48
votes
More than 2,000 pro-Palestinian protesters arrested across US campuses
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Police continue to arrest pro-Palestine student protesters across the US
- Authors
- Jessica Glenza
- Published
- May 2 2024
- Word count
- 738 words
A truly mind-boggling amount that speaks to both the scale of the protests and the utter insanity of the response. There have been bad actors to be sure, but 2,000 arrests is so many more than were made on Jan 6. Meanwhile, all of the free speech activists we all know and love (sarcasm) don't seem to be worried about any of this, which sure is conspicuous.
It was clear before, if you were paying attention, but now there can be absolutely no doubt that the “free speech on campus is under threat” crowd has a giant caveat of “free conservative speech”, which also nicely outlines their rank hypocrisy
One of my parents is somewhat sympathetic to Palestine, and even despite this they've somehow been convinced that some nebulous quantity of the protesters were secretly paid off by George Soros somehow.
It is... extremely depressing.
I'm not surprised. Police tend not to arrest protestors they agree with. And more students were shot in Kent State than Jan 6ers.
[...]
[...]
(emphasis mine)
Foot, meet mouth. And here I'd have thought this would have been Trump doing this.
There's a lot of talk about an aged president dying in office, but I feel like this is the unspoken damage of having a much older president. There is a generational gap about how Israel is understood in the modern world. I first heard this idea from The Ezra Klein Podcast (would recommend, esp for policy wonks), and I tend to agree with it. Paraphrasing:
The oldest living generation views Israel as a success story and its burgeoning state a haven for Jews escaping generations of persecution.
One generation younger sees them as an established regional power that has defended itself against attacks from its neighbours that intended to destroy it outright.
The youngest generation sees Israel as oppressors and colonialists because of their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
I don't envy the job of a president, I think it is full of Kobayashi Maru, but if Biden can't figure out how to bridge this gap, I think there will be trouble in November. If the youth turn out and vote RFK or just stay home....
A small correction: I see them as oppressors and colonialists because of their occupation of the entirety of their territory. Gaza and the West Bank are simply where Palestine is being abused the most at present.
This is not to say I think every Israeli should be booted out. Far from it. There are Israelis who've lived their whole lives where they are — nobody inherits the sins of their parents, and that includes the children of colonizers. Those people should absolutely get to stay; taking their homes from them would just be making the same mistake Israel's making all over again. What more, there is a not-insignificant group of Israeli citizenry who're protesting what their government is doing. The only people in Israel I disdain are those who willfully join or actively support the IDF despite the many crimes that organization commits, or those who stole the homes of Palestinians directly.
But we must accept the reality that all of Israel was stolen from Palestinians at one point or another. The founding of Israel was a mistake from the beginning, and it's a mistake that keeps on happening more and more as new settlers come in and steal yet more land. How do we fix it? Good question. I don't have a complete answer. I do have a start, though: Stop stealing homes, and stop bombing Gaza.
Yes, there's plenty of nuance. I generally agree with you, esp regarding solutions. Let's all stop killing each other.
This is such a shockingly simplistic view that I'm getting sick of reading. This conflict goes back hundreds (if not thousands) of years. There's been hatred and animosity on both sides for as long as people have been living there, and . Who fired the first shot? Who knows.
I will say this: the reaction from Israel has been completely over the top, and needs to be scaled back to going after Hamas, and only Hamas. But, if you remove Israel as a state, what do you think will happen? The local Arabs and Jews will live in harmony? Hamas is popular amongst the majority of Palestinians - they support what is widely recognized as a terrorist organization who's openly stated goal is to kill Jews.
I do think it's possible to acknowledge something as a colonialist state and not inherently follow up with "thus it should be destroyed." The United States is a colonial nation. That doesn't mean the answer to that is to destroy the US as a nation.
I mean the conflict goes back hundreds of years but it's not at all the same conflict, It wasn't always "Arabs versus Jews". During the crusades it was chiefly Muslims and Jews defending against the Crusaders (this is a simplified view yes), during the Arab-Byzantine wars it was two regional powers dominating over a small piece of land, a few hundred years back it was the Byzantines suppressing the Jews after the devastating roman invasion. Arabs and Jews aren't even separate, you have Arab Jews who were an integral part of Islamic and Arab society. The conflict goes back thousands of years but the conflict wasn't always an "Arab-Israeli conflict", it has had various peoples and conquests of different natures. There are times when Arabs and Jews lived in harmony, and sometimes not so much.
In all honesty if you ask me it seems like the opposite will happen. My personal theory is that if both had the power to press a button (to remove another off the map), then they would have pressed it by now. I have seen more and more Israelis want the Gazans to be shipped away or worse. October 7th was a point of no return for many people, and that is extremely dangerous.
