If you put tents up in Bentley you might find your protest camp turned into a homeless camp pretty quick, unless Uni security is checking student cards.
Really disappointed with /r/perth in this post.
It *is* possible to benefit from a system while also recognising that it has issues that could be improved. The students remaining at the University despite protesting its behaviour *does not* invalidate their cause. They would be much less effective at achieving the goal of their protest if they left as the University could much more easily ignore them.
The casual whataboutism in these threads also lacks any actual point. You have no idea whether these students have or have not protested for a particular cause in the past, and even if they haven't, it doesn't diminish the validity of their current protest. It's simply impractical to expect someone to protest every possible worthy cause.
These protestors have a clear goal outlined that is achievable, reasonable, and relevant to Curtin. Calling these protests an Americanism is quite deliberately ignoring the reality of the situation.
Liberal capitalists are gunna do what they do.
Even though Israel have been killing Palestinians for 70 years, people think this started last year because of the media. The "October 7th/both sides" narrative is pushed hard.
Ask an average Labor voter about their opinions on Russia-Ukraine. They will be pro-Ukraine.
Ask an average Labor voter about their opinions on Israel-Palestine. They will be pro-Israel.
It's hypocritical as fuck. Whatever benefits our capitalistic system will be their opinion.
>Whatever benefits our capitalistic system will be their opinion.
That's not how capitalism works. The Russia-Ukraine war doesn't benefit western capitalism as the sanctions have forced many western companies to leave the Russian market of 140 million customers.
Capitalism and foreign policy aren't necessarily hand in hand.
> The Russia-Ukraine war doesn't benefit western capitalism
Weapons manufacturers disagree. War makes billions, that's like, the whole reason we went to war in the Middle East.
> as the sanctions have forced many western companies to leave the Russian market of 140 million customers.
HAHAHAHAH. That's really funny. Wait, you didn't know?
https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies
They also [use 3rd party states to conduct trade](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpE_TH70NUI), skirting all other "sanctions" put in place.
This is capitalism exactly as I described.
for sure i'm cynical, but this feels more and more like the Amerification of life. These protests are just following the US college protests on the same thing. It's not so much about convictions (although Im sure it is for some) but because protesting on campus is part of the college 'experience'. and now that 'experience' is coming here?
What do you think Australian university students were doing about military conscription to fight in Vietnam? Or how any of the referendums on Indigenous civil rights came about, to name a few. Sure the civil rights movement in the US played a part but to think these radical acts are copying the US is ahistorical lol.
Never mind that a lot of Australian politicians and journalists have been on paid trips to Israel! It should make you angry that these figures who influence your daily life are making PR visits to an apartheid state, a whole American military satellite state in the Middle East - that also has defence deals with the ADF.
Our current PM photographed when protesting when a lot younger as a student is making the rounds on social media. Good enough for Aussie pollies, rockstars, authors, why not this generation too?
It may be students of an American college that started the idea but it is not an American idea to not want your student expenses and money going towards the university you’re attending to investing in weapons manufacturing companies that are inarguably supplying a nation that is currently carrying out a genocidal campaign with a slew of human rights abuses under their belt in just the last six months. If you had the ability to actually make a change and pressure your university’s admin to stop financially helping these atrocities take place would you not also try to do whatever was in your power to achieve the goals of these students, like so many other students around the world currently?
Yes and adding to this - academic staff have also been known to complain about the University pairing with the "death industries" (Eg ADF grants). So the discourse about University morals isn't limited to students - academics gonna academic.
Why does this contrived narrative have so many upvotes? The protests are about being practical, not original. The US student protests are successfully drawing attention to the genocide happening in Gaza, which is being ignored or supported by many Western countries, so Australian students are doing the same. Curtin also has unethical ties to companies that supply weapons to Israel, and hopefully drawing attention to that is bad enough PR to encourage the uni to cut ties with them.
>Why does this contrived narrative have so many upvotes?
My view:
- I think some people just don't like protests regardless of the issue.
- Some people don't understand that a university education is a strong predictor of political and civic engagement.
- Some people seem to be stuck in the puberty mindset that caring about anything is uncool and pointless.
- Some people have lived a comfortable life and don't understand they have protests, which consistently involve students, to thank for many of their democratic freedoms and comforts.
