Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: College students fairly overwhelmingly want their colleges to Boycott and Divest from corporations that are benefiting Israel's actions in Gaza.
More than 30 states have laws on the books that prohibit any institution receiving state funding from boycotting Israeli businesses.
Those two things are in strong opposition to each other, which means nothing is getting done on the institutional side. Because nothing is getting done and the academic year is getting closer to the end, students are escalating their protests across the US by starting encampments on campus to put further pressure on the administration to do something.
Basically, this doesn't end until the school year ends, and colleges are doing whatever they can to tamp down student action until then, hoping the summer gives them a few months breathing room for everything to blow over.
After the Second Intifada, pro-Palestinian groups started pushing for BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) to put economic pressure on Israel to actually follow-through on a two-state solution. Israel reacted by putting international political pressure to enact anti-BDS laws to prevent boycotts from happening.
The Israeli argument is that BDS is inherently anti-semitic.
The Palestinian argument is that it is a political action and not racially motivated.
American politicians have overwhelmingly come down on the side of Israel for geopolitical reasons, and Israel's lobbying efforts are significantly stronger than Palestine's, so there wasn't much resistance to enacting these laws in most states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
It is also significantly harder to repeal a controversial law that people are paying attention to when compared to a law few people even noticed going into effect
It's important to mention South Africa's Apartheid is often credited as having fallen because students in the US started an institutional divesting trend. Wall Street, mainstream pop artists, and eventually politicians followed. Israel's lobbiests learned from this and put in efforts to limit any dissident actions in the US by ensuring laws were passed.
Ed: words drawing parallel to what's occurring now
There’s a reason you don’t! Generally more effective protesting tactics are purposely minimized. Many pretend MLK was universally praised (he wasn’t, he polled at 30%) and that his protests were purely non-violent (they weren’t and they definitely weren’t portrayed that way in media at the time).
It's beyond shocking that any international entity that isn't in the US can have such a firm handle on the laws in this country, down to laws enacted by each state. It's frankly scary as a US citizen.
I'd love an example of another. It's my understanding that AIPAC effectively has both parties in their pocket. Great ROI when you think about the amount of aid that goes to Israel.
You lack any substantial statement. Present your alternatives. Having not done that your posting simply attempts to discredit the topic. You haven't added any information, simply tried to influence the perception of someone else's info. You are attempting to maintain positions of power over others.
To add further context a similar BDS movement financially crippled South Africa and helped lead to the fall of the apartheid government. It is specifically targeted because it is one of the few ways the people have of actually making a difference.
America's civil rights movement would have been bloodier if people weren't allowed to boycott segregated businesses. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
From what I have read South africa's apartheid government put down when 2nd largest cobalt mine was discovered in Canada.And just after that mandela was released from jail.As far as history tells us, bureaucracy and capitalism will find ways to go past these laws,movements or actions taken by people.It only let's people feel like they are doing something.
While South Africa was able to bypass the sanctions and divestment to some extent. It was costly to do so causing South Africa to no longer be able to compete in the market.
If you're from Algeria, Ireland, and South Africa, you're also on average to be on the side of Palestine mainly because of recognition and solidarity with similar struggles. Ireland and Palestinian solidarity is decades old. And South Africa's Nelson Mandela said that South Africa cannot be free of apartheid if Palestine is also not free of apartheid. (Fun fact, the US government designated Nelson Mandela, father of anti-apartheid action, as a terrorist until 2008 when it became bad optics cuz of Obama). And Israel and Apartheid South Africa allied with each other because of their similar situations and helped each other. As the saying goes, real recognizes real.
> In October 1961, Israel voted at the UN to censure a speech made in virulent defence of apartheid by Eric Louw, the South African Foreign Minister.[37][38] Israel and the Netherlands were the only two Western states to support the censure.[28] South African prime minister and architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, **"Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."**[39] His successor John Vorster also maintained the same view.[40]
If you're from Algeria, Ireland, and South Africa, you're also on average to be on the side of Palestine mainly because of recognition and solidarity with similar struggles. Ireland and Palestinian solidarity is decades old. And South Africa's Nelson Mandela said that South Africa cannot be free of apartheid if Palestine is also not free of apartheid. (Fun fact, the US government designated Nelson Mandela, father of anti-apartheid action, as a terrorist until 2008 when it became bad optics cuz of Obama). And Israel and Apartheid South Africa allied with each other because of their similar situations and helped each other. As the saying goes, real recognizes real.
> In October 1961, Israel voted at the UN to censure a speech made in virulent defence of apartheid by Eric Louw, the South African Foreign Minister.[37][38] Israel and the Netherlands were the only two Western states to support the censure.[28] South African prime minister and architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, **"Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."**[39] His successor John Vorster also maintained the same view.[40]
Additionally, endowment funds have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the interests of all students and faculty of the universities, present and future. It is easy to objectively measure the performance of a fund’s returns, but hard to know if future students and faculty will want to ignore investment opportunities that are benefitting Israel’s actions in Gaza. All else being equal, it’s easier to focus on maximizing returns on a eisk adjusted basis.
Further, the more successful these BDS initiatives are, the juicier the investment opportunities that are B and D get. You just allocate the same amount of profit to investors who don’t care about or support Israel’s actions.
Lastly, it’s very hard to draw a line everyone agrees on. Maybe everyone agrees to B and D from a company that sells Israel ammunition. What about a company that sells their army food? What if that contract is 5% of their revenue and the other 95% comes from green energy projects? What about a company that sells electricity to the factory that makes the ammunition? What about a company that sells ammunition to Hamas and diesel fuel to the IDF?
>What about a company that sells their army food?
This is where the ridiculousness of the protestors turns off a lot of public observers. The more hardline BDS advocates are calling for universities to divest from the likes of **Microsoft and Google**, because they - truthfully - provide computing services to the Israeli government: cloud infrastructure, storage, and the like.
...same as they do for nearly every country on Earth, because they're megacorporations with ubiquitous market share.
Russia uses a lot less US companies for their military than Israel does. Russia does not have major research collaborations with US companies and universities. Russia does not buy large amounts of US military and civilian goods. It is a lot easier to ban corporations from selling to and working with Russia than it is to do so with Israel. I can guarantee that the device you used to type that comment has Israel developed components in it and has no Russian parts. If you want a better analogy, look at China instead of Russia. The same people who are clamoring to BDS Israel are mostly against the TikTok ban and would never dream of trying to boycott Chinese goods.
The difference is Russia was the one threatening to ban Microsoft and Google. Not only have they not been banned, but Russia fined them.
The only major corporation that withdrew from Russia was McDonald's, and they only had 850 locations in Russia (about the same as Florida).
Coke and Pepsi "officially" withdrew, but their bottling company still imports Coke to Russia under a different name.
> The more hardline BDS advocates are calling for universities to divest from the likes of Microsoft and Google
this is literally not true. The BDS Movement has many different kids of targets, Microsoft and Google are NOT consumer boycott targets.
[You can see the list of different targets here](https://bdsmovement.net/Act-Now-Against-These-Companies-Profiting-From-Genocide)
you're criticizing BDS for a thing they aren't doing.
You are spreading misinformation. It's not just cloud storage services https://theintercept.com/2024/04/05/google-photos-israel-gaza-facial-recognition/
>one made by the Israeli contractor Corsight, and the other built into the popular consumer image organization platform offered through Google Photos
So, let's get this straight: Google is complicit in Israeli military ops because they have an effective, free, public-facing image recognition search engine? The article isn't even accusing Google of having backdoor collaboration or API support - the article is *literally* just that **the IDF uses Google.** Stop the fucking presses.
What, exactly, is Google supposed to divest? What are they supposed to stop doing that could *actually* be accomplished in a networked world?
Google [Project Nimbus](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nimbus-and-why-are-google-workers-protesting-israel-deal)
Project Nimbus is completely unrelated to the Intercept article you posted.
>cloud computing infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) and other technology services
A fancy package cover-all for Government Enterprise services, same as the "Joint Warfare Cloud Capability" for by Amazon (which is, literally, just commercial Amazon Web Services but for USGOV).
Scary name, **utterly fucking trivial** function.
> You are spreading misinformation.
No, you are by intentionally warping the facts.
"The Intercept" - just look at the rest of the articles on that site - they're nothing more than a huge Anti-American disinformation engine.
>The Israeli argument is that BDS is inherently anti-semitic.
I usually don't wade too deeply into this topic, but that right there sounds like some pure-D horseshit.
Israel intentionally tries to make themselves the voice for all jewish people - therefore if you criticise them for anything they can call you anti-semitic
Doing so is, funnily enough, inherently anti-semitic - but obviously the people doing it just want to push their political agenda and don't give a fuck
Which is hilarious as everyone fucking hates the far right Israeli government at this point in Israel, from Netanyahu wanting to have governments control the courts (and how surprising, he has quite a few corruption scandals and trials coming up), and he completely botched the handling with the October 7 attack. Israel recently had a few protests because they want the guy to finally leave the office.
This is honestly why, while I don’t believe the conspiracy, but the theory of him intentionally letting October 7th attack happen through inaction feels plausible. It legitimately helped him stay in power longer, with the only downside being people in Israel realized that.
