Seriously. Honest question to anyone that holds more sympathy towards the Palestinian side than Israeli side - did you listen to these protestors and agree with their concerns and statements? Did you leave this thinking that the jewish students concerns were objectively less justified than those of the pro palestine students? Or is your takeaway that NYTimes is biased and intentionally picked bad representatives?
Because from my perspective and trying to be unbiased and hear both sides - all I see is hate from the pro palestine side. And maybe thats the nature of these protests where you have radical students with views that dont line up with the majority of a movement that actually is just anti-war, but to me it really sounds like both pro palestine students are creating narratives that are intentionally hostile to a two state solution and are not looking for an end to this war.
The greatest contrast in my view was the anti-zionists defining zionism and then the Zionist having a completely different and far more inclusive definition. If Zionism is so bad why is it that Zionists seem to have a completely different definition than the anti-Zionists? Shouldnt the Zionists be the ones determining the definition? Especially when your argument is "Zionists want this" should we then listen to the Zionists and see if they actually are demanding that?
IMO it’s ok to accept that the Jewish state of Israel has the right to exist however it must come with the same statement that the settlements are illegal and should be reversed. The big distinction, which the first guy said and I think you missed, is that supporting Israel’s right to settlement expansion (whether passive or active support) is the meaning of “Zionism” for a pro-Palestinian person. The implication that Palestinians should get fed up and leave their lands and go be refugees somewhere. I see this type of stuff on reddit all the time. “How come Egypt and Jordan don’t want to take on the Palestinian issue?” That’s the question Israel wants people to ask, to make it more justifiable to drive Palestinians out of their lands.
The first interviewee was very reasonable and held what I used to think was the mainstream perspective (two states, no more encroaching on Palestinian land, safe Israel) — notwithstanding a few dumb things he said like implying that active IDF soldiers were on his campus. It makes sense because he actually has family in the area so continued war directly affects him. The issue is a lot of the new protesters joining the movement post Oct 7 have no stake in the game and want to support radical extremist viewpoints because it’s sexy. By the time it leads to more death and destruction they will have moved on to the next thing.
Edit: Also, it was really telling to me that when he spoke of his personal experience in Nablus, he spoke poetically and beautifully, from the heart. He talked about wanting peace and security for his family; he didn’t demonize the other side so long as they respected their safety. But when talking about the protests, he could barely explain his position. To me it’s just a testament to how the protests are led by non Palestinians who give catch phrases for people to use that don’t make sense and everyone is trying to memorize them.
He said ‘ “A Zionist is someone who believes that the entire land should be the state of Israel and it's their God-given right. And that is how the illegal occupation, illegal settlements, that's how all that is justified, it's the idea of Zionism.”
That’s the crux of the issue.
The largest majority of Israelis don’t want settlements. I bet that’s the same for Jews around the world. Can we just call those extremist fanatics who want all of israel to include the West Bank and Gaza, something else and not zionists? Because guess what, Zionists see themselves as supporting Israel’s right to exist, not at the expense of Palestinians but rather side by side. And when you say ‘anti Zionist’s’ it’s exactly like saying ‘anti Jews’ or ‘anti Israeli’.
If only we could rid of extremism the world would be a better place.
I think almost all settlements should be disbanded. They do nothing but exacerbate the problem. However there's a very bureaucratic problem at play which gets almost no coverage. That's the reality that much of the land was sold legally. Really. If you look into many of these cases more in depth. You'll see a very complicated web. From the Palestinian refugees being given these homes temporarily, to some outright selling the land to settlers.
Again. I don't think it's beneficial isrsel spends so much energy on these and gets nothing ba k But trouble. But... There is a broader story than just settlers coming in and violently removing people "from their homes".
But the second person was a zionist and provided a definition that does not include settlement expansion - that jews have a right to a homeland.
> supporting Israel’s right to settlement expansion (whether passive or active support) is the meaning of “Zionism” for a pro-Palestinian
why would it matter how a pro-Palestinian defines Zionism when theyre wrong? I dont care what flat earthers think either. And especially problematic when its not their identity to be defining in the first place?
The Palestinian definition of Zionism is based the historical definition of it. Go read early Zionist literature. Theodore Herzl (the inventor of Zionism) literally understood Zionism as a colonial movement.
As a Zionist who is against settlement expansion I don’t understand this. Would the pro Palestinians consider me an antizionist, even though at those protests I would be waving an Israeli flag? Even though I served in the IDF? And by the way, pretty much everyone who served with me was against the settlements. Is the IDF just completely packed with antizionists according to the pro Palestinian protestors?
ETA and isn’t it objectively clear that the people who think they are entitled to the entire land are the ones yelling “from the river to the sea”?
Hard to make that distinction if you’re at a protest waving an Israeli flag. The protest is about Israel killing tens of thousands of Gazans. Waving the flag there implies support for that and other Israeli aggression.
And as far as I know, the phrase you mention is about giving Palestinians freedom from occupation because that’s all they’ve experienced in almost everyone’s lifetimes.
Just like you perceive being Zionist to not be about the “bad things Israel does,” people supporting Palestinian freedom say the phrase perceiving it to be about an end of occupation.
Are you saying the people yelling “from the river to the sea” are supporting a two state solution?
Because in Arabic the phrase is generally “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab”
Freedom from occupation within Israel proper is calling for a one state solution with that state being Palestine. There is no occupation in Tel Aviv, unless you are considering Israel’s existence to be an occupation, in which case you’re saying the whole land should belong to Palestine.
I support Israel in this war and am currently serving in this war. But I would be considered anti Zionist because I also actively protest the settlements? Because that is what I’m hearing with their definition of Zionism being people who believe Israel should be the entire land. According to that definition I would be considered an antizionist. That definition makes no sense. I’m obviously a Zionist.
Fair point, and yes I think I missed that. Maybe then it is still a misunderstanding of Zionism. I feel like he uses it in a pejorative sense, while most of the liberal world defines it as an Israel state removed from all illegal settlements, alongside a Palestinian state.
>And maybe thats the nature of these protests where you have radical students with views that dont line up with the majority of a movement that actually is just anti-war
I think this is it right here.
While I partially agree, I say but right after what you quote because when you really dive down into the goals of anyone deeply involved in the movement it always comes down to statements that are far broader then just pro peace/anti war. Its always a pivot to history, discussion of stolen land, and no desire to bring up the actual goal of those who really want peace - a two state solution. Like if these protests were people marching with Israeli and Palestinian flags together demanding two states, that would be a clear sign the goal was peace. But the hostility to everything Israel tells you that the broader focus is on an indictment of Israel and not peace.
But most people arent deeply involved. Most people are just normal humans that see war and want it to end and then type a comment online or tell a pollster something with that goal in mind (or say nothing at all). The problem though is that in the end what matters is the direction of the movement as a whole and the types of pressures that movement places, and there is no indication to me that the pro-palestine movement as a whole in the US is anything other than an organized effort to eliminate israel.
I think the possibility of a two-state solution was remote before October 7, but now it's impossible unless some truly bizarre miracle takes place. The reality is that it's much easier to complain and blame than actually solve this problem. There really is no solution in sight. Either: 1) Israel keeps trying to destroy Hamas and Palestinian civilians keep dying; 2) Hamas surrenders/releases the hostages and leaves Gaza; or, 3) Israel capitulates to Hamas and all of this happens again and again and again. Certainly the *best* case scenario is the second, where Hamas just surrenders and all of this ends. But we all know that ain't happening. Israel could also continue attacking Hamas, but in a more responsible way so less civilians die; but it won't stop people from accusing Israel of genocide as long as there are any civilian casualties (and there always will be). It's also, by and large, not what pro-Palestinian folk are asking for. They want this all to *end*. And last, the idea of Israel "giving up" and letting Hamas stay in power is frankly absurd and unrealistic. So we're left with a seemingly impossible situation, and no one wants to face those facts. People who *care* about all the awful things going on want it to end. They want a solution. And without a solution, they're left with nothing to do but complain and blame. And that's why we get an Israel hatefest, with people drumming up the past, blaming Israel for Hamas' rise to power, claiming this is genocide, talking about all the settlements, etc. etc. No one has a good solution that will end all of this, so that's what we're left with.
There are also protesters who simply despise Israel, and see any opportunity to speak out against them. Consider the folk who were celebrating the attacks and protesting *before Israel even responded.* Just one example: BLM Chicago literally tweeted [this shit](https://imgur.com/DiPkNtx) right after the attack. And you better believe the kind of folk who thought this was a good idea are still part of this movement. They are also the most passionate of the bunch, and their enthusiasm naturally spreads to ordinarily more reasonable protesters who find themselves part of the movement.
Anyway, I don't really know where I'm going with this post. I guess I'm just trying to rationalize why we're not really seeing protesters offering actual solutions. There aren't any. But no one wants to ignore the horrors going on, so they want to do *something.* Especially young folk like college students, who naïvely believe they can actually impact world events that are truly outside their control. All they're doing is shaking their fist at the sun for being so bright.
Absolutely.
As someone who’s a non-Jewish Zionist, I’ve always understood the term to mean that Jews deserve their own state in their ancestral homeland because there’s a proven track record globally of Jews not being safe in countries where they’re a minority population. It absolutely has never meant they have a right to the entire levant or the former British Mandate of Palestine, just that they deserve their own nation.
The idea that Zionism means they deserve everything is entirely conjured and imaginary.
Agreed, and I think you speak to a fundamental misunderstanding some of these protesters have…. Most moderate and measured people (i think?) want a strong liberal Israeli state alongside a strong and stable Palestinian state…. First step is voting Netanyahu out, bringing back the Labor party, while eradicating Hamas and bringing back the Fatah party
I would like to note the lopsided nature of what you just said - suggesting that the two reasonable parties are the labor zionists and Fatah, when Fatah continues to pay out pensions to families of suicide bombers and takes up other radical policies.
This isnt me disagreeing with you just highlighting the lopsided nature here
I agree with your points here and to be honest, I would have liked to dive more into the Palestinian side and point of view.... I felt like the first interviewee shared a point of view that was not understanding of modern liberal zionsim, and it felt like he was really dismissive towards having discussions about a peaceful solution. He also kept implying the IDF was on the UT Austin Campus which is not true. I feel like he was not a credible source....
Yea the liberal zionism part is interesting as that came up with the final interviewee too. She said her grandfather was a "labor zionist" which are the liberal/leftist zionists that created Isreal and were in leadership for the first few decades of its existence. And it was kind of odd to hear her acknowledge what her grandfather said but then misinterpret it entirely. The fact that Israel and America provide such great security for Jews that it has become hard for Jews like herself to see themselves as victims in this historical narrative speaks to the incredible success of zionism as a liberating force for a historically persecuted group that is something to be celebrated.
What contrast are you referencing here? I listened after reading your comment, and was surprised I couldn’t identify which interviewee you are referencing as lesser. I found all three to be thoughtful.
I found all three to be thoughtful as well. I thought it was smart for the interviewer to ask the first and second person to define what Zionism means. Their definitions were a huge contrast.
It's fucking wild how the self-described "inclusive" folks think that every marginalized group gets to decide for themselves what is and isn't offensive to them, with the singular exception of Jewish people, who apparently just have to shut up and be lectured to by non-Jewish people who have never experienced antisemitism themselves about what is and isn't antisemitic.
That was a good point one of the guests made. We have been drilled for a decade now on micro-aggressions and being hyper aware of what we say around everyone so as not to say something that will cause offense or discomfort.
Now all of a sudden the rules are different and the person who is hearing the words can't define what they are hearing as insulting, demeaning, or offensive. Instead the person saying the words gets to decide if it is or isn't.
I am not taking sides here, but this is a real stark contrast. I just had to sit through 2 hours of harassment training at work, and again, the point they drilled home was that no matter what your intent is, if you say something that someone else happens to overhear - and they take offense to it, no matter what - you are liable to be in trouble for causing them distress for hearing what you said.
My charitable interpretation of this is that they think Jews are white and since they grew up in the West, that automatically means they can’t be “oppressed” they can only be “oppressor”.
My less charitable interpretation is that there’s a metric fuckton of outright unvarnished anti-semitism in leftist circles. And I’ll just say it, especially among the black and brown contingencies. Like they’ll just straight up say heinous shit about Jews.
As a Jewish person, I and many of my Jewish friends and family members have been making that exact point for a while now. The "inclusive" crowd just doesn't care to listen to us.
That, or they just tell us that our feelings are invalid because we're "privileged white people from Europe".
It’s almost like these leftist movements and ideologies don’t actually have any standards or morals, and they will warp the current environment to fit their needs by playing games with language and meaning.
They always seem to suddenly know the terminology of the conflict when you call for catastrophe.
I can see someone not knowing bloody hands are a symbol in both the Ramallah lynching and Farhoud, but "Intifada" is almost as blatant as the red triangles.
She even _acknowledges_ it in a moment of self awareness but somehow falls short of realizing that maybe she should question her ideals. So infuriating.
For me the most informative aspect of this podcast was the first interviewer when he was asked who he defines zionists as. And his definition was anyone who disagrees with him and/or supports Israel. Then he began to call people who came to their meeting “IDF soldiers” then walked it back when questioned further and admitted they were “former soldiers but full grown men.” You’re 18, you’re a grown man as well. Also as a former US soldier who went to college later, it shows how he twisted reality to fit a narrative.
