The Snug

Welcome to The Snug - a friendly place for discussions created by the community for the community. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Protests of Israeli actions in Gaza

Yeah, tell me again about how the heavy-handed reaction to these protests is just about the tactics and the inconvenience the students are causing, and not about the message being one that the state doesn't approve of. 😒
Absolutely!

Also, if you’re wondering what an “outside agitator” (as labeled by Eric Adams) looks like, here you go:


The wife of an innocent man, falsely accused and jailed for years by the torture-happy ghouls of the Bush administration… is now smeared by Eric Adams as being a terrorist. And all as an excuse to have police attack peaceful protesters.

Can somebody please explain to me why NYC always elects the crappiest mayors possible? 🤦‍♂️
 
2019, students in Hong Kong were protesting and being attacked by police. What did right-wingers think about it?


View attachment 1290

5 years later, the same cast of characters:







The GOP lives in the eternal present of this week's scripted talking points.

Only difference between them and their mascot Trump is that the Rs do have a script and will read from it, while the orange thing prefers to wing it. But none of them will engage in a discussion on the merits of the talking points or inconsistency regarding prior viewpoints. If confronted about that, they fall back on "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations."

However, in the case of the university protests against Israel's conduct in Gaza, it's impossible for the Rs to co-opt the demonstrations without running afoul of facts on the ground in Gaza.

The GOP talking points, however loudly retweeted or quoted on Fox, cannot resurrect a single dead Palestinian woman, child, aid worker or journalist slain in Gaza "by mistake" of Israeli military --or regarded as so much "collateral damage" the same as a pile of bombed-out housing and shops-- or currently dying of starvation and about to be treated to more of the same in the pending Israeli attack on Rafah.

How is any of that stuff morally defensible? What to do, what to do?

Well, the Rs don't really know from day to day. It depends on what Trump thinks, or more ominously, it depends on the goals of whoever last managed to whisper in Trump's ear what's a good thing to think today. That's the problem with a cultish, post-policy outlook on governing.

The Republicans platform since 2020 has been no more than an open declaration in that summer's national convention that their party is a cult attached to a monumental pile of myths and ugly truths called The Donald. Yeah, the guy who's been heading (slowly,,,, so slowly) to the dock on dozens of criminal charges in four separat trials. He's their guy! That's their platform!

The current effect of the Rs' self-inflicted paralysis of political capability is to point out to the world at large that Republicans don't give a flying fig about human rights... not those of Palestinians in Gaza under international rules of war, and not those of Americans engaging in political dissent protected by the US Constitution here at home. They take their cue from Trump, although right now he's busy paying fines for violations of gag orders at a criminal trial, and in his spare time interviewing VP hopefuls. But Trump's a law'n'order guy. He's against violence except when he's for it. He's sometimes for it when people disagree with him or he's losing an argument or an election. Hence, Republican policy.

Journalists need to call Republican officeholders out on this stuff. MAGA fans won't care but voters on the fence about Trump (those who favor tax cuts and deregulation and may be willing to overlook the dangers of Trump, like Jamie Dimon) need to be reminded every single day that the Republican Party is bankrupt of the "family values" they've abandoned in favor of authoritarian rule. Let those potential Trump voters ask themselves what if they wake up some morning on the wrong side of Republican talking points du jour.

In the meantime, just to inform the daft Republicans tweeting about sending in federal troops to shut down demonstrations: American Jews have the same constitutionally protected right as any other American to protest against Israeli conduct in Gaza on an American university campus if they're so inclined. No one has to take talking points from any political party or lobby in order to exercise protected free speech.
 
The GOP lives in the eternal present of this week's scripted talking points.

Only difference between them and their mascot Trump is that the Rs do have a script and will read from it, while the orange thing prefers to wing it. But none of them will engage in a discussion on the merits of the talking points or inconsistency regarding prior viewpoints. If confronted about that, they fall back on "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations."

However, in the case of the university protests against Israel's conduct in Gaza, it's impossible for the Rs to co-opt the demonstrations without running afoul of facts on the ground in Gaza.

