←back to thread

293 points dataflow | 2 comments | | HN request time: 1.255s | source
Show context
jmyeet ◴[] No.44605378[source]
There are two takeaways from this:

1. US foreign policy is uniparty. As terrible as this administration is, remember that quashing anti-war protests happened under Biden, too. Columbia, Hind Hall, etc were all under Biden. That being said, moving to deport or denaturalize pro-Palestinian protestors is new; and

2. The state will turn violent to quash anti-imperialist sentiment.

Let me give you some examples:

1. The MOVE bombing. In Philadelphia in 1985 there was a black liberation group called MOVE. After a day-long standoff with police, the police dropped a C4 explosive from a helicotper on the house. The resulting fire killed 11;

2. Kent State. In 1970, there was an anti-war protest at Kent State University in Ohio. The Ohio National Guard had been called in. The protestors were unarmed. The National Guard were at least 100 yards from the protestors. Yet at some point the protestors got scared and fired on the protestors, killing 4; and

3. At a pro-Palestinian protest at UCLA, the encampment was attacked by pro-Zionists. The police stood by and did nothing and the next day used that violence as an excuse to violently break up the protest.

Facial recognition, mass surveillance, social media checks at ports of entry, weaponized deportation, etc. The state simply will not tolerate anti-imperialist protests.

replies(2): >>44605551 #>>44609288 #
hearsathought ◴[] No.44605551[source]
> 1. US foreign policy is uniparty.

Only in regards to one foreign entity.

> Let me give you some examples:

2 of those 3 directly involve the US and US action. The outlier says a lot.

> The state simply will not tolerate anti-imperialist protests.

The current administration ran on an anti-imperialist platform. You can protest american, russian, french, chinese, british imperialism all you want. You can quote george washington's warning about empires and foreign wars all day long. What you can't protest is israel. Period.

replies(1): >>44606104 #
1. hearsathought ◴[] No.44606245[source]
> Anyone can protest whatever they want.

This is such blatant lie that it exposes you outright.

> You don't have the right to throw rocks at people.

Who says you have the right to throw rocks at people? Other than god in the torah, I know of no one who supports throwing rocks at anyone.

> If you think Israel is controlling the US

I don't have to think. The leader of israel literally went on american news and ordered the administration and state leaders to crack down on protests on US college campuses. And it immediately happened all over the country from ny to texas to california.

> getting them to arrest peaceful Palestinian protesters

Arrest violent palestinian and Israeli protestors. I don't care. But why lie about the crackdown on peaceful protestors?

replies(1): >>44606556 #
2. mattnewton ◴[] No.44606273[source]
>If you think Israel is controlling the US and getting them to arrest peaceful Palestinian protesters or that they somehow made it illegal to protest Israel then you've lost all critical thinking skills.

I think the situation is also not as simple as lawbreakers being investigated for breaking the law. What law did Mahmoud Khalil break to get himself arrested? The administration basically accused him of hate speech while being here on a Visa, not of breaking the peace or throwing rocks. The case in the article is different; with a very clear crime he should have been properly investigated for by NYPD. But this news is in the context of several other cases around these protests, and so attention to the lengths NYPD went to here is newsworthy.

Let me be clear, I agree wholeheartedly statements like "Israel controls the US" are an antisemitic trope that can be dismissed out of hand. But "protests against important US ally Israel have special attention from law enforcement agencies" - that's very different, and seems like it might have evidence here.