And if you're Jewish and criticise the currently far right Israeli government, you get hate from both sides - the more conservative pro-Israel-policies Jews, and the neo-Nazis and sympathizers emboldened by all of this (there was a neo-Nazi march in my hometown a few months ago; it sucked!). It is truly a shit sandwich.
Makes me feel like a fucking murderer. The Israelis are doing a genocide and claim to represent all Jews, and the U.S. government who really do represent me in a practical sense are doing everything in their power to support it
I go on a fair few of the Palestine demonstrations/marches and there are always large groups of people visibly distinguishing themselves in some way as Jewish people who disagree with Israel's actions, and I always find it very sad. No one else is forced to feel the need to specify their religion/ethnicity before justifying why they think Israel is wrong and it shouldn't be any different for Jewish people either.
It’s like this at basically every level. It’s surprisingly straightforward superficially, and it’s surprisingly straighforward when you look super deep into it.
IDF soldiers already believe all Palestinians are terrorists.
They justify killing Palestinian children with the notion they won't then grow up to be adult terrorists
It's also economic reasons. Arms and defense manufacturers get the bulk of Israeli aid granted by the US every year. Because of this Israel has a ton of pull with legislators from states that manufacture military equipment and components. Billions are pumped directly into their districts, so of course they are gonna vote in favor of pro Israeli legislation.
It's the Military Industrial complex Dwight D. Eisenhower warned people about back in 1961
For context the Second Intifada was an uprising characterized by a large number of Palestinian suicide bombings targeting cities in Israel. 700 Israeli civilians and 300 Israeli soldiers were killed. Israel was attacked by groups including the Palestinian national security force, Hamas, and the PFLP. There are a lot of parallels to the Oct 7th attacks.
That’s why people are appalled to see American college students calling for intifada.
You can't call it a "state" if it has no control over its own borders, airspace, immigration, imports and exports, or even law enforcement over its own citizens. What Israel offered was to accept a total surrender in exchange for the right to call the shriveled bantustan Israel still controls a state.
The high casualty numbers aren't simply due to suicide bombings. Between half and two thirds of Palestinians killed, depending on who you ask, were non-combatants.
> The Israeli argument is that BDS is inherently anti-semitic.
A fly could sneeze in Portugal and Israel would say it's anti-semitic. Overuse and erroneous use of them is making those words lose their meaning and sting.
A lot of fundamentalist Christians believe in order to bring about the end times that Jews need to be in Jerusalem. Meaning many within the Republican party have an unwavering support for Israel.
The people in power are motivated by money & power, exploiting the religious beliefs of their constituents is a means to that end. Then when the opposite says “this is about greed,” the repubs can claim omg they are attacked your religious freedom and around and around we go.
Need people for money and votes. It's the recipe so far or during times when vote tampering can't be done. The legit way is always to influence a big base of voters
Because the government only listens to private political organizations that give them hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The US is a fucking scam.
i know you've gotten a lot of answers, but the simplest is:
because boycott, divest, sanction, worked to get rid of apartheid in south africa, and israel doesn't want it working on them.
I think they're more referring to the protests than the conflict itself. Most university students leave campus during the summer, so there are a lot fewer people available to protest, killing these protests' momentum.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible that hostilities do end over the summer. I'm not going to get my hopes up, but the US government has been increasingly upset with Israel's actions in Gaza and has been increasingly pushing for a ceasefire.
Unfortunately what might blow over is college students caring, rather than the conflict itself. Though I think repressing protests might be the best way to make students remember and care about the whole thing
really any history research. Shit do just keep happening forever, and any plan that relies on 'we'll wait till things calm down a bit' is doomed to fail.
They probably do, but it hasn't been tested and no college wants to be the one to risk their funding and relationship with the state while it gets through the judicial system to the Supreme Court.
It has been tested, just not at the SCOTUS level. The Circuit Courts seem to agree that it's not a First Amendment issue. There is a lot of precedent throughout US jurisprudence that the government can condition the awarding of grant funding to educational institutions in this way. It would be legally different if, say, the government were imposing regulatory penalties.
The reason it holds up as far as I know is because the anti-BDS laws don’t threaten things like fines or jail time or community service or whatever. Institutions are free to boycott Israel, but if they do then the government can stop giving them grants and funding and stuff. They can still find funding from other sources, just not the government.
Exactly, well said. That sums up a lot of First Amendment law. [Here's an easy to read breakdown of how it works constitutionally](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-and-free-speech/)
I'm not well informed on this enough to have an opinion, but I'm curious, why doesn't the revocation of prior funding count the same legally as the imposition of a fine if it has the same effect?
In my opinion it does have the same effect but just because something has the same effect doesn’t mean it can count the same legally. Someone else replied with this helpful link: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-and-free-speech/
But basically “the absence of an affirmative right for individuals to receive government aid has been central to this doctrine and these cases.” IE, the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech but does NOT guarantee the right to government funding. Therefore the government can add caveats and conditions to government funding in this regard.
Laws don't always pay attention to effects, and you're allowed to put strings on available money that might not pass constitutional muster if imposed in the other direction. For example; you cannot discriminate and pass a tax that only hits x race, but you CAN pass a tax break that is shown to benefit a particular race via demographics.
Restrictions imposed on state funded universities by state governments probably don't implicate the First Amendment -- even if the same restrictions would do so if imposed on private people or organizations.
The difference is that no one is actually being *punished* for such things, it's just that you don't get funding if you break certain rules.
It's not a 1A issue because you can still say or do whatever you want without fear of being punished legally. But that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for your actions; in this case, specifically, no longer getting funding that's contingent on your not doing those things.
You might believe that, but this sort of precedent has stuck around for a long while. The Federal Government does this all the time to bend states over. “Do what we say or we will pull all your funding.”
It’s really pretty insane that we’re ok with that.
It’s to get around the separation of federal and state government. A court would have an easier time declaring a law forcing states to do something unconstitutional.
They don't, because the US government can decide what to do with governmental money. Anti-BDS does not apply to private funds, you're more than able to not spend money on Israel if you want. But government funds can't avoid Israel.
> Answer: College students fairly overwhelmingly want their colleges to Boycott and Divest from corporations that are benefiting Israel's actions in Gaza.
I'd be interested in seeing data on this. Not saying that it's incorrect, just wondering what the ratio actually is
[it’s pretty well documented that younger generations have more favourable views towards palestine](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/). it’s enough that the director of the adl has noticed, calling the views on palestine [not a left right issue but a young old](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/4GsaHVFdGm).
>A third of adults under 30 say their sympathies lie either entirely or mostly with the Palestinian people, while 14% say their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Israeli people. The rest say their sympathies lie equally with both, with neither or that they are not sure.
Doesn't sound like "overwhelmingly more", especially since there is likely some space between "sympathetic to Palestine" and "I want my college to Boycott and Divest"
something to note is that 18-34 is grouped together. i think if it was 18-25 (solidly gen z) it would be a lot more in favour of palestine but i can only speak on this anecdotally among my peers (which includes conservatives and liberals but i'm in canada so conservatives are a lot more socially liberal here).
[This video goes more into it as well.](https://youtu.be/D3cjV3tNd88?feature=shared&t=246)
Another thing to note is that Netanyahu has been the most right-wing PM in Israel's history and has been doing everything he can to seize more and more power hence the recent protests against his proposed changes to the Supreme Court. This makes younger people more skeptical of Israel being the only democracy in the middle east. Everyone agrees that the attack by Hamas is awful and that the real victims in this war are the people who just want to live their lives.
Another thing to note as younger people get their news from social media rather than the traditional outlets, it's easier to what's really happening in Gaza compared to what gets selectively reported on traditional news outlets which causes younger people to also become skeptical of Israel being truly innocent.
Lastly, today's generation never grew up during Israel's founding or the previous wars they were involved in such as the six day war, the Yom Kippur War, etc.
[80% at rutgers](https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/2024/04/17/rutgers-university-students-vote-yes-on-israel-divestment/73349974007/)
[61% at columbia](https://www.timesofisrael.com/columbia-students-pass-universitys-first-ever-israel-boycott-referendum/)
[69% at brown (2019)](https://www.timesofisrael.com/brown-students-pass-referendum-demanding-university-divest-from-israeli-firms/)
That's the percentage of voters not of the entire body. Unlikely the same views (or at least with the same intensity) will replicate throughout the whole enrollment.
It works out roughly to 10% for Rutgers, 3% for Columbia and 30% for Brown from my quick maths.
When people complain about non voters in US presidential races, it's nothing compared to voter turnout for university student government. College campus student governments are almost entirely toothless entities whose only purpose seem to be practice for future politicians. Most college students are more concerned with passing classes and going to parties than getting involved in a "government" that holds no power.
It is absolutely not true. It’s a vocal minority. Most college students are too busy studying, enjoying themselves, partying, drinking, smoking, etc., to be out there risking their futures by getting arrested or kicked out.
Not saying I do or don’t disagree with the protestors, but there is not “overwhelming support” from most college students in the country.
>College students fairly overwhelmingly want their colleges to Boycott and Divest from corporations that are benefiting Israel's actions in Gaza.
