Not saying they will.
But we're talking about how the protests will be remembered.
If they don't move policy, they won't be remembered at all, really.
Pro Hamas in the west - and their adventures
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
But we're talking about how the protests will be remembered.
If they don't move policy, they won't be remembered at all, really.
What did they divest from?
According to their new, amended policy.
In other words, the students didn't make them divest from anything.
They never had the investments in the first place.
Don't overhype the victories.
I suspect that's the case. The only occasion that US foreign policy was moved by domestic dissent - arguably - was Viet Nam. (And one could postulate that withdrawal was inevitable whether or not dissent occurred because the conflict was not winnable).
VN involved a very direct impact on US domestic life - the Draft - and also mirrored generational cultural, dress and lifestyle choices that had little to do with the war but marked the overall context of the protest movement.
The fact that I can access porn and contraceptives, listen to rock not jazz, don't think pre marital sex is sinful, don't think gays should be jailed, believe Blacks should have equal rights and am not donning a suit and tie and fedora to go for a walk in the park in 10 minutes' time all stems from the 60's.
Direct investments, they agreed to check their portfolios and divest there as well.
Nevertheless, the University further directs the Finance Committee of UFSS and other auxiliaries to ensure that the University’s investment portfolios remain free of such direct investments. UFSS and other campus auxiliaries are also directed to investigate a socially responsible stance for indirect investments (e.g., index funds, mutual funds). With this stance, the UFSS and other auxiliaries are directed to benchmark these investments with a goal toward limiting them to no more than de minimis in nature. This shall encompass a process of annual review and ongoing monitoring of holdings. We will pursue human rights-based approach to investments.
The civil rights protests as well.
And the Suffragette protests.
The BLM protests didn't yet, but may eventually.
The thing is, in none of these were the protests the be all and end all of the issue.
Which is the same here.
It does.
And those were protests that began years before - many in the 50s and earlier still.
We remember the tipping point but not the much longer road.
I know, they all rip off their own people, they can't help it . Arafats wife is said to have a billion in swiss accounts.They can’t be near the water and not drink
There were no direct investments.
They also committed only to "investigate a socially responsible stance for indirect investments", with no commitment to complete divestment.
It's a good deal and a good thing.
But the tweet is deliberately misleading.
The rank and file and mid management UNWRA staff are local Gazans and have grown up under the Hamas regime and way of doing things. Lots of violence, rival crime families, no policies to actually assist the ordinary Gazans.They can’t be near the water and not drink
Just preaching hate for Jews and stealing aid. That's what it's about there.
I think the protests you mention including the Vietnam War are/were close to home. The causes noted impacted Americans directly. I don't see the protests creating more real empathy for the Palestinians and by virtue the Hamas leadership.
Other than my most progressive friends, most of them who want to see a cease fire just are tired of 75 years of fighting and fruitless peace discussions. This seems a way to put things on the back burner and avoid more carnage and destruction for the time being. I'm not even sure the protesters have any workable solutions in mind for Palestine beyond a cease fire.
As a separate note, I am not a historian but we know the Germans and Japanese were decimated. They came back with much assistance from the West to build great economies and successful democracies. Does anyone really see the Palestinians grabbing that olive branch and also Western and Mideastern assistance to build a thriving country? It would appear the Palestinians are more excited to get a box of missiles from Iran.
Last edited:
You don't think its even a tiny bit extreme to call protesting students 'freaking terrorists'?
Or is the panic that extreme?
The Vietnam war protests were much bigger, IMO.
They also went on at scale for years.
They were also very unpopular (That's been edited in the collective memory) which is my point from earlier in the thread.
Protests that we now think of as "done right" were very unpopular while they were going on.
Polls almost all showed that people thought the Civil Rights protests were making things worse for the Black population, for instance.
Calls for a cease fire started immediately because most people just want there NOT TO BE PEOPLE KILLING EACH OTHER.
It's horrible and people don't like it.
If you are on the outside, like you say, people just want things to calm the fuck down.
In reality, of course, cease fires happen for other reasons and people involved won't just accept any random cease fire condition once the shooting has started.
That escapes lots of people.
The whole point of giving that assistance was to build something because otherwise they would build resentment.
There was a view that after WWI, the allies should have helped rebuild Germany instead of grinding it down. That may have stopped WWII.
(There are LOTS of debate about all this and whether it is true, of course.)
That doesn't appear to have been tried in Palestine, from what I can see and given the hardliners on both side, I don't expect it to be easy to accomplish. (Much easier to wreck such an approach than to build it.)
That might be true, but I don't think Palestine weighs on most Americans minds. Barring some major regional blow-up, I don't think it ever will.
I believe polling picked up that people were growingly concerned about the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement even if they had not formulated positive opinions of the protests themselves.
During the late 1960s, you had politicians promising to end the war soon without losing face. That of course was palatable to many voters, but totally unrealistic. Add to that, most Americans had no understanding of the history of Vietnam. The U.S. govt. and military was also feeding the public a steady diet of misinformation.
The Civil Rights movement saw victories in many court actions and Congressional legislation throughout the 1950s and 1960s. It wasn't one big slam dunk, but a long battle with White reactionaries.
Then I could add that MLK had to be very careful dealing with the issue of Vietnam. He did not come out against the war until 1967. LBJ publicly fell on the sword for his Administration's failings a year later. And yet, I have older relatives who still think to this day we should have bombed more and invaded Hanoi. Yikes!
The main point is I don't think Palestine will ever reach America's collective consciousness like the above-mentioned protests.
You're probably right.
I was responding to the comments earlier that they were "doing it wrong" and wouldn't be remembered positively like the earlier protesters.
I wanted to point out that if these protests do end up linked to some shift in policy and are viewed as having accomplished something, then the memory of them will be edited to be positive - just like happened in the past.
True.
But those things weren't separate.
Opinion changed over time and the protests started long before the population's opinion shifted.
It was all part of many things going on and feeding into each other.
Just look at US opinion towards Israel and Palestine. It isn't where it was 20 years ago.
The protests are part of this back and forth of public opinion.
Not very different than what is going on now.
There are people promising to end the war, there are people promising it would never happen, and there is a wild amount of misinformation about what is going on there.
Exactly my point.
Again - very much like now.
MLK, of course, started to lose popularity after the Civil Rights Act was passed, even before he came out against Vietnam.
I think it is very possible you are right.