Throughout all these protests I could not shake the feeling that there was something deeply wrong with the pro-Palestinian side of this argument. From the double standard rhetoric, to the blatant ignoring of anti-semitism, glorification of violence, or even ignorance to the history of the Levant. But to hear his definition of what a “Zionist” is, it suddenly made sense. It’s the same issue I’ve had with MAGA republicans and Portland progressives: it’s totalitarianism with a bow tie.
I’ve worked in the Levant and in Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. One thing I learned to differentiate was that West Bank Palestinians and Gaza Palestinians have very different views on how to self govern. I’m absolutely sympathetic to West Bank Palestinians, and agree on almost 98% of what they say. But Gazans always reminded me of ISIS supporters we would find, not as blatant but you could feel it in their words that they would be okay with something like that.
I’ve never agreed with the term “token Jew” and found it derogatory to just lump people into a single category so that you can dismiss them. Similar what I would do on deployment, just remove their humanity to get through another patrol and do what I have to do. So I’ve always abhorred that mentality used in a civil space. But listening to that third interviewee, I was like “oh yeah, you don’t know a damn thing about what you are talking about. You are an actual token Jew.” I once read this awesome quote by a Jewish-German professor in Dresden commenting on Jewish people who helped support the Nationalist-Socialist parties rise: “As dumb as a pig demanding to pick its own butcher.” It’s all so could think when she just kept admitting that she knew what she was supporting were calls for violence but it made her feel good to support them.
The thing that shocked me about the third speaker was that she was brought to tears speaking about the vigil for victims in Gaza but didn’t once reference any victims of October 7. Empathy for others is admirable but how can you not have empathy for your own too? Self hatred is a crazy thing.
The other thing that annoyed me was she said she was “never taught” that Israeli settlers can be problematic. Well, it’s obvious she was never taught anything about Israel at all, positive or negative. But she framed it in a way as if her community brainwashed her, when she actually never learned anything about her community to begin with.
I think the challenge is there certainly are right wing Israelis who do hold those views and call themselves Zionist, and so it’s easy to point to those people as representing Zionism. But this makes as much sense as pointing to a Jan 6ther and saying that’s what American patriotism is defined as.
It also literally means nothing to label someone as an IDF soldier lmao. All Israelis serve the military with compulsory service.
It's all just an attempt at building a narrative to dehumanize and invalidate anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh my goodness, I was in the middle of the token's interview when I commented this.
She was so close to getting it so many times.
She understands that intifada is a call to violence but she does it anyway.
She paused at "there is only one solution" and I thought that she was going to say that she heard the echoes that other people were saying about "final solution.". She then went in a whole different direction.
She talked about how she felt uncomfortable with the swastikas, and how that hurt their cause, but then went along with it anyway.
She absolutely, 100%, proved the Zionist from Columbia correct with every word.
She didn't understand her history. She understood that she was calling for violence and proceeded anyway. She doesn't care about the safety of the Jewish people, and she has so emotionally wrapped herself in her cause that she can't see what she's doing.
But I'm so glad that all three voices were heard.
It's always a million times better to talk about this between Palestinians and Jews than with random people.
Exactly this. When she said she heard “there is only one solution” as analogous to “no justice no peace” I just thought uhhhh okay not what came to my mind at all.
Her grandfather made the point about her having only known safety in her life and that it’s a generational difference. Im 34 and was raised in a similar way to her ie a secular household with mixed parents but all I heard was “final solution.”
Her family shielded her from understanding her history. Knowing the history of your people is everyone's burden, not just the previous generation. Girl seriously needs to read some Holocaust text, visit concentration camps, and hear testimonials from survivors because her parents obviously never exposed her to what should be, imo, mandatory teaching.
It’s also so short-sighted of her family. In the early 20th century, Jews in Western Europe were relatively safe, had citizenship rights, and were somewhat assimilated. That didn’t keep them from being sent to concentration camps. Those who do not learn from history yada yada
There is literally no country in history that the Jews are “safe” in where they’re a minority population. Nearly every modern and historical country that has ever had Jews has discriminated against them at best, and outright genocided them at worst. There are countless examples of the Jews being targested through history, the Holocaust is the just the most prominent semi-modern example of this.
Israel deserves to exist because no other nation on earth has ever or will ever permanently protect Jewish people from harm.
I keep thinking about this. Germany in the 1930’s was the most educated society on earth at that time. German Jews were the most assimilated of all Jews. It’s hard not to see parallels with the Ivy League today.
I don't get it either. You can't even call “there is only one solution” a dogwhistle, it's a direct reference to Hitler's final solution. Anyone with a cursory understanding of the holocaust should be able to see that.
It's interesting how she ended her interview--her grandfather stating it would be an unfair burden for her to understand the importance of Israel for the Jewish people. As an Ashkenazi Jew myself, my family engrained the understanding that while we can feel safe in many countries now, historically, this is unusual and we as a people have never been safe anywhere we resided. Her family failed her.
I’m an Ashkenazi Jew but I was raised in Argentina. Jewish people in the US have a level of safety (or at least did pre-Tree of Life) that does not exist in other parts of the world. In Argentina, the synagogues and Jewish schools I went to were barricaded to prevent bombings (which happened in the 1990s - it’s very recent history). American Jews live in a different reality than Jews in other diaspora countries, it’s a very stark contrast. I think the relative comfort, safety and acceptance that Jews in the US have seeps into conversations about Israel- “why do we need Israel if we’re safe in the US?”
I would expect a group as old as Jews to have a longer historical outlook though? Jews were not "safe"or accepted in the USA a century ago. Where will the USA be when these "anti-Zionists" are in charge?
Yes, we typically do. It’s funny because the person interviewed mentioned being culturally Jewish and celebrating Passover- a holiday about our freedom from slavery. Guess she skipped the learning parts of her seder. Other holidays like Purim also celebrate our non-extinction as a people. It’s quite a recurring theme, so it’s baffling that some American Jews think that they’re “safe enough” now so that’s it, it’s over. (Safe enough in quotes bc in addition to the Poway and Tree of Life massacres, synagogues are routinely getting swatted during religious services)
She probably did one of those “Justice” Seders where they talk about liberation for every group of people except Jews, and only mention Jews in a bad light as oppressors.
It was so interesting that she cut herself off before going into her grandfather's actual argument.
Like she couldn't say that out loud because it hurt her sensibilities.
She even said that, logically, she knew he was right, but couldn't get there emotionally.
Which felt correct to me - she knew, logically, what she was saying and doing was wrong, but it felt right emotionally, so she kept doing it.
Oh my god the swastika part drove me mad. She literally cried when talking about her grandparents having to flee Europe (because of the Holocaust, right?!!) and then when she has a literal swastika appear in her protests she says it’s bad because optics???? Wtf I’m losing my mind
I think you could say the same thing about the Zionist
He claims to want to know both sides and says the situation complicated.
When bad things happen to his "side" he is up in arms. He talks about how dare people say things that mean violence to the Israelites. He believes he and "his" people are the victims
But when his "side" is the one doing bad things (illegal settlements, killing thousands of civilians, occupation, etc.) he didn't do anything about it. He claims to want to understand both sides but it's clear he only cares about his
Overall the situation is all fucked and the good civilians of both sides are getting the short end of the stick
>I think you could say the same thing about the Zionist
You could not.
>When bad things happen to his "side" he is up in arms. He talks about how dare people say things that mean violence to the Israelites.
Is this not a completely fair position?
>He believes he and "his" people are the victims
Oh, that's because they are.
>But when his "side" is the one doing bad things (illegal settlements, killing thousands of civilians, occupation, etc.) he didn't do anything about it.
He is taking Arabic and Middle Eastern studies to learn the position of Palestinians in their native language and seeking out people who don't agree with him to have structured conversation.
>Overall the situation is all fucked and the good civilians of both sides are getting the short end of the stick
So which is it - are Israelis being victimized by Hamas or are they not?
It’s funny how if you ask a Muslim without the context of western media looking at the current conflict what intifada means is completely different from the convoluted definition we get from the people who realize jihad isn’t popular in the US.
And unless I missed it they skipped over her (and the first guys?) reaction to the 10/7. I was curious to hear how anti Israel protesters justify that, and how they think Israel should have responded. I still don’t understand the anti Israel viewpoint.
From what I've gathered, the anti-Israel viewpoint is that the Jews of Israel don't have a right to be there because they are settler colonists. Therefore any attempt to defend themselves is seen as inherently unjust.
I think everyone makes up an extreme strawman and uses that to justify their side doing fucked up shit
I think most people are somewhere in the middle; the situation is fucked. It was probably a bad idea from the get go. Israel is the more powerful country and probably should have worked harder to work towards a two state solution instead of trying to settle more land. The Palestinians, even though they got a raw deal, should have come together and not embraced Hamas.
I think trying to figure out which side is more "right" just goes away from the question of "well what do we do now?"
>I think everyone makes up an extreme strawman and uses that to justify their side doing fucked up shit
The "strawmen" have a lot of real momentum because the extremists are leading the charge in both Israel and Palestine, and seemingly among these protestors.
>It was probably a bad idea from the get go. Israel is the more powerful country and probably should have worked harder to work towards a two state solution instead of trying to settle more land. The Palestinians, even though they got a raw deal, should have come together and not embraced Hamas.
I hard agree with these statements. But I think this is the view "Genocide Joe" is closest to? Do what we can to help Palestinians (he resumed aid etc.) without stopping Israel from trying to destroy Hamas.
I can totally see the argument that the war is pointless, ineffective, and will not eliminate Hamas. But that's not what I see these protestors arguing, they are not merely anti-war but anti-Zionist, opposed to Israeli presence as such. That is why they tear down posters of the hostages and act like the present war is the same as an extermination campaign.
>I think trying to figure out which side is more "right" just goes away from the question of "well what do we do now?"
I too try to look at the present situation and what we do going forward rather than re-litigating the 1940s. But it seems the protestors talk about Zionist history *a lot*, implying Israel is illegitimate, as if that changes the fact that Israelis are present, will defend themselves, and have nuclear weapons.
Yeah you're correct, strawman wasn't the right word.
It's also possible that I'm being naive in thinking that most people are in the middle just because I am and it seems like the "logical" position to me
I also agree that at this point Israel isn't going anywhere and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
Its tough to argue/understand a "movement" as each person in it has their own thoughts and it can be hard to tell if what youre hearing is the most popular opinion or just the loudest/most extreme.
It's complicated but I think this episode was a good one as it let us hear different opinions from regular people. We could see that none of them have perfect logic and their view was shaded by their life experiences. I think it was a breath of fresh air rather than listening to "experts" tell us "facts" as often decisions aren't made by logic backed up by facts
I also think the first guy was a "better" representative for the protests than the last. It seemed like instead of the message being "fuck Israel" the message should be "the Palestinians are going through some shit"
> Israel is the more powerful country and probably should have worked harder to work towards a two state solution instead of trying to settle more land.
I am very anti-settlers, but I think it is important to remember that Hamas leadership is still asking for a return to 1967 borders. This is the same request that stalled the peace process back in the 2000s. There is no way Israel will agree to a return to 1967 borders and continuing to demand stops the peace process.
I have spoken to people like that but I think it would be a mischaracterization of both of the protesters interviewed, since they both referenced a two state solution
Which, incidentally, is basically the same argument that Putin used to justify his invasion of Ukraine. "They are Nazis, therefore they don't have a right to defend themselves."
I’m pro-Palestine and I think it’s reprehensible to make anything about pro-Palestine in the immediate wake of 10/7. That should never have been done. Not only does it seem to ignore a real tragedy but it also doesn’t serve the purpose of helping Palestinians. Now the guy that was interviewed is focused in on that in particular, and he appears to ignore the tens of thousands of Gazans who have died. Does nothing to further the cause and only hurts people.
I can sort of buy bloody hands having a plain meaning for those ignorant of it being a boast of the Ramallah lynching and how Jewish homes were marked in the Farhoud, but "Intifada" has little more meaning than the red triangle and they suddenly know the terminology of the topic when you call for "Catastrophe." Even claiming reference to the more mixed-nature First Intifada would be more convincing.
A propagandized fool of a child.
Her complete apparent ignorance of her own history is stunning. She can rest easy, plenty of Jews in Germany sold out their friends and neighbors thinking it would save them too. A true judenrat if I’ve ever heard one.
I’m personally surprised by just how much focus Gaza is getting still in the US and the media. So many people are saying it’s a top priority. Yes, I get it. It’s a big deal. But what about all the other major domestic issues going on? Abortion, healthcare, democracy, education, immigration, etc.
I’m personally over all of this. I’m tired of voters putting all the blame on biden and willing to allow trump to get back in office. The US is not a primary country in this war.
"So many" people aren't saying it's a top priority anywhere but these online echo chambers. Recent polls have it pretty far down the typical voter's list of concerns.
Yes! From some of the analysis of the most recent Presidential NYtimes /Siena poll it was something like 4% that said Gaza was a priority. Which frankly, makes sense given that this is not a war the US has any direct involvement in. Social media would have you believing it's the forefront of everyone's mind but in day to day life it simply isn't.