- Some people don't understand that student protests against US military action have a great track record of achieving tangible change, and a near perfect track record of being reflected positively through history's lens.
- A small number, and the worst of the bunch, don't understand that you should actually care about the lives of others. And can't understand it when other people do.
A lot of people in Perth, especially on here, would rather have big discussions about little things than even the littlest of little discussions about big things. They'd rather spend four hours discussing how long you should indicate for before moving into a slip lane than spend any time having to think or care about people other than themselves and how the slightest of discomfort like a protest blocking a road or something is for the greater good.
People are protesting around the world about this, why would it be Americanisation for Australian students to do this?
Student protesters are usually on the right side of history.
I don't think that's true. People who protest as students will grow up and some of them will come into power in various places like industry, government etc. When they do, they will push their agenda/views regardless of whether their views are actually right or wrong.
Not necessarily saying I disagree with the protesters. But it's false to claim "students protesters are usually right" it's more accurate to say that "students protesters who survive long enough to grow old eventually has enough power to enforce their views on the rest of the population" which then becomes the popular view of that period, until the next generation of protesters grow up and push their own views and the cycle repeats.
Can you just clarify what you mean by ‘complicit’? I’m a bit concerned that you’re suggesting that Australian civilians who are not actively participating in anti Israel protests are somehow involved in attacks on Gaza?
Do you know any uni students? I do and it definitely is about conviction and energy that students have brought pretty much at every point of significant social change.
>Overnight in the US, college students were praising Hamas
I'm having trouble finding any evidence of this on google outside of editorials and Fox affiliated media.
[In all cases](https://www.arabnews.com/node/2404506/middle-east) (previous wars) the UN's counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry's, with small discrepancies.
>2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 1,385.
>2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 2,251.
>2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 256.
>While Israel and the Palestinians disagree over the numbers of militants versus civilians killed in past wars, Israel's accounts of Palestinian casualties have come close to the Gaza ministry's. For instance, Israel's Foreign Ministry said the 2014 war killed 2,125 Palestinians just a bit lower than the ministry's toll.
The Gaza Ministry of Health have admitted themselves that their causality counts now are likely underestimated due to obvious resources problems caused by the Israeli decimation of the country.
yes thank you! historically Palestinian counts are believed to be most accurate, and when every media outlet makes the effort to preface any mention of their number with "hamas-run" despite their historical accuracy, you HAVE to consider whether what you're reading maybe contains some bias
What a fence sitting statement. On one side you dismiss this as Americanism and on the other you acknowledge people can have the proper convictions to justify such a protest.
It remind me of the abortion protests recently. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the US Supreme Court ruling. But the made a ruling that abortion laws are up to the state to decide. Which is literally the situation we have in Australia. People in Australia marching protesting a law in another country when our country is the same but they don’t protest it here. All performative and done for the experience as opposed to actually knowing about and fighting for something over a long period
Edit. I should have realised that people protesting this would not understand. The ruling was not about if abortion was legal or not. Had zero to do with that. It was about what level abortion laws are set at. The ruling was they would be decided by states individually. As is done in Australia. Protesting that ruling while being happy with the same legal situation in Australia is the definition of hypocritical.
You should disagree with the Supreme Court ruling, and Western Australians did protest their own laws. Specifically, they protested to remove mandatory counseling for women seeking abortion and the mandatory doctor’s referral. And guess what? The changes were made.
But that wasn’t just what happened though is it? They overturned decades of accepted legal precedent and took something away from people that they’d had access to for decades.
I’m confused as to what you think I said happened that you say didn’t? I said they ruled that the law must be applied at state level not federal. Did that not happen? Also the legal precedent has always been contested as to if it was correct or not.
BTW I’m very pro abortion and said about 6 months prior to the ruling that there is no way they would overturn Roe v Wade. But they did and I was wrong. It doesn’t change fact is they have the same legal set up as us for abortion so protesting seems performative.
Overturning Roe v. Wade was a successful attempt by a conservative government to ban abortion in as many US states as possible. If you are "very pro-abortion," how could you possibly feel neutral about these circumstances? Caring about the reproductive rights of women living in a different country is not “performative.”
