[Deutschmania]

I actually find it more concerning pro-Palestine leftists have, in fact, killed people on the streets. But that's me.

I take it that you are referring to the case of Paul Kessler then , as it's the only one that I have heard of ? I am not sure as to what the exact ideology of the suspect , Loay Alnaji , is , whether he's a leftist , an Islamist , or what . And also the accused was a college professor , rather than a student .


https://meaww.com/who-is-loay-alnaji-pro-palestinian-professor-questioned-in-relation-to-israeli-activist-paul-kesslers-death

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-protester-dies-california-charges-47b595868baa627b6fb56e82c9bec50d


https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/loay-alnaji-paul-kessler-death-will-stand-trial/index.html

[Pants-of-dog]

If killing people in the streets was important to Zionists, then they would not support an army that kills people in the streets every day.

[wat0n]

Another concerning fact is that pro-Palestine leftists believe this is not a big deal, and also if they cared about killing people on the streets they would not justify the October 7 massacre.

Instead we see people like @Pants-of-dog claim that bludgeoning someone's head is something you do unintentionally and inadvertently.

What do Paul Kessler and the Israelis killed on the streets have in common? That they're Jews, and therefore it's easy to tell pro-Palestine leftists do not have any problems with killing Jews on the street be it in Israel, the USA or anywhere else. In fact, it's one of their long term goals: To kill as many Jews as possible.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is a regrettable tragedy, but not important compared to things like censorship. The killer is facing state sanctions. According to the “law and order are always right” fan club, the whole incident is proceeding as it should.

Just like the genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany proceeded legally and as it was designed.

And now the censorship of criticizing Israel is proceeding legally and as it should. Just like criminalizing consumer choices that the state does not like are also legal and proceeding as they are meant to.

[wat0n]

Things are proceeding as they should in the Kessler case indeed, and one thing that has proceeded as it should is that it shows that pro-Palestine protesters have already killed people. Yet @Pants-of-dog still does not condemn that.

Instead, he's whining about laws that are not even censorship laws but simply state no government funding will be provided to those who boycott an American ally. You can still boycott if you want, just don't demand money from the government.

[Unthinking Majority]

1. You have yet to explain why cops are allowed to hassle anyone wearing a keffiyeh..

2. You have yet to explain why Israel refuses Palestinian right of return.

3. You have yet to explain why the IDF can try children in kangaroo courts.

4. You have yet to explain why investing in a company that makes bombs that kill Palestinian kids is moral.

5. The Nazis also followed international law at the time, by the way.

6. Because this is a common protest tactic that usually does not include such violent police repression.

7. There were many calls to divest from SA. There are many calls to divest from China. There are actual sanctions against Russia, as there were against Iraq. Economic isolation of pariah states is a normal thing.

8. And this idea that we should police consumer choices and punish anyone who refuses to trade with certain people is weird. It seems like you are arguing that people shoukd have the freedom to trade with Israel, but not have the freedom to not trade with Israel.

1. They aren't, unless the cops are looking for a suspect who was wearing a keffiyeh when they broke the law and they're questioning possible suspects.

2. Some things Israel has done are illegal. Refusing right of return is illegal per the UN. Similar to Jews being chased from Arab countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestini ... _of_return

3. Cite needed. If it happens its probably contrary to international law.

4. Cite needed to show the IDF specifically targets children with bombs. Cite needed to show colleges invest and such companies. Cite needed to show it isn't moral to invest in companies that make bombs to defend Israeli civilians against Hamas terrorists.

5. LOL no.

6. It's illegal and immoral and nobody in the US or Canada is allowed to do this legally. The trucker convoy protestors in Canada occupied city streets and they were removed using police violence because their protest tactics were illegal. These pro-Palestine protestors who occupy property are not victims, they are oppressors. If you want the laws changed to let anyone take over any private property they wish based on their feelings then contact your local political representative. When it passes I will camp on your property indefinitely and prevent you from accessing it to protest an issue of my choosing and you will not complain because you agree with these protest tactics.

7. Colleges divesting from entire countries because a minority of student activists want it will open an unworkable can of worms. Governments do sanctions for political reasons, colleges don't do sanctions and should remain apolitical because they represent a diverse set of students and staff with different political interests.

8. I never made any of these arguments.

[Pants-of-dog]

1. They aren't, unless the cops are looking for a suspect who was wearing a keffiyeh when they broke the law and they're questioning possible suspects.