Fair enough - scratch the thousands of years for the "current" conflict. But people have been fighting over that scrap of land for that long.
And I've gotta disagree, respectfully, on what happens if Israel is gone tomorrow. Like I said, Hamas is popular among Palestinians, and they openly call for the murder of Jews. Just to be clear, I'm not defending Israel's current actions - the civilian deaths are unacceptable. But thinking that if we just get rid of Israel, there would be peace in the region seems naive. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
I'm not saying that, the region will always have violence regardless, this is correct. What I mean with the entire button theory is that if given the chance, both sides will press the button to wipe out the side they hate the most. Both seemingly want each other off the land is what I mean. Also my point here is that one side has more power to actually force someone off the land, being Israel. I'm not saying this as conjecture, there are videos from Israel's top ministers calling for settlements to be built, videos of settlers and soldiers committing atrocities, evidence of sexual violence, and unfolding news of mass graves. It is specifically these actions besides the civilian deaths (which yeah, I know you acknowledge) which make people extremely angry. This and Hamas's affinity towards committing the same acts is leading to a never ending conflict.
It certainly does not go back thousands of years, unless you somehow count the Jewish-Roman wars as part of the current conflict.
What's RFK's position on Israel/Palestine? Also, how did his father die?
You're right, he's a straunch supporter of Israel and I wouldn't expect that to change as RFK Sr. was assassinated by a Palestinian. However, I am too old to trust voters to be rational or informed in their (protest) votes, and it appears there are a number of independents that are disenchanted with the two other choices on offer.
Succinctly, RFK Jr. is a spoiler, and we don't know how yet.
All current polling says he takes a roughly equal number of voters from Trump and Biden. Hard to say whether he'll matter much.
Fair point, however polling suggested a Clinton victory and (iirc at least some polling) a Biden loss. I'm not confident in polling, esp this far from election day. It's not accurate and too many things can change.
TVtropes call this one Suspiciously Specific Denial
"Land Of The Free" /s
I think the Palestinians are in the wrong.
These arrests aren't right. I don't care if they were on private property. The spirit of free speech needs to be valued by Americans beyond the letter of the law if democracy is going to survive. Universities are supposed to be places to exchange ideas.
Admittedly, I don't know any details beyond the words in this comment, but don't you lose your right to free speech when you take over a building?
I'm not even saying they were wrong to do so, but actions have consequences. I think civil disobedience is admirable, but rarely is the disobedience the end of it.
Sounds to me like the only kind of protest you like is the one that's easily ignored.
Editing to add: I do not mean to be disrespectful here. I meant this in a genuine and neutral tone, not an angry or hateful one. I really do believe though that wanting to throw the "disobedience" out of "civil disobedience" is, in effect, neutering protests; I hope you can understand why I said what I said in that context.
That is a very uncharitable read of their comment, and making assumptions to put someone on the defensive isn't conducive to constructive conversation. I hope we can avoid that sort of stuff on Tildes.
I meant no hatred by it, though I suppose the lack of qualifiers of such can leave it a bit more open to interpretation than is ideal, I suppose. I'll edit it to clarify.
But nonetheless, it's an assumption that's been long reinforced this last week. It is extremely common, whenever any protest breaks out, to see people criticize it because "I respect protesting, just... not like that."
This happens regardless of how the protest is conducted, and it hurts the possibility for progress so very much. People want change without tension, but they forget how impossible that really is.
No, I just care about proving the injustice of the system through acts that garner sympathy and understanding. Sitting at a counter you legally can't because of your skin color then getting assaulted is radically different from taking over private property then getting arrested for trespassing.
Violent acts do an awful job increasing support for a cause. Protests should prove the injustice of the systems through a disproportionate response from an unjust authority. Protestors disrupting students' buildings for learning just hurts their cause's popularity.
If the protestors were violently swept from a public square, they would've gotten more sympathy and support than they did by hijacking private property and commons.
Those universities are by and large public institutions and the students pay to have access and use their facilities. As you point out, commons are public areas for community members and students to air their issues. It's common space. I feel like the response to these protests has been so different than those surrounding BLM on Tildes back in 2020 and I'm not sure if we have a more conservative bent due to the cohort that has joined from the 2023 Reddit exodus or if the protestor's position is just more unpopular with folks on the platform. I'd ask folks who are pushing this position to consider if they would be posting similar comments about the BLM movement.
Student protests are as American as wonder bread and bud light. They are a foundational cornerstone of progressive politics and to my knowledge are largely on what many folks consider to be "the right side of history" in hindsight. Civil Rights, the Vietnam War, Women's Bodily Autonomy... The dismissive, infantilizing way they are being discussed is really disappointing, particularly from a place I often find to be so thoughtful.
