trying too hard to play devil's advocate. Everyone can clearly see what the pro Hamas crowd believe. To pretend like they have forever grievances to kill because of a land dispute 80 years ago, while Muslims colonized the entire middle East (as well as Europe for a while but were driven out) is deeply rooted in anti semitism and the success of the Jewish people while those around would be in huts without oil money (which the Jews have none). It's a deeply toxic belief system and why you'll find surrounding muslim nations won't take them in. Gaza would only represent .04% of the MIddle East colonized muslim world but they want nothing to do with them.
well said the actions repeatedly show it don't like the terminology? stop constantly doing it in every country all over the world wherever one goes, conflict follows when any excuse is used to justify violence, it shows the root cause is deeply embedded in a toxic ideology
Since they are doing the protests in America, it would be the average American audience. More importantly, your original claim was that it was the protesters' understanding of the term that mattered, not the audience, which you have now abandoned in favor of a claim that some mystery audience exists that understands Intifada to mean peaceful resistance.
If you want to make a claim about what these protesters actually mean when they use certain words like “globalize the Intifada”, than the rational thing would be to consider (a) what they would understand those words to mean and (b) what they believe the people they are trying to reach would understand those words to mean. It seems likely they are trying to reach out to like-minded people in the West who are inclined to political activism and are sympathetic to leftist causes. So the relevant question is whether such people equate “Intifada” with “terrorism”, not what the average American might think.
You seem to keep missing the point. I am not making a claim about what these protesters actually mean. I am saying they are using terms that have been tainted. Then they are fools who don't understand that the general public is exposed to their speech. Whoever they are trying to reach out to, it is the general American public that hears them.
If bad faith actors will always portray their activism as wanting to genocide Jews maybe they think they might as well reclaim basic Arabic words from right wing fascists that try to make words in the Arabic language "naughty words". It's an attempt to reclaim the term from bad faith Pro-Palestinian genocide actors. They think White American Christian fascists shouldn't police Arabic words.
Alright, fine. But additionally you were saying that it’s fair for people to assume they mean the worst (calling for terrorism) because the words are tainted. And that’s the part I disagree with. … To then have people who have been supporting the actors engaging in said terrorism all along call for more Intifada, it is asking a bit much to have people think they aren't talking about the terrorism this time, they just mean a resistance, like boycotting or doing a sit in. Your issue is a problem that the Arab Muslims have created for themselves. Lebensraum literally just means living space. If you see people at rallies calling for more lebensraum, it is fair to associate them with Nazism….
It is fair for people to assume they mean the worst, precisely because the words are tainted. That doesn't mean that they actually mean the worst. It is fair that if you hear someone talking about needing some lebensraum that they are talking about expanding their boarders into other countries. They could be talking about making an addition on their house, but it is fair for people to assume they aren't. I don't think it is going to work, but they are free to keep using synonyms for terrorism if they want.
I think when these people do activism they aren't thinking of people of your ideological underpinnings. They understand the lost cause nature of your mindset.
No it doesn't. People like you aren't the audience for student activists. Most Palestinian activists in these college sit ins and protests had specific goals from their universities to divest from Israeli companies. Some universities did negotiate some level of divestment. Most universities didn't at all. That is the criteria in which the students deem a protest successful or not. So it was a mixed bag of success and failure... Mostly failure. It's an attempt to mimic the manner in which the Boer Aparthied regime fell in South Africa through international divestment from the pariah state. There is a reason why Israel saw South African Aparthied and Rodeshia as kindred spirits. But their failure isn't convincing pro genocide psychopaths like you. These people understand people like you are unshakable in your hatred.
So, to be clear, what you're saying is it is fair to treat people as if they support terrorism, even if it turns out they don't. You base this on the idea that if the average American thinks Intifada = terrorism, then anyone publicly calling for it in America can be reasonably assumed to be implicitly calling for terrorism. My position is that we should add the caveat that these activists calling for Intifada are not also making clear statements that they don't mean terrorism when they speak of Intifada. And for most people (maybe not you), the view that they are supporting terrorism also implies that these people should be expelled, arrested, and perhaps deported. I recall one former member arguing that protesters were explicitly calling for the death of Jews and pointed to those calling for Intifada as evidence of this. I think these activists should not be arrested and/or deported on account of this so-called fair assessment that they support terrorism, when there isn't actual explicit evidence of it.
I have also said that they should not be arrested and/or deported based on their speech. Think of it as a question of clarity of communication. Someone could say they hope for a permanent and just resolution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. They could also say they hope for a final solution to the Palestinian question. Both of them mean the same thing. Which of them would be a bad idea to say?
Of course the latter. I understand that. But the phrase "final solution" has no cultural significance to anyone, as far as I'm aware, other than to refer to the genocide of European Jews. So I think the comparison doesn't quite work. I know you've said that no one cares the first Intifada, and the term is only significant as a way of referring to the string of terror attacks of the second Intifada. But Intifada really does have a wider cultural significance for Palestinians that doesn't just mean "kill the Jews". For people who are deeply committed to the Palestinian cause and showing solidarity with them, it stands for Palestinians standing up against Israeli oppression rather than just passively accepting it, and others taking an active role to support them in their struggle. That active role need not and should not entail violence. All that said, I think there is a genuine and fair concern that evoking the language of Palestinians on American campuses will encourage people to violence. That's why I wrote earlier that these protesters should take a clear stand against use of violence if they are going to use that language.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/nyregion/columbia-student-ice-suit-yunseo-chung.html https://abc7.com/post/columbia-univ...ld-trump-feds-allegedly-search-dorm/16079976/ Chung, a legal permanent resident who has lived in the U.S. since she moved from South Korea at age 7, participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and accused Trump and other officials of "attempting to use immigration enforcement as a bludgeon to suppress speech that they dislike, including Ms. Chung's speech." Since Chung participated in a March 5 sit-in inside and a demonstration outside an academic building at Barnard College, the feds have searched her dorm, showed up at her parents' house and revoked her status as a legal permanent resident, according to her lawsuit. "The prospect of imminent detention, to be followed by deportation proceedings, has chilled her speech. Ms. Chung is now concerned about speaking up about the ongoing ordeal of Palestinians in Gaza as well as what is happening on her own campus: the targeting of her fellow students by the federal government, the arbitrary disciplinary process she and others are undergoing, and the failure of the university to protect noncitizen students," the lawsuit said. "If Ms. Chung is detained and deported, she will be indefinitely separated from her family and community. Ms. Chung's parents reside in the continental United States, and her sister is set to start college in the United States in the fall."