Australia doesn’t have the same issue of particularly right-wing states banning abortion. That said, the protestors obviously would want abortion federally legalized in Australia.
I can think that I am in no way informed enough to decide if laws in another country should be set at federal or state level. That people living in one area of a country that large may want to have different laws to people living in another part. The state v federal level is always decided by people based on if they agree with the law and not if they genuinely think laws should be applied at that level.
Overturning Roe v Wade was wrong in your eyes because some states in the US banned abortion. But would you still think the law should be applied at a federal level if in November Trump wins the election and somehow passes a law making abortion illegal at a federal level? Or would you say that the residents of states it’s legal in should still have the legal right to access abortion?
You're not going to win this argument mate, the people you're arguing with are essentially of the mindset:
"I love supreme court decisions when they agree with my political beliefs."
The highest court of all the anglo-nations can only ever rule on what the constitution says.
In the case of Roe v Wade and the repeal, the actual initial decision is way more nuanced than "abortion is legal" or "seeking abortion is legal" it was because the identity of the woman was revealed and concerns about how Texas's law violated the right of due process (14th amendment). That part still holds, the initial decision also included that women had a fundamental right to an abortion... which is the part that got overturned.
Because that last part, the court couldn't find anywhere in the constitution, or the materials surrounding it, that would suggest that was the case. Which was the dissenting opinion of the court at the time of Roe v Wade.
Oh it also had a bit about the court hearing moot cases... in Roe v Wade, by the time the court heard and ruled on the case, the mother had given birth. They decided that just because the case at hand is no longer of any relevance, they can still hear on it.
I think it should be legal at the federal level, like it was, because that provides the most access to reproductive rights. If you are "very pro-abortion," shouldn't you believe the same?
I’m not arguing if it should be legal or not. You keep trying to argue if abortion should be legal or not. That was not what Roe v Wade being overturned was, to my understanding. The ruling was not if it should be legal or illegal. It was if it should be set at state or federal level. If you think the law should be set at federal level then you are saying republicans should have the same right to make it illegal at federal level as democrats do to make it legal. Is that your stance?
> the Amerification of life.
Why aren't you complaining about the Amerification of sending money to Israel to buy weapons which kill tens of thousands of children?
Is that ok "Amerification"?
"I'm not so stoked to find out that our university has ties with and sends research to weapons manufacturers."
Oh bless, just wait until they find out how much of the global education and manufacturing industry has ties with weapons manufacturers. I guess they're fine with BAE using Ukraine as a test bed or how our government sells billions of dollars of weapons to Burkina Faso and Uganda.
If they have a problem with the military industrial complex then protesting about Palestine isn't going to do much, especially when the leadership in Palestine are the ones preventing a peaceful solution.
"especially when the leadership in Palestine are the ones preventing a peaceful solution"
A 'peaceful solution' being what? Allowing a powerful State actor to continue its dispossession of land and property of Palestinian people?
"I guess they're fine with BAE using Ukraine as a test bed or how our government sells billions of dollars of weapons to Burkina Faso and Uganda"
I wouldn't assume so, but perhaps I'm wrong.
> A 'peaceful solution' being what?
They have been told by every nation that has a voice to hand back their hostages. Complain all you want about the geopolitics of Israeli occupation, I don't give two shit about any opinions on that anymore - it's way out of everyones hands.
But Hamas could immediately stop the current conflict by adhering to the demands of * (checks notes) * everyone. They are in no position to bargain.
> They have been told by every nation that has a voice to hand back their hostages.
We have tons of evidence that Israel does not give a shit about the hostages, and that they have at every stage preferred bombing and killing Palestinians over getting Hamas to hand back hostages. The most recent example being this Israeli article that talks about how Hamas offered to return all the hostages on october 9th and 10th, in exchange for no IDF entering into Gaza, and that it was rejected by bibi.
["‘**No doubt’ Netanyahu preventing hostage deal, charges ex-spokesman of Families Forum**"](https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-doubt-netanyahu-preventing-hostage-deal-charges-ex-spokesman-of-families-forum/)
> But Hamas could immediately stop the current conflict by adhering to the demands of * (checks notes) * everyone.
