2023-24 Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran-Houthi Conflict

[Ifreann]

King was widely blamed for inciting riots during the civil rights movement.

Sure and that was often by white supremacists politicians, often in the south. It sure was a good thing that a primary supporter of the civil rights many victories consisted of the supreme Court ruling in favor of King.

So you've just switched from saying that King won over public opinion through non-violent protest to saying that King's victories were in the courts, where public opinion is immaterial.

[Repreteop]

Netanyahu: Israel will invade Rafah — regardless of hostage deal (Politico)
Israel would enter the Palestinian city “with or without a deal.”

So that's a no from Israel to any ceasefire deal.

No. That's a warning.

[Sarduri]

Sarduri

1. I am clearly focusing on the protests where assaults were happening and no, screaming is not assault. Using physical force to detain or otherwise stop students from attending class or guest speakers IS assault. Stopping people from going to classes by physically impeding access may not qualify as assault but is clearly a civil rights violation. Why do you keep dodging this?

blocking doors, pathways etc is not assault. nor is it a civil rights violation. when people are arrested for blocking pathways etc they are arrested for trespassing.

as for 'dodging', I am pointing out what the law says. you've been calling for them to be broken up because of things like the chants they use. the chants they use are not prohibited speech in and of themselves.

2. In many of the protests, things were not similar to the civil rights folks. You had clear instances of pro Palestinian folks clearly assaulting other students. There were clear examples of civil rights violations where protesters were denying students access to classes or lectures via physically impeding access. While I clarified my stance on non violent situations, the situations clearly involving violence warranted police actions.

there were arrests in the wake of the March on Washington too, for example. we don't remember them now though. some selections from the coverage of the march before it happened:

Then, there were writers like columnist David Lawrence, who called the march a "day of public disgrace" in a piece syndicated to newspapers around the country.

"For the image of the United States presented to the world is that of a republic which had professed to believe in volunteerism rather than coercion, but which on August 28, 1963, permitted itself to be portrayed as unable to legislate 'equal rights' for its citizens except under the intimidating influence of mass demonstrations," he wrote.

...

Watching NBC's interview with King and NAACP chair Roy Wilkins from just before the march is instructive. King was hated by many, and he was, lest we forget, an unrepentantly militant activist who had been to jail not long before the march due to that activism.

Here's the first question, from journalist Lawrence Spivak: "There are a great many people who believe it will be impossible to bring 100,000 militant Negroes into Washington without incident and possibly riots."

[Urine Town]

Netanyahu: Israel will invade Rafah — regardless of hostage deal (Politico)
Israel would enter the Palestinian city “with or without a deal.”

So that's a no from Israel to any ceasefire deal.

Nope. The only way to get Israel to stop their ethnic cleansing in Gaza is if America would cut off military aid to the nation

[Zurkerx]

Netanyahu: Israel will invade Rafah — regardless of hostage deal (Politico)
Israel would enter the Palestinian city “with or without a deal.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Tuesday that Israel will invade Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, even if Hamas agrees to the latest Israeli proposal for a cease-fire.

“The idea that we will halt the war before achieving all of its goals is out of the question,” Netanyahu said, at a meeting with representatives of families of people taken hostage by the Palestinian militant group.

“We will enter Rafah and we will eliminate the Hamas battalions there — with or without a deal, in order to achieve the total victory,” he added.

The families urged Netanyahu to “withstand the international pressure” to halt the war in Gaza, the statement published by the Prime Minister’s Office said. U.S. President Joe Biden has said an invasion of Rafah would be a “red line,” though Netanyahu vowed to defy that.

Israel has carried out regular airstrikes on the city since the start of the war and has threatened to send in troops, calling Rafah the last Hamas stronghold. Overnight Monday, Israeli airstrikes killed at least 22 people, including [eleven men], six women, and five children, Palestinian health officials said.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Monday during an election debate co-hosted by POLITICO that it would be “completely unacceptable” for Israel to attack the Palestinian city but declined to call it a “red line” that would result in EU sanctions against Israel.

It's a serious threat by Bibi, and it will go one of two ways: he either will hold true to his word or he's saying it to get more out of Hamas. I suspect it's a combination of both, especially with Bibi asking Biden on Sunday to help prevent the International Criminal Court from issuing arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials in connection with the war in Gaza. So, I suspect the US will try hard to dissuade the ICC from issuing arrest warrants right now although how successful that is remains to be.

But Bibi also knows once the war ends that his political career will be over: he's destined to lose in September and faces charges on corruption and all. He will try to milk this as long as he can.

[Glorious Freedonia]

So that's a no from Israel to any ceasefire deal.

Nope. The only way to get Israel to stop their ethnic cleansing in Gaza is if America would cut off military aid to the nation

Terrorists are not a race of people. Killing terrorists is not genocide. Terrorists tortured and killed people and took hostages. As far as I know, these criminals are still at large. There are still hostages who have not been released. Rescuing hostages, killing terrorists, and arresting criminals is not genocide or ethnic cleansing or anything remotely wrong. Terrorists and criminals can be of any race. Going after them is the pursuit of justice and is heroic.