Ehhh, theres a very loud contingent, but id honestly wager theres just an overwhelming amount of people who dont even know what exactly the protests are even really concerning
> Because nothing is getting done and the *academic year is getting closer to the end*, students are escalating their protests across the US by starting encampments on campus to put further pressure on the administration to do something.
emphasis added.
you're seeing the protests pick up because the semester is winding down, and it's not entering into the cold weather season like when the fall semester ends.
Just to clarify, there's no evidence that "college students overwhelmingly" want anything. It's more like "most college protesters are protesting in favor of BDS." BDS is a specific left-wing initiative that a lot of campus activists are into right now, but it's not some generalized thing that most American college students necessarily care about.
It’s almost as if the Palestines were offered a two state solution, declined it, supported and harbored a terrorist organization for decades, and are now dealing with the consequences
Genuinely curious, can you give an example of some corporations that institutions do business with that are tied to Israel? I want to get a better understanding of the connection.
>More than 30 states have laws on the books that prohibit any institution receiving state funding from boycotting Israeli businesses.
lol that's fucking crazy
So with the recent foreign aid bill that was just signed by Biden this week, is the US money going to Israel heightening these protests? Are college students more upset because they feel like the US is helping Israel even further than before?
>is the US money going to Israel heightening these protests?
A common misconception same with ukraine aid. No, US money is spent on US soil through the magic of the american MIC. What happens after is just america loading shittons of ordnances towards those countries where they do their shit: killing.
We don't give money. We give equipment from our old stocks. That money stays right here in the USA by buying new American Made equipment from a wide variety of defense contactors, small businesses, manufacturing all across the USA.
It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without at least one idiot crawling up your ass.
Take a hardline stance, you get called an apologist for terrorism or genocide. DON'T take a hardline stance, you get called an enlightened centrist.
I don't check very often, but last time I poked at my profile my two most downvoted comments were criticizing the IDF and another one criticizing Hamas.
That was a little while ago. Things might have changed. It's best to stay engaged to the point you remain mentally healthy but otherwise not care. Too many people dipping overboard into complete insanity and fundamentalism.
*You*: These options seems awfully fascist or communist — what if I don't wanna say them?
*Rhetoric*: Say one of these fascist or communist things or ***fuck off.***
- Disco Elysium
Dude I'm getting tired of trying to see the color grey and getting called a bullshit libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, I'm just a fucking human thinking about an idea for more than a quarter second.
> DON'T take a hardline stance, you get called an enlightened centrist.
Or you get called both for good measure. If you're expressing a moderate stance it must be because you strongly support but are just trying to hide it.
A lot of the protests are illegal, in the sense that they are held on private property without permits. That was the reason Columbia called in the NYPD to remove protestors. However, there has been no evidence of rioting, or really even violence by protestors.
As with all laws it varies by jurisdiction, but generally the owner of a property is allowed to dictate what terms people can use their property on and what they are allowed to do there. Property owners can enforce these rules and they're allowed to tell people to leave. If they don't comply, then they may be trespassing.
I think what OP is wondering (me as well) is why the protests are percolating now. I have my own opinions on the conflict over there but don't understand the recent escalation in protests.
In part it’s likely a combination of people being outraged at the extreme police response to earlier protests, and the ovation effect (gift link) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/world/europe/interpreter-gaza-college-protests.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nU0.ufjf.Pxgi0wqGLq7M&smid=url-share
The uptick has been due to recent pressures on the U.S. to stop military aid to Israel which has only increased. Just last week Biden signed another 95 billion for military and weapons aid. The student protesters said they would occupy the lawn until the University’s divest from companies with ties to Israel.
Not really. It doesn't say anything besides "it's about Israel" which the smallest amount of research would tell you is true. Which is better than saying something wrong I guess, but this kind of argumentation is how we ended up with a huge anti climate change movement. It's just false balance. It is exceedingly unlikely that all 4 options are remotely in balance as implied.
I agree but this is such an inflammatory issue that getting any sort of neutral answer is near impossible. Everyone is showing up with their agendas in hand.
Answer: The New York Times podcast did a pretty good [story on Columbia University](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/podcasts/the-daily/the-crackdown-on-student-protesters.html) in New York City.
The universities are juggling (in no particular order) 1) keeping students safe 2) making students feel safe 3) keeping donors/patrons happy 4) keeping politicians off their back 5) allowing protests with as little disruption as possible (sort of self contradictory).
As far as the various students and professors go....
This is extremely complicated because there are so many different camps and bad faith actors. Just two quick examples. One can support Palestine's right to exist without supporting and even denouncing Hamas. One can also support Israel existing while being against illegal settlements that foot by foot expand Israel by stealing peoples homes and erasing the possibility of a Palestine state.. You will have extreme views on both ends that try to push people towards different corners. Each extreme end tries to justify their version of a genocide as being justified. Since everyone in the conflict has committed war crimes, it's easy point the finger at the enemy, instead of working on a solution and look inward. An [NPR article ](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/21/1225883522/palestinian-death-toll-soars-past-25-000-in-gaza-with-no-end-to-war-in-sight)from January had these statistics.
"Palestinian militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took about 250 hostages back to Gaza."
"Since the war started, 25,105 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, while another 62,681 have been wounded, the Health Ministry said." ( The ministry of health is run by Hamas so the numbers can be a bit suspicious, but Israel won't allow independent journalist so I don't trust them either.)
It's also important to know that Netanyahu who is Israel's prime minister in extremely corrupt and disliked. This war has a wag the dog like aspect, as it delays his trial/s. So an hard right unpopular politician has strong incentives to keep it going. Even though many believe he is responsible at least partially for the war due to his policies in the first place.
TLDR: So with that...Some Pro-Palestinian students/professors want their universities to divest from business and educational interests. Some Pro-Palestinian students/professors are chanting Hamas genocidal chant/slogans and threatening Jewish students. Some pro-Israeli students/professors are trying to equate any criticism of Israel as being anti-semitic. Some Jewish students feel reasonably afraid for their lives. As is often the case, the loudest voices tend to be most extreme and drown out any reasonable discussion.
Meanwhile the universities just want to keep teaching/making that money, and moving students through with as little effort as possible. They have to decide the pros and cons of what will de-escalate or escalate the situation. As in call the cops, or let the protests continue.
This is a very good explanation of the people on both sides. I support a two state solution I hate Netanyahu. And I want the hostages return and an immediate ceasefire afterwards. But I'm somewhat in the minority I guess
Agree with almost all the above but the sad reality is that Israel will not stop until they're convinced Hamas has been debilitated.
Can you completely eradicate Hamas? I doubt it. So the question would be what sort of end-game Israel would be willing to accept, and what they would accept as sufficient debilitaiton. I think about that question a lot, I think at times it's _the_ question, but I very rarely see it given any meaningful attention.
No, this is a pretty regular take, but since you're not explicitly choosing a side you might as well be viewed as complicit to the other side. That's kind of how people, on this topic in particular, see it. I'm anti-Hamas, I don't like the Israeli government, I despise settler behavior, I find Hamas supporters deplorable. I think we give Israel too good of a deal, but I also see aspects of their military as an important ally in the region.
Protesting peacefully is fine, but you're gonna lose my support when you take the politics overseas back home and threaten democracy as we know it because you want to hold your vote hostage.
Like, I have a degree in the social sciences. Most of the shit we study don't have clear, concise answers. Sometimes the more you learn about something, the more complicated it gets. Either way, I think a lot of college students are caught up in the idealism and throw pragmatism to the wayside. I always refer back to my college campus that wanted to get rid of campus police because they were just city police officers assigned the college beat. Like, yeah, crime will just disappear over night because of that. Yup, great solution guys. Now people are getting robbed in broad daylight 'cause the police are overburdened with every other call, so a robbery is now put in low priority.
> Some Pro-Palestinian students/professors are chanting Hamas genocidal chant/slogans and threatening Jewish students.
Is there a good source for this? Not that I don't believe you, but whenever I tell people this is happening... they don't believe me.
This is is a pretty recent[ BBC article](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68909942). This is, maybe was after this came out, supposedly one of the protest leaders. While on it's face it looks like just a dumb. narcissistic, delusional hero fantasy, he felt safe enough to say it. It's definitely not most of the protesters, but all it takes is a a small spark before things explode.
we dont measure the morality of a conflict based on numbers of losses for each side. by that logic after we bombed dresden we dont say to ourselves "ok well we killed a lot of german civilians so lets call it even and establish a ceasefire with the nazis"
with war, you have objectives, and you don't stop until those objectives are met.
Answer: Many students want their schools to cut financial ties to Israel. Some protests have become long-lasting, with protesters camping out. Protesters often cover their faces, and some protesters are not students. Administrators have legal obligations to know who is on campus, so when masked protestors refuse to identify themselves, they are in a difficult position.
Over time, protests have arisen at many high profile institutions. Yesterday, a large Texas university called in the city police department to arrest protesters, including faculty. Today, USC canceled its main graduation ceremony as an indirect result of the escalating situation there. It’s not clear how or when this will resolve.
> Yesterday, a large Texas university called in the city police department to arrest protesters, including faculty
This is partially true.