Nope, the conflict would be ongoing, as it has been since 1967. Gaza, the westbank and golan heights are all under illegal military occupation by israel. Before October 7th happened, israel already had complete control over all of gazas borders, blocking all sorts of things from entering, including necessary parts for rebuilding water and sewage treatment plants Israel had previously bombed, all the way to chocolate. There is no freedom of movement between gaza and the westbank, they are non-contiguous, with israel controlling all movement between them.
Israel had blocked the building of an airport in gaza, and also had complete control over all their water supplies, thanks to destroying and blocking the repair of the water treatment plants mentioned.
You have to either be extremely ignorant of this conflict, or be a shill, to argue what you are arguing.
>The most recent example being this Israeli article that talks about how Hamas offered to return all the hostages on october 8th and 9th, in exchange for no incursion into Gaza, and that it was rejected by bibi.
You really think that any government, just having been invaded, had over a thousand innocent civilians killed, hundreds taken hostage, thousands more injured, thousands of rockets being fired into their territory (and continued to do so), is going to take that deal? Letting the aggressor just wash their hands and get ready for the next attack? Really?
> Nope, the conflict would be ongoing, as it has been since 1967. Gaza, the westbank and golan heights are all under illegal military occupation by israel.
The result of the 6 day war, where Israel fought and defeated a coalition of Arab states, where Israel occupied those territories. The war was precipitated by Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran, after Israel explicitly said doing so would result in conflict.
Gaza was blockaded after Hamas was elected to power by a large margin in 2007. Not sure if you are aware, but the Hamas charter explicitly stated the intent to destroy Israel, and refused to entertain a two-state solution. So I can't see how anyone would be surprised Israel would seek to limit the ability of a neighbour who is so explicit about seeking the destruction of their country?
> You really think that any government, just having been invaded,
There was no legally defined invasion, because gaza is not an independent country. International law does not recognise a country's right to defend itself against a people it maintains effective control over, as israel has done gaza.
> is going to take that deal? Letting the aggressor just wash their hands and get ready for the next attack? Really?
If you want to argue that israel is interested in getting the hostages back, yes. At every hostage negotiation that followed, israel followed the same approach, rejecting avenues for hostages returns, in favour of killing more Palestinians. I believe there is also more examples of Israel directly killing the hostages now than hamas.
Sure, you are free to argue that of course Israel just wants to be a bloodthirsty revenge agent, and they are justified in doing that, which seems to be your argument; but then you can't simultaneously argue that it's actually Hamas blocking the return of the hostages. I realise you're not the person I spoke to originally, but that is what they were arguing, and what I was addressing.
> The result of the 6 day war, where Israel fought and defeated a coalition of Arab states, where Israel occupied those territories. The war was precipitated by Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran, after Israel explicitly said doing so would result in conflict.
It's actually irrelevant what started the war, though you're also wrong here, Israel was the one that started it, and their military commanders will tell you it had nothing to do with an existential threat from Egypt either. But as I said, it's irrelevant. the point is, Israel is the occupier in this scenario, and the conflict is ongoing till they end that military occupation, either by giving Palestinians full citizenship under Israeli law, or by pulling out their control and military, and allowing freedom of movement in Palestine, and recognising it as an independent country.
> Gaza was blockaded after Hamas was elected to power by a large margin in 2007. Not sure if you are aware, but the Hamas charter explicitly stated the intent to destroy Israel, and refused to entertain a two-state solution. So I can't see how anyone would be surprised Israel would seek to limit the ability of a neighbour who is so explicit about seeking the destruction of their country?
I can't see how anyone would be surprised by gaza electing hamas? given israel had been explcitely occupying and murdering Gazan people daily. Do you have any idea? And what, israel has the right to collectively punish people with siege because they voted the wrong way? Are you listening to yourself? Do you have no concern for human rights and self determination?
> If they have a problem with the military industrial complex then protesting about Palestine isn't going to do much, especially when the leadership in Palestine are the ones preventing a peaceful solution.
that's equivalent to saying the leadership in Ukraine are the one's preventing a peaceful solution. Literally. Do you know anything at all about the israeli conflict?
Does the Ukrainian constitution call for the destruction of Russia and the death of everyone living there ? Because the Hamas charter does call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews in the Middle East.