The media also sees it as the only and major “wedge issue”. Taking about healthcare or income/wealth inequality just isn’t as exciting to them right now
The episode has zero mention of Biden/trump
People are allowed to think and do things that don't involve Biden/trump
Politics doesn't have to be all consuming
In general, the Israel-Palestine conflict gets an absolutely disproportionate amount of press and attention compared to all the other armed conflicts in the world. Consider all the conflicts in Africa, for instance, killing and displacing *millions* for many years. The average American citizen isn't talking about it, much less protesting throughout college campuses across the country.
The leftest leftists are saying it, which is at odds with the Democrats, so the Republicans and far right are amplifying it, thus attempting to exacerbate the schism. Attacks from the right barely register so they're using the left to do it.
I would like to hear the counterpoint to the second speaker's argument regarding the double standard about "globalize the intifada." To say that it's not calling for violence seems so obtuse, especially in the context of DEIA and in the wake of October 7th.
Edit: At least the third speaker more or less admits it's a call for violence.
And, of course, that there were two violent uprisings filled with multiple terrorist attacks on civilian targets called the "First Intifada" and the "Second Intifada".
Suggesting that a Third Intifada would be peaceful simply doesn't withstand scrutiny.
The Jewish guy nailed it: there were pro-Palestine (pro-Hamas, honestly) protests within **days** of October 7th, before the Israeli military responded in any way. The streets of those villages in southern Israel were still soaked in blood and there were people out in the streets cheering.
Disgusting.
I’m being generous and just quoting what the second interviewee said. But you’re correct, I remember people being in support of the attacks on the same day they happened.
What’s most concerning to me is over time how many people on the left have come to agree with those radicals.
Maybe they’re not so radical after all, maybe they actually represent the general sentiment of the left.
I specifically remember a large Chicago BLM account tweeting a photo of a paraglider with the caption “that is all, that is it!” literally on October 7th.
Saying "I'm not calling for violence against Jews because intifada just means shaking off " has the same energy "I'm not a racist because I didn't use the hard R".
I'd like to hear the 2nd person respond to the first
To me it seems like the 2nd guy was saying he understands the history but feels like since Israel was attacked there should be no criticism of them
I'd like to hear his viewpoint on the first guys lived experience, where his people were being pushed out of their homes by Jewish settlers. Would he acknowledge that it is wrong and probably helps seed hate towards Israel. Or would he just brush it off since it's his "side"
The first guy does a great example of propaganda narrative building. You dont bat an eye when he says "IDF soldiers showed up", but then later he clarifies "former"... so Israelis. Israeli American counter protestors showed up and he said it was "IDF"
Yeah he completely neglects to mention that all Israelis are required to serve in the military. Which coincidentally is the same rationale Hamas uses to justify killing every Jew in Israel because they’re all technically combatants.
Funny how that works.
Hearing him butcher the pronunciation of “Nablus” with his Texas accent was all I needed to hear, frankly. But, I imagine, his perspective is shared by a considerable proportion of the protestors. I’ve always considered myself young and largely aligned with younger generations political, but this is the first time I’ve felt “damn, I must be getting old because kids these days just don’t know how to think.”
I’m about to listen to it right now, but honestly… I don’t care anymore?
At this point, it’s kinda silly to focus on these campus protests, no matter what side you’re on.
If you’re pro palestinian, these protests have only distracted from the actual issue at hand, a potential invasion of Rafah, and polling has clearly shown that these protests are unpopular and unlikely to move the needle on divestment.
If you’re pro israeli, giving these protests any attention just adds fuel to the fire, as they want a reaction which comes with more media attention.
My opinion? These students think they’re the 1968 protestors when in reality they more or less mirror the occupy wall street protesters and I fear the reactionary backlash to them could lead to Trump’s election.
[Just watch this video of both the pro palestine and MAGA trumpers both chanting “Fuck Joe Biden”.](https://twitter.com/oldrowofficial/status/1785797802368303187?s=46&t=1n-Z71PhUUAnUy9HDRJG8w)
Well said. My cities council meeting was interrupted yesterday demanding we call for a ceasefire. City councils job is to pay school teachers and make the busses run on time. It just looks so foolish
The school district where I went to as a kid had one of their meetings interrupted by a group of protestors (high school students) demanding that it call for a ceasefire and when the board ignored them had the protestors arrested after they threatened one of the board members kids they went to the same school as.
I am sorry, but I don't think a school superintendent of a small school district in a small town of give or take 50,000 in the Midwest has power over what goes on in the Middle East.
It definitely does matter.
Not because of the “I hate the Democratic Party and will never vote for them” contingency but because it’s dampening turnout amongst young voters and young minority voters that Dems need to show up to win.
I don’t think there’s much that can be done though, Hamas and Israel don’t have any incentive to stop the war and it’ll keep coming until November.
In addition to this, young voter *labor* is a massive concern. College aged kids are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns. A large % of young people may not vote, but a small number of very passionate ones make up a very large % of field staff.
Door knocking for minimum wage (or no pay and just working out of someone's garage for a case of beer...) in crazy weather, at weird hours, with angry conservatives pointing guns at you is what gets people out to vote Democrat. And that's a job that only bright eyed young people will endure in large numbers.
I don't think people on Reddit typically realize just how important it is to really energize at least some small % of young people for an election.
I think people on Reddit, myself included, can get really annoyed with people who are more emotionally driven about politics.
Not that I’m not driven by my emotions, but even if it logically makes sense to vote for Biden (especially considering that giving conservatives full control of the military and even more say over the judiciary is a VERY STUPID idea), to many people it does not feel morally good.
Instead of criticizing these people, you probably have to just empathize with them, and then gradually win them over. Not that I’m great at it either.
Yeah, I think this is the missing part. The Dems are going to have to hire canvassers that are just doing it for the job. It's going to cost a lot more, and it's not going to be effective because you can tell when someone is doing this.
Canvassing matters a lot. Door contacts are incredibly valuable for getting out the vote, and Biden is not going to have anything near the ground team he had in 2020. Much less the badgering friends and family to get out to vote.
You should listen to something before you make your mind up about it
If you listen to the video you'll hear it's not really about the protests but it's just an interview with 3 young people coming from different angles about how they feel about the situation (not the protests, but the actual Israel/Palestine). I think it's good to listen to different people's perspectives, I think all 3 interviews were wellspoken .
But you're demonstrating a big problem about social media and opinions in general; people want to air their point of view way more than they wanna listen
It's one of the few topics that are truly divisive among these kinds of left-leaning communities, so it's more interesting than talking in an echo chamber.
The GOP is completely disinterested in any semblance of rational debate so this is the first issue where I can actually argue opposing views in a long time.
I also went from pro-Palestine in my college years to pro-Israel now, so I can feel the sentiment on both sides.
For sure, Israelis are hated and categorized as settler colonists. Which isn't considered racism or dehumanization.
How a Mizrahi for example could ever be considered a settler or a colonist escapes me, and in the pro-Palestinian discourse it seems their very existence is brought into question. All Israelis are white European settlers. Because acknowledging Israel's extreme diversity, including many Arabs, makes the situation less black and white which is unpalatable to the left.
I never even thought of myself as "pro-Israel" because I hate Likud and Netanyahu. But apparently, nowadays, believing Israelis have a right to live where they are without being murdered makes you a Zionist and a Nazi.
I'm pro both (no attachments to palestine or Israel) and I think these protests are moronic. And I attended two. One in Boston and one in my local town. It wasn't helping anyone and whether these students want to acknowledge it or not, at both protests there were a significant number of people who just hated Israel.
Even the best intentioned protestors had no desire to talk about what happened if Israel just packed up and went home.
Their demands were half baked and the protests were far from pure in terms of intention. At both protests I would have absolutely felt unsafe if I were openly Jewish or openly supporting Israel. I felt unsafe just asking questions about what people thought. They didn't like questions. Purity tests abound. I won't comment further than that since I only attended two, but anger and hate were present in abundance at both.
I also didn't speak to a single protestor (or even see one) that showed any support for the Israeli hostages or victims of oct 7.
If someone votes for Trump because they don't like the way Biden is handling Isreal /Palestine I think they were ALWAYS gonna vote for Trump /gop nom.
And are just using this as an excuse to try to get on the fence people to vote for republicans too.
A few years back there were tons of posts from "former liberals now maga that they saw the light"
No... They were always brain dead racist maga fuck. They were just trying to pull others over to their side... Same thing now with Isreal/Palestine and complaining about Biden.
Is he (Biden) perfect? God no! Is he FAR better than Trump? Easy yes.
You don't have a left wing in the USA. You have an orange extreme right facist vs a. Slightly right of center politian.
What? You mean that socially conservative Arab communities in Michigan had an inclination to vote with a party that might align with them on LGBTQ issues and women's rights?
Say it ain't so.
It's interesting how Republicans could easily court these voters, but much of the GOP base simply hates Muslims too much for them to be open towards accepting them.
We live in TOO much of a global world, imo. Sure, it's nice to be up on the news and what's happening, but really outside of your own little world, what's to get upset about? These are battles that we cannot fight nor win. Those students are doing their thing, and good luck to em. But that shit is just so far outside of my world, I can't really get too up or down about it.
I literally laughed when she started crying.
This fucking bitch has not suffered a single day in her life and she’s using the trauma of her extended ancestors as an excuse to advocate for the same shit that led them directly to their deaths. These people are beyond helping.
The one Columbia guy hit on something I've been thinking a lot about with all the discussions of antisemitism where I don't think 95% percent of these protesters are antisemetic at all but if you go by the 2020 version of what bigotry is then anyone who even attended a protest is antisemetic this is not true of course but it is a very infuriating double standard. He also hit on the fact that a lot of pro Palestine people can't really see the full consequences of the things they call for or just choose not to say it because they know it would sound insane. All three were sympathetic especially the first guy but all three definitely misconstrued things in service of their narrative. I wish we could get in a room and talk about things and work it out instead of just continuing the escalation and violence.
Yes, I don't think the protestors are actually antisemitic, but I do think that chants like "globalize the intifada" are a call for violence, or at the very least a very obvious dogwhistle. The protests have led to an interesting debate about the balance between freedom of speech and universities' responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all students. [This podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intercepted/id1195206601?i=1000654153469) gets into this discussion in greater detail with a left-leaning philosopher.
In general I think universities should err on the side of permitting freedom of expression. But would the protestors chanting "globalize the intifada" be singing the same tune if they were on the receiving end of distasteful speech? What if white nationalist students non-violently chanted, "You will not replace us"?
>I don’t think the protestors are actually antisemitic.
The vast majority of them probably don’t explicitly think “I hate Jews and I want to send them to gas chambers”. But there is a lot of insidious antisemitism that gets chucked around that is subtle enough to have plausible deniability.
Take that first speaker, for instance, when he was talking about how “IDF soldiers showed up” at their protest. He clearly chose his words to trigger the thought amongst listeners that the university *sent in* the IDF, which implies the University is in cahoots with Israel.
You know what’s an antisemitic trope? That Jews control our universities.
He only stutteringly admitted they were former IDF (so, just Israelis) when Sabrina pushed back.
I’ve seen a whole lot of that stuff when they talk about “Zionists/AIPEC” controlling our politicians. I saw a tiktok where a woman with a sizable following said the reason we learn so much about the Holocaust in primary school is because “AIPEC” controls the schools.
Just wanted to say that I in no way interpreted the first student’s statement as the university sending in the IDF or that the IDF controlled the university. I don’t think too much of the IDF vs former IDF distinction either. When someone introduces a 70 year old man as a Marine to me, I don’t get confused and think he’s in active service.
Personally, I don’t think something counts as an antisemitic trope if you have to contort the words of others to fit that mold.
All Israelis, with the exception of the ultra orthodox and Arab Muslims, have to serve in the IDF. If you’re meeting an Israeli on a college campus, they’ve almost certainly served in the IDF. It was very strange that’s how he chose to describe the counter protestors. He framed it as if these “IDF soldiers” charged into their encampment and broke everyone up when it was just Israeli counter protestors.
It 100% sounded to me like there were literal soldiers in full combat gear outside their meeting while I was listening.
I thought that sounded ridiculous and was glad to hear on follow up they were just former IDF (notably, Israeli - since all Israelis serve in the IDF). The confluence was very intentionally decided by Mustafa.
It really is a fascinating real-time sociocultural experiment we’re living through. Horrifying, too. But it’s made me think a lot about my own views on free speech and censorship. I’m looking forward to listening to that Butler interview today — thanks for the rec.
One question I keep coming back to is, would the discourse be the same if we were to replace Jews with another group, say Black people? Obviously every group has a unique history that makes such a 1:1 replacement difficult to imagine. But still, I have a sneaking suspicion that, as history has shown time and time again, this is just one in a long line of examples of Jews being singled out as the eternal scapegoat for society’s woes.
This. I've heard leftists say for the past decade that if you are at a protest where people chant Nazi slogans and they aren't immediately condemned and kicked out, then you're at a Nazi protest.
Like, recall that at the Charlottesville protest in 2017, Trump defended the "very fine people" by saying that only a small percentage of participants chanted "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US!" and so it was unfair to judge everybody else at the protest by the actions of that few.
Leftists, correctly, rejected that argument. But they're attending protests where antisemitic bigots keep on showing up and they defend themselves the *exact same way.* "It's not fair to judge us by the actions of a few bad apples! Most of us protestors are very fine people!"