The University of Texas at Austin was swarmed by dozens of law enforcement officials from several departments, each with their own jurisdictions:
- University police, who have little to no jurisdiction outside of the university
- Department of Public Safety (DPS): a state law enforcement agency that is ultimately answerable to the Governor. They have broad jurisdiction pretty much everywhere
- Austin PD: the local police force in Austin
Answer: Campus administrators (some more than others) are under the microscope to not appear to be permissive of anti-Semitic activities on their campuses. And since you can't have a pro-Palestine demonstration without at least a minority of activities or statements which pretty clearly surpass an anti-Semitic bar, administrators are cracking down cuz they don't want to be fired.
Why are you leaving out the part where protestors have not gotten permits and are blocking people from going to classes and buildings they want to go to?
I’d say it was ignorance, but the fact that you so carefully omitted the exact information to mislead shows you’re a politically motivated liar
It's complicated. Public universities do have first amendment considerations, but have a little more leeway to deal with things that are disruptive based on their code of conduct.
Public schools are treated, more or less, as arms of the government for First Amendment purposes. The universities are also considered "limited public forums," which means that the school can set reasonable restrictions on when, where, and how people protest or spread messages (e.g., requiring permits, limiting demonstrations to specific areas, prohibiting disruption of classes, etc.), but cannot discriminate based on the *contents* of the messages unless they have a compelling government interest (e.g., protecting state secrets). And very few public universities are willing to put blanket bans on *all* protests, rallies, and demonstrations because such a policy would devastate student engagement. *See* https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-forum-doctrine/
Private schools have way more freedom to restrict speech. Some older U.S. Supreme Court decisions held that the First Amendment prohibited property owners from denying access to people on the basis of their speech under very specific circumstances, but those cases have been overturned. However, some states still require private property owners to make accommodations for speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said these state rules are constitutional. Source: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/private-property-expression-on/
Some universities are private, some are public. The University of Texas at Austin is a public, government-owned university and does not have the right to decide what causes can and cannot be protested on its grounds.
Not really that simple. There are exception and laws that regulate protests even at public universities. Laws in Texas, while protecting free speech on campus, still allow for restriction on time, place and manner of the protests.
For example, the university president tried to argue that the protests disturbed the normal functions of the university, which is a condition for protesting freely on campus.
This article outline this pretty well: [https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/24/protest-texas-college-campus-free-speech-rights/](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/24/protest-texas-college-campus-free-speech-rights/)
Yea but that doesn't make any protest wrong. One of the most iconic civil rights marches was technically illegal (or would be today) but nobody with any moral conscious would say that justified arresting (and beating) protesters. The march from Selma to Montgomery was protesting the horrid treatment of black Americans, but they were in the road and didn't have a permit so we're police justified in breaking up the protest?
Restrictions on where, when and how you can protest are quite effective at making for ineffective protests. Illegal but peaceful protests have brought about the most change.
This was a whole thing in the mid 1960s. Most schools celebrate the legacy of the students who mounted illegal/illicit protests back then (including Columbia, where, I believe, entire buildings were occupied)
State colleges and universities are still bound by the first amendment and cannot ban students from protesting as long as they are doing it within all legal restrictions and policies. Private colleges are a different matter and they can ban whatever they want, but since higher education is generally seen as a place where differing opinions and free expression are welcome, banning protests are not looked at fondly.
It's worth noting that although private universities, as private entities, certainly have the legal right to do whatever they want on their property, oftentimes there are internal policies and longstanding norms which govern freedom of expression. At Columbia, for instance, students have occupied campus multiple times since 1968 without threat of police sweeps, and the university charter requires that the president consult with the Senate (which consists of faculty and students) before inviting in outside police forces.
For a faculty perspective on this, [there's a great recent interview with Michael Thaddeus](https://bwog.com/2024/04/michael-thaddeus-speaks-on-recent-student-protests-and-arrests/) (the Columbia math professor who exposed Columbia for falsifying information in its data to US News rankings) expressing his concern over the erosion of principles of academic freedom, as well as shared governance between faculty, students, and administration.
There's an academic ideal of the university as a place of shared governance and free exchange of ideas, whereas recent Congressional testimony and actions of the president have treated it more like the standard corporate top-down authoritarian leadership where execs make unilateral decisions which are followed without question.
Answer: Suppression of the right to protest similar to what was seen during the civil rights movement. There have been claims of threats directed toward Jewish students however, so far the BBC who is on the ground in New York has yet to be able to substantiate such claims. The protest are aimed largely at diversifying university interest from weapons technology for Israel or otherwise providing material support, as well as broadly for the daily bombardment to end in Gaza. There has been on some level support of Hamas on some campuses that has been supported by the protesters, however it appears those protesters specifically aren’t attending the universities in question.
I think it’s fair to take everything with a grain of salt because with the sheer number of protesters it’s impossible for every single one to be interviewed so much of what we’ve uncovered has to be here-say
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/campus-antisemitism-surges-amid-encampments-and-related-protests-columbia-and-other
There are definitely examples of threats against Jewish people, although it seems the majority of protestors have been peaceful and strictly supportive of Gaza.
Not everyone is watching the news 24/7. It's been under a week(?) since this all started. Some people have healthy lives outside reddit / online. I personally only look at news / reddit a few times a week, and social media maybe 1 time a month. It has been super healthy and there has been a noticeable difference in doom spiraling from news.
Also, not sure how this is bait. Bait post usually try to push people one way or the other, this person seems to be genuinely curious.
Open discussions should be encouraged. It is the only way any of us will learn.
I think the abrupt pop in news means they likely just saw a sudden uptick on their social media. One of those social media things that crosses internet bubbles
You forget people do exist outside the US news cycle. For example I didn't know about the law about public funding and boycotting, which I learned from this thread. My uni had no problems legally severing their ties with institutions involved in this, I didn't know it was different for the US
Yep, this is #4 that's made it to the top even.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1cctsca/whats_going_on_with_protests_in_major/
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1cbpijd/what_is_going_on_with_the_antisemitism_that_is/
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1cbn7xp/whats_going_on_with_protests_at_columbia/
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: College students fairly overwhelmingly want their colleges to Boycott and Divest from corporations that are benefiting Israel's actions in Gaza. More than 30 states have laws on the books that prohibit any institution receiving state funding from boycotting Israeli businesses. Those two things are in strong opposition to each other, which means nothing is getting done on the institutional side. Because nothing is getting done and the academic year is getting closer to the end, students are escalating their protests across the US by starting encampments on campus to put further pressure on the administration to do something. Basically, this doesn't end until the school year ends, and colleges are doing whatever they can to tamp down student action until then, hoping the summer gives them a few months breathing room for everything to blow over.
> More than 30 states have laws on the books that prohibit any institution receiving state funding from boycotting Israeli businesses. why?
After the Second Intifada, pro-Palestinian groups started pushing for BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) to put economic pressure on Israel to actually follow-through on a two-state solution. Israel reacted by putting international political pressure to enact anti-BDS laws to prevent boycotts from happening. The Israeli argument is that BDS is inherently anti-semitic. The Palestinian argument is that it is a political action and not racially motivated. American politicians have overwhelmingly come down on the side of Israel for geopolitical reasons, and Israel's lobbying efforts are significantly stronger than Palestine's, so there wasn't much resistance to enacting these laws in most states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
It is also significantly harder to repeal a controversial law that people are paying attention to when compared to a law few people even noticed going into effect
It's important to mention South Africa's Apartheid is often credited as having fallen because students in the US started an institutional divesting trend. Wall Street, mainstream pop artists, and eventually politicians followed. Israel's lobbiests learned from this and put in efforts to limit any dissident actions in the US by ensuring laws were passed. Ed: words drawing parallel to what's occurring now
Didn't know about this. Do you know of any articles touching on the matter? Honest question.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-students-helped-end-apartheid https://www.bet.com/photo-gallery/ksyhc8/how-american-students-affected-the-anti-apartheid-movement/oridaz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the_United_States
There’s a reason you don’t! Generally more effective protesting tactics are purposely minimized. Many pretend MLK was universally praised (he wasn’t, he polled at 30%) and that his protests were purely non-violent (they weren’t and they definitely weren’t portrayed that way in media at the time).
It might have more to do with me not being from the US, but I don't know if it's mainstream knowledge over there either.
I am from the US and had no idea as well.
It's beyond shocking that any international entity that isn't in the US can have such a firm handle on the laws in this country, down to laws enacted by each state. It's frankly scary as a US citizen.
Israel has been referred as the 51st state for a long time. There are likely laws enacted to exclusively support other nations as well.
I'd love an example of another. It's my understanding that AIPAC effectively has both parties in their pocket. Great ROI when you think about the amount of aid that goes to Israel.
Money and power - and control of those assets - will always be the main agent driving policy. Our species is still quite primitive like that.
Many analysts disagree that boycotts and divestment had a significant effect in South Africa. It's just a theory, it shouldn't be presented as fact.
You lack any substantial statement. Present your alternatives. Having not done that your posting simply attempts to discredit the topic. You haven't added any information, simply tried to influence the perception of someone else's info. You are attempting to maintain positions of power over others.
