Palestine college student protest megathread

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Speaking for my myself, not only would I be proud of my son/daughter for not only being able to get into Columbia, but I'd be even more proud that he/she was standing up for their oppressed brothers and sisters in Ghazzah as any Muslim should.

That would be the sign that I've raised them right by not only having academic excellence, but also a strong deen. Inshallah, his/her efforts, while not being rewarded in this world, and in this society, shall be rewarded where it truly matters. In the akhirah.

Would you be proud of your child if they were chanting "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" in full knowledge of the fact that it's a call for the eradication of Jews from Israel and originated in a terrorist group slogan whose Arabic form is "Palestine will be Arab" instead of "free"?

The right-wing Likud Party used the "from the river" for their slogan. You should condemened the party for using a genocidal of the Palestinian people! The chant had nothing to do with eradicating Jewish people, as detractors have claimed. What protestors mean when they say "from the river to the sea" the old system of Zionism, the occupation of Palestinian land that has gone on far too long for almost 76 years.

No, because Likud has never called for genocide as part of that slogan, while Hamas and Fatah have. As Jabotinsky, the intellectual forefather of the party, said:

"Even after the creation of a Jewish majority in Israel, the large part the Arab population will remain. If bad days will come to this part of the country's inhabitants, then all the country will bear the burden of suffering. The solid state of the Arabs in Israel in the political, economic and cultural aspects, will remain, therefore, the primary condition for healthy condition and the firmness of the entire state of Israel, for all eternity."

"We all, Jews and Zionists of all persuasions, want the best success to Palestine Arabs. We do not want to remove a single Arab from both the Left Bank and the Right Bank of the Jordan. We want them to thrive economically and culturally. We envisage the Hebrew Palestine regime in the following manner: Most of the citizens will be Hebrews, but the rights of Arab citizens not only be assured, but will also be realized."

Well if we're just going to take the leaders at their words then here's Ramadan Shalah, the leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad:

I will never, under any conditions, accept the existence of the state of Israel. I have no problem living with the Jewish people...

We have lived together in peace for centuries. And if Netanyahu were to ask if we can live together in one state, I would say to him: "If we have exactly the same rights as Jews to come to all of Palestine. If Khaled Meshaal and Ramadan Shalah can come whenever they want, and visit Haifa, and buy a home in Herzliyah if they want, then we can have a new language, and dialogue is possible."

Turns out Likud and PIJ are in total agreement, who knew! We were all talking about a two state solution when the hardliners could all come together over a one state solution. But of course, in both cases they don't actually agree because both implicitly would only accept one state if Jews or Muslims had a majority in it. PIJ would take a "One State Israel" that included both Gaza and the West Bank because it would have a Palestinian majority whereas Likud want exactly as much territory as they can get without compromising their demographic majority.

The only real difference historically is that Palestinian leaders would issue dire yet ultimately impotent threats whereas the Zionists would publicly talk about peaceful coexistence as they poisoned Arab wells to ensure that crucial demographic majority. These days even that distinction has blurred as even the most extreme Palestinian armed factions these pretty much all talk about either one state (PFLP, DFLP, PIJ) or two (Fatah, Hamas) whereas the most hardline Israelis are pretty open about their genocidal intent.

There needs to be a way to redefine American patriotism away from the view that "pro-America = pro-hawkish / pro-war in every possible instance". Ironically the America First right has done it first under Trump. Now the left needs its own equivalent. Take care of our own people first and invest domestically over wars abroad. That has always been a left-wing mantra for as long as I can remember.

There's no contradiction between loving America and hating the American Empire the same way Tolkien loved England and hated the British Empire. It's unfortunate that the commies have conflated the two

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Nice to see the brave Jewish students at UCLA take things into their own hands after their school failed them so completely.

https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1785622746774311395


"You stand no chance old lady!" - Brave Jewish student at UCLA

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If after six months of indiscriminately bombing a region with one of the highest population densities in the world and Israel has only killed 34,000 people then either the Israeli military sucks or they're not indiscriminately bombing people.

Well, on October 7th Hamas terrorists killed around 400 "legitimate targets" and 800 civilians and this was generally recognized as a brutal act of terror. In contrast, the most charitable estimate of the IDF's civilian-terrorist casualty ratio using their own numbers is no better than 2-1 and realistically is likely far worse than that.

So either the IDF are also terrorists or October 7th was actually a military operation conducted to the rigorous ethical standards of the "world's most moral army". The only real difference in conduct at this point is the scale of the brutality, and that point doesn't favour the IDF.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If after six months of indiscriminately bombing a region with one of the highest population densities in the world and Israel has only killed 34,000 people then either the Israeli military sucks or they're not indiscriminately bombing people.

Well, on October 7th Hamas terrorists killed around 400 "legitimate targets" and 800 civilians and this was generally recognized as a brutal act of terror. In contrast, the most charitable estimate of the IDF's civilian-terrorist casualty ratio using their own numbers is no better than 2-1 and realistically is likely far worse than that.

So either the IDF are also terrorists or October 7th was actually a military operation conducted to the rigorous ethical standards of the "world's most moral army". The only real difference in conduct at this point is the scale of the brutality, and that point doesn't favour the IDF.

IF (big if) Hamas cared for Palestinians the same way the IDF cares about Israelis this would be an excellent point, but that is clearly not true.  In fact, Hamas actually desires civilian deaths.  It helps them gain sympathy from the useful idiots in the west who carry their water for them.  Pictures of women and children in rubble are far more effective weapons for them than rockets or bombs and they know this.