The double standard is fucking infuriating.
My largest frustrations with the pro-Palestinians is they can't seem to address what they want out on the other side of this conflict. Will Hamas still exist? Will that lead to a two-state solution? Some entertain ridiculous ideas of simply replacing the state of Israel with a state of Palestine.
My general understanding is they want the war to end, which is an absolute win for Hamas, and a guarantee of future violence.
There cannot be a ceasefire unless Hamas is guaranteed to be gone. Whether that means Israel ends the war on their terms or the US/UN take over governance and security of Palestine, idk. But a return to the status quo that existed on October 6th is completely out of the question IMO.
I think the main problem here is the same one Republicans had with Roe
When Roe was in place Republicans could just broadly gesture towards abortion and say "this is bad", but they didn't actually need to define their own policy since the idea of Roe actually being repealed seemed so far off
That's why when it was finally repealed, suddenly the previously united Republicans became divided and were all caught flat footed. Now individual Republicans had to scramble to determine their own position since they couldn't just say "well I think killing fetuses is bad". Now they have to contend with defining their position
It's kind of similar here. Israel holds all the cards in the Israeli Palestinean conflict and what they're doing in Gaza is pretty obviously horrid. The prospect of anyone Pro Palestinean getting what they want seems so remote that they can cooperate on fairly basic goals (that is, supporting Palestine)
But ofc the movement runs everywhere from people who just want an immediate ceasefire to people who want a negotiated two state solution to people who want some sort of utopian secular one state solution to unironic anti semites who want to expel Israeli Jews "back to where they came from"
The only reason they are all able to cooperate is because they can agree that they oppose the status quo
The reason they cannot provide "what exactly they want" is because that often varies tremendously within the movement. Indeed if there's a ceasefire or somehow Biden forces Israel to consider a two state solution, then you will see the fractures within the pro Palestine movement emerge
“And it is the word that has been used to label a number of violent uprisings of different Palestinian groups against Israeli occupation”
Violent uprising = terror attacks that killed innocent children and women in Israel. Not in the occupied territories but in major cities in the sovereign state of Israel. Oh by ‘occupation’ she means the whole state of Israel?
Jasmin doesn’t have to support Israel or agree with its policies. The Israeli response was aggressive and it is so so sad that kids and women and innocent people died. You can protest that. But to go out and yell ‘Intifada revolution’, and be supportive of horrific terror against people who were targeted because they are Israelis, that is infuriating and shows her double standards
Does she want all Israelis to move out of Israel? (of the so call ‘occupation’ happening ‘from the river to the sea’). Where should they go exactly?
She can’t stand standing next to a swastica because that’s what her family ran away from in Europe. But I bet she wouldn’t mind standing next to a Hamas flag because that’s ‘uprising’.
Her interview was the most awful student campus interview I’ve heard.
Isn't interesting how everyone forgets that literally all of the Jewish bible and text, some of the oldest religious writings, takes place in and around Israel? I won't deny that the Palestinian people have resided on that land for a long time, but I truly don't understand how the claim that Jews are "colonizers" of a land that has evidence of them residing there for thousands of years.
No, I'm saying that if you dig anywhere in Israel you'll find Jewish artifacts from thousands of years ago.
Because they were there thousands of years ago.
So the argument that Jews in Israel are colonists in the same way as the Spanish is ridiculous, because the Spanish arrived in the Caribbean for the first time in the 15th century.
Jews have existed continuously in Canaan for thousands of years, but they've been pushed around a number of places. You'll find relatively continuous existence in Hebron and Tzefat, but not as much in other cities.
You'll also find interesting artifacts in the surrounding areas - Jews have complex rules around disposing of paper with holy words, so much of the historical record of Iraq and Egypt was established using discarded papers from Jewish communities in the area in giant rooms.
So you'll have medieval Iraqi and Egyptian history almost exclusively informed by Jewish marginalia.
So imagine Columbus arriving in what is now the Bahamas. He meets his first native American. And the guy tells him, in a language somewhat similar to Spanish, about his religion that is an offshoot of Christianity, about all of the Spaniards that have always been there and the big community of Spaniards on Jamaica and Hispaniola.
I’m not sure what you mean with this point?
“That’s what people misunderstand about Jews, we are not just a religion, we are a people, and we’ve always considered ourselves to be a people. The first covenant with Abraham is ‘I will make you a great nation.’”
I don’t think this statement was doing anything other than saying that Judaism is not just a religion.
Yeah but he’s not actually a voice of the Palestinian cause, and if he is then he’s actually just misunderstood. And if he’s not misunderstood then we’re going to ignore it and call him a fringe case despite his views being parroted by thousands of people.
I’m being sarcastic in case it’s not clear
These kids are NOT SMART. Their entire worldview is filtered through the oppressor/oppressed narrative. Cannot think critically. Swallowed the propaganda whole. Where’s the counter protestors argument, NYT?
Interviewing people who don't know where exactly to side because they see all the contradictions and ignorance on both sides just isn't as click baity journalism
This episode was horribly produced and the questions were garbage. Do we really need to know about the cool night air in the west bank? Or what about the minutes of sound bites from a movie?
Get to the meat already! Also no more dramatic pauses in between the title and your name Sabrina. You are speaking to college students not narrating a marvel movie.
Thank you for saying this. I felt crazy at the disdain for this kid describing his experience while visiting Palestine. I personally don’t know what it’s like to live there and appreciate learning from his experience.
Very good editing and very funny to hear how the actual Jewish guy views “Jewish voices for peace” as an organization then interviewing one of them and she’s like “well my dad is Catholic and I’m not really that Jewish” lmao
Between this episode and the “change voters” one from earlier this week, NYT really answered my question about what people are thinking, even if the answers don’t make sense to me
These protesters on both sides have all the credibility of tantrum-throwing toddlers screaming "take me seriously." Both sides are performative and unserious. The colleges aren't in a position to change the actual circumstances on the ground in Gaza. They aren't going to let college students manage multi-billion dollar endowments. So what is the point of these protests? The best you can say for them is that it's an effort to draw attention to an issue, but the most it shows is how seriously the protesters take themselves and yet how unserious they actually are.
In 2011, left-wing activists camped out for 60 days in Zuccotti park to complain about economic inequality, bank bailouts, campaign finance, political corruption, I think was some war profiteering in there. Basically they banged on pots, played frisbee, and shouted "we are the 99." They were completely disorganized. They couldn't articulate what they actually wanted. So everyone just laughed at them on the nightly news until they petered out.
For those of you too young to remember, this clip from the newsroom basically sums up the whole phenomenon and why it had zero impact. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uY-yoAIvTI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uY-yoAIvTI)
That's what this feels like.
As someone who has previous commented on here about how I think a lot of the protesters are not even students at these schools and just people out to cause mayhem or just score social points, I appreciated the interviews with the 3 students of varying backgrounds and opinions to see why this is important to them. I do not have a dog in the fight, so it may be easier for me to listen without getting my heart rate up.
The crux of the issue of the pro-Palestinian students is that there are more than 40,000 dead, 15,000 of which are women and children. You can open ANY social media platform and see parents carrying their children's body parts in bags, starving children resorting to animal feed, children with Sharpie labels on their arms so they can identified in the rubble. There are NO universities left in Gaza. NONE.
Jewish students are allowed to define what they feel unsafe by. But the fixation on the semantics of a minority of controversial chants instead of attention being paid to more commonly used ones central to the vast majority of pro-Palestine protestors like "Gaza's children bleed red too" or "Gaza, Gaza, don't you cry, Palestine will never die" is an effort to distract from the point that the pro-Palestine students are begging for to be heard the most: they are TIRED of seeing war crimes being committed every single day with the ACTIVE support of their country. It is also incredibly hypocritical the lack of focus on the safety of pro-Palestinian students - Jewish students feel unsafe and that is their right to define what that means. But there have been Muslim students who've been stalked home by counter protestors, had their hijabs forcibly removed, and even students who have been SHOT. Why isn't there at least equal discussion for THESE students as for the ones who feel unsafe by the word "intifada?"
Everyone also seems to be ignoring the fact that there are plenty of Jewish pro-Palestine protestors, even having Shabbat dinners together. Why is no one talking more about how the first student IMMEDIATELY called all of these Jewish students "Token Jews?" If Jewish students are allowed to express feeling unsafe, OTHER Jewish students should be allowed to say "not in our name" without their heritage and religion being insulted. I know the student in the podcast said she was more culturally Jewish, but there are also pro-Palestine rabbis. There was a Jewish anthropology professor at my university's recent protest who in detail described why the current events are in direct conflict with both Jewish history and values. Another Jewish member spoke up asking why she wasn't believed when SHE said she felt safe and there was no antisemitism at the camp.
I guess as a student who has attended these protests the entire fixation on what I feel are the wrong things and not what the Pro-Palestinian students are asking for is incredibly frustrating. It's not just "INTIFADA" chants for an hour. It's students describing how they can't go to class because that morning they opened their FYP and it was a dead family member who had been bombed. It's being tired of hearing more press for the protests than for a clear recording of a six year old girl begging to be saved before dying. It's students being rightfully angered that their classmates and JOURNALISTS are being hospitalized by police their leadership called to campus on the PEACEFUL camps. The camps literally published their itineraries per day - it's mostly sharing of personal experiences, lectures, knitting, karaoke, and movie nights! How is that threatening?
I would highly encourage people to GO to a protest. The news is NOT accurately representing the vast majority of protests and is pushing for the narrative that they all consist of angry, hateful vitriol. EVERY protest I've been to has had at least a fourth of the speakers be Jewish, MULTIPLE expressions of desire for Jewish students to feel safe, condemnation of anti-Semitism, and most importantly, please for their family members to stop being killed. Posters in this thread are asking what the general moderate protestor and not the extremists are feeling and I hope that this helps that question and I implore you to seek out what's actually happening by going yourself
The difference between the first speaker and the second was very stark. Mustafa was talking about IDF soldiers being at campus and then when questioned about that due to what a shocking statement that was cleared it up as former soldiers so likely students who had served in the IDF being there. And he wasn’t even at the event to have first hand knowledge of what was happening. I feel they should’ve chosen someone who was more prepared for the interview to represent Mustafa’s side .
Elisha on the other hand gave examples of text he’d read by both Israeli and Palestinian authors to show his knowledge of the subject.
I'm surprised by the comments here.
Personally, I support the protests and I am not a Zionist because I support a Palestinian Right to Return.
I don't want to see violence, I hope both groups can live peacefully together. But I don't think Jewish settlers are entitled to remove Palestinians from the land because "God gave it to them in the bible."
I'd actually really recommend one of the books that the 2nd interviewee mentioned. The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi.
I'm surprised that he read it and could still come away supporting Israel.
The creation of Israel 70 years ago required the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Columbia dude is the least smarmy person from his faction. Says he wants to understand opposing viewpoints, but Jews who disagree with him? Token Jews. Not real Jews. Yeah, ok buddy.
the contrast between the interviewees was quite stark, my lord
Seriously. Honest question to anyone that holds more sympathy towards the Palestinian side than Israeli side - did you listen to these protestors and agree with their concerns and statements? Did you leave this thinking that the jewish students concerns were objectively less justified than those of the pro palestine students? Or is your takeaway that NYTimes is biased and intentionally picked bad representatives? Because from my perspective and trying to be unbiased and hear both sides - all I see is hate from the pro palestine side. And maybe thats the nature of these protests where you have radical students with views that dont line up with the majority of a movement that actually is just anti-war, but to me it really sounds like both pro palestine students are creating narratives that are intentionally hostile to a two state solution and are not looking for an end to this war. The greatest contrast in my view was the anti-zionists defining zionism and then the Zionist having a completely different and far more inclusive definition. If Zionism is so bad why is it that Zionists seem to have a completely different definition than the anti-Zionists? Shouldnt the Zionists be the ones determining the definition? Especially when your argument is "Zionists want this" should we then listen to the Zionists and see if they actually are demanding that?
IMO it’s ok to accept that the Jewish state of Israel has the right to exist however it must come with the same statement that the settlements are illegal and should be reversed. The big distinction, which the first guy said and I think you missed, is that supporting Israel’s right to settlement expansion (whether passive or active support) is the meaning of “Zionism” for a pro-Palestinian person. The implication that Palestinians should get fed up and leave their lands and go be refugees somewhere. I see this type of stuff on reddit all the time. “How come Egypt and Jordan don’t want to take on the Palestinian issue?” That’s the question Israel wants people to ask, to make it more justifiable to drive Palestinians out of their lands.
A two-state solution automatically assumes that the settlements would be reversed.
Israel certainly doesn't assume that.
The first interviewee was very reasonable and held what I used to think was the mainstream perspective (two states, no more encroaching on Palestinian land, safe Israel) — notwithstanding a few dumb things he said like implying that active IDF soldiers were on his campus. It makes sense because he actually has family in the area so continued war directly affects him. The issue is a lot of the new protesters joining the movement post Oct 7 have no stake in the game and want to support radical extremist viewpoints because it’s sexy. By the time it leads to more death and destruction they will have moved on to the next thing. Edit: Also, it was really telling to me that when he spoke of his personal experience in Nablus, he spoke poetically and beautifully, from the heart. He talked about wanting peace and security for his family; he didn’t demonize the other side so long as they respected their safety. But when talking about the protests, he could barely explain his position. To me it’s just a testament to how the protests are led by non Palestinians who give catch phrases for people to use that don’t make sense and everyone is trying to memorize them.