So then we see that the cops were able to disobey the law with impunity and enforce a political ideology on people using transit that day.

Note this contradicts the idea that the legal and justice system will champion justice.

2. Some things Israel has done are illegal. Refusing right of return is illegal per the UN. Similar to Jews being chased from Arab countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestini ... _of_return

So then we see that countries can make and enforce laws that are technically illegal and get away with it since there is no way to hold them accountable.

Note that contradicts the idea that the justice system will serve those who are being treated unfairly.

3. Cite needed. If it happens its probably contrary to international law.

It may be, but again, Israel is not being held accountable for following its own laws in this regard.

https://www.savethechildren.net/news/pa ... conditions

4. Cite needed to show the IDF specifically targets children with bombs.

This has already been provided. If you want to look it up again, Google “study IDF bombing homes of UNRWA workers” I am tired of having to look up child killings for you guys over and over again.

Cite needed to show colleges invest and such companies.

This whole thread is about this exact issue.

Are you seriously arguing that the whole thing has been made up?

Cite needed to show it isn't moral to invest in companies that make bombs to defend Israeli civilians against Hamas terrorists.

We already know centrists think it is perfectly moral for people to invest in companies that benefit from human rights abuses.

Feel free to keep believing that.

Note that everyone opposed to the genocide has a good reason to believe they are your moral superior.

5. LOL no.

Then put your money where your mouth is and cite the international law broken.

6. It's illegal and immoral and nobody in the US or Canada is allowed to do this legally. The trucker convoy protestors in Canada occupied city streets and they were removed using police violence because their protest tactics were illegal. These pro-Palestine protestors who occupy property are not victims, they are oppressors. If you want the laws changed to let anyone take over any private property they wish based on their feelings then contact your local political representative. When it passes I will camp on your property indefinitely and prevent you from accessing it to protest an issue of my choosing and you will not complain because you agree with these protest tactics.

Then show that these tactics have always resulted in this level of police repression.

Specifically, explain why arrest rate for these protests is twice the rate of the arrests of the BLM protests.

7. Colleges divesting from entire countries because a minority of student activists want it will open an unworkable can of worms. Governments do sanctions for political reasons, colleges don't do sanctions and should remain apolitical because they represent a diverse set of students and staff with different political interests.

So you would have supported the continued investment in South Africa during Apartheid, since this was the case most of the time then,

8. I never made any of these arguments.

Then explain why divestment from Israel is illegal in many places. Is that also an example of the legal system serving all impartially?

[ingliz]

@Rich

Unintended consequences

US, UK concerned Russia may be assisting Iran with nuclear weapons program

— The Times of Israel

A limited nuclear exchange and its aftermath.

A BBC documentary from 1966 ...

Peter Watkins's The War Game

[Unthinking Majority]

So then we see that the cops were able to disobey the law with impunity and enforce a political ideology on people using transit that day.

You've provided no evidence for these claims so we can reject this argument.

So then we see that countries can make and enforce laws that are technically illegal and get away with it since there is no way to hold them accountable.

Yes this is true.

It may be, but again, Israel is not being held accountable for following its own laws in this regard.

Israel should abide by international law and its own laws, and basic human rights and due process laws. I've always argued this. I would never argue that Israel is always right in all its actions.

This has already been provided. If you want to look it up again, Google “study IDF bombing homes of UNRWA workers” I am tired of having to look up child killings for you guys over and over again.

The IDF is targeting terrorists who work for the UNRWA in these cases, not children, as you've been reminded several times. Collateral damage is a reality in all wars. Allowing terrorists who murder innocent Israelis to live in order to spare the children/families of terrorists is an interesting and complex ethical dilemma that could be discussed maybe in another topic. If you want to divest from companies that make bombs that kill children then basically all bombmakers should be targeted including those that arm Muslim countries and Hamas.

We already know centrists think it is perfectly moral for people to invest in companies that benefit from human rights abuses.

Feel free to keep believing that.

Note that everyone opposed to the genocide has a good reason to believe they are your moral superior.

You're over-generalizing my views. I already said that governments and individuals can choose to not invest in certain countries because that's a political choice. Colleges are different in that they represent a diverse group of students and staff that all have differing politics so colleges should remain apolitical so politicizing investments becomes much more problematic.

You've never condemned the Oct 7 attacks and said you don't really care about the civilians killed so you have no authority to say who is my "moral superior".

Then show that these tactics have always resulted in this level of police repression.

Specifically, explain why arrest rate for these protests is twice the rate of the arrests of the BLM protests.

Well they resulted in police ending illegally occupied private and public property during the CHAZ/CHOP occupation during the BLM protests. That was in one of the most left-wing cities in North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_H ... ed_Protest

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog gets triggered over protesters being arrested to stop their vandalism of private property but not when those same protesters kill people.

[Pants-of-dog]

You've provided no evidence for these claims so we can reject this argument.

This stuff happens so often it took me seconds to find another case of cops violating the rights of individuals engaged in protesting the IDF.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 36574.html

Now, this prof was attacked. thrown to the ground, arrested, and charged with battery. The now viral video shows her asking the cops what they are doing prior to her arrest.

So, what is happening to these cops after arresting and hitting an innocent person?

Yes this is true.

Israel should abide by international law and its own laws, and basic human rights and due process laws. I've always argued this. I would never argue that Israel is always right in all its actions.

Then why do you and others hold to this idea that intentional law is somehow going to solve the problem?

The IDF is targeting terrorists who work for the UNRWA in these cases, not children, as you've been reminded several times. Collateral damage is a reality in all wars. Allowing terrorists who murder innocent Israelis to live in order to spare the children/families of terrorists is an interesting and complex ethical dilemma that could be discussed maybe in another topic. If you want to divest from companies that make bombs that kill children then basically all bombmakers should be targeted including those that arm Muslim countries and Hamas.

What is the difference between sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and there may be someone who might be linked to a terrorist organization?

In both cases, the IDF is deliberately bombing kids.

At this point, you seem to be arguing that the IDF is allowed to deliberately kill kids because of international law. And the fact that they are doing so with impunity and without providing any evidence of guilt seems to show that international humanitarian law does not stop soldiers from deliberately killing kids while they sleep.

You're over-generalizing my views. I already said that governments and individuals can choose to not invest in certain countries because that's a political choice. Colleges are different in that they represent a diverse group of students and staff that all have differing politics so colleges should remain apolitical so politicizing investments becomes much more problematic.

You've never condemned the Oct 7 attacks and said you don't really care about the civilians killed so you have no authority to say who is my "moral superior".

Then why was divestment from South Africa so easily accepted?

Well they resulted in police ending illegally occupied private and public property during the CHAZ/CHOP occupation during the BLM protests. That was in one of the most left-wing cities in North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_H ... ed_Protest

So we see that the BLM movement also engaged in occupation tactics and yet only half as many arrests were made.

You still need to explain this discrepancy.

[Unthinking Majority]

This stuff happens so often it took me seconds to find another case of cops violating the rights of individuals engaged in protesting the IDF.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 36574.html

Now, this prof was attacked. thrown to the ground, arrested, and charged with battery. The now viral video shows her asking the cops what they are doing prior to her arrest.

So, what is happening to these cops after arresting and hitting an innocent person?

My main argument here is that following the law will lead to better and more peaceful outcomes domestically and in Israel and Palestine. I have never and would never advocate for police breaking the law including illegally arresting/detaining protestors or using unnecessary violence, which I'm sure has happened to some pro-Palestine protestors and i'm very much against that like you are.

So in short: Illegal actions by protestors are bad, and illegal actions by police are bad. Both should be held accountable.

Your argument seems to be that these protestors should just be able to get away with illegal actions that infringe on the rights of others simply because you agree with their politics and their protest messages. This is undemocratic. Holding parts of campus hostage is not a legitimate protest tactic.

Then why do you and others hold to this idea that intentional law is somehow going to solve the problem?

My argument is that if everyone followed the law there would be peace and justice, or at least far more than there is now. I never said that law is always enforceable.

What is the difference between sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and there may be someone who might be linked to a terrorist organization?

Legitimate question: How is Israel supposed to defend itself against the people who attack them when they hide amongst the general population and sometimes use them as human shields? I don't know the answer to this, but doing nothing seems unreasonable, as is not putting any of the blame on the terrorists for using these tactics.

Then why was divestment from South Africa so easily accepted?

South African apartheid was a much more black and white issue. There was no moral defense for white supremacists who segregated black South Africans. The Israel-Palestine conflict is far more complex and both sides do bad things to each other and are victimized by the other.

So we see that the BLM movement also engaged in occupation tactics and yet only half as many arrests were made.

You still need to explain this discrepancy.

I have no idea how many arrests were made in each case. The police did a poor job of policing a lot of crime that happened during the BLM riots and took a long time to stop the CHAZ/CHOP occupation. The police and the Democrat-controlled cities probably didn't want the bad PR of arresting BLM protestors (a cause with strong public support). Whether its BLM or Palestine protestors or rightwing trucker protesters or MAGA protestors, nobody should be allowed to break the law and infringe on the rights of others. The political leanings of protestors should never have any affect on how they're policed.

It's not hard for protesters to adhere to the law, but some don't want to because they feel that breaking the law will give them more leverage to get what they want or bring more attention to their cause (i.e. stopping traffic). Unfortunately these tactics are undemocratic and essentially akin to blackmail and therefore illegal.

[Pants-of-dog]

So in short: Illegal actions by protestors are bad, and illegal actions by police are bad. Both should be held accountable.

And in practice, the protesters are arrested in flimsy charges and the police act with total impunity.

So do you agree that the system does not hold people accountable as you wish?

Do you also agree that the lack of accountability is disproportionately awarded to cops and those who support the status quo?

My argument is that if everyone followed the law there would be peace and justice, or at least far more than there is now. I never said that law is always enforceable.

We already have the example of the Nazis showing that following the law can and often does lead to violence and oppression.

Legitimate question: How is Israel supposed to defend itself against the people who attack them when they hide amongst the general population and sometimes use them as human shields?

While I understand why you think this is a legitimate question, it is a loaded question. It assumes, without evidence, that Hamas is using the population as human shields.

Now, please answer the question:

What is the difference between sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and there may be someone who might be linked to a terrorist organization?

You have argued that the latter is legitimate while the former is not.

Please explain how.

South African apartheid was a much more black and white issue. There was no moral defense for white supremacists who segregated black South Africans. The Israel-Palestine conflict is far more complex and both sides do bad things to each other and are victimized by the other.

So we can make these sort of divestments even when there is a diverse population of students.

All it takes is moral clarity.

I have no idea how many arrests were made in each case.

I have already provided that information. The rate of arrests (i.e. percent of protesters arrested) for BLM is half of the rate as for the current protests.

The police did a poor job of policing a lot of crime that happened during the BLM riots and took a long time to stop the CHAZ/CHOP occupation. The police and the Democrat-controlled cities probably didn't want the bad PR of arresting BLM protestors (a cause with strong public support). Whether its BLM or Palestine protestors or rightwing trucker protesters or MAGA protestors, nobody should be allowed to break the law and infringe on the rights of others. The political leanings of protestors should never have any affect on how they're policed.

It's not hard for protesters to adhere to the law, but some don't want to because they feel that breaking the law will give them more leverage to get what they want or bring more attention to their cause (i.e. stopping traffic). Unfortunately these tactics are undemocratic and essentially akin to blackmail and therefore illegal.

Why are the cops arresting anti-genocide protestors at twice the rate as BLM protesters?

[wat0n]

Daily reminder that those "anti-genocide" protestors @Pants-of-dog defends so much have, in fact, killed people and he's okay with it.

[Pants-of-dog]

It seems that the argument is that we can condemn all protesters because if the acts of one man.

This is either a stereotype or a call for collective punishment.

And it does not, in any way, regute the claim that the law is unjust and disproportionately awards impunity to those it favours.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog supports the massacre of civilians living in the Gaza border over the actions of Israeli politicians and some settlers, it's good to see he admits he supports collective punishment at last.

I will also note that it's still objectively true that no pro-Palestine protesters have been killed by police but that pro-Palestine protesters have in fact killed people. And of course their supporters are okay with associating with killers.

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as we agree that the law is definitely and not impartially on the side of the pro-genocide group.

[wat0n]

What law?

I'd say that pro-Palestine leftists have been treated with kid gloves if anything. None of them have been killed, while some BLM protesters were in fact killed.

[Unthinking Majority]

And in practice, the protesters are arrested in flimsy charges and the police act with total impunity.

So do you agree that the system does not hold people accountable as you wish?

Do you also agree that the lack of accountability is disproportionately awarded to cops and those who support the status quo?

I've watched many, many videos of police misconduct captured on video (including lots of bodycams footage, which is public record and victims can request to see) and uploaded to sites like Youtube and followed the stories. There's many, many examples on Youtube of police being recorded on video abusing their authority and acting against policy or law and then being fired for it or charged and jailed and being successfully sued by the victim or their families for damages. The most famous example of that might be the cop who killed George Floyd, but there's many examples almost nobody has ever heard of.