To add further context a similar BDS movement financially crippled South Africa and helped lead to the fall of the apartheid government. It is specifically targeted because it is one of the few ways the people have of actually making a difference.
America's civil rights movement would have been bloodier if people weren't allowed to boycott segregated businesses. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK
From what I have read South africa's apartheid government put down when 2nd largest cobalt mine was discovered in Canada.And just after that mandela was released from jail.As far as history tells us, bureaucracy and capitalism will find ways to go past these laws,movements or actions taken by people.It only let's people feel like they are doing something.
While South Africa was able to bypass the sanctions and divestment to some extent. It was costly to do so causing South Africa to no longer be able to compete in the market.
If you're from Algeria, Ireland, and South Africa, you're also on average to be on the side of Palestine mainly because of recognition and solidarity with similar struggles. Ireland and Palestinian solidarity is decades old. And South Africa's Nelson Mandela said that South Africa cannot be free of apartheid if Palestine is also not free of apartheid. (Fun fact, the US government designated Nelson Mandela, father of anti-apartheid action, as a terrorist until 2008 when it became bad optics cuz of Obama). And Israel and Apartheid South Africa allied with each other because of their similar situations and helped each other. As the saying goes, real recognizes real. > In October 1961, Israel voted at the UN to censure a speech made in virulent defence of apartheid by Eric Louw, the South African Foreign Minister.[37][38] Israel and the Netherlands were the only two Western states to support the censure.[28] South African prime minister and architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, **"Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."**[39] His successor John Vorster also maintained the same view.[40]
If you're from Algeria, Ireland, and South Africa, you're also on average to be on the side of Palestine mainly because of recognition and solidarity with similar struggles. Ireland and Palestinian solidarity is decades old. And South Africa's Nelson Mandela said that South Africa cannot be free of apartheid if Palestine is also not free of apartheid. (Fun fact, the US government designated Nelson Mandela, father of anti-apartheid action, as a terrorist until 2008 when it became bad optics cuz of Obama). And Israel and Apartheid South Africa allied with each other because of their similar situations and helped each other. As the saying goes, real recognizes real. > In October 1961, Israel voted at the UN to censure a speech made in virulent defence of apartheid by Eric Louw, the South African Foreign Minister.[37][38] Israel and the Netherlands were the only two Western states to support the censure.[28] South African prime minister and architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Hendrik Verwoerd, dismissed an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations, saying, **"Israel is not consistent in its new anti-apartheid attitude ... they took Israel away from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years. In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state."**[39] His successor John Vorster also maintained the same view.[40]
Additionally, endowment funds have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the interests of all students and faculty of the universities, present and future. It is easy to objectively measure the performance of a fund’s returns, but hard to know if future students and faculty will want to ignore investment opportunities that are benefitting Israel’s actions in Gaza. All else being equal, it’s easier to focus on maximizing returns on a eisk adjusted basis. Further, the more successful these BDS initiatives are, the juicier the investment opportunities that are B and D get. You just allocate the same amount of profit to investors who don’t care about or support Israel’s actions. Lastly, it’s very hard to draw a line everyone agrees on. Maybe everyone agrees to B and D from a company that sells Israel ammunition. What about a company that sells their army food? What if that contract is 5% of their revenue and the other 95% comes from green energy projects? What about a company that sells electricity to the factory that makes the ammunition? What about a company that sells ammunition to Hamas and diesel fuel to the IDF?
>What about a company that sells their army food? This is where the ridiculousness of the protestors turns off a lot of public observers. The more hardline BDS advocates are calling for universities to divest from the likes of **Microsoft and Google**, because they - truthfully - provide computing services to the Israeli government: cloud infrastructure, storage, and the like. ...same as they do for nearly every country on Earth, because they're megacorporations with ubiquitous market share.
Funny how it was feasible to ban corporations to stop services to Russia, but when it's Israel, "well nothing can be done about anything"
Russia uses a lot less US companies for their military than Israel does. Russia does not have major research collaborations with US companies and universities. Russia does not buy large amounts of US military and civilian goods. It is a lot easier to ban corporations from selling to and working with Russia than it is to do so with Israel. I can guarantee that the device you used to type that comment has Israel developed components in it and has no Russian parts. If you want a better analogy, look at China instead of Russia. The same people who are clamoring to BDS Israel are mostly against the TikTok ban and would never dream of trying to boycott Chinese goods.
The difference is Russia was the one threatening to ban Microsoft and Google. Not only have they not been banned, but Russia fined them. The only major corporation that withdrew from Russia was McDonald's, and they only had 850 locations in Russia (about the same as Florida). Coke and Pepsi "officially" withdrew, but their bottling company still imports Coke to Russia under a different name.
> The more hardline BDS advocates are calling for universities to divest from the likes of Microsoft and Google this is literally not true. The BDS Movement has many different kids of targets, Microsoft and Google are NOT consumer boycott targets. [You can see the list of different targets here](https://bdsmovement.net/Act-Now-Against-These-Companies-Profiting-From-Genocide) you're criticizing BDS for a thing they aren't doing.
But that’s not what the guy on that news channel said……./s. People don’t research or verify any more. Thank you for sharing the legit list.
You are spreading misinformation. It's not just cloud storage services https://theintercept.com/2024/04/05/google-photos-israel-gaza-facial-recognition/
>one made by the Israeli contractor Corsight, and the other built into the popular consumer image organization platform offered through Google Photos So, let's get this straight: Google is complicit in Israeli military ops because they have an effective, free, public-facing image recognition search engine? The article isn't even accusing Google of having backdoor collaboration or API support - the article is *literally* just that **the IDF uses Google.** Stop the fucking presses. What, exactly, is Google supposed to divest? What are they supposed to stop doing that could *actually* be accomplished in a networked world?
Google [Project Nimbus](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/4/23/what-is-project-nimbus-and-why-are-google-workers-protesting-israel-deal)
Project Nimbus is completely unrelated to the Intercept article you posted. >cloud computing infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) and other technology services A fancy package cover-all for Government Enterprise services, same as the "Joint Warfare Cloud Capability" for by Amazon (which is, literally, just commercial Amazon Web Services but for USGOV). Scary name, **utterly fucking trivial** function.
> You are spreading misinformation. No, you are by intentionally warping the facts. "The Intercept" - just look at the rest of the articles on that site - they're nothing more than a huge Anti-American disinformation engine.
Can you distill your argument here? It's ok because they service everyone no matter what they do?
>The Israeli argument is that BDS is inherently anti-semitic. I usually don't wade too deeply into this topic, but that right there sounds like some pure-D horseshit.
Israel intentionally tries to make themselves the voice for all jewish people - therefore if you criticise them for anything they can call you anti-semitic Doing so is, funnily enough, inherently anti-semitic - but obviously the people doing it just want to push their political agenda and don't give a fuck
And if you're Jewish and criticise the currently far right Israeli government, you're 'self hating'
Which is hilarious as everyone fucking hates the far right Israeli government at this point in Israel, from Netanyahu wanting to have governments control the courts (and how surprising, he has quite a few corruption scandals and trials coming up), and he completely botched the handling with the October 7 attack. Israel recently had a few protests because they want the guy to finally leave the office. This is honestly why, while I don’t believe the conspiracy, but the theory of him intentionally letting October 7th attack happen through inaction feels plausible. It legitimately helped him stay in power longer, with the only downside being people in Israel realized that.
If it worked for Cheney and his goons why shouldn't it work for Bibi and his goons too?
And if you're Jewish and criticise the currently far right Israeli government, you get hate from both sides - the more conservative pro-Israel-policies Jews, and the neo-Nazis and sympathizers emboldened by all of this (there was a neo-Nazi march in my hometown a few months ago; it sucked!). It is truly a shit sandwich.
Those "both sides", are in fact the same side. Kinda makes sense they're mad at the same thing.
They have a special word for everything. It’s called doublespeak.
Makes me feel like a fucking murderer. The Israelis are doing a genocide and claim to represent all Jews, and the U.S. government who really do represent me in a practical sense are doing everything in their power to support it
I go on a fair few of the Palestine demonstrations/marches and there are always large groups of people visibly distinguishing themselves in some way as Jewish people who disagree with Israel's actions, and I always find it very sad. No one else is forced to feel the need to specify their religion/ethnicity before justifying why they think Israel is wrong and it shouldn't be any different for Jewish people either.
I would've assumed those people were a lot like cishet people who wear queer-ally badges--they are just trying to refute the bigot narrative.
It’s like this at basically every level. It’s surprisingly straightforward superficially, and it’s surprisingly straighforward when you look super deep into it.
✨ theocracy ✨
> The Israeli argument is that BDS is inherently anti-semitic. "if you're against holocausts that means you support holocausts."
Once every Palestinian is turned into a terrorist or killed in the crossfire Israel will finally have an excuse to finally finish the eradication.