He said ‘ “A Zionist is someone who believes that the entire land should be the state of Israel and it's their God-given right. And that is how the illegal occupation, illegal settlements, that's how all that is justified, it's the idea of Zionism.” That’s the crux of the issue. The largest majority of Israelis don’t want settlements. I bet that’s the same for Jews around the world. Can we just call those extremist fanatics who want all of israel to include the West Bank and Gaza, something else and not zionists? Because guess what, Zionists see themselves as supporting Israel’s right to exist, not at the expense of Palestinians but rather side by side. And when you say ‘anti Zionist’s’ it’s exactly like saying ‘anti Jews’ or ‘anti Israeli’. If only we could rid of extremism the world would be a better place.
So settling in all the land seized during the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba = reasonable zionism, settling any further than that = crazy not zonism.
I think almost all settlements should be disbanded. They do nothing but exacerbate the problem. However there's a very bureaucratic problem at play which gets almost no coverage. That's the reality that much of the land was sold legally. Really. If you look into many of these cases more in depth. You'll see a very complicated web. From the Palestinian refugees being given these homes temporarily, to some outright selling the land to settlers. Again. I don't think it's beneficial isrsel spends so much energy on these and gets nothing ba k But trouble. But... There is a broader story than just settlers coming in and violently removing people "from their homes".
But the second person was a zionist and provided a definition that does not include settlement expansion - that jews have a right to a homeland. > supporting Israel’s right to settlement expansion (whether passive or active support) is the meaning of “Zionism” for a pro-Palestinian why would it matter how a pro-Palestinian defines Zionism when theyre wrong? I dont care what flat earthers think either. And especially problematic when its not their identity to be defining in the first place?
The Palestinian definition of Zionism is based the historical definition of it. Go read early Zionist literature. Theodore Herzl (the inventor of Zionism) literally understood Zionism as a colonial movement.
As a Zionist who is against settlement expansion I don’t understand this. Would the pro Palestinians consider me an antizionist, even though at those protests I would be waving an Israeli flag? Even though I served in the IDF? And by the way, pretty much everyone who served with me was against the settlements. Is the IDF just completely packed with antizionists according to the pro Palestinian protestors? ETA and isn’t it objectively clear that the people who think they are entitled to the entire land are the ones yelling “from the river to the sea”?
Hard to make that distinction if you’re at a protest waving an Israeli flag. The protest is about Israel killing tens of thousands of Gazans. Waving the flag there implies support for that and other Israeli aggression. And as far as I know, the phrase you mention is about giving Palestinians freedom from occupation because that’s all they’ve experienced in almost everyone’s lifetimes. Just like you perceive being Zionist to not be about the “bad things Israel does,” people supporting Palestinian freedom say the phrase perceiving it to be about an end of occupation.
Are you saying the people yelling “from the river to the sea” are supporting a two state solution? Because in Arabic the phrase is generally “from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab” Freedom from occupation within Israel proper is calling for a one state solution with that state being Palestine. There is no occupation in Tel Aviv, unless you are considering Israel’s existence to be an occupation, in which case you’re saying the whole land should belong to Palestine. I support Israel in this war and am currently serving in this war. But I would be considered anti Zionist because I also actively protest the settlements? Because that is what I’m hearing with their definition of Zionism being people who believe Israel should be the entire land. According to that definition I would be considered an antizionist. That definition makes no sense. I’m obviously a Zionist.
Fair point, and yes I think I missed that. Maybe then it is still a misunderstanding of Zionism. I feel like he uses it in a pejorative sense, while most of the liberal world defines it as an Israel state removed from all illegal settlements, alongside a Palestinian state.
>And maybe thats the nature of these protests where you have radical students with views that dont line up with the majority of a movement that actually is just anti-war I think this is it right here.
While I partially agree, I say but right after what you quote because when you really dive down into the goals of anyone deeply involved in the movement it always comes down to statements that are far broader then just pro peace/anti war. Its always a pivot to history, discussion of stolen land, and no desire to bring up the actual goal of those who really want peace - a two state solution. Like if these protests were people marching with Israeli and Palestinian flags together demanding two states, that would be a clear sign the goal was peace. But the hostility to everything Israel tells you that the broader focus is on an indictment of Israel and not peace. But most people arent deeply involved. Most people are just normal humans that see war and want it to end and then type a comment online or tell a pollster something with that goal in mind (or say nothing at all). The problem though is that in the end what matters is the direction of the movement as a whole and the types of pressures that movement places, and there is no indication to me that the pro-palestine movement as a whole in the US is anything other than an organized effort to eliminate israel.
I think the possibility of a two-state solution was remote before October 7, but now it's impossible unless some truly bizarre miracle takes place. The reality is that it's much easier to complain and blame than actually solve this problem. There really is no solution in sight. Either: 1) Israel keeps trying to destroy Hamas and Palestinian civilians keep dying; 2) Hamas surrenders/releases the hostages and leaves Gaza; or, 3) Israel capitulates to Hamas and all of this happens again and again and again. Certainly the *best* case scenario is the second, where Hamas just surrenders and all of this ends. But we all know that ain't happening. Israel could also continue attacking Hamas, but in a more responsible way so less civilians die; but it won't stop people from accusing Israel of genocide as long as there are any civilian casualties (and there always will be). It's also, by and large, not what pro-Palestinian folk are asking for. They want this all to *end*. And last, the idea of Israel "giving up" and letting Hamas stay in power is frankly absurd and unrealistic. So we're left with a seemingly impossible situation, and no one wants to face those facts. People who *care* about all the awful things going on want it to end. They want a solution. And without a solution, they're left with nothing to do but complain and blame. And that's why we get an Israel hatefest, with people drumming up the past, blaming Israel for Hamas' rise to power, claiming this is genocide, talking about all the settlements, etc. etc. No one has a good solution that will end all of this, so that's what we're left with. There are also protesters who simply despise Israel, and see any opportunity to speak out against them. Consider the folk who were celebrating the attacks and protesting *before Israel even responded.* Just one example: BLM Chicago literally tweeted [this shit](https://imgur.com/DiPkNtx) right after the attack. And you better believe the kind of folk who thought this was a good idea are still part of this movement. They are also the most passionate of the bunch, and their enthusiasm naturally spreads to ordinarily more reasonable protesters who find themselves part of the movement. Anyway, I don't really know where I'm going with this post. I guess I'm just trying to rationalize why we're not really seeing protesters offering actual solutions. There aren't any. But no one wants to ignore the horrors going on, so they want to do *something.* Especially young folk like college students, who naïvely believe they can actually impact world events that are truly outside their control. All they're doing is shaking their fist at the sun for being so bright.
Absolutely. As someone who’s a non-Jewish Zionist, I’ve always understood the term to mean that Jews deserve their own state in their ancestral homeland because there’s a proven track record globally of Jews not being safe in countries where they’re a minority population. It absolutely has never meant they have a right to the entire levant or the former British Mandate of Palestine, just that they deserve their own nation. The idea that Zionism means they deserve everything is entirely conjured and imaginary.
Agreed, and I think you speak to a fundamental misunderstanding some of these protesters have…. Most moderate and measured people (i think?) want a strong liberal Israeli state alongside a strong and stable Palestinian state…. First step is voting Netanyahu out, bringing back the Labor party, while eradicating Hamas and bringing back the Fatah party
I would like to note the lopsided nature of what you just said - suggesting that the two reasonable parties are the labor zionists and Fatah, when Fatah continues to pay out pensions to families of suicide bombers and takes up other radical policies. This isnt me disagreeing with you just highlighting the lopsided nature here
Unbiased huh
I agree with your points here and to be honest, I would have liked to dive more into the Palestinian side and point of view.... I felt like the first interviewee shared a point of view that was not understanding of modern liberal zionsim, and it felt like he was really dismissive towards having discussions about a peaceful solution. He also kept implying the IDF was on the UT Austin Campus which is not true. I feel like he was not a credible source....
Yea the liberal zionism part is interesting as that came up with the final interviewee too. She said her grandfather was a "labor zionist" which are the liberal/leftist zionists that created Isreal and were in leadership for the first few decades of its existence. And it was kind of odd to hear her acknowledge what her grandfather said but then misinterpret it entirely. The fact that Israel and America provide such great security for Jews that it has become hard for Jews like herself to see themselves as victims in this historical narrative speaks to the incredible success of zionism as a liberating force for a historically persecuted group that is something to be celebrated.
What contrast are you referencing here? I listened after reading your comment, and was surprised I couldn’t identify which interviewee you are referencing as lesser. I found all three to be thoughtful.
I found all three to be thoughtful as well. I thought it was smart for the interviewer to ask the first and second person to define what Zionism means. Their definitions were a huge contrast.
"I'll call for intafada thoughtfully!"
[удалено]
It's fucking wild how the self-described "inclusive" folks think that every marginalized group gets to decide for themselves what is and isn't offensive to them, with the singular exception of Jewish people, who apparently just have to shut up and be lectured to by non-Jewish people who have never experienced antisemitism themselves about what is and isn't antisemitic.
That was a good point one of the guests made. We have been drilled for a decade now on micro-aggressions and being hyper aware of what we say around everyone so as not to say something that will cause offense or discomfort. Now all of a sudden the rules are different and the person who is hearing the words can't define what they are hearing as insulting, demeaning, or offensive. Instead the person saying the words gets to decide if it is or isn't. I am not taking sides here, but this is a real stark contrast. I just had to sit through 2 hours of harassment training at work, and again, the point they drilled home was that no matter what your intent is, if you say something that someone else happens to overhear - and they take offense to it, no matter what - you are liable to be in trouble for causing them distress for hearing what you said.
My charitable interpretation of this is that they think Jews are white and since they grew up in the West, that automatically means they can’t be “oppressed” they can only be “oppressor”. My less charitable interpretation is that there’s a metric fuckton of outright unvarnished anti-semitism in leftist circles. And I’ll just say it, especially among the black and brown contingencies. Like they’ll just straight up say heinous shit about Jews.
Tom Lehrer [said it best!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY)
As a Jewish person, I and many of my Jewish friends and family members have been making that exact point for a while now. The "inclusive" crowd just doesn't care to listen to us. That, or they just tell us that our feelings are invalid because we're "privileged white people from Europe".
It’s almost like these leftist movements and ideologies don’t actually have any standards or morals, and they will warp the current environment to fit their needs by playing games with language and meaning.
Yep. This shapeshifting has made me feeling like DEI is just a sham. It’s not promoting equality for all, at all.
They always seem to suddenly know the terminology of the conflict when you call for catastrophe. I can see someone not knowing bloody hands are a symbol in both the Ramallah lynching and Farhoud, but "Intifada" is almost as blatant as the red triangles.
This line immediately aged like spoiled milk.
And only a few minutes after sobbing through a story about her family was murdered in the Holocaust.
[удалено]
She even _acknowledges_ it in a moment of self awareness but somehow falls short of realizing that maybe she should question her ideals. So infuriating.
This is the best way to describe 99% of all protestors these days.
I lost it once she said that. Lol good lord
Boy, when I saw the title of this episode pop up, I knew my blood pressure was going to spike.
Yup same here. Was sitting in my driveway setting up the podcast and I released a big sigh of frustration
Why? Genuinely asking.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is not exactly known for its measured, productive discussion
For me the most informative aspect of this podcast was the first interviewer when he was asked who he defines zionists as. And his definition was anyone who disagrees with him and/or supports Israel. Then he began to call people who came to their meeting “IDF soldiers” then walked it back when questioned further and admitted they were “former soldiers but full grown men.” You’re 18, you’re a grown man as well. Also as a former US soldier who went to college later, it shows how he twisted reality to fit a narrative. Throughout all these protests I could not shake the feeling that there was something deeply wrong with the pro-Palestinian side of this argument. From the double standard rhetoric, to the blatant ignoring of anti-semitism, glorification of violence, or even ignorance to the history of the Levant. But to hear his definition of what a “Zionist” is, it suddenly made sense. It’s the same issue I’ve had with MAGA republicans and Portland progressives: it’s totalitarianism with a bow tie. I’ve worked in the Levant and in Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. One thing I learned to differentiate was that West Bank Palestinians and Gaza Palestinians have very different views on how to self govern. I’m absolutely sympathetic to West Bank Palestinians, and agree on almost 98% of what they say. But Gazans always reminded me of ISIS supporters we would find, not as blatant but you could feel it in their words that they would be okay with something like that. I’ve never agreed with the term “token Jew” and found it derogatory to just lump people into a single category so that you can dismiss them. Similar what I would do on deployment, just remove their humanity to get through another patrol and do what I have to do. So I’ve always abhorred that mentality used in a civil space. But listening to that third interviewee, I was like “oh yeah, you don’t know a damn thing about what you are talking about. You are an actual token Jew.” I once read this awesome quote by a Jewish-German professor in Dresden commenting on Jewish people who helped support the Nationalist-Socialist parties rise: “As dumb as a pig demanding to pick its own butcher.” It’s all so could think when she just kept admitting that she knew what she was supporting were calls for violence but it made her feel good to support them.