As for the violence, I don't think it's great to point fingers at the protestors when the amount of violence they are facing is ridiculous.
I was very angry to watch that footage as I feel the same as you about student protests. It's a bunch of kids getting out to stand up for something and find their voice. It's not an invitation for a bunch of 40 year old men to show up and freely be able to start beating on these young kids like what happened. It honestly makes me sick.
I honestly can't even understand why it's controversial to take the stance that people don't want to support a nation that is literally murdering thousands of children. Uvalde or sandy hook upsetting to you? Those are rookie numbers. Picture your entire high-school. Good now they are all dead and that's not enough kids yet to match the body counts by a long shot we need to grab some other schools to get the numbers up. So easy to abstract those deaths away for people for reasons, but really, it should be unacceptable for anyone who calls themselves moral.
The large amount of controversy, as I understand it, isn't because of the criticism of Israel's disproportionate response or Netanyahu's strategy; it's because of the legitimate antisemitism that is cropping up and being demonstrated during the protests. It's one thing to criticize the Israeli government; it's another to chant dog whistles ("From the river to the sea"), fly flags of groups that are widely-accepted as terrorist organizations with the explicit goal of eradicating Jewish people from the earth (Hezbollah, Hamas), and say antisemitic rhetoric in speeches where you simply replace "Jews" with "the colonizers". If the argument is that the people with Hamas/Hezbollah flags are merely a small minority, they are still allowed to co-mingle and exist within the protest space. By not removing these individuals and policing the space to avoid literally supporting terrorist organizations, it appears to be (at least) passive support of terrorist sympathizers. We've heard over and over again that "If you have a group of 10 people, a nazi joins and they aren't kicked out, you have 11 nazis"... this is quite literally that concept in action. And this isn't even getting into the debate over whether protestors themselves are calling for a genocide against Jewish people (by advocating for their removal from an area) - I am unconvinced on this part, but it is certainly a controversial aspect of the protests.
For what it's worth, I have a few Jewish friends that are both strongly opposed to the actions being carried out by Israel but also very afraid at the apparent rise in antisemitism that's occuring on campuses.
(Also, I know there is a difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. I'm specifically referring to antisemitism.)
I hope you'll give me the benefit of the doubt here, I'm trying to add a different perspective but I'll be addressing it with some pretty delicate example. The statement that if one person who holds extreme views is not ejected from a group means that the entire group holds extreme views is tough in this context. The inverse could also be said about support for Israel's violent incursion into Gaza. If you have one Jewish person cheering it on in a group of 10 Jewish people that don't support it, painting them all with the same brush starts pushing us into actual antisemitic territory. Statements like "The jews want to kill all Palestinians" is an antisemitic statement, but that's the same vein that you're going down with your statements. We don't have a word for lumping all pro-palestinian folks into one bucket, but I hope you'll think about the diversity of belief before writing off everyone's perspectives and issues without saying "the are nazis!" There are extremist on both sides and they are making it hard to have a good faith conversation. That said, that doesn't invalidate of the cause of these protests, the protests themselves, or the inordinate pushback/violence the protestors are facing.
I think I get what you're saying, but that's not quite what I'm saying. I'm not saying that if a group of Pro-Palestinian protesters don't kick out visible terrorism sympathizers, that makes every Pro-Palestinian a terrorist sympathizer. I'm saying it makes the group of Pro-Palestinians that are directly involved look as if they are sympathetic to terrorist groups if they fail to eject that person from the group. I believe this concept would hold true if someone was in a Pro-Israel counter-protest holding up a "Nuke Palestine Now" sign. If the individuals involved in the counter-protest did not kick this person out, it would very much appear that they are okay with this statement and perhaps even support it.
The scope is completely different between "this relatively small group of protesters that very much have a say in who they are associating with refuse to eject extremists, so it definitely gives the appearance that they support extremism" and "this one protest group refused to kick out an extremist, so anyone in the world associated with the cause they're supporting must also support extremists."
I never intended to imply as much; I just wanted to explain why some of these protests are viewed as controversial by some, and reframe the reasons for the controversy - it's not that people don't take issue with Israel's actions, it's more that people take issue with some protestors' actions (or lack thereof).