The GOP talking points, however loudly retweeted or quoted on Fox, cannot resurrect a single dead Palestinian woman, child, aid worker or journalist slain in Gaza "by mistake" of Israeli military --or regarded as so much "collateral damage" the same as a pile of bombed-out housing and shops-- or currently dying of starvation and about to be treated to more of the same in the pending Israeli attack on Rafah.

How is any of that stuff morally defensible? What to do, what to do?

Well, the Rs don't really know from day to day. It depends on what Trump thinks, or more ominously, it depends on the goals of whoever last managed to whisper in Trump's ear what's a good thing to think today. That's the problem with a cultish, post-policy outlook on governing.

The Republicans platform since 2020 has been no more than an open declaration in that summer's national convention that their party is a cult attached to a monumental pile of myths and ugly truths called The Donald. Yeah, the guy who's been heading (slowly,,,, so slowly) to the dock on dozens of criminal charges in four separat trials. He's their guy! That's their platform!

The current effect of the Rs' self-inflicted paralysis of political capability is to point out to the world at large that Republicans don't give a flying fig about human rights... not those of Palestinians in Gaza under international rules of war, and not those of Americans engaging in political dissent protected by the US Constitution here at home. They take their cue from Trump, although right now he's busy paying fines for violations of gag orders at a criminal trial, and in his spare time interviewing VP hopefuls. But Trump's a law'n'order guy. He's against violence except when he's for it. He's sometimes for it when people disagree with him or he's losing an argument or an election. Hence, Republican policy.

Journalists need to call Republican officeholders out on this stuff. MAGA fans won't care but voters on the fence about Trump (those who favor tax cuts and deregulation and may be willing to overlook the dangers of Trump, like Jamie Dimon) need to be reminded every single day that the Republican Party is bankrupt of the "family values" they've abandoned in favor of authoritarian rule. Let those potential Trump voters ask themselves what if they wake up some morning on the wrong side of Republican talking points du jour.

In the meantime, just to inform the daft Republicans tweeting about sending in federal troops to shut down demonstrations: American Jews have the same constitutionally protected right as any other American to protest against Israeli conduct in Gaza on an American university campus if they're so inclined. No one has to take talking points from any political party or lobby in order to exercise protected free speech.
There is no logic or reason to it. It’s just a steady stream of “Be outraged about THIS!” And 5 minutes later, it’s something else. A recent great example:

1. The protests are antisemitic!

2. George Soros is funding the protests!


Hmm... so, a Jewish man who survived Nazi occupation of Hungary as a child... is funding an antisemitic movement?

It doesn’t make any sense, but they just don’t care. They hate Muslims and they hate Jews. These two items make it possible for them to hate them both at the same time, while calling everybody else antisemitic.
 
It’s just a steady stream of “Be outraged about THIS!”

Wonder what the Republicans think now about some faculty members joining protests. More outrage, coming up!

Baby Boomer Professors Join Student Protests, Risking Arrest and Violence (WSJ shared link)

Faculty, many of whom are in their 60s and 70s and came of age during the era of Vietnam War protests, are pushing back against university presidents, accusing the leaders of heavy-handed and inconsistent crackdowns on free speech, and warning against a wave of authoritarianism some say has been creeping onto campuses for years. Professors in leadership positions are guiding calls for votes of no-confidence, spearheading classroom walkouts and visiting encampments alongside students. Many are facing punishment from police and their employers.
 
I was quite disappointed by David French, a NY Times columnist, ranting about how college students are protesting wrong. The PBS interviewer, Lisa Desjardins, did a pretty good job of pressing him on his anti-student screed. My favorite question was “do students really have a right to the most convenient path to the library?” But he didn’t back down. Sadly, I liked a few of his columns in the past, but I think he’s gone off the deep end on this one. Under his interpretation of protest rights, every single civil rights protester ever ALSO did it wrong and broke the law.

 
I was quite disappointed by David French, a NY Times columnist, ranting about how college students are protesting wrong. The PBS interviewer, Lisa Desjardins, did a pretty good job of pressing him on his anti-student screed. My favorite question was “do students really have a right to the most convenient path to the library?” But he didn’t back down. Sadly, I liked a few of his columns in the past, but I think he’s gone off the deep end on this one. Under his interpretation of protest rights, every single civil rights protester ever ALSO did it wrong and broke the law.


