Violence erupted at the University of California, Los Angeles after pro-Israeli counter-demonstrators attacked a pro-Palestinian campus encampment. Bubbling tensions on the campus boiled over following the alleged breach of a “buffer zone” between the rival groups.
Jewish Federation Los Angeles meanwhile blamed the university’s chancellor for allowing “an environment to be created over many months that has made students feel unsafe”.
The group demanded that the encampment be cleared and that UCLA meet leaders of the Jewish community.
Fucking hell, this is such a callous response. In any other situation, the group representing the side that just had masked vigilantes attack peaceful demonstrators would make amends. “These people don’t represent our movement. We disavow them and what they stand for.” And so on.
I see they’re taking a page from Israel’s book: refuse to apologize, defend unprovoked violence, and blame the victims on top of everything else.
No wonder anti-semitism is ramping up. The JFLA not helping themselves with that one.
“We’re allowed to beat you if you question our genocide” is certainly a hell of a tagline
“Law enforcement simply stood at the edge of the lawn and refused to budge as we screamed for their help,” UC Divest at LA, a group involved in the encampment, said in a statement.
Fucking disgusting
ACAB.
Well trained by the IDF, they act exactly the same as when settlers attack Palestinians. They’ll only intervene if you fight back.
I guess since the police have shown they are not willing to protect the people, the people must take the responsibility of their safety and security upon themselves.
But we mustn’t have evil guns!! The police will protect us, I’m certain of it!
Liberals will never, ever prevail against the fascists unless they pull their collective head out of their collective ass. News flash kids: The fascists are perfectly willing to use violence. And they know you are not.
Guns being present would have only resulted in many MANY deaths. That’s what you want?
I want people to use their right to defend themselves instead of licking boots.
If it’s the attackers, then yeah, thats the point. Guns are a deterrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
What a deterrent
Guns are NOT a deterrent. They’re an escalation and most often an unnecessary one.
Nuclear weapons are an escalation, an effective one at that.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, nothing wins an argument better than not understanding it.
So let me make sure I understand your point: the pro-Palestinian protestors should have opened fire and killed the counter-protestors?
What’s wrong with self-defense?
Yeah, what’s wrong with killing people? As long as you have an excuse that’s good enough for you, you should always be able to kill as many people as you can. /s
Some Jews’ opinions about illegal settlements sure have changed in the last few days
How come the only videos we can see are ones from news stations with talking heads?
Shouldn’t there be a bunch of raw camera footage taken with people’s phones?
I don’t need some shitty news station to curate or manufacture information for me.
On brand.
Supporters of Israeli genocide commit violence.
I’m shocked.
Shocked and appalled.
This is so out of character for genocidalists.
All these police attacks on Pro-Palestine rallies are just bringing more attention that would have faded away.
And the unprovoked violent attacks will cause more people to start to question the Israel war and the US support of it. People will start to wonder why supporting normal Palestine people is an idea to attack peaceful rallies and to take away the right to protest.
Police Prevent Crime! I mean Police Protect us from Crime! I mean Police Solve Crimes! I mean
You can have violence from the police, or you can have counter-protest violence. The police have proven time and again they will stand back and do nothing while the people protesting for any liberal idea (sad that the left seems to be the only one interested in things like peace, equality, and justice) get beaten by the right.
I mean you could have protestor violence, but for some reason that’s just outright dismissed as lunacy.
That’s when the police beat you.
If there aren’t regular right wingers beating protesters, the police step in and do it.
That’s when the police beat you.
Police will teargas and beat you regardless. When has exclusively nonviolent protest ever worked?
Give The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Gelderloos a read. To make it ridiculously easy here’s a copy: http://libgen.rs/search.php?req=the+failure+of+nonviolence&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def
Nonviolent protest works when the violence against the nonviolent becomes the impetus for change. That whole Jesus taking the beating to point out the problems in the system has a long history whether you believe in religion on not. Probably why we still talk about non-violent protesters like Gandhi or MLK, too.
That’s not to say that violence doesn’t have its place, like the French Revolution. But that’s the shortcut. You forcefully break the system and rebuild it right now, rather than the long game of changing the system from within.
Checking out the author, he seems much more French Revolution type (even though being an anarchist really puts him at odds with any resulting government), looks like he’s spent a bit of time in jail for some protests, none of them violent.
While both only directly participated in non-violent protest themselves, Gandhi and MLK both participated in overarching struggles that were most definitely supported by a diversity of tactics, including violent protest.
In my opinion the reason we still talk about these individuals today, without any focus given to the violent action also employed in support of their same cause, is because there is no material difference between complacency and exclusively non-violent protest in the ability of either to manifest actual change.
Pacifism did not work for Ghandi or MLK. They were both murdered by conservatives and the problems they championed persisted long after their deaths.
Conservatives see pacifism as a weakness to exploit and an invitation to attack. In fact, never in history has pacifism defeated conservatism. Action is always needed to cure an infection of conservatism.
The Palestinian homeland isn’t even a liberal idea though.
True, but being anti genocide, anti colonialism, and anti war often are. Just so happens that these ideas and Palestinian statehood are simpatico at the moment.
Does anyone know what political stance(s) the attacking crowd is made of?
Like, also lefties? Tankies, anarchists? Or like MAGAs?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How is it that on this one topic, all rational discourse is completely absent? I mean there’s some topics where one side is completely irrational, sure. But when it comes to Israel-Palestine, everyone on all sides is just completely and often violently nonsensical.
Found the Enlightened Centrist!
See that in itself is a perfect example because it’s both a hasty generalization, and an ad hominem.
🙄
I am utterly unconcerned by criticism from someone who wants to “both sides” a genocide.
You wont hear mainstream media question why the police retracted a short moment before pro-Israeli thugs stormed in the encampment and attack the peaceful protesters, they came back in to only arrest the pro-palestine protesters. the establishment has payed to end the protests and establishment media are only parading the side of the story the have been paid for to.
So now I am left with no sources and no idea if it is a real thing or not. One thing
twitterx has for it is the readers context.However idk if the same would work in relatively one sided isolated env
“Counter-protesters”?
This is an example of a news organization trying so hard to be neutral that they end up taking a side.
That’s the term. They were counter-protesting the pro-Palestinian protesters. Sorry, what’s the problem?
Charging sleeping people with baseball bats isn’t normally considered a form of protest. Masked attackers would be a more neutral description.
If you had read past “counter-protesters”, it goes on to say, “…attack pro-Palestinian camp”
Yep, that was one of the sentences that showed how silly it is to describe attackers as protesters but there are plenty more.
They were there counter-protesting and then attacked the pro-palenstine protesters. Why do you object to an accurate description of the events?
It seems like you’re having a difficult time understanding this, maybe I can help. If another group of people showed up, and they had signs, and maybe bullhorns, and they started protesting the opposite of what the original people were protesting, they would be counter-protesting. Some heckling could even be involved.
When they show up wearing masks and wielding baseball bats, they are not counter-protestors. They are violent criminals. They did not show up to protest. They showed up to insight violence.
Protestors: Less filling!
Counter Protestors: Taste great!
not
Protestors: Stop funding genocide, my college!
Counter Protestors: We’re going to beat you with bats while you sleep!
you disingenuous, festering carbuncle.
you disingenuous, festering carbuncle.
Name-calling when you can’t come up with an argument. Typical
Fuck Granite! Fuck Cement! Fuck Wood! Fuck All Counters!
All Counters Are Bad!
deleted by creator
What am I doing right now?
deleted by creator
It’s okay. This counter isn’t for food.