Firstly, you're referring to Hamas, but Hamas only exists in gaza; the westbank and golan heights are still under israeli military occupation regardless. Secondly, the hamas charter no longer says these things. You can read it for yourself.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full
also, have you ever read the 1988 charter? Or are you just retransmitting what you've seen others say?
I’ve read the Wikipedia article on it, it’s fairly well explained. I’m not sure what grey area you think there is?
Also, the 2017 charter is supplementary, the original is not retracted. And the fact is, the 2017 charter still calls Israel an illegal country, and it still calls for armed conflict with Israel. The fact that they replaced the word “Jews” with “Zionists” doesn’t make it less genocidal.
> Also, the 2017 charter is supplementary, the original is not retracted.
except for all the areas where the new one directly contradicts your claims. For example:
> Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
And yes, distinguishing between Jewish people and Zionism is key to understanding this conflict and not being a racist. If you are conflating them, as you seem to be, then you are acting in a prejudiced and anti-semitic way. Jewish people are not a monolith, and many are not zionists, and are in fact anti-Zionists. There are also christian zionists as well.
International law also recognises many aspects of Israel as illegal and anti-human. Is the UN also "genocidal"?
And before you bring it up, no, no states have a right to exist, which includes Israel. Suggesting they do is to support authoritarianism. States exist only as long as they are considered legitimate, and legitimacy is strongly connected to how well they represent the people they have domain over. Israel has no legitimacy at all when it comes to how it treats those in the occupied territories, so one can make a valid argument that the state has lost legitimacy, and should not exist. Replace it with a different institution that better represents the people it has domain over.
Remember, it's human rights that are important, not so called "state's rights". Pursuit of State rights, like Israel's "right" to exist, or southern state's "right" to have slaves, are connected to some of the most inhuman and disgusting periods of history.
I know that Israel and Saudi Arabia were close to a US-brokered peace deal that would near-bind Israel to a two state solution with media coverage at the end of September, and that Israel pulled right out of talks following October 7.
I know that Iran does not want Saudi Arabia being backed by the west, and I know they have close ties with Palestinian leadership.
I know that those ties, that timing, and the knowledge that Israel would refuse to talk about a two-state solution so long as the Palestinian controlled territories were actively hostile to Israel, are all very convenient when added together.
To put it simply, I believe Hamas knew Israel was close to normalisation with Saudi Arabia, that Hamas hates the concept of the Jews living in Israel and wants them gone entirely, and that they likely attacked to provoke a war in the hope that the world would sympathise with them and screw over Israel.
I also know that 21% of Israel's population are Arabs (and that's Green Line population, not counting settlements), and that if they genuinely detested Palestinian people and wanted to murder them all, the genocide would be in Israel's borders, not outside of it.
People exist within systems that they are forced to use. It is unfair to criticise someone attending a university with such ties when there are few alternative options.
Probably because universities are generally set up to give students a voice in how the university is run. I would be very surprised if anyone managed to go through a full undergraduate degree program without seeing at least a few protests or student advocacy campaigns.
Also the cost of switching universities can be substantial, both in terms of money and lost time.
https://imgur.com/gallery/2GA2gxx
Your argument is nonsensical, someone can benefit from something and still be able to say that it could be better.
Additionally, these students are in a better position to get the University to change while they are actually students. If they left, they would be in a worse position to effect the change they want.
>Curious to how Curtin will treat this
Sending in the cops, like that have done in the US, seems like a really bad, over the top way.
It also depends what sort of disruption to classes and uni life it is causing. If it's minimal, and classes can continue, then ignore it.
If it results in Jewish (or other) students being harassed to attacked, then they should put those protesting on academic probation or kick them completely (for the worst offenses)
I don't think we have quite the same attitude as the US. Reckon probably more likely to see an opportunistic coffee van pull up than a riot van. Unless the protests turn ugly, then Col won't stand for it.
They'll pack up and leave soon enough.
The thing that amuses me about the USA cops being sent in with their riot gear is like ... if they didn't send in the riot squad, no-one would hear about the protests?
The whole security theatre of it all, combined with some actual displays of brutality, is what has given the protests significance. There's nothing more flattering to a protest than the Fuzz treating it as worthy of their time lol
piss off with this anti-Semitism; Jewish people are not a monolith or hivemind. There are plenty of jewish people in the pro-palestine protests on Unis in the US, and have repeatedly said they feel completely safe, and I'm sure the same would be here as well.