David French is a coddled intellectual, whom I find generally well-intentioned, but milk-n-toast to flat out cowardly in many of his stances without a pragmatic sense of proportionality. I lost him at him complaining about protesters covering their faces, as a form of "not accepting the consequences of their actions". I have a much more radical and simplistic take on this, if you consider the massacre of thousands of civilians, especially women and children, acceptable especially when waving it as part of a "final solution" ("annihilation of such and such group"), then your value system is hot garbage and deserves protesting against. This absolutely includes protests against Hamas, however, last time I checked they aren't the ones who get our military support with weapons that take the lives of said civilians. If Hamas were armed by US, the protests would be against Hamas.
 
I lost him at him complaining about protesters covering their faces, as a form of "not accepting the consequences of their actions".
Yep, that was where I realized this appeared to be a game to him. He was treating it like a debate competition, where he had to stick to his chosen side of the debate, no matter how ridiculous.

One other thing: he and many others seem to have a problem remembering their history. They seem to think the protests that happened 50+ years ago are somehow different, that those protests didn’t disrupt school, or daily life, or that people didn’t cause obstructions.
 
Yep, that was where I realized this appeared to be a game to him. He was treating it like a debate competition, where he had to stick to his chosen side of the debate, no matter how ridiculous.

One other thing: he and many others seem to have a problem remembering their history. They seem to think the protests that happened 50+ years ago are somehow different, that those protests didn’t disrupt school, or daily life, or that people didn’t cause obstructions.

Consistency matters.
 
Trump threatens to deport Americans for protesting the war in Gaza.


Trump knows his base: bigots. They love stuff like this; they have been fervently devoted to him ever since his anti-Mexican rant prior to the 2016 election.

Almost all of these xenophobes vote. They aren’t a majority, but they could be a majority of voters if enough good people skip this election.
 
Minouche Shafik is out:


I hope universities will learn from her mistakes.
I wonder: did she step down because she called the police, who were unnecessarily violent towards the protest? Or because the wealthy donors (who happen to be aligned with right-wing politicians) thought she didn't crack down hard enough?
 
I wonder: did she step down because she called the police, who were unnecessarily violent towards the protest? Or because the wealthy donors (who happen to be aligned with right-wing politicians) thought she didn't crack down hard enough?
She was a token figurehead that did the job for the elites at Columbia. She'll be taken care of behind the scenes.
 
She was a token figurehead that did the job for the elites at Columbia. She'll be taken care of behind the scenes.
I absolutely despised her handling of this and am happy about her stepping down.

Edit: need to tone up my comment because too soft.
You do not release cops, let alone the NY fucking PD on student protesters. She was incredibly naive and sacrificed her legacy at Columbia for nothing. Johnson went there to fan the flames and stoke national riots so they can ride the narrative of radical left wing elite university anarchist violence. She did what Johnson asked for, just to be demanded to step down immediately. I hold her responsible for making the protest situation a lot more violent and unsafe than it should have been etc.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely despised her handling of this and am happy about her stepping down.

Edit: need to tone up my comment because too soft.
You do not release cops, let alone the NY fucking PD on student protesters. She was incredibly naive and sacrificed her legacy at Columbia for nothing. Johnson went there to fan the flames and stoke national riots so they can ride the narrative of radical left wing elite university anarchist violence. She did what Johnson asked for, just to be demanded to step down immediately. I hold her responsible for making the protest situation a lot more violent and unsafe than it should have been etc.
Yet another example of why it’s always pointless to appease the modern GOP. I am heartened that (so far) the Harris campaign hasn’t felt the need to be conciliatory towards the right.
 
Minouche Shafik is out:


I hope universities will learn from her mistakes.

Of course I'd like to think that US politicians seeking to make hay off difficult free speech issues will learn something too, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
yup. And this is why I think Dr Gay from Harvard was actually worthy to be the university president.
Agreed. In her case, it was the university board that capitulated to ”tough guys” like Senator Hawley.



Her interim replacement, picked by the board, is a guy who gets millions from being on big pharma corporate boards and who took away the diplomas of students for protesting. Then the board of governors upheld the decision despite the faculty voting for them to keep their diplomas. So maybe I was wrong about them “capitulating.” Seems more like right-wingers run the Harvard board.