The Israelis also put together a propaganda film of their dead and distributed it widely to gain sympathy from useful idiots in the West who carry water for them. They regularly give tours of the ruined kibbutzim to foreign bigwigs like Elon Musk and tell lurid tales about the atrocities Hamas committed there. Also, the standard of "caring about Palestinians the same way the IDF cares about Israelis" isn't nearly as high as you think it is considering their policy of assassinating Israelis taken hostage to prevent them from being used as leverage. Nor have they ever had any compunctions about murdering Jews when they get in the way of the state of Israel, just as Hamas has no problem murdering Palestinians who get in their way. The real difference between them and Hamas is that they get billions in military aid to crush their enemies and Hamas doesn't.

Anyway, this whole line of logic is both absurd and irrelevant. You easily argue that Stalin valued the lives of his soldiers and civilians less than Hitler valued the lives of "True Aryan Germans", does that make the Nazis the lesser evil?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If after six months of indiscriminately bombing a region with one of the highest population densities in the world and Israel has only killed 34,000 people then either the Israeli military sucks or they're not indiscriminately bombing people.

Well, on October 7th Hamas terrorists killed around 400 "legitimate targets" and 800 civilians and this was generally recognized as a brutal act of terror. In contrast, the most charitable estimate of the IDF's civilian-terrorist casualty ratio using their own numbers is no better than 2-1 and realistically is likely far worse than that.

So either the IDF are also terrorists or October 7th was actually a military operation conducted to the rigorous ethical standards of the "world's most moral army". The only real difference in conduct at this point is the scale of the brutality, and that point doesn't favour the IDF.

The difference is that Hamas started the conflict and is thus the aggressor. None of this would be happening if Hamas cared more about the wellbeing of Palestinians than killing Jews. The US and British inflicted 30x the number of civilian casualties on the Germany and Japan than what they took, never once in my life heard anyone suggest that was unjustified because the Axis started the war. The person who hits second doesn't have to be proportionate.

Hamas only "started the conflict" in the sense that prior to October 7th there was no "conflict", the Israelis killed Palestinians in a one sided manner and nobody cared. Calling them "the aggressor" and drawing comparisons to WW2 is a bit like calling the Lakota Sioux "the aggressor" because of Little Bighorn and then justifying WW2 levels of devastation against them. If we're going to use WW2 as the standard then Hamas is hardly any worse than the Soviets in East Prussia, certainly nowhere near the level of brutality of the Nazis or Japanese. But WW2 is not the standard, hence why nearly all of the countries that have started wars since WW2 haven't been obliterated the way Germany and Japan were and you have to reach back almost a hundred years to find a comparison that doesn't make the IDF look like murderous war criminals.

Also, I notice that people who use this "the person who gets hit second doesn't have to be proportionate" logic never apply it towards themselves. America hit Vietnam and Iraq first, would they have been justified in indiscriminately slaughtering American civilians with bombs? I thought Osama Bin Laden was a brutal terrorist but it turns out he was simply applying a disproportionate but justified response as the person who hits second.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If after six months of indiscriminately bombing a region with one of the highest population densities in the world and Israel has only killed 34,000 people then either the Israeli military sucks or they're not indiscriminately bombing people.

Well, on October 7th Hamas terrorists killed around 400 "legitimate targets" and 800 civilians and this was generally recognized as a brutal act of terror. In contrast, the most charitable estimate of the IDF's civilian-terrorist casualty ratio using their own numbers is no better than 2-1 and realistically is likely far worse than that.

So either the IDF are also terrorists or October 7th was actually a military operation conducted to the rigorous ethical standards of the "world's most moral army". The only real difference in conduct at this point is the scale of the brutality, and that point doesn't favour the IDF.

The difference is that Hamas started the conflict and is thus the aggressor. None of this would be happening if Hamas cared more about the wellbeing of Palestinians than killing Jews. The US and British inflicted 30x the number of civilian casualties on the Germany and Japan than what they took, never once in my life heard anyone suggest that was unjustified because the Axis started the war. The person who hits second doesn't have to be proportionate.

Hamas only "started the conflict" in the sense that prior to October 7th there was no "conflict",

There was always a conflict, but there was a sustainable status quo in Gaza which could have been even better if Hamas and Israel had more trust and better intentions toward each other. There was no death or killing of civilians on the scale of October 7 for several years before. If you think that October 7 wasn’t a notable step up in violence, then why do you suppose Israel never steamrolled over Gaza like it did since then before?

People only say “nothing started on October 7” because they can’t reckon with the sheer scale of depravity and sadism on that day and reconcile it with their sense of being the side of good resistance. October 7 was a sea change in the conflict that made everything worse for everyone one.

Again, prior to October 7th the violence was entirely one sided and the Israelis had all the benefits of a single state without the cost of having to give the people in Gaza and the West Bank their most fundamental rights. The Israelis killed more Palestinians during the Second Intifada than Hamas killed Israelis on October 7th, there was only an "escalation" if you consider Palestinian life to be worthless and Israeli life to be of infinite value, something that seems to be implicit belief of all Israel defenders. Israel has a right to defend itself by any means necessary but Palestinians don't, apparently.

Also once again, nobody has explained how October 7th was somehow an incomprehensible demonstration of sadism when the Israeli response killed proportionally more civilians than the terrorist attack did. If Hamas killing 2 civilians for every soldier is terrorism than the IDF killing more than 2 civilians for every terrorists is also terrorism. If Hamas killing babies makes them terrorists than the IDF killing 15000 makes them super-terrorists. If anything is justified against Nazis, well, it's pretty clear who the Nazi analogue in this conflict is:

https://twitter.com/3rafa_x_/status/1786111119821562217

So why can't someone say "October 7th was actually fine because it wasn't as brutal as the Soviet invasion of Prussia"? Why can't someone say "turn Tel Aviv into Dresden", or that Israelis should be forcibly removed like the Sudentenland Germans? If anything is justified then why does that standard of logic only go in one direction?