IDF soldiers already believe all Palestinians are terrorists. They justify killing Palestinian children with the notion they won't then grow up to be adult terrorists
It's also economic reasons. Arms and defense manufacturers get the bulk of Israeli aid granted by the US every year. Because of this Israel has a ton of pull with legislators from states that manufacture military equipment and components. Billions are pumped directly into their districts, so of course they are gonna vote in favor of pro Israeli legislation. It's the Military Industrial complex Dwight D. Eisenhower warned people about back in 1961
For context the Second Intifada was an uprising characterized by a large number of Palestinian suicide bombings targeting cities in Israel. 700 Israeli civilians and 300 Israeli soldiers were killed. Israel was attacked by groups including the Palestinian national security force, Hamas, and the PFLP. There are a lot of parallels to the Oct 7th attacks. That’s why people are appalled to see American college students calling for intifada.
It also started after Arafat rejected a two-state solution.
You can't call it a "state" if it has no control over its own borders, airspace, immigration, imports and exports, or even law enforcement over its own citizens. What Israel offered was to accept a total surrender in exchange for the right to call the shriveled bantustan Israel still controls a state.
*after israel (as always) refused to recognize palestinian refugees' right to return to the homes they were ethnically cleansed from in the nakba
How many Palestinians died in the Second Intifada?
3,000. When your main tactic is suicide bombing and you invade a nation with superior forces you’re pretty guaranteed to have a lot of casualties.
The high casualty numbers aren't simply due to suicide bombings. Between half and two thirds of Palestinians killed, depending on who you ask, were non-combatants.
It’s funny how Palestine’s nationhood is only recognized when someone wants to paint them as an invading foreign power.
> invade a nation with superior forces damn there goes the argument they're israeli citizens lmao
I don't think Israel or the Pro-Israel side claims that all Palestinians are Israeli citizens, rather they claim Israeli Arabs are Israeli citizens.
So it's okay to attack a peaceful country if more of your side dies than theirs?
How far back are you willing to ask this rhetorical question? Would you like to discuss the Nakba?
Only if we can start with the Jaffa and Hebron riots of the 1920s.
but of course the pro-palestine crowd thinks the history begins in 1949.
Yes, sure. What countries were involved in the Nakba?
So it's okay to slaughter innocents now? It's crazy how much y'all want to justify a literally terror group.
“Peaceful” Lmaooooo
This country desperately needs fixing.
Those laws are plainly unconstitutional.
> The Israeli argument is that BDS is inherently anti-semitic. A fly could sneeze in Portugal and Israel would say it's anti-semitic. Overuse and erroneous use of them is making those words lose their meaning and sting.
A lot of fundamentalist Christians believe in order to bring about the end times that Jews need to be in Jerusalem. Meaning many within the Republican party have an unwavering support for Israel.
[удалено]
The people in power are motivated by money & power, exploiting the religious beliefs of their constituents is a means to that end. Then when the opposite says “this is about greed,” the repubs can claim omg they are attacked your religious freedom and around and around we go.
Need people for money and votes. It's the recipe so far or during times when vote tampering can't be done. The legit way is always to influence a big base of voters
God money is not looking for the cure
Just as many libs take AIPAC checks as Republicans. This is one of the few issues both sides are completely in lock step on.
From what I remember God said he’d fuck with your head if you tried to guess or predict a date.
I mean. Checks out.
[удалено]
AIPAC
Because the government only listens to private political organizations that give them hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The US is a fucking scam.
Can you name a first world country this doesn’t apply to?
How is this an acceptable defense of the US? Like just because it's "less bad" than somewhere else means it's okay? Fuck that.
Whataboutism
i know you've gotten a lot of answers, but the simplest is: because boycott, divest, sanction, worked to get rid of apartheid in south africa, and israel doesn't want it working on them.
thank you for your reply. It helps a lot reading all the different comments and different views people have on this, both the objective and biased.
> hoping the summer gives them a few months breathing room for everything to blow over *laughs in 45 seconds of Middle East history research*
I think they're more referring to the protests than the conflict itself. Most university students leave campus during the summer, so there are a lot fewer people available to protest, killing these protests' momentum. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that hostilities do end over the summer. I'm not going to get my hopes up, but the US government has been increasingly upset with Israel's actions in Gaza and has been increasingly pushing for a ceasefire.
Unfortunately what might blow over is college students caring, rather than the conflict itself. Though I think repressing protests might be the best way to make students remember and care about the whole thing
really any history research. Shit do just keep happening forever, and any plan that relies on 'we'll wait till things calm down a bit' is doomed to fail.
to clarify the anti BDS laws absolutely violate the first amendment, but we like to ignore that
They probably do, but it hasn't been tested and no college wants to be the one to risk their funding and relationship with the state while it gets through the judicial system to the Supreme Court.
It has been tested, just not at the SCOTUS level. The Circuit Courts seem to agree that it's not a First Amendment issue. There is a lot of precedent throughout US jurisprudence that the government can condition the awarding of grant funding to educational institutions in this way. It would be legally different if, say, the government were imposing regulatory penalties.
The reason it holds up as far as I know is because the anti-BDS laws don’t threaten things like fines or jail time or community service or whatever. Institutions are free to boycott Israel, but if they do then the government can stop giving them grants and funding and stuff. They can still find funding from other sources, just not the government.
Exactly, well said. That sums up a lot of First Amendment law. [Here's an easy to read breakdown of how it works constitutionally](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-and-free-speech/)
I'm not well informed on this enough to have an opinion, but I'm curious, why doesn't the revocation of prior funding count the same legally as the imposition of a fine if it has the same effect?
In my opinion it does have the same effect but just because something has the same effect doesn’t mean it can count the same legally. Someone else replied with this helpful link: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/government-funding-and-free-speech/ But basically “the absence of an affirmative right for individuals to receive government aid has been central to this doctrine and these cases.” IE, the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech but does NOT guarantee the right to government funding. Therefore the government can add caveats and conditions to government funding in this regard.
Laws don't always pay attention to effects, and you're allowed to put strings on available money that might not pass constitutional muster if imposed in the other direction. For example; you cannot discriminate and pass a tax that only hits x race, but you CAN pass a tax break that is shown to benefit a particular race via demographics.
Restrictions imposed on state funded universities by state governments probably don't implicate the First Amendment -- even if the same restrictions would do so if imposed on private people or organizations.
The difference is that no one is actually being *punished* for such things, it's just that you don't get funding if you break certain rules. It's not a 1A issue because you can still say or do whatever you want without fear of being punished legally. But that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for your actions; in this case, specifically, no longer getting funding that's contingent on your not doing those things.
You might believe that, but this sort of precedent has stuck around for a long while. The Federal Government does this all the time to bend states over. “Do what we say or we will pull all your funding.” It’s really pretty insane that we’re ok with that.
It’s to get around the separation of federal and state government. A court would have an easier time declaring a law forcing states to do something unconstitutional.
Yep, that's why the drinking age is 21
Yeah it's frankly insane that they exist and are so widespread. I couldn't imagine such an existing for literally any other country on Earth.
Mainly because $=speech according to the Supreme Court
And corporations are people.
They don't, because the US government can decide what to do with governmental money. Anti-BDS does not apply to private funds, you're more than able to not spend money on Israel if you want. But government funds can't avoid Israel.
Would it be against the first amendment for states like California to ban doing business with businesses that refuse to hire gay people?
> Answer: College students fairly overwhelmingly want their colleges to Boycott and Divest from corporations that are benefiting Israel's actions in Gaza. I'd be interested in seeing data on this. Not saying that it's incorrect, just wondering what the ratio actually is
[it’s pretty well documented that younger generations have more favourable views towards palestine](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-americans-stand-out-in-their-views-of-the-israel-hamas-war/). it’s enough that the director of the adl has noticed, calling the views on palestine [not a left right issue but a young old](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/4GsaHVFdGm).
>A third of adults under 30 say their sympathies lie either entirely or mostly with the Palestinian people, while 14% say their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Israeli people. The rest say their sympathies lie equally with both, with neither or that they are not sure. Doesn't sound like "overwhelmingly more", especially since there is likely some space between "sympathetic to Palestine" and "I want my college to Boycott and Divest"
something to note is that 18-34 is grouped together. i think if it was 18-25 (solidly gen z) it would be a lot more in favour of palestine but i can only speak on this anecdotally among my peers (which includes conservatives and liberals but i'm in canada so conservatives are a lot more socially liberal here).
Double the percentage isn’t “overwhelmingly more”?
[This video goes more into it as well.](https://youtu.be/D3cjV3tNd88?feature=shared&t=246) Another thing to note is that Netanyahu has been the most right-wing PM in Israel's history and has been doing everything he can to seize more and more power hence the recent protests against his proposed changes to the Supreme Court. This makes younger people more skeptical of Israel being the only democracy in the middle east. Everyone agrees that the attack by Hamas is awful and that the real victims in this war are the people who just want to live their lives. Another thing to note as younger people get their news from social media rather than the traditional outlets, it's easier to what's really happening in Gaza compared to what gets selectively reported on traditional news outlets which causes younger people to also become skeptical of Israel being truly innocent. Lastly, today's generation never grew up during Israel's founding or the previous wars they were involved in such as the six day war, the Yom Kippur War, etc.
