Around 100 protesters were arrested on Saturday at a pro-Palestine encampment at Northeastern University, but not the one whose hate speech got everything shut down.
Pro-Israeli interests have sometimes settled for manufacturing a helpful “truth” when it doesn’t exist. The latest version seems to be that protesters are widely violent, hateful, and make campuses/cities unsafe. Here’s a 4-minute message from a Jewish Holocaust survivor about his time in the front lines of pro-Palestine protests: “When the right-wing section of the present government is trying to press for the banning of these marches on the grounds that they create ‘no-go areas’ for Jews and they are anti-Semitic - we know that this is complete rubbish and the very opposite is true.” He encourages “the brave student protesters” to keep going, and talks about how well they have been treated and celebrated even while wearing placards that identify them as Jews.
Here’s a Jewish Londoner talking about how he’s been attending UK pro-Palestine/ceasefire marches for months with a large Jewish bloc and they’ve “been received very warmly”. The interviewer then disagrees with him, telling him that he’s in danger and the marches are anti-Semitic in spite of the person who’s actually been going to months of protests saying it’s the opposite.
Here’s a video of a woman who walked into the middle of a protest calling 911 and trying to invent a dangerous situation while everyone around her keeps their distance and assures her she is safe to leave.
Here’s a study about how false claims of crimes hurt the cases of, and empathy for, real victims of crimes. Similarly there are real anti-Semites out there, and there are true cases of racially motivated aggression against Jews. However, such obvious attempts to invent anti-Semitism is “crying wolf” and damages the credibility of genuine allegations by making it easier to believe it’s made up. The people trying to manufacture the situations they claim to fear need to examine their commitment to truth and the harmful impact of their obvious deception. On the protesters side, it’s good they are booing and otherwise publicly rejecting anyone who steps over the line into hatred (whether genuinely or as a false flag). That’s something they absolutely must stick to in order for the protests to stay ethical and also to avoid being discredited as racist.
The interviewer… Told the interviewee what their opinion should be.
Great. We really are in The Bad Place.
It’s worth pointing out, I think, that TalkTV is Rupert Murdoch’s latest outing, and is owned by his News Corp, which also owns The S*n and The Times. It’s no surprise it’s awful.
I find it easier to assume Murdoch involvement in any major news outlet rather than try to keep track
It’s annoying because the argument was clearly “your multiple real life experiences don’t back up these talking points I’ve been handed”. I thought the interviewee handled it very well though.
The holocaust survivor demonstrators, against the genocide in Palestine. Ooof. Thank you for posting this. I may link to this comment.
Don’t forget the Jewish student who is being paraded around mainstream news outlets after allegedly being “stabbed in the eye” at a protest.
Oddly enough, the video of the actual incident rarely seems to be played on air during her segments. I wonder why 🤔
deleted by creator
It also could just be a racist acting on their own agenda. Regardless, it’s devastating to the vast majority of peaceful protesters. They need to identify and cast out bad actors as soon as they’re identified to protect themselves from legal repercussions, let alone discredit to their cause.
It also could just be a racist acting on their own agenda
I could buy that if not for this:
The next morning, dozens of NUPD and Boston police arrested around 100 demonstrators, but not the one whose hate speech got everything shut down.
That doesn’t suggest anything other than police bias. They could just as easily be protecting a racist. It’s not unheard of.
It is incredible precision, and it wouldn’t be among the 10 first cases I’ve heard of a police mole dynamiting a protest to create reasons to arrest people. The cases I know of are from Spain though.
It could be a plant, but it also could just be one racist asshole that justified police intervention, then the police let the racist go after arresting the remaining protesters. SCOTUS ruled “guilt by association” in protests now, so it’s completely legal.
The most important message to protect protesters is to identify and eject bad actors as soon as they’re identified. There’s no room for bystanders at a protest now that your criminal record is on the line.
deleted by creator
Tell that to right-wing media. They focus 100% of the story on the bad actors, and like it or not, half of our government reads that news exclusively. Extremists are a cancer to any cause. The message to share with protesters is to have zero tolerance for extreme behavior, and immediately call out bad actors that show up at their demonstrations, for the good of their cause. Especially now that being a bystander can get you charged.
You want the news to read, “Protesters criticize and eject demonstrator calling for killing Jews from pro-Palestine rally.”
Yeah i want the news to read that, but that wouldn’t serve the interests of the parasite class so you and i won’t have that pleasure.
My point is, protesters need to be vigilant to outcast problem actors as soon as they’re identified. The goal is to protect the protesters from the legal repercussions of one bad actor.
Not arguing with you, i agree with your point. Only caveat being: that no matter what, the headlines won’t read this, because **the whole point of AIPAC (and the state) using bad actors like this is to from up an excuse for cops to arrest and break up protesters. It’s a very effective tactic they’ve been using for decades. They will at best put up a story like this, exonerating the arrested protesters after the fact.
That’s assuming they aren’t charging the protest as a whole, without the ability to identify the initial bad actor. The new ruling does not explicitly state that the instigator needs to be identified for the protest to be charged as a whole.
There’s now nothing stopping police from saying they saw someone throw a rock, but couldn’t identify who, and then charging the protest as a whole. SCOTUS completely fucked freedom to assemble.
Removed by mod
Do yourself a favor and just read a bit about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
My lesdyxia read Alligator, and immediately thought this was an onion article.
Removed by mod
What is a false flag operation?
Removed by mod
Maybe it’s just me, but making light of raping a child seems like it isn’t something a good person would do.
That seems like some concerning projection.
Republicans plans.