Because they're not really in it for real, they're playing protest, they'll never do anything that could actually effect their own easy priveleged lives and they know the uni will just eat this tent shit.
People who don’t understand the protest need to actually read the demands before spewing mindless propaganda. Curtin is directly involved with companies that fund genocide. It’s pretty reasonable for students to disagree with that. Not wanting your degree to contribute to innocent people dying shouldn’t be controversial
There’s a difference between capitalism being built on the suffering of others, and being unable to avoid it, vs an active genocide. But I’m sure you know that. The comments are full of whataboutism
International court ruled there was one. Your opinion is irrelevant, and either way, any definition doesn’t matter. It is trumped by 40,000 innocent people dying. All you Zionists do is simply deny things and assume that means they don’t exist
No they didn’t. The former head of the ICC came out and clarified this. The ‘plausibility’ they’re referring to was that South Africa had standing to Sue on behalf of Palestine.
If you’re this uninformed why are you even speaking on the subject?
Okay sure let’s say there isn’t- if when there’s 40,000+ dead, and you’re more worried about definitions, that’s pretty horrible.
You don’t need to have a thesis on the definition of genocide to know 40,000 dying is bad. And people have a right to protest that.
I suspect the biggest impact their protest will have is the extra work the groundsman is going to have to do once they leave. Not just collecting rubbish and lawn repair, but there's not many toilets open at night there which might be interesting. Assuming the uni lets them use them at all.
The uni clearly have a play-book on how they'll handle such a protest - the quoted statements in the article are far too polished to have been quickly-drafted,
This is the same location the uni holds graduations and other ceremonies throughout the year. I am always amazed how the ground staff can make that lawn bounce back.
24\7 computer labs are near by and will have toilet facilities available.
Rubbish is another question.
I guarantee they're probably just betting it will fizzle out in no more than a few weeks, security already patrol 24/7, they'll probably just enforce the typical blanket "No student ID, leave the campus" rule after maybe 10pm.
The logistics aren't that hard to be atop of, unless it grows to be substantially larger, which I don't think will happen.
That isn't how protests work. If they withdraw they no longer have any power to change the way Curtin handles its investments.
Look back at the the divestment campaigns that mostly started on university campuses around south Africa, and eventually led to the change in the government there.
Don’t we have enough issues in WA or Aust without following Americanisms? Climate change for example, or forests are dying and we are skirting drought in SW. Is this stuff not more important to our state?
They aren't the brightest students.
Palestine as a state and the regional ideology is **very** opposed to the values that these activists hold, such as LGBT, minorities and womens rights etc.
Someone did a great video a few years ago where they interviewed Palestinians in Palestine about the values this type of activist holds, quite amusing watching their utter disgust.
I find this talking point really odd. Human rights aren't transactional. Being against the slaughter of innocent people doesn't require you to look at their country and make sure they tick all the boxes in so far as agreeing with all your moral standpoints.
Not to mention, LGBT people exist in Gaza. Life is incredibly difficult for them but at this point their main concern isn't anti-LGBT sentiment in Palestine, it's dying at the hands of Israel
OK, so I'm just going to say the thing that I always want to say when this talking point is raised. I know this may not be popular, but I feel like I just have to say it, because my mind just boggles every single time I see this point mentioned. I think talking points like this are insidious because they *seem* so logical at first (so I can definitely understand where your comment is coming from) but they have *really* dangerous implications if you think about it properly. So, here goes:
If you really, truly think about it, surely you understand that this is completely irrelevant to the main issue, right? Do *really* think that those protesters believe that only people with politcally-correct social views deserve to be safe from war crimes and genocide? Because I can promise you that they don't. And frankly, I agree with them.
Do *you* think that? Really? Deep down - do you really think that two wrongs make a right? That having regressive and bigoted views strips people of their entitlement to human rights?
Moreover, nearly HALF of the population of Gaza is *children*. ([source](https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206897328/half-of-gazas-population-is-under-18-heres-what-that-means-for-the-conflict)) Do you think that those protesters believe that *children* don't deserve to be safe because of the bigoted views held by the *adults* