Columbia University deploys NYPD against pro-Palestinian library protest, 78 arrested
Columbia University deploys NYPD against pro-Palestinian library protest, 78 arrested
Columbia University deploys NYPD against pro-Palestinian library protest, 78 arrested
... Columbia University administrators called in the New York Police Department (NYPD) on Wednesday evening to violently suppress and shut down a pro-Palestinian student occupation of the campus’ Butler Library. Approximately 78 protesters were arrested just over a year after the police-state crackdown at Columbia last April, when the NYPD swarmed the campus to arrest over 100 students and break up the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.”
On Wednesday afternoon, a group of around 100 anti-genocide student protesters took over Butler’s main reading room and renamed it the “Basel Al-Araj Popular University,” after the Palestinian activist and writer killed by Israeli forces in 2017.
The students’ demands include Columbia’s financial divestment from Zionist organizations, an academic boycott of complicit institutions, cops and ICE off campus and amnesty for all university members unfairly targeted and disciplined for pro-Palestinian actions.
Columbia’s Public Safety officers immediately responded and violently barred protesters from leaving unless they showed identification, which created a prolonged standoff...
If peaceful protest is going to be consistently met with violent police response; maybe they should stop being peaceful from the outset.
I wonder how long it will take for enough to realise their government is not compatible with protests. Peer pressure does not encourage authoritarians.
The running platform was making empathetic people angry; small scale protests are a badge of honor and large scale protests are a mild annoyance to be dealt with however they deem fit.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK
It won’t happen at this rate. Last thing that was closest to that was the CHOP zone in Seattle a few years ago. And that still fell through. Most protest folks that participate won’t fight back since most are against baring arms and only want it to be via peace since they are too afraid to die for something. They will shift that fear on to their peers and react as well with “I don’t want to have people miss me” or “I don’t have the time to up and remove my life from what I’ve worked towards so far”
If security shows up to stop protestors from leaving, they aren't there to secure the peace, they are there to oppress.
Oh brother...
They weren’t there to stop them from leaving, they were there to make them leave the right way - after being identified. The protesters didn’t like this though since they didn’t want to be held accountable for their actions, which is ironic because they want everyone else to be held accountable for things that weren’t even anything to do with their actions.
Sure, but let's step back and analyze it a little more.
Protest itself does not achieve political change. Its usefulness is in direct action or in recruiting those present into further action, education, and organizations. Liberal protests are state-sanctioned parades. Real protests tend to have an actual action to take, demands to be met, people to impact, costs to incur on others.
The terminology of "peaceful protest" is already poisoned and should be questioned. The media and politicians - and those propagandized downstream, all conflate private property destruction and violence. If a protest breaks windows, suddenly it is no longer "peaceful" and can be rejected by the propagandized as invalid and not to be supported. The US is full of such good little piggies, happy to align with the ruling class picking their pocket and doing actual violence because they exist exclusively in a world of capitalist propaganda.
Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism. It's already done this for private property destruction by environmentalists, peace activists during all major wars (except WWII, where American Nazis were coddled and of course did not damage private property), labor organizers, anti-segregation organizers, socialists, communists, Mexicans, Chinese, Native Americans, etc. They happily do it again against anti-genocide protesters, particularly because they can play on the islamophobic use of the terrorism label at the same time. Like all fascistic logic, they must frame themselves as the true victims, so they also happily call every critic of Israel an antisemite.
All of this bombards the US population 24/7. Americans exist in a haze of accusations and terms they barely understand, trying to slot it into what could only charitably called an ideology - the naked reactionaries in red and the obfuscated reactionaries in blue.
All of this is to say that the greatest barrier in the US is education, and education begins with agitation, e.g. these protests in any form. Get as many people as possible to show up to the next thing, to organize the next thing, and spread knowledge.
Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it's not terrorism if you only destroy property.
Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.
Burning down a Tesla dealership is thus not terrorism. It is violent, and it's definitely political, but the target is not civilians but property. In a similar manner, the destruction of the NordStream pipeline was also not terrorism, by definition.
On the flipside, you can argue that some things politicians do are terrorism - if you remove someone's disability benefits that could cause them tangible harm, and thus could be considered violence, in which case a politician attacking someone's benefits would be committing terrorism against the benefit recipients. It's also plain to see that invading a country, slaughtering a bunch of people, and bringing some back as hostages is terrorism; but so is raising entire cities and levelling buildings full of civilians.
Terrorism has many different flavours under its definition, yet so many people just have a vague idea of what terrorism is in their minds that doesn't hold any rationality.
Yes, once protests start breaking laws by damaging property and committing acts of violence, they’re no longer peaceful.
They should start doing minor acts of vandalism in places where there are no cameras like emptying all the toilet rolls all the time. But not too obviously and consistently. Just occasionally when they enter a toilet.
Personally, I'm all for vandalizing the property of zionists and their supporters.
It shouldn't even be that difficult. Could probably rig up a drone to drop bricks or paint on their cars, for example.
Taking over a building is on the far end of "peaceful".
The majority of protests involve taking over space temporarily; that alone doesn't make them not peaceful.
They weren't invading/forcing their way into spaces that they weren't already openly invited to be in, nor were they violent towards officials that were demanding they leave (self-defense aside).
You have literally said you are for the armement of Israel. Of course any protest against Israel is too violent for you.
Yes? If a bunch of Trump supporters took over the same building, would you have the same attitude about it?
Taking over a university facility and making demands isn't "peaceful." Peaceful is sitting outside of University property and protesting.
Huh yes it is. Taking over a building isn't violence idiot.
Not to mention that the protesters are the ones that turned violent when faced with the police attempting to identify and arrest them lol. It’s like they forget that it’s all being recorded by multiple people lol
The “violent police response” was in response to the protesters turning violent when they were locked in the building that they illegally took over. The police locked them in so they could identify and/or arrest every one of them as they came out, but the protesters didn’t want to be identified and held accountable for their actions, so they turned violent. That violence was met with resistance by the police, in the form of physical restraint.
It’s all on video btw. We can see that the protesters are the ones that first became violent.
They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO's are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.