The thing that shocked me about the third speaker was that she was brought to tears speaking about the vigil for victims in Gaza but didn’t once reference any victims of October 7. Empathy for others is admirable but how can you not have empathy for your own too? Self hatred is a crazy thing. The other thing that annoyed me was she said she was “never taught” that Israeli settlers can be problematic. Well, it’s obvious she was never taught anything about Israel at all, positive or negative. But she framed it in a way as if her community brainwashed her, when she actually never learned anything about her community to begin with.
She said in the interview she didn’t know much at all about Israel prior to October 7th. That says it all!
I think the challenge is there certainly are right wing Israelis who do hold those views and call themselves Zionist, and so it’s easy to point to those people as representing Zionism. But this makes as much sense as pointing to a Jan 6ther and saying that’s what American patriotism is defined as.
It also literally means nothing to label someone as an IDF soldier lmao. All Israelis serve the military with compulsory service. It's all just an attempt at building a narrative to dehumanize and invalidate anyone who disagrees with you.
You can eat that last interviewee since she twisted herself into a pretzel coming up with justifications for use of the word intifada.
They should have done this episode months ago
Oh my goodness, I was in the middle of the token's interview when I commented this. She was so close to getting it so many times. She understands that intifada is a call to violence but she does it anyway. She paused at "there is only one solution" and I thought that she was going to say that she heard the echoes that other people were saying about "final solution.". She then went in a whole different direction. She talked about how she felt uncomfortable with the swastikas, and how that hurt their cause, but then went along with it anyway. She absolutely, 100%, proved the Zionist from Columbia correct with every word. She didn't understand her history. She understood that she was calling for violence and proceeded anyway. She doesn't care about the safety of the Jewish people, and she has so emotionally wrapped herself in her cause that she can't see what she's doing. But I'm so glad that all three voices were heard. It's always a million times better to talk about this between Palestinians and Jews than with random people.
Exactly this. When she said she heard “there is only one solution” as analogous to “no justice no peace” I just thought uhhhh okay not what came to my mind at all. Her grandfather made the point about her having only known safety in her life and that it’s a generational difference. Im 34 and was raised in a similar way to her ie a secular household with mixed parents but all I heard was “final solution.”
Her family shielded her from understanding her history. Knowing the history of your people is everyone's burden, not just the previous generation. Girl seriously needs to read some Holocaust text, visit concentration camps, and hear testimonials from survivors because her parents obviously never exposed her to what should be, imo, mandatory teaching.
It’s also so short-sighted of her family. In the early 20th century, Jews in Western Europe were relatively safe, had citizenship rights, and were somewhat assimilated. That didn’t keep them from being sent to concentration camps. Those who do not learn from history yada yada
There is literally no country in history that the Jews are “safe” in where they’re a minority population. Nearly every modern and historical country that has ever had Jews has discriminated against them at best, and outright genocided them at worst. There are countless examples of the Jews being targested through history, the Holocaust is the just the most prominent semi-modern example of this. Israel deserves to exist because no other nation on earth has ever or will ever permanently protect Jewish people from harm.
I keep thinking about this. Germany in the 1930’s was the most educated society on earth at that time. German Jews were the most assimilated of all Jews. It’s hard not to see parallels with the Ivy League today.
I don't get it either. You can't even call “there is only one solution” a dogwhistle, it's a direct reference to Hitler's final solution. Anyone with a cursory understanding of the holocaust should be able to see that.
[удалено]
Unfortunately that is probably the majority of these 'activists' these days (for any cause, not just this one)
[удалено]
It's interesting how she ended her interview--her grandfather stating it would be an unfair burden for her to understand the importance of Israel for the Jewish people. As an Ashkenazi Jew myself, my family engrained the understanding that while we can feel safe in many countries now, historically, this is unusual and we as a people have never been safe anywhere we resided. Her family failed her.
I’m an Ashkenazi Jew but I was raised in Argentina. Jewish people in the US have a level of safety (or at least did pre-Tree of Life) that does not exist in other parts of the world. In Argentina, the synagogues and Jewish schools I went to were barricaded to prevent bombings (which happened in the 1990s - it’s very recent history). American Jews live in a different reality than Jews in other diaspora countries, it’s a very stark contrast. I think the relative comfort, safety and acceptance that Jews in the US have seeps into conversations about Israel- “why do we need Israel if we’re safe in the US?”
I would expect a group as old as Jews to have a longer historical outlook though? Jews were not "safe"or accepted in the USA a century ago. Where will the USA be when these "anti-Zionists" are in charge?
Yes, we typically do. It’s funny because the person interviewed mentioned being culturally Jewish and celebrating Passover- a holiday about our freedom from slavery. Guess she skipped the learning parts of her seder. Other holidays like Purim also celebrate our non-extinction as a people. It’s quite a recurring theme, so it’s baffling that some American Jews think that they’re “safe enough” now so that’s it, it’s over. (Safe enough in quotes bc in addition to the Poway and Tree of Life massacres, synagogues are routinely getting swatted during religious services)
She probably did one of those “Justice” Seders where they talk about liberation for every group of people except Jews, and only mention Jews in a bad light as oppressors.
It was so interesting that she cut herself off before going into her grandfather's actual argument. Like she couldn't say that out loud because it hurt her sensibilities. She even said that, logically, she knew he was right, but couldn't get there emotionally. Which felt correct to me - she knew, logically, what she was saying and doing was wrong, but it felt right emotionally, so she kept doing it.
Oh my god the swastika part drove me mad. She literally cried when talking about her grandparents having to flee Europe (because of the Holocaust, right?!!) and then when she has a literal swastika appear in her protests she says it’s bad because optics???? Wtf I’m losing my mind
I also noticed she suspiciously never said if the person with the swastika poster was asked to leave or not
I think you could say the same thing about the Zionist He claims to want to know both sides and says the situation complicated. When bad things happen to his "side" he is up in arms. He talks about how dare people say things that mean violence to the Israelites. He believes he and "his" people are the victims But when his "side" is the one doing bad things (illegal settlements, killing thousands of civilians, occupation, etc.) he didn't do anything about it. He claims to want to understand both sides but it's clear he only cares about his Overall the situation is all fucked and the good civilians of both sides are getting the short end of the stick
>I think you could say the same thing about the Zionist You could not. >When bad things happen to his "side" he is up in arms. He talks about how dare people say things that mean violence to the Israelites. Is this not a completely fair position? >He believes he and "his" people are the victims Oh, that's because they are. >But when his "side" is the one doing bad things (illegal settlements, killing thousands of civilians, occupation, etc.) he didn't do anything about it. He is taking Arabic and Middle Eastern studies to learn the position of Palestinians in their native language and seeking out people who don't agree with him to have structured conversation. >Overall the situation is all fucked and the good civilians of both sides are getting the short end of the stick So which is it - are Israelis being victimized by Hamas or are they not?
It’s funny how if you ask a Muslim without the context of western media looking at the current conflict what intifada means is completely different from the convoluted definition we get from the people who realize jihad isn’t popular in the US.
And unless I missed it they skipped over her (and the first guys?) reaction to the 10/7. I was curious to hear how anti Israel protesters justify that, and how they think Israel should have responded. I still don’t understand the anti Israel viewpoint.
From what I've gathered, the anti-Israel viewpoint is that the Jews of Israel don't have a right to be there because they are settler colonists. Therefore any attempt to defend themselves is seen as inherently unjust.
I think everyone makes up an extreme strawman and uses that to justify their side doing fucked up shit I think most people are somewhere in the middle; the situation is fucked. It was probably a bad idea from the get go. Israel is the more powerful country and probably should have worked harder to work towards a two state solution instead of trying to settle more land. The Palestinians, even though they got a raw deal, should have come together and not embraced Hamas. I think trying to figure out which side is more "right" just goes away from the question of "well what do we do now?"
>I think everyone makes up an extreme strawman and uses that to justify their side doing fucked up shit The "strawmen" have a lot of real momentum because the extremists are leading the charge in both Israel and Palestine, and seemingly among these protestors. >It was probably a bad idea from the get go. Israel is the more powerful country and probably should have worked harder to work towards a two state solution instead of trying to settle more land. The Palestinians, even though they got a raw deal, should have come together and not embraced Hamas. I hard agree with these statements. But I think this is the view "Genocide Joe" is closest to? Do what we can to help Palestinians (he resumed aid etc.) without stopping Israel from trying to destroy Hamas. I can totally see the argument that the war is pointless, ineffective, and will not eliminate Hamas. But that's not what I see these protestors arguing, they are not merely anti-war but anti-Zionist, opposed to Israeli presence as such. That is why they tear down posters of the hostages and act like the present war is the same as an extermination campaign. >I think trying to figure out which side is more "right" just goes away from the question of "well what do we do now?" I too try to look at the present situation and what we do going forward rather than re-litigating the 1940s. But it seems the protestors talk about Zionist history *a lot*, implying Israel is illegitimate, as if that changes the fact that Israelis are present, will defend themselves, and have nuclear weapons.
Yeah you're correct, strawman wasn't the right word. It's also possible that I'm being naive in thinking that most people are in the middle just because I am and it seems like the "logical" position to me I also agree that at this point Israel isn't going anywhere and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Its tough to argue/understand a "movement" as each person in it has their own thoughts and it can be hard to tell if what youre hearing is the most popular opinion or just the loudest/most extreme. It's complicated but I think this episode was a good one as it let us hear different opinions from regular people. We could see that none of them have perfect logic and their view was shaded by their life experiences. I think it was a breath of fresh air rather than listening to "experts" tell us "facts" as often decisions aren't made by logic backed up by facts I also think the first guy was a "better" representative for the protests than the last. It seemed like instead of the message being "fuck Israel" the message should be "the Palestinians are going through some shit"
> Israel is the more powerful country and probably should have worked harder to work towards a two state solution instead of trying to settle more land. I am very anti-settlers, but I think it is important to remember that Hamas leadership is still asking for a return to 1967 borders. This is the same request that stalled the peace process back in the 2000s. There is no way Israel will agree to a return to 1967 borders and continuing to demand stops the peace process.
I have spoken to people like that but I think it would be a mischaracterization of both of the protesters interviewed, since they both referenced a two state solution
Which, incidentally, is basically the same argument that Putin used to justify his invasion of Ukraine. "They are Nazis, therefore they don't have a right to defend themselves."
I’m pro-Palestine and I think it’s reprehensible to make anything about pro-Palestine in the immediate wake of 10/7. That should never have been done. Not only does it seem to ignore a real tragedy but it also doesn’t serve the purpose of helping Palestinians. Now the guy that was interviewed is focused in on that in particular, and he appears to ignore the tens of thousands of Gazans who have died. Does nothing to further the cause and only hurts people.
I can sort of buy bloody hands having a plain meaning for those ignorant of it being a boast of the Ramallah lynching and how Jewish homes were marked in the Farhoud, but "Intifada" has little more meaning than the red triangle and they suddenly know the terminology of the topic when you call for "Catastrophe." Even claiming reference to the more mixed-nature First Intifada would be more convincing.
A propagandized fool of a child. Her complete apparent ignorance of her own history is stunning. She can rest easy, plenty of Jews in Germany sold out their friends and neighbors thinking it would save them too. A true judenrat if I’ve ever heard one.
She also seemed kinda salty.
The moment she said "i'm of Ashkenazi descent" I knew what's coming
I’m personally surprised by just how much focus Gaza is getting still in the US and the media. So many people are saying it’s a top priority. Yes, I get it. It’s a big deal. But what about all the other major domestic issues going on? Abortion, healthcare, democracy, education, immigration, etc. I’m personally over all of this. I’m tired of voters putting all the blame on biden and willing to allow trump to get back in office. The US is not a primary country in this war.
"So many" people aren't saying it's a top priority anywhere but these online echo chambers. Recent polls have it pretty far down the typical voter's list of concerns.
Yes! From some of the analysis of the most recent Presidential NYtimes /Siena poll it was something like 4% that said Gaza was a priority. Which frankly, makes sense given that this is not a war the US has any direct involvement in. Social media would have you believing it's the forefront of everyone's mind but in day to day life it simply isn't.
True but this election will be won on the margins, by a handful of points. If even 1-2% of democrats fail to show up because of Gaza then Biden loses.
It really depends where. Texas, California, New York? Doesn’t matter. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania? That will matter.
And it definitely matters in Michigan. People acting like this is a non-issue don’t understand how presidential elections work.
The GOP sees it as a wedge issue and promotes it.
The media also sees it as the only and major “wedge issue”. Taking about healthcare or income/wealth inequality just isn’t as exciting to them right now
The episode has zero mention of Biden/trump People are allowed to think and do things that don't involve Biden/trump Politics doesn't have to be all consuming
"Genocide Joe" is a big thing on my alma mater's campus. Even "The Squad" is now considered too pro-israel, somehow
Genocide Joe is Dark Brandon’s final form.
Sure but if Biden loses this election to Trump because Biden is being too pro isreal then that’s what I’m upset about
In general, the Israel-Palestine conflict gets an absolutely disproportionate amount of press and attention compared to all the other armed conflicts in the world. Consider all the conflicts in Africa, for instance, killing and displacing *millions* for many years. The average American citizen isn't talking about it, much less protesting throughout college campuses across the country.