Latest news on that front? Due to advocacy from donors, especially Len Blavatnik, a billionaire Russian oil oligarch who donates to Harvard, Garber will be the official president, at least through 2027. Blavatnik previously withheld support because of the protests.
 
Agreed. In her case, it was the university board that capitulated to ”tough guys” like Senator Hawley.



Her interim replacement, picked by the board, is a guy who gets millions from being on big pharma corporate boards and who took away the diplomas of students for protesting. Then the board of governors upheld the decision despite the faculty voting for them to keep their diplomas. So maybe I was wrong about them “capitulating.” Seems more like right-wingers run the Harvard board.

Latest news on that front? Due to advocacy from donors, especially Len Blavatnik, a billionaire Russian oil oligarch who donates to Harvard, Garber will be the official president, at least through 2027. Blavatnik previously withheld support because of the protests.



It will never be sorted out very well, because of the ease of conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli policy in Gaza and elsewhere re "the Palestinian question" -- and because of growing viewpoint differences within various left and right oriented factions of organized Washington DC lobbying support for Israel itself.

(and so, incidentally or not so incidentally, the much maligned Ilhan Omar was not wrong for her 2019 remark that "it's all about the Benjamins"... it's just that her remark fed into an old trope about Jews and money. If she had simply said "it's all about special interests money in DC" that would have drawn less attention and been on point then and now as well.)

But it's not just in DC that "the Benjamins" show up --in education as well as any other sector of American interests-- but also directly at universities and other recipients of philanthropy or political donation. There's as much controversy over donations from secular Americans, not to mention Chinese and Saudi individual and sovereign wealth funds to schools, hospitals, museums etc. as there is about money from wealthy Jews whether of the right or left in political viewpoints. All seek influence in exchange for support.

All deserve public scrutiny. And, sigh... all may end up just another example of being "all the free speech money can buy," thanks to that blasted 2010 Citizens United decision by the high court. My 2.5 Benjamins to my college's alumni-funded tuition scholarships, versus God knows who else dumps millions to fund some chair of economics or poli sci or special field of world history.

Heh, me vs Elon Musk? I would not begrudge his right to donate to any university. However, I'd like the university to say they feel unencumbered in their academic offerings and support of free speech despite both small and large "donations." The thing is, with the befuddled behavior of university administrators and trustees this past summer, it's not clear that free speech IS actually well supported.
 
(and so, incidentally or not so incidentally, the much maligned Ilhan Omar was not wrong for her 2019 remark that "it's all about the Benjamins"... it's just that her remark fed into an old trope about Jews and money. If she had simply said "it's all about special interests money in DC" that would have drawn less attention and been on point then and now as well.)

In her case, was the criticism about message, or the messenger? “All about the Benjamins” (most well known from the famous song in the 90s) was never associated with anything other than 100-dollar bills until Omar said it about AIPAC. Suddenly, the phrase was considered to be anti-Semitic! Is Lil’ Kim a Nazi too?

She was (IMO rightly) criticizing the absurdly outsized influence of Zionists in American politics. She used a phrase common in her community, and a bunch of non-Jewish white people (who didn’t mind the Charlottesville rally) decided to claim there was anti-semitism there.… because of the coincidental fact that many Jewish people are named Benjamin?
 
In her case, was the criticism about message, or the messenger? “All about the Benjamins” (most well known from the famous song in the 90s) was never associated with anything other than 100-dollar bills until Omar said it about AIPAC. Suddenly, the phrase was considered to be anti-Semitic! Is Lil’ Kim a Nazi too?

She was (IMO rightly) criticizing the absurdly outsized influence of Zionists in American politics. She used a phrase common in her community, and a bunch of non-Jewish white people (who didn’t mind the Charlottesville rally) decided to claim there was anti-semitism there.… because of the coincidental fact that many Jewish people are named Benjamin?


The messenger, definitely. And the times, they are a changin'. For instance, AIPAC knew better than to bother throwing money into a primary against Omar in 2024 (unlike what they did against another member of "the squad," Cory Bush in Missouri, for instance).
 
Back
Back
Top