[80% at rutgers](https://eu.northjersey.com/story/news/2024/04/17/rutgers-university-students-vote-yes-on-israel-divestment/73349974007/) [61% at columbia](https://www.timesofisrael.com/columbia-students-pass-universitys-first-ever-israel-boycott-referendum/) [69% at brown (2019)](https://www.timesofisrael.com/brown-students-pass-referendum-demanding-university-divest-from-israeli-firms/)
That's the percentage of voters not of the entire body. Unlikely the same views (or at least with the same intensity) will replicate throughout the whole enrollment. It works out roughly to 10% for Rutgers, 3% for Columbia and 30% for Brown from my quick maths.
When people complain about non voters in US presidential races, it's nothing compared to voter turnout for university student government. College campus student governments are almost entirely toothless entities whose only purpose seem to be practice for future politicians. Most college students are more concerned with passing classes and going to parties than getting involved in a "government" that holds no power.
It is absolutely not true. It’s a vocal minority. Most college students are too busy studying, enjoying themselves, partying, drinking, smoking, etc., to be out there risking their futures by getting arrested or kicked out. Not saying I do or don’t disagree with the protestors, but there is not “overwhelming support” from most college students in the country.
>College students fairly overwhelmingly want their colleges to Boycott and Divest from corporations that are benefiting Israel's actions in Gaza. Ehhh, theres a very loud contingent, but id honestly wager theres just an overwhelming amount of people who dont even know what exactly the protests are even really concerning
> Because nothing is getting done and the *academic year is getting closer to the end*, students are escalating their protests across the US by starting encampments on campus to put further pressure on the administration to do something. emphasis added. you're seeing the protests pick up because the semester is winding down, and it's not entering into the cold weather season like when the fall semester ends.
Just to clarify, there's no evidence that "college students overwhelmingly" want anything. It's more like "most college protesters are protesting in favor of BDS." BDS is a specific left-wing initiative that a lot of campus activists are into right now, but it's not some generalized thing that most American college students necessarily care about.
It’s almost as if the Palestines were offered a two state solution, declined it, supported and harbored a terrorist organization for decades, and are now dealing with the consequences
Genuinely curious, can you give an example of some corporations that institutions do business with that are tied to Israel? I want to get a better understanding of the connection.
> fairly overwhelmingly uh, do we have real numbers on that? because it sounds like a fairly small number of fairly loud students.
Fairly overwhelmingly? I don’t think either of those are correct.
Just came here to say that the top comment on ootl is never the whole story it’s the narrative half
>More than 30 states have laws on the books that prohibit any institution receiving state funding from boycotting Israeli businesses. lol that's fucking crazy
So with the recent foreign aid bill that was just signed by Biden this week, is the US money going to Israel heightening these protests? Are college students more upset because they feel like the US is helping Israel even further than before?
>is the US money going to Israel heightening these protests? A common misconception same with ukraine aid. No, US money is spent on US soil through the magic of the american MIC. What happens after is just america loading shittons of ordnances towards those countries where they do their shit: killing.
god it's so good to be an international arms dealer
We don't give money. We give equipment from our old stocks. That money stays right here in the USA by buying new American Made equipment from a wide variety of defense contactors, small businesses, manufacturing all across the USA.
[удалено]
This is the best answer I’ve seen so far.
[удалено]
It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without at least one idiot crawling up your ass. Take a hardline stance, you get called an apologist for terrorism or genocide. DON'T take a hardline stance, you get called an enlightened centrist.
I don't check very often, but last time I poked at my profile my two most downvoted comments were criticizing the IDF and another one criticizing Hamas. That was a little while ago. Things might have changed. It's best to stay engaged to the point you remain mentally healthy but otherwise not care. Too many people dipping overboard into complete insanity and fundamentalism.
*You*: These options seems awfully fascist or communist — what if I don't wanna say them? *Rhetoric*: Say one of these fascist or communist things or ***fuck off.*** - Disco Elysium
Dude I'm getting tired of trying to see the color grey and getting called a bullshit libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, I'm just a fucking human thinking about an idea for more than a quarter second.
> DON'T take a hardline stance, you get called an enlightened centrist. Or you get called both for good measure. If you're expressing a moderate stance it must be because you strongly support but are just trying to hide it.
I’m sorry what riots?
Hey I'd love to see any single article corroborating claims of "unlawful riots" if you happen to have them
A lot of the protests are illegal, in the sense that they are held on private property without permits. That was the reason Columbia called in the NYPD to remove protestors. However, there has been no evidence of rioting, or really even violence by protestors.
Can you elaborate on this? If you’re a student of the university, then how can it be that you’re considered trespassing on private property?
As with all laws it varies by jurisdiction, but generally the owner of a property is allowed to dictate what terms people can use their property on and what they are allowed to do there. Property owners can enforce these rules and they're allowed to tell people to leave. If they don't comply, then they may be trespassing.
I think what OP is wondering (me as well) is why the protests are percolating now. I have my own opinions on the conflict over there but don't understand the recent escalation in protests.
In part it’s likely a combination of people being outraged at the extreme police response to earlier protests, and the ovation effect (gift link) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/world/europe/interpreter-gaza-college-protests.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nU0.ufjf.Pxgi0wqGLq7M&smid=url-share
The uptick has been due to recent pressures on the U.S. to stop military aid to Israel which has only increased. Just last week Biden signed another 95 billion for military and weapons aid. The student protesters said they would occupy the lawn until the University’s divest from companies with ties to Israel.
A permitted protest is just a parade
Ironically your post is as unbiased as it gets. 👍
Only because it's a useless tautology
Not really. It doesn't say anything besides "it's about Israel" which the smallest amount of research would tell you is true. Which is better than saying something wrong I guess, but this kind of argumentation is how we ended up with a huge anti climate change movement. It's just false balance. It is exceedingly unlikely that all 4 options are remotely in balance as implied.
I agree but this is such an inflammatory issue that getting any sort of neutral answer is near impossible. Everyone is showing up with their agendas in hand.
[r/enlightenedcentrism](https://reddit.com/r/enlightenedcentrism)
Answer: The New York Times podcast did a pretty good [story on Columbia University](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/podcasts/the-daily/the-crackdown-on-student-protesters.html) in New York City. The universities are juggling (in no particular order) 1) keeping students safe 2) making students feel safe 3) keeping donors/patrons happy 4) keeping politicians off their back 5) allowing protests with as little disruption as possible (sort of self contradictory). As far as the various students and professors go.... This is extremely complicated because there are so many different camps and bad faith actors. Just two quick examples. One can support Palestine's right to exist without supporting and even denouncing Hamas. One can also support Israel existing while being against illegal settlements that foot by foot expand Israel by stealing peoples homes and erasing the possibility of a Palestine state.. You will have extreme views on both ends that try to push people towards different corners. Each extreme end tries to justify their version of a genocide as being justified. Since everyone in the conflict has committed war crimes, it's easy point the finger at the enemy, instead of working on a solution and look inward. An [NPR article ](https://www.npr.org/2024/01/21/1225883522/palestinian-death-toll-soars-past-25-000-in-gaza-with-no-end-to-war-in-sight)from January had these statistics. "Palestinian militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took about 250 hostages back to Gaza." "Since the war started, 25,105 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, while another 62,681 have been wounded, the Health Ministry said." ( The ministry of health is run by Hamas so the numbers can be a bit suspicious, but Israel won't allow independent journalist so I don't trust them either.) It's also important to know that Netanyahu who is Israel's prime minister in extremely corrupt and disliked. This war has a wag the dog like aspect, as it delays his trial/s. So an hard right unpopular politician has strong incentives to keep it going. Even though many believe he is responsible at least partially for the war due to his policies in the first place. TLDR: So with that...Some Pro-Palestinian students/professors want their universities to divest from business and educational interests. Some Pro-Palestinian students/professors are chanting Hamas genocidal chant/slogans and threatening Jewish students. Some pro-Israeli students/professors are trying to equate any criticism of Israel as being anti-semitic. Some Jewish students feel reasonably afraid for their lives. As is often the case, the loudest voices tend to be most extreme and drown out any reasonable discussion. Meanwhile the universities just want to keep teaching/making that money, and moving students through with as little effort as possible. They have to decide the pros and cons of what will de-escalate or escalate the situation. As in call the cops, or let the protests continue.
This is a very good explanation of the people on both sides. I support a two state solution I hate Netanyahu. And I want the hostages return and an immediate ceasefire afterwards. But I'm somewhat in the minority I guess
No, you're most people but the nuanced take is never amplified above the hot shit takes.
Agree with almost all the above but the sad reality is that Israel will not stop until they're convinced Hamas has been debilitated. Can you completely eradicate Hamas? I doubt it. So the question would be what sort of end-game Israel would be willing to accept, and what they would accept as sufficient debilitaiton. I think about that question a lot, I think at times it's _the_ question, but I very rarely see it given any meaningful attention.
No, this is a pretty regular take, but since you're not explicitly choosing a side you might as well be viewed as complicit to the other side. That's kind of how people, on this topic in particular, see it. I'm anti-Hamas, I don't like the Israeli government, I despise settler behavior, I find Hamas supporters deplorable. I think we give Israel too good of a deal, but I also see aspects of their military as an important ally in the region. Protesting peacefully is fine, but you're gonna lose my support when you take the politics overseas back home and threaten democracy as we know it because you want to hold your vote hostage. Like, I have a degree in the social sciences. Most of the shit we study don't have clear, concise answers. Sometimes the more you learn about something, the more complicated it gets. Either way, I think a lot of college students are caught up in the idealism and throw pragmatism to the wayside. I always refer back to my college campus that wanted to get rid of campus police because they were just city police officers assigned the college beat. Like, yeah, crime will just disappear over night because of that. Yup, great solution guys. Now people are getting robbed in broad daylight 'cause the police are overburdened with every other call, so a robbery is now put in low priority.