Are there examples of police getting away with misconduct, even when caught on video? Absolutely. I don't know what the ratio is for cops getting away with their misconduct vs not when it is caught on video (proper evidence of the misconduct or crime by the cops). Your arguments don't cite any statistics regarding this.

The system, or at least how its enforced by the courts and cities, is obviously imperfect and flawed on police accountability and needs to be improved.

We already have the example of the Nazis showing that following the law can and often does lead to violence and oppression.

This is a strawman, I'm not talking about WWII. Obviously international law was inadequate then. My argument specifically stated international law post-WWII after the creation of the UN, the UN charter etc.

The UN created and ratified a UN partition plan for a 2-state solution in 1947 with territory for the Arabs far larger than even pre-1967 borders that the Jewish leaders accepted and the Arab leaders rejected and then they attacked Israel. Had the Arab leaders accepted the deal then the Palestinians would be far, far, far, better off than at any point since the Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948. The Arab leaders played their hand and lost and the Palestinians have suffered ever since for it.

If you don't think following international law would work then you obviously don't believe in a 2-state solution and you support the continued suffering of Palestinians. If you want Israel to cease to exist like Hamas and Hezbollah and most Muslims do then good luck with that fantasy, it will just continue the death and misery in the region.

While I understand why you think this is a legitimate question, it is a loaded question. It assumes, without evidence, that Hamas is using the population as human shields.

Google is your friend.

Now, please answer the question:

What is the difference between sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and sending a bomb to destroy a home where kids are sleeping and there may be someone who might be linked to a terrorist organization?

You have argued that the latter is legitimate while the former is not.

Please explain how.

If you won't answer my questions in good faith then i'm not going to answer yours. If you were a peace negotiator for the Palestinians there would never be any peace deal because the Israelis could never trust you based on your constant bad faith arguments put forward. All you want is gains and will never give an inch when you debate. This is exactly how the Palestinians/Arabs have negotiated and behaved for 70+ years. That's not the way peace deals and ceasefires are made. Now I understand why you support the Palestinians.

So we can make these sort of divestments even when there is a diverse population of students.

All it takes is moral clarity.

Maybe that's true. Unfortunately campuses across the West have been exploding with debate and anger over who has the moral clarity: pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli advocates.

And this has been going on for decades. This will never get solved, just like the conflict itself. Therefore, the only way forward on this is for colleges to remain apolitical.

I have already provided that information. The rate of arrests (i.e. percent of protesters arrested) for BLM is half of the rate as for the current protests.

No you made that claim and didn't provide any link or cite supporting it in any of your replies to me. But i don't even care because I don't know why this is even relevant to our discussion.

Why are the cops arresting anti-genocide protestors at twice the rate as BLM protesters?

Assuming this is true, I already provided my explanation in my previous reply. And if all people who break the law were immediately forced to stop by the authorities and then were all held accountable for their crimes the world would be a much more wonderful and peaceful place. This includes both people breaking the law while protesting and cops breaking the law, and all people in Israel/Gaza.

[Rich]

This is a strawman, I'm not talking about WWII. Obviously international law was inadequate then. My argument specifically stated international law post-WWII after the creation of the UN, the UN charter etc.

The UNs creators included Stalin. Stalin was a genocider. For starter he exterminated three quarters of the Soviet Union's ethnic Germans. Stalin killed more of the German Communist Party's leader's than Hitler did. Of course the Liberals generally like to keep this quiet, as it doesn't suit their narrative. International law was always a joke.

The UN created and ratified a UN partition plan for a 2-state solution in 1947 with territory for the Arabs far larger than even pre-1967 borders that the Jewish leaders accepted and the Arab leaders rejected and then they attacked Israel. Had the Arab leaders accepted the deal then the Palestinians would be far, far, far, better off than at any point since the Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948. The Arab leaders played their hand and lost and the Palestinians have suffered ever since for it.

Oh please, you'll be trying to get me to believe in father Christmas next. The terror and ethnic cleansing by the Jews started before the Arabs invaded. The Jewish homeland under the plan was totally unworkable as a democracy, with such a huge Arab population. Most of the territory given to the Jews in the partition plan was Arab / Muslim owned and Arab occupied. If you want to look for a big mistake on the part of the Arabs, it was the Arab revolt, which forced the British authorities to arm the Jews. If you want the big mistake on the part of the Muslims it was coming into the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, biting the Anglo-French hand that had fed them for so long.