Yeah, sorry I wasn't trying to be inflammatory and I appreciate you engaging so thoughtfully with the example. I think my point is that when there are pro-Israel rallies, you rarely hear the argument "well one of them said some crazy, semi-genocial stuff so the whole protest shouldn't happen"; at least not in the way it feels like it pops up so frequently in these threads. I think that would be taken as an antisemitic stance. Because of that it can feel like an attempt to invalidate the protest based on disagreement rather than substance. I don't disagree with any of your points, I just think how judicious we are about keeping to those standards of requiring groups to self police their participants seems to vary pretty heavily. Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
Herein lies the issue, though: People try to enact change by protesting, and no matter what they do, they get criticized, often from the armchair, by people who claim they're doing it wrong.
And the criticism always requests something less disruptive. Bar none. As though change is made possible by people standing as far out of the way as possible.
In this case, I find it particularly concerning how "violence" has been redefined to include "trespassing," despite the utter lack of force being used against anyone. (Except against the protesters, anyways.)
That's exactly what's happening, and yet the only person I've seen you complain about thus far are the people protesting. Honest question, do you think you're helping the world improve by critiquing the people who're trying to better it?
(Edited for tone, since this topic is getting a bit heated and I want to avoid escalating.)
I'm sometimes reminded of the climate protestors that destroy art to draw attention.
There are far more effective ways to change the world than seizing private property and harming other students. The protestors could be much more effective by commiting fewer unnecessary crimes. Short of full blown revolution, violence doesn't further the cause.
If the protestors want to create enduring social change, then their tactics largely seem to be failing. All the opinion polling I've been able to find is the protests have hardened opinions. They aren't changing hearts and minds by taking over campus buildings or letting antisemitism seep into their chants and signage.
Edit: See Brown University protestors that had conversations with administration officials (in addition to nonviolent encampments) that led to planned votes on real changes: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/04/brown-university-to-vote-on-divestment-at-october-corporation-meeting-encampment-to-be-voluntarily-cleared
What are the far more effective ways that you're suggesting, and do you have any examples of these tactics succeeding in the past?
The second part of your comment implies that their goals include changing hearts and minds, and creating enduring social change. But their goal is divestment. What actions could the same groups of people take that would be more effective at pressuring their school to divest, in your opinion?
If it gives you any hope, there are some people who are not protesters acting to improve things and bring light to it:
https://www.thelantern.com/2024/04/faculty-speak-out-against-universitys-continued-arrests-of-protesters-on-campus-look-toward-university-president-ted-carter-jr-for-response/
It would seem highly innaccurate to me to call the police response proportionate or just. They looked like straight up soldiers. I couldn't believe the footage I have seen is from the US, like it's wild that they are allowed to beat the shit out of unarmed people and pepper spray them and use rubber bullets. They shot at least one person in his face, he needed staples. They are doing everything they can to intimidate and frighten people right now.
A bill was drafted and rushed through the House this week which is intended to make it possible to charge someone protesting Israel's actions with a hate crime. This is an intimidation tactic at best, and at worst will set a precedent that has scary implications for our freedom of speech in the future.
What kind of peaceful protesting would you recommend for this specific situation?
I can't help but notice your comment seems to have been auto-collapsed on this thread, which usually indicates a lump of noise labels being applied.
I've been getting increasingly worried about this, as I don't see how this comment qualifies as noise (especially what with the discussion it's generated), and it wouldn't be the first time in the last few weeks I've seen what appears to be noise labels getting used as downvotes.
Has anyone else seen this, or can any of those who might have applied said labels explain their reasoning?
Yes, I've seen it as well. It's infrequent, and it seems to disappear a lot of the time. I don't know if it's just a bug or if the comment is getting un-noised by Deimos or if the labeler gets cold feet or what but I've seen it as well and only in the last year.
I am not seeing it autocollapsed when there are no new posts fwiw. It may be the setting about collapsing read posts?
It wasn't that, no. It appears to have been fixed, though; I wonder if the labels were removed.
At any rate, I checked it with incognito mode before posting, and only BeanBurrito's post was hidden. But that's not happening anymore.
Got it, was worth checking but it makes sense that you were thorough
FWIW, there's been a few times where I'd accidentally hit a label I didn't mean to and didn't notice until I came back to the thread later. I'm almost always using mobile, so it's a little easier on there.
I appreciate how someone can write a comment against your views, but you still want them to be heard.
I searched my comments and found a couple of times I've called this out previously:
https://tildes.net/~life/1f66/vhemt_the_voluntary_human_extinction_movement#comment-cdal
https://tildes.net/~life.men/1b4t/incel_ideology_has_entered_the_mainstream#comment-auxg
Similar to this, in both cases it was reverted, IIRC fairly quickly, but it was at least temporarily flagged as noise or bugged. I understand how auto-collapse read replies works, this was not that. Anyways, I'll continue to point it out when I see it, hopefully it's something that can be addressed.