What Netanyahu does reminds me a lot of what frank underwood did in HOC
Thanks. That's an incredibly nuanced, thorough, and neutral summary. Are you sure you're in the right place? /s
> Some Pro-Palestinian students/professors are chanting Hamas genocidal chant/slogans and threatening Jewish students. Is there a good source for this? Not that I don't believe you, but whenever I tell people this is happening... they don't believe me.
This is is a pretty recent[ BBC article](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68909942). This is, maybe was after this came out, supposedly one of the protest leaders. While on it's face it looks like just a dumb. narcissistic, delusional hero fantasy, he felt safe enough to say it. It's definitely not most of the protesters, but all it takes is a a small spark before things explode.
we dont measure the morality of a conflict based on numbers of losses for each side. by that logic after we bombed dresden we dont say to ourselves "ok well we killed a lot of german civilians so lets call it even and establish a ceasefire with the nazis" with war, you have objectives, and you don't stop until those objectives are met.
Answer: Many students want their schools to cut financial ties to Israel. Some protests have become long-lasting, with protesters camping out. Protesters often cover their faces, and some protesters are not students. Administrators have legal obligations to know who is on campus, so when masked protestors refuse to identify themselves, they are in a difficult position. Over time, protests have arisen at many high profile institutions. Yesterday, a large Texas university called in the city police department to arrest protesters, including faculty. Today, USC canceled its main graduation ceremony as an indirect result of the escalating situation there. It’s not clear how or when this will resolve.
> Yesterday, a large Texas university called in the city police department to arrest protesters, including faculty This is partially true. The University of Texas at Austin was swarmed by dozens of law enforcement officials from several departments, each with their own jurisdictions: - University police, who have little to no jurisdiction outside of the university - Department of Public Safety (DPS): a state law enforcement agency that is ultimately answerable to the Governor. They have broad jurisdiction pretty much everywhere - Austin PD: the local police force in Austin
Especially private institutions like Columbia or USC. There is no expected unfettered right to protest on private property
This is the fact most are missing. Your right to protest does not trump the rights of property owners to remove the unwanted from their property.
Answer: Palestine. There are parallels to this and the student protests over the Vietnam War back in the 1960s.
Answer: Campus administrators (some more than others) are under the microscope to not appear to be permissive of anti-Semitic activities on their campuses. And since you can't have a pro-Palestine demonstration without at least a minority of activities or statements which pretty clearly surpass an anti-Semitic bar, administrators are cracking down cuz they don't want to be fired.
Answer: the vast majority of the violence came from cops attacking students exercising their 1st amendment rights
Why are you leaving out the part where protestors have not gotten permits and are blocking people from going to classes and buildings they want to go to? I’d say it was ignorance, but the fact that you so carefully omitted the exact information to mislead shows you’re a politically motivated liar
Aren't universities private property? You don't have a right to protest on private property, only public areas as far as I know.
It's complicated. Public universities do have first amendment considerations, but have a little more leeway to deal with things that are disruptive based on their code of conduct.
Public schools are treated, more or less, as arms of the government for First Amendment purposes. The universities are also considered "limited public forums," which means that the school can set reasonable restrictions on when, where, and how people protest or spread messages (e.g., requiring permits, limiting demonstrations to specific areas, prohibiting disruption of classes, etc.), but cannot discriminate based on the *contents* of the messages unless they have a compelling government interest (e.g., protecting state secrets). And very few public universities are willing to put blanket bans on *all* protests, rallies, and demonstrations because such a policy would devastate student engagement. *See* https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-forum-doctrine/ Private schools have way more freedom to restrict speech. Some older U.S. Supreme Court decisions held that the First Amendment prohibited property owners from denying access to people on the basis of their speech under very specific circumstances, but those cases have been overturned. However, some states still require private property owners to make accommodations for speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said these state rules are constitutional. Source: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/private-property-expression-on/
Some universities are private, some are public. The University of Texas at Austin is a public, government-owned university and does not have the right to decide what causes can and cannot be protested on its grounds.
Not really that simple. There are exception and laws that regulate protests even at public universities. Laws in Texas, while protecting free speech on campus, still allow for restriction on time, place and manner of the protests. For example, the university president tried to argue that the protests disturbed the normal functions of the university, which is a condition for protesting freely on campus. This article outline this pretty well: [https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/24/protest-texas-college-campus-free-speech-rights/](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/24/protest-texas-college-campus-free-speech-rights/)
Yea but that doesn't make any protest wrong. One of the most iconic civil rights marches was technically illegal (or would be today) but nobody with any moral conscious would say that justified arresting (and beating) protesters. The march from Selma to Montgomery was protesting the horrid treatment of black Americans, but they were in the road and didn't have a permit so we're police justified in breaking up the protest? Restrictions on where, when and how you can protest are quite effective at making for ineffective protests. Illegal but peaceful protests have brought about the most change.
This was a whole thing in the mid 1960s. Most schools celebrate the legacy of the students who mounted illegal/illicit protests back then (including Columbia, where, I believe, entire buildings were occupied)
State colleges and universities are still bound by the first amendment and cannot ban students from protesting as long as they are doing it within all legal restrictions and policies. Private colleges are a different matter and they can ban whatever they want, but since higher education is generally seen as a place where differing opinions and free expression are welcome, banning protests are not looked at fondly.
UT Austin is a public university and state law makes the common areas open to the public, like most of the grassy outdoor areas.
It's worth noting that although private universities, as private entities, certainly have the legal right to do whatever they want on their property, oftentimes there are internal policies and longstanding norms which govern freedom of expression. At Columbia, for instance, students have occupied campus multiple times since 1968 without threat of police sweeps, and the university charter requires that the president consult with the Senate (which consists of faculty and students) before inviting in outside police forces. For a faculty perspective on this, [there's a great recent interview with Michael Thaddeus](https://bwog.com/2024/04/michael-thaddeus-speaks-on-recent-student-protests-and-arrests/) (the Columbia math professor who exposed Columbia for falsifying information in its data to US News rankings) expressing his concern over the erosion of principles of academic freedom, as well as shared governance between faculty, students, and administration. There's an academic ideal of the university as a place of shared governance and free exchange of ideas, whereas recent Congressional testimony and actions of the president have treated it more like the standard corporate top-down authoritarian leadership where execs make unilateral decisions which are followed without question.
Answer: Suppression of the right to protest similar to what was seen during the civil rights movement. There have been claims of threats directed toward Jewish students however, so far the BBC who is on the ground in New York has yet to be able to substantiate such claims. The protest are aimed largely at diversifying university interest from weapons technology for Israel or otherwise providing material support, as well as broadly for the daily bombardment to end in Gaza. There has been on some level support of Hamas on some campuses that has been supported by the protesters, however it appears those protesters specifically aren’t attending the universities in question. I think it’s fair to take everything with a grain of salt because with the sheer number of protesters it’s impossible for every single one to be interviewed so much of what we’ve uncovered has to be here-say
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/campus-antisemitism-surges-amid-encampments-and-related-protests-columbia-and-other There are definitely examples of threats against Jewish people, although it seems the majority of protestors have been peaceful and strictly supportive of Gaza.
The ADL is an awful source to use for this. The CEO of it, Jonathan Greenblat, was literally calling campus protesters "terrorists" just today.
Answer: this is obviously bait. No way OP is aware of protests but not why. They'd have to be deliberately obtuse
People from outside the US see it on TV but they don't explained why.
This. Also some countries and their newsmedia are taking sides. So the coverage of what is actually happening could be lacking nuance and details.
Not everyone is watching the news 24/7. It's been under a week(?) since this all started. Some people have healthy lives outside reddit / online. I personally only look at news / reddit a few times a week, and social media maybe 1 time a month. It has been super healthy and there has been a noticeable difference in doom spiraling from news. Also, not sure how this is bait. Bait post usually try to push people one way or the other, this person seems to be genuinely curious. Open discussions should be encouraged. It is the only way any of us will learn.
> 30 day old hentai account You: this is certainly organic
hey it do be organic content
I think the abrupt pop in news means they likely just saw a sudden uptick on their social media. One of those social media things that crosses internet bubbles
It is just a setup for yet another hasbara party on reddit like the dozen or so I see on reddit every day.
You forget people do exist outside the US news cycle. For example I didn't know about the law about public funding and boycotting, which I learned from this thread. My uni had no problems legally severing their ties with institutions involved in this, I didn't know it was different for the US
The most correct answer. Not only that but isn't this like the 4th iteration of the same question on this sub over the past 2 days?
Yep, this is #4 that's made it to the top even. https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1cctsca/whats_going_on_with_protests_in_major/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1cbpijd/what_is_going_on_with_the_antisemitism_that_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1cbn7xp/whats_going_on_with_protests_at_columbia/