[Repreteop]

There is not much persecution towards Jews in Israel, seems like most persecution has happened when Jews were denied a homeland. Israel is a home for Jews, where it should be safe. Unfortunately thats not easy at this moment.

unless you're ethiopian.

you... are right.

much better than before i guess though.

[Post War America]

Bullshit. You know damn well you would be fully in support of a demonstration calling for the violent destruction of Iran or of Russia with the requisite killing of large numbers of at least mostly innocent citizens of those respective countries. Do not pretend this is any higher principle than Western chauvinism that you're upholding.

No, I wouldn't at all, because a lot of the Russian people and most of the Iranian people are our allies.

Bullshit, you are fully aware of the human costs of overthrowing a state when its Israelis that are the ones that will die. You should know damn well that it will be the same with any other state that is overthrown. Don't even try to play.

When Russia uses tear gas it gets reported as a Chemical Weapon attack, and a war crime, even when used against WMD defense equipped and trained soldiers. When American police use those same weapons against unarmed students its "not militarized". You're pedantry is to put it into your own words, irrelevant tripe.

How hard is it to understand? Tear gas is a crowd control weapon when used by Police, and this is the case no matter which police force uses it. It becomes militarized when it's used in a military situation. Of course, many people such as yourself, during 2020 were decrying the use of tear gas and the like as "A WAR CRIME!!!" even though it wasn't, because it wasn't used as a weapon of war.[/quote]

Pure pedantry. Useless tripe as you would say.

Police wouldn't be brutalizing Pro-Israel protestors carrying signs about leveling Gaza, or other types of white Fascist protest. Usually the protect the Fascists actually. That's quite relevant when you go on and on about "protecting Western democracy from Fascists and Islamists".

If the protestors were occupying an area and had been asked to leave by that areas owner, they would.[/quote]

History shows that Fascists get asked politely to leave and are given far more leeway before any force is applied.

False accusations that are plausibly supported by the relevant organization with the strictest legal definition of genocide in common use.

Implausibly supported by a joke organization who work with an outfit that assists Hamas. Yeah, ok.

[/quote]

Jesus fucking Christ mate, this "joke" organization is probably the highest authority we've got, and it remains one of the highest standards for declaring something genocidal around. You're relying on my source is I made it the fuck up energy on this point.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Sarduri

1. I am against the chant because it is often followed by some kind of assault. Do I really have to say I don't have issue as long as people can control themselves? I said it before and I will say it again
The reason that particular phrase is so incendiary is because it often comes before or after an assault has happened. Sure the chant itself is speech only but the effect it has on people is undeniable. Why is it so many pro Palestinian protests often ends up having some asshat screaming some anti semitic, pro Hamas bullshit? Why is it that so many of these so called peaceful activists never take care of those same assholes themselves? Again, since maybe you missed what I have posted, if a protest is non violent than I have no issue with it. I also do not have issue with any phrases as long as it doesn't lead to violating other people's right to listen to guest speakers and folks who just want to go to class.

In an earlier post, I spoke of leaving the decision to remove protesters guilty only of trespassing, up to the property owners as it now becomes an issue of property rights.

2. Again I am speaking narrowly here about violence. AFAIK, I don't think MLK preached violence and I would love to see a link otherwise. I think calling him a militant is a bit degrading and a disservice to the man. I know the most aggressive thing the civil rights folks did was boycotts and sit ins. And while that sure did piss off racists, it never physically harmed any of them besides their feelings.

[Big Eyed Animation]

Sure and that was often by white supremacists politicians, often in the south. It sure was a good thing that a primary supporter of the civil rights many victories consisted of the supreme Court ruling in favor of King.

So you've just switched from saying that King won over public opinion through non-violent protest to saying that King's victories were in the courts, where public opinion is immaterial.

As I mentioned in my reply to Sarduri, I have the utmost respect for the right to non violent protest but I also respect a person's right to their property.

King won on both levels. His non violent protesting literally left zero room for his opponents to justify retaliation. As mentioned earlier, besides flat out racism, the white supremacists had zero excuse for cracking down on the protestors the way they did. Boycotts? Sit ins? Nothing they did ever really harmed another person physically nor restricted another person's right to engage in daily activities. The most I would say he did was block traffic l, which besides the exception for emergency vehicles, I take no issue. At the same time however, anyone blocking traffic still violated someone else's rights to go from place to place. They shouldn't be surprised if they get arrested either as there is still rule of law. At most these guys block traffic again and get arrested again.

[Urine Town]

Live Updates: Police in Riot Gear Move In to Break up Protest at Columbia University

Looks intense. I don’t know the extent to which these protests have broken the law to judge for myself (haven’t looked too far into the article

[HISPIDA]

reported raids on hamilton hall.

[Ifreann]

So you've just switched from saying that King won over public opinion through non-violent protest to saying that King's victories were in the courts, where public opinion is immaterial.

As I mentioned in my reply to Sarduri, I have the utmost respect for the right to non violent protest but I also respect a person's right to their property.