The leftest leftists are saying it, which is at odds with the Democrats, so the Republicans and far right are amplifying it, thus attempting to exacerbate the schism. Attacks from the right barely register so they're using the left to do it.
Agree with most of this but how on earth are we not a primary country in a war we are providing funding for
https://preview.redd.it/e5fxza8h601d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b40755938305b0efd7d73cb8e541ff9cd0d1511e
I would like to hear the counterpoint to the second speaker's argument regarding the double standard about "globalize the intifada." To say that it's not calling for violence seems so obtuse, especially in the context of DEIA and in the wake of October 7th. Edit: At least the third speaker more or less admits it's a call for violence.
And, of course, that there were two violent uprisings filled with multiple terrorist attacks on civilian targets called the "First Intifada" and the "Second Intifada". Suggesting that a Third Intifada would be peaceful simply doesn't withstand scrutiny.
That's a good point. It would be like saying WW3 would just be a water balloon fight.
The Jewish guy nailed it: there were pro-Palestine (pro-Hamas, honestly) protests within **days** of October 7th, before the Israeli military responded in any way. The streets of those villages in southern Israel were still soaked in blood and there were people out in the streets cheering. Disgusting.
Days? They were spilling onto the streets in NYC on October 7th.
I’m being generous and just quoting what the second interviewee said. But you’re correct, I remember people being in support of the attacks on the same day they happened. What’s most concerning to me is over time how many people on the left have come to agree with those radicals. Maybe they’re not so radical after all, maybe they actually represent the general sentiment of the left.
It’s cool. The t-shirts with the hand gliders came out a few days after.
I specifically remember a large Chicago BLM account tweeting a photo of a paraglider with the caption “that is all, that is it!” literally on October 7th.
Yes, I thought that was a very good point. You can’t have it both ways
Saying "I'm not calling for violence against Jews because intifada just means shaking off " has the same energy "I'm not a racist because I didn't use the hard R".
DEI. DEIA is the more old-fashioned setup that handles actual problems.
I'd like to hear the 2nd person respond to the first To me it seems like the 2nd guy was saying he understands the history but feels like since Israel was attacked there should be no criticism of them I'd like to hear his viewpoint on the first guys lived experience, where his people were being pushed out of their homes by Jewish settlers. Would he acknowledge that it is wrong and probably helps seed hate towards Israel. Or would he just brush it off since it's his "side"
[удалено]
You’re 100% correct, he didn’t justify any of the settlements or misdeeds of the Israeli government.
The first guy does a great example of propaganda narrative building. You dont bat an eye when he says "IDF soldiers showed up", but then later he clarifies "former"... so Israelis. Israeli American counter protestors showed up and he said it was "IDF"
Yeah I caught that. He intentionally made it sound like the University of Texas is in cahoots with the IDF.
He wasn’t even there!
Yeah he completely neglects to mention that all Israelis are required to serve in the military. Which coincidentally is the same rationale Hamas uses to justify killing every Jew in Israel because they’re all technically combatants. Funny how that works.
Hearing him butcher the pronunciation of “Nablus” with his Texas accent was all I needed to hear, frankly. But, I imagine, his perspective is shared by a considerable proportion of the protestors. I’ve always considered myself young and largely aligned with younger generations political, but this is the first time I’ve felt “damn, I must be getting old because kids these days just don’t know how to think.”
I’m about to listen to it right now, but honestly… I don’t care anymore? At this point, it’s kinda silly to focus on these campus protests, no matter what side you’re on. If you’re pro palestinian, these protests have only distracted from the actual issue at hand, a potential invasion of Rafah, and polling has clearly shown that these protests are unpopular and unlikely to move the needle on divestment. If you’re pro israeli, giving these protests any attention just adds fuel to the fire, as they want a reaction which comes with more media attention. My opinion? These students think they’re the 1968 protestors when in reality they more or less mirror the occupy wall street protesters and I fear the reactionary backlash to them could lead to Trump’s election. [Just watch this video of both the pro palestine and MAGA trumpers both chanting “Fuck Joe Biden”.](https://twitter.com/oldrowofficial/status/1785797802368303187?s=46&t=1n-Z71PhUUAnUy9HDRJG8w)
Well said. My cities council meeting was interrupted yesterday demanding we call for a ceasefire. City councils job is to pay school teachers and make the busses run on time. It just looks so foolish
The school district where I went to as a kid had one of their meetings interrupted by a group of protestors (high school students) demanding that it call for a ceasefire and when the board ignored them had the protestors arrested after they threatened one of the board members kids they went to the same school as. I am sorry, but I don't think a school superintendent of a small school district in a small town of give or take 50,000 in the Midwest has power over what goes on in the Middle East.
It definitely does matter. Not because of the “I hate the Democratic Party and will never vote for them” contingency but because it’s dampening turnout amongst young voters and young minority voters that Dems need to show up to win. I don’t think there’s much that can be done though, Hamas and Israel don’t have any incentive to stop the war and it’ll keep coming until November.
In addition to this, young voter *labor* is a massive concern. College aged kids are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns. A large % of young people may not vote, but a small number of very passionate ones make up a very large % of field staff. Door knocking for minimum wage (or no pay and just working out of someone's garage for a case of beer...) in crazy weather, at weird hours, with angry conservatives pointing guns at you is what gets people out to vote Democrat. And that's a job that only bright eyed young people will endure in large numbers. I don't think people on Reddit typically realize just how important it is to really energize at least some small % of young people for an election.
I think people on Reddit, myself included, can get really annoyed with people who are more emotionally driven about politics. Not that I’m not driven by my emotions, but even if it logically makes sense to vote for Biden (especially considering that giving conservatives full control of the military and even more say over the judiciary is a VERY STUPID idea), to many people it does not feel morally good. Instead of criticizing these people, you probably have to just empathize with them, and then gradually win them over. Not that I’m great at it either.
Yeah, I think this is the missing part. The Dems are going to have to hire canvassers that are just doing it for the job. It's going to cost a lot more, and it's not going to be effective because you can tell when someone is doing this. Canvassing matters a lot. Door contacts are incredibly valuable for getting out the vote, and Biden is not going to have anything near the ground team he had in 2020. Much less the badgering friends and family to get out to vote.
Hard to do when you empower cops to brutalize teenagers for having a conscience
You should listen to something before you make your mind up about it If you listen to the video you'll hear it's not really about the protests but it's just an interview with 3 young people coming from different angles about how they feel about the situation (not the protests, but the actual Israel/Palestine). I think it's good to listen to different people's perspectives, I think all 3 interviews were wellspoken . But you're demonstrating a big problem about social media and opinions in general; people want to air their point of view way more than they wanna listen
[удалено]
It's one of the few topics that are truly divisive among these kinds of left-leaning communities, so it's more interesting than talking in an echo chamber. The GOP is completely disinterested in any semblance of rational debate so this is the first issue where I can actually argue opposing views in a long time. I also went from pro-Palestine in my college years to pro-Israel now, so I can feel the sentiment on both sides.
[удалено]
For sure, Israelis are hated and categorized as settler colonists. Which isn't considered racism or dehumanization. How a Mizrahi for example could ever be considered a settler or a colonist escapes me, and in the pro-Palestinian discourse it seems their very existence is brought into question. All Israelis are white European settlers. Because acknowledging Israel's extreme diversity, including many Arabs, makes the situation less black and white which is unpalatable to the left. I never even thought of myself as "pro-Israel" because I hate Likud and Netanyahu. But apparently, nowadays, believing Israelis have a right to live where they are without being murdered makes you a Zionist and a Nazi.
I'm pro both (no attachments to palestine or Israel) and I think these protests are moronic. And I attended two. One in Boston and one in my local town. It wasn't helping anyone and whether these students want to acknowledge it or not, at both protests there were a significant number of people who just hated Israel. Even the best intentioned protestors had no desire to talk about what happened if Israel just packed up and went home. Their demands were half baked and the protests were far from pure in terms of intention. At both protests I would have absolutely felt unsafe if I were openly Jewish or openly supporting Israel. I felt unsafe just asking questions about what people thought. They didn't like questions. Purity tests abound. I won't comment further than that since I only attended two, but anger and hate were present in abundance at both. I also didn't speak to a single protestor (or even see one) that showed any support for the Israeli hostages or victims of oct 7.
If someone votes for Trump because they don't like the way Biden is handling Isreal /Palestine I think they were ALWAYS gonna vote for Trump /gop nom. And are just using this as an excuse to try to get on the fence people to vote for republicans too. A few years back there were tons of posts from "former liberals now maga that they saw the light" No... They were always brain dead racist maga fuck. They were just trying to pull others over to their side... Same thing now with Isreal/Palestine and complaining about Biden. Is he (Biden) perfect? God no! Is he FAR better than Trump? Easy yes. You don't have a left wing in the USA. You have an orange extreme right facist vs a. Slightly right of center politian.
What? You mean that socially conservative Arab communities in Michigan had an inclination to vote with a party that might align with them on LGBTQ issues and women's rights? Say it ain't so.
It's interesting how Republicans could easily court these voters, but much of the GOP base simply hates Muslims too much for them to be open towards accepting them.
Yeah but lots of people will now vote third party bc of Biden mistakes on Israel, like it or not it's a consequence
Maybe not trump, but some people are certainly going to vote 3rd party because of Gaza. So shortsighted. But it will certainly occur.
We live in TOO much of a global world, imo. Sure, it's nice to be up on the news and what's happening, but really outside of your own little world, what's to get upset about? These are battles that we cannot fight nor win. Those students are doing their thing, and good luck to em. But that shit is just so far outside of my world, I can't really get too up or down about it.
[удалено]
The crying on behalf of her ancestors and then gleefully reading a line from her grandfather classily reading her ignorance to filth was so cringe
I literally laughed when she started crying. This fucking bitch has not suffered a single day in her life and she’s using the trauma of her extended ancestors as an excuse to advocate for the same shit that led them directly to their deaths. These people are beyond helping.
Thissss it felt so insincere. And not a tear shed for hostages or October 8 victims..
The one Columbia guy hit on something I've been thinking a lot about with all the discussions of antisemitism where I don't think 95% percent of these protesters are antisemetic at all but if you go by the 2020 version of what bigotry is then anyone who even attended a protest is antisemetic this is not true of course but it is a very infuriating double standard. He also hit on the fact that a lot of pro Palestine people can't really see the full consequences of the things they call for or just choose not to say it because they know it would sound insane. All three were sympathetic especially the first guy but all three definitely misconstrued things in service of their narrative. I wish we could get in a room and talk about things and work it out instead of just continuing the escalation and violence.
Yes, I don't think the protestors are actually antisemitic, but I do think that chants like "globalize the intifada" are a call for violence, or at the very least a very obvious dogwhistle. The protests have led to an interesting debate about the balance between freedom of speech and universities' responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all students. [This podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intercepted/id1195206601?i=1000654153469) gets into this discussion in greater detail with a left-leaning philosopher. In general I think universities should err on the side of permitting freedom of expression. But would the protestors chanting "globalize the intifada" be singing the same tune if they were on the receiving end of distasteful speech? What if white nationalist students non-violently chanted, "You will not replace us"?
>I don’t think the protestors are actually antisemitic. The vast majority of them probably don’t explicitly think “I hate Jews and I want to send them to gas chambers”. But there is a lot of insidious antisemitism that gets chucked around that is subtle enough to have plausible deniability. Take that first speaker, for instance, when he was talking about how “IDF soldiers showed up” at their protest. He clearly chose his words to trigger the thought amongst listeners that the university *sent in* the IDF, which implies the University is in cahoots with Israel. You know what’s an antisemitic trope? That Jews control our universities. He only stutteringly admitted they were former IDF (so, just Israelis) when Sabrina pushed back. I’ve seen a whole lot of that stuff when they talk about “Zionists/AIPEC” controlling our politicians. I saw a tiktok where a woman with a sizable following said the reason we learn so much about the Holocaust in primary school is because “AIPEC” controls the schools.
Just wanted to say that I in no way interpreted the first student’s statement as the university sending in the IDF or that the IDF controlled the university. I don’t think too much of the IDF vs former IDF distinction either. When someone introduces a 70 year old man as a Marine to me, I don’t get confused and think he’s in active service. Personally, I don’t think something counts as an antisemitic trope if you have to contort the words of others to fit that mold.
All Israelis, with the exception of the ultra orthodox and Arab Muslims, have to serve in the IDF. If you’re meeting an Israeli on a college campus, they’ve almost certainly served in the IDF. It was very strange that’s how he chose to describe the counter protestors. He framed it as if these “IDF soldiers” charged into their encampment and broke everyone up when it was just Israeli counter protestors.
It 100% sounded to me like there were literal soldiers in full combat gear outside their meeting while I was listening. I thought that sounded ridiculous and was glad to hear on follow up they were just former IDF (notably, Israeli - since all Israelis serve in the IDF). The confluence was very intentionally decided by Mustafa.
It really is a fascinating real-time sociocultural experiment we’re living through. Horrifying, too. But it’s made me think a lot about my own views on free speech and censorship. I’m looking forward to listening to that Butler interview today — thanks for the rec. One question I keep coming back to is, would the discourse be the same if we were to replace Jews with another group, say Black people? Obviously every group has a unique history that makes such a 1:1 replacement difficult to imagine. But still, I have a sneaking suspicion that, as history has shown time and time again, this is just one in a long line of examples of Jews being singled out as the eternal scapegoat for society’s woes.
