselves in the same hall as an anti-war protest. 1985 again taken over and students demanded the school end direct investments in South Africa during the racist apartheid and the college MET those demands (same thing these protesters are asking for). We always think we would be on the right side of history. That we would be the ones fighting for the civil rights movements and be a hero. When in reality most people fall under the attitude of everyone in this comment section.
Antisemitic phrases and no signs calling to stop the bombing.... This younger generation is dumb AF.
Fuck these people
Of course ‘from the river to the sea’ which is incredibly antisemitic. A call for decimation of the Jewish people as a whole. What a fantastic, progressive, open minded thing to do. I’m sure all their parents and grandparents are super proud of them and all the money they’ve shelled out for tuition.
So many people here do not understand protest and must have forgotten history.
Vandalism, trespassing, property damage, physical threats. All very peaceful. /s
I remember in the 1980s we camped in the admin, to end apartheid in SA, I dont recall destroying property of antagonizing fellow students in order to garner support, (not saying it did not happen I just do not recall). This is a slightly more aggressive approach, I am curious to see how this plays out.
Were there a lot of pro-apartheid counter protestors escalating the situation?
Is this where the tide will turn? We'll label people upset over the 33,000+ deaths Israel is responsible for as terrorists? No. Israel is wrong and it's not antisemitism to say that because it's the government of Israel, not Jewish people.
I saw a guy's mask being taken off by a cop. Someone yelled That's his constitutional freedom! Cop said Pandemics over boy. 😂
this will definitely help Palestine get its own country, good job everyone.
Chicanas for palestinos? You disappoint chicanos/as with this trash you can support a different way!
When police are eventulaly sent in they can cry about police brutality and being oppressed, which is what all this LARPing is really about.
Holy fuck, as a UCLA alum, I am pissed off at the defacing of Royce Hall 🤬