King won on both levels. His non violent protesting literally left zero room for his opponents to justify retaliation. As mentioned earlier, besides flat out racism, the white supremacists had zero excuse for cracking down on the protestors the way they did. Boycotts? Sit ins? Nothing they did ever really harmed another person physically nor restricted another person's right to engage in daily activities. The most I would say he did was block traffic l, which besides the exception for emergency vehicles, I take no issue. At the same time however, anyone blocking traffic still violated someone else's rights to go from place to place. They shouldn't be surprised if they get arrested either as there is still rule of law. At most these guys block traffic again and get arrested again.

My man, you are justifying retaliation against protesters by nonsense appeals to imaginary acts of violence, do you think that people weren't doing that during the civil rights movement?

[Sarduri]

Live Updates: Police in Riot Gear Move In to Break up Protest at Columbia University

Looks intense. I don’t know the extent to which these protests have broken the law to judge for myself (haven’t looked too far into the article

the justification cited by things like the White House’s statement on the matter highlights the protests’ antisemitism, not violence. And the antisemitism is always not elaborated on.

[HISPIDA]

Live Updates: Police in Riot Gear Move In to Break up Protest at Columbia University

Looks intense. I don’t know the extent to which these protests have broken the law to judge for myself (haven’t looked too far into the article

the justification cited by things like the White House’s statement on the matter highlights the protests’ antisemitism, not violence. And the antisemitism is always not elaborated on.

the protests aren't anti-semitic, they're anti-israel.

in either case: UNCONFIRMED use of tear gas in hamilton hall. this information may not be accurate.

[Bear Stearns]

King was widely blamed for inciting riots during the civil rights movement.

Sure and that was often by white supremacists politicians, often in the south. It sure was a good thing that a primary supporter of the civil rights many victories consisted of the supreme Court ruling in favor of King.

the deadliest civil rights movement riots were in Newark, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Detroit - king directly caused all of them

[HISPIDA]

NYPD is pulling students sitting on the ground into buses. hearing shouting. one officer reported knocked down.

[HISPIDA]

NYPD will occupy columbia university until may 17 according to university president.

[Etwepe]

Don't care what you say, I will still support Israel.

[Vrbo]

Live Updates: Police in Riot Gear Move In to Break up Protest at Columbia University

Looks intense. I don’t know the extent to which these protests have broken the law to judge for myself (haven’t looked too far into the article

the justification cited by things like the White House’s statement on the matter highlights the protests’ antisemitism, not violence. And the antisemitism is always not elaborated on.

Antisemitism has been reported, it would be pretty silly to claim that anti-Israeli protests would not include some people joining the protests in bad faith. Happens all the time with protests when more extreme and undesired parties join.

[Elwher]

Part of Civil disobedience is the willingness, in fact the desire, to be arrested so that one can make one's point in court. All too many of today's practitioners of the art seem to have forgotten about that part

a contentious opinion, and one that is not shared universally by practitioners of civil disobedience. See: draft dodging during the Vietnam War by conscientious objectors.

You mean ones like Mohamid Ali, who took his case all the way up the legal ladder?

[HISPIDA]

entrances to the lawn on campus have been opened.

[Bear Stearns]

the justification cited by things like the White House’s statement on the matter highlights the protests’ antisemitism, not violence. And the antisemitism is always not elaborated on.

Antisemitism has been reported, it would be pretty silly to claim that anti-Israeli protests would not include some people joining the protests in bad faith. Happens all the time with protests when more extreme and undesired parties join.

i dont think "antisemites" join these movements out of "bad faith". this is fundamentally an ethnic conflict and the various nationalists of all factions are pretty sincere about their beliefs.

[Vrbo]

Antisemitism has been reported, it would be pretty silly to claim that anti-Israeli protests would not include some people joining the protests in bad faith. Happens all the time with protests when more extreme and undesired parties join.

i dont think "antisemites" join these movements out of "bad faith". this is fundamentally an ethnic conflict and the various nationalists of all factions are pretty sincere about their beliefs.

When I say in bad faith, I mean anti-semites deliberately joining a protest that has attempted to portray themselves as specifically anti-Israeli and not anti-semetic. Unsure what's up with the quotes, as if these things do not exist or only exist in the abstract.

[Bear Stearns]

i dont think "antisemites" join these movements out of "bad faith". this is fundamentally an ethnic conflict and the various nationalists of all factions are pretty sincere about their beliefs.

When I say in bad faith, I mean anti-semites deliberately joining a protest that has attempted to portray themselves as specifically anti-Israeli and not anti-semetic. Unsure what's up with the quotes, as if these things do not exist or only exist in the abstract.

Antisemites aren't deliberately joining as part of some obfuscation or subterfuge. They are earnest in their beliefs. You can't separate them because this is an ethnic conflict. Israel is a nationalist state, and the Palestine cause is a nationalist cause. That means to win you must defeat your enemy, including their demographic mass.

The "bad faith" is in quotes because there is nothing bad faith about a Palestinian nationalist hating jews. It comes with the territory because if they aren't antisemitic, they will die. The "antisemites" are in quotes because antisemitism here is really just palestinian arab nationalism. it'd be like saying that zionism is actually anti-arabism.