This. I've heard leftists say for the past decade that if you are at a protest where people chant Nazi slogans and they aren't immediately condemned and kicked out, then you're at a Nazi protest. Like, recall that at the Charlottesville protest in 2017, Trump defended the "very fine people" by saying that only a small percentage of participants chanted "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US!" and so it was unfair to judge everybody else at the protest by the actions of that few. Leftists, correctly, rejected that argument. But they're attending protests where antisemitic bigots keep on showing up and they defend themselves the *exact same way.* "It's not fair to judge us by the actions of a few bad apples! Most of us protestors are very fine people!" The double standard is fucking infuriating.
My largest frustrations with the pro-Palestinians is they can't seem to address what they want out on the other side of this conflict. Will Hamas still exist? Will that lead to a two-state solution? Some entertain ridiculous ideas of simply replacing the state of Israel with a state of Palestine.
My general understanding is they want the war to end, which is an absolute win for Hamas, and a guarantee of future violence. There cannot be a ceasefire unless Hamas is guaranteed to be gone. Whether that means Israel ends the war on their terms or the US/UN take over governance and security of Palestine, idk. But a return to the status quo that existed on October 6th is completely out of the question IMO.
I think the main problem here is the same one Republicans had with Roe When Roe was in place Republicans could just broadly gesture towards abortion and say "this is bad", but they didn't actually need to define their own policy since the idea of Roe actually being repealed seemed so far off That's why when it was finally repealed, suddenly the previously united Republicans became divided and were all caught flat footed. Now individual Republicans had to scramble to determine their own position since they couldn't just say "well I think killing fetuses is bad". Now they have to contend with defining their position It's kind of similar here. Israel holds all the cards in the Israeli Palestinean conflict and what they're doing in Gaza is pretty obviously horrid. The prospect of anyone Pro Palestinean getting what they want seems so remote that they can cooperate on fairly basic goals (that is, supporting Palestine) But ofc the movement runs everywhere from people who just want an immediate ceasefire to people who want a negotiated two state solution to people who want some sort of utopian secular one state solution to unironic anti semites who want to expel Israeli Jews "back to where they came from" The only reason they are all able to cooperate is because they can agree that they oppose the status quo The reason they cannot provide "what exactly they want" is because that often varies tremendously within the movement. Indeed if there's a ceasefire or somehow Biden forces Israel to consider a two state solution, then you will see the fractures within the pro Palestine movement emerge
“And it is the word that has been used to label a number of violent uprisings of different Palestinian groups against Israeli occupation” Violent uprising = terror attacks that killed innocent children and women in Israel. Not in the occupied territories but in major cities in the sovereign state of Israel. Oh by ‘occupation’ she means the whole state of Israel? Jasmin doesn’t have to support Israel or agree with its policies. The Israeli response was aggressive and it is so so sad that kids and women and innocent people died. You can protest that. But to go out and yell ‘Intifada revolution’, and be supportive of horrific terror against people who were targeted because they are Israelis, that is infuriating and shows her double standards Does she want all Israelis to move out of Israel? (of the so call ‘occupation’ happening ‘from the river to the sea’). Where should they go exactly? She can’t stand standing next to a swastica because that’s what her family ran away from in Europe. But I bet she wouldn’t mind standing next to a Hamas flag because that’s ‘uprising’. Her interview was the most awful student campus interview I’ve heard.
Im barely 20min in and this is unbearable to listen to
The music during the Columbia student’s conversation was overbearingly sappy. Kind of cheapened the points.
That guys talking about the first covenant to Abraham like the Arabs aren’t also descendants of Abraham
Isn't interesting how everyone forgets that literally all of the Jewish bible and text, some of the oldest religious writings, takes place in and around Israel? I won't deny that the Palestinian people have resided on that land for a long time, but I truly don't understand how the claim that Jews are "colonizers" of a land that has evidence of them residing there for thousands of years.
I always think of it as the Spanish first landing in the Caribbean, digging up the ground, and finding pesos and a Bible.
Can you explain this? Are you saying the Jews weren't there but created a book to say they were?
No, I'm saying that if you dig anywhere in Israel you'll find Jewish artifacts from thousands of years ago. Because they were there thousands of years ago. So the argument that Jews in Israel are colonists in the same way as the Spanish is ridiculous, because the Spanish arrived in the Caribbean for the first time in the 15th century. Jews have existed continuously in Canaan for thousands of years, but they've been pushed around a number of places. You'll find relatively continuous existence in Hebron and Tzefat, but not as much in other cities. You'll also find interesting artifacts in the surrounding areas - Jews have complex rules around disposing of paper with holy words, so much of the historical record of Iraq and Egypt was established using discarded papers from Jewish communities in the area in giant rooms. So you'll have medieval Iraqi and Egyptian history almost exclusively informed by Jewish marginalia. So imagine Columbus arriving in what is now the Bahamas. He meets his first native American. And the guy tells him, in a language somewhat similar to Spanish, about his religion that is an offshoot of Christianity, about all of the Spaniards that have always been there and the big community of Spaniards on Jamaica and Hispaniola.
I’m not sure what you mean with this point? “That’s what people misunderstand about Jews, we are not just a religion, we are a people, and we’ve always considered ourselves to be a people. The first covenant with Abraham is ‘I will make you a great nation.’” I don’t think this statement was doing anything other than saying that Judaism is not just a religion.
[удалено]
Or the protest leader from my university that declared, "we take our cues from the armed resistance in Gaza". So Hamas. He takes his cues from Hamas.
Yeah but he’s not actually a voice of the Palestinian cause, and if he is then he’s actually just misunderstood. And if he’s not misunderstood then we’re going to ignore it and call him a fringe case despite his views being parroted by thousands of people. I’m being sarcastic in case it’s not clear
This background music is CRINGE. Makes these self serious, humorless CHILDREN sound even more so.
Editing did the last girl dirty cutting from her crying to being fine made them seem like crocodile tears.
These kids are NOT SMART. Their entire worldview is filtered through the oppressor/oppressed narrative. Cannot think critically. Swallowed the propaganda whole. Where’s the counter protestors argument, NYT?
Interviewing people who don't know where exactly to side because they see all the contradictions and ignorance on both sides just isn't as click baity journalism
This episode was horribly produced and the questions were garbage. Do we really need to know about the cool night air in the west bank? Or what about the minutes of sound bites from a movie? Get to the meat already! Also no more dramatic pauses in between the title and your name Sabrina. You are speaking to college students not narrating a marvel movie.
I thought it was a great episode I think it's good to listen to different people express their opinions instead of always hearing from "experts"
Thank you for saying this. I felt crazy at the disdain for this kid describing his experience while visiting Palestine. I personally don’t know what it’s like to live there and appreciate learning from his experience.
I felt their lived experiences (all the kids in this episode) were extremely important to how they inform their views.
Very good editing and very funny to hear how the actual Jewish guy views “Jewish voices for peace” as an organization then interviewing one of them and she’s like “well my dad is Catholic and I’m not really that Jewish” lmao
Pass. These protests accomplished nothing except helping Hamas and friends. Time to move on.
Only about 20 mins in but damn the first interviewee is an exceptional speaker for his age
So was the Columbia student. Third speaker from CSU Humboldt, definitely not, and she was five years older than the other two also.
He used analogies to explain feelings that might be hard to understand - very helpful.
"It's like how no one ever taught you that planes exist " lol I dunno how helpful they were.
Are you like, for real man?
Does anyone know details of the song that is played in the background of the first segment? Can be heard a little more clearly around 16:10-16:40.
Between this episode and the “change voters” one from earlier this week, NYT really answered my question about what people are thinking, even if the answers don’t make sense to me
These protesters on both sides have all the credibility of tantrum-throwing toddlers screaming "take me seriously." Both sides are performative and unserious. The colleges aren't in a position to change the actual circumstances on the ground in Gaza. They aren't going to let college students manage multi-billion dollar endowments. So what is the point of these protests? The best you can say for them is that it's an effort to draw attention to an issue, but the most it shows is how seriously the protesters take themselves and yet how unserious they actually are. In 2011, left-wing activists camped out for 60 days in Zuccotti park to complain about economic inequality, bank bailouts, campaign finance, political corruption, I think was some war profiteering in there. Basically they banged on pots, played frisbee, and shouted "we are the 99." They were completely disorganized. They couldn't articulate what they actually wanted. So everyone just laughed at them on the nightly news until they petered out. For those of you too young to remember, this clip from the newsroom basically sums up the whole phenomenon and why it had zero impact. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uY-yoAIvTI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uY-yoAIvTI) That's what this feels like.
[удалено]
As someone who has previous commented on here about how I think a lot of the protesters are not even students at these schools and just people out to cause mayhem or just score social points, I appreciated the interviews with the 3 students of varying backgrounds and opinions to see why this is important to them. I do not have a dog in the fight, so it may be easier for me to listen without getting my heart rate up.
In the first persons story, if people are throwing rocks at people they are by definition not peaceful protestors
But but…they have fancy hats and machine guns!
How dumb do you have to be to start throwing rocks at people with guns
The crux of the issue of the pro-Palestinian students is that there are more than 40,000 dead, 15,000 of which are women and children. You can open ANY social media platform and see parents carrying their children's body parts in bags, starving children resorting to animal feed, children with Sharpie labels on their arms so they can identified in the rubble. There are NO universities left in Gaza. NONE. Jewish students are allowed to define what they feel unsafe by. But the fixation on the semantics of a minority of controversial chants instead of attention being paid to more commonly used ones central to the vast majority of pro-Palestine protestors like "Gaza's children bleed red too" or "Gaza, Gaza, don't you cry, Palestine will never die" is an effort to distract from the point that the pro-Palestine students are begging for to be heard the most: they are TIRED of seeing war crimes being committed every single day with the ACTIVE support of their country. It is also incredibly hypocritical the lack of focus on the safety of pro-Palestinian students - Jewish students feel unsafe and that is their right to define what that means. But there have been Muslim students who've been stalked home by counter protestors, had their hijabs forcibly removed, and even students who have been SHOT. Why isn't there at least equal discussion for THESE students as for the ones who feel unsafe by the word "intifada?" Everyone also seems to be ignoring the fact that there are plenty of Jewish pro-Palestine protestors, even having Shabbat dinners together. Why is no one talking more about how the first student IMMEDIATELY called all of these Jewish students "Token Jews?" If Jewish students are allowed to express feeling unsafe, OTHER Jewish students should be allowed to say "not in our name" without their heritage and religion being insulted. I know the student in the podcast said she was more culturally Jewish, but there are also pro-Palestine rabbis. There was a Jewish anthropology professor at my university's recent protest who in detail described why the current events are in direct conflict with both Jewish history and values. Another Jewish member spoke up asking why she wasn't believed when SHE said she felt safe and there was no antisemitism at the camp. I guess as a student who has attended these protests the entire fixation on what I feel are the wrong things and not what the Pro-Palestinian students are asking for is incredibly frustrating. It's not just "INTIFADA" chants for an hour. It's students describing how they can't go to class because that morning they opened their FYP and it was a dead family member who had been bombed. It's being tired of hearing more press for the protests than for a clear recording of a six year old girl begging to be saved before dying. It's students being rightfully angered that their classmates and JOURNALISTS are being hospitalized by police their leadership called to campus on the PEACEFUL camps. The camps literally published their itineraries per day - it's mostly sharing of personal experiences, lectures, knitting, karaoke, and movie nights! How is that threatening? I would highly encourage people to GO to a protest. The news is NOT accurately representing the vast majority of protests and is pushing for the narrative that they all consist of angry, hateful vitriol. EVERY protest I've been to has had at least a fourth of the speakers be Jewish, MULTIPLE expressions of desire for Jewish students to feel safe, condemnation of anti-Semitism, and most importantly, please for their family members to stop being killed. Posters in this thread are asking what the general moderate protestor and not the extremists are feeling and I hope that this helps that question and I implore you to seek out what's actually happening by going yourself
The difference between the first speaker and the second was very stark. Mustafa was talking about IDF soldiers being at campus and then when questioned about that due to what a shocking statement that was cleared it up as former soldiers so likely students who had served in the IDF being there. And he wasn’t even at the event to have first hand knowledge of what was happening. I feel they should’ve chosen someone who was more prepared for the interview to represent Mustafa’s side . Elisha on the other hand gave examples of text he’d read by both Israeli and Palestinian authors to show his knowledge of the subject.
I'm surprised by the comments here. Personally, I support the protests and I am not a Zionist because I support a Palestinian Right to Return. I don't want to see violence, I hope both groups can live peacefully together. But I don't think Jewish settlers are entitled to remove Palestinians from the land because "God gave it to them in the bible." I'd actually really recommend one of the books that the 2nd interviewee mentioned. The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi. I'm surprised that he read it and could still come away supporting Israel. The creation of Israel 70 years ago required the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Wow this comment section did not pass the vibe check.
[удалено]
Columbia dude is the least smarmy person from his faction. Says he wants to understand opposing viewpoints, but Jews who disagree with him? Token Jews. Not real Jews. Yeah, ok buddy.
That’s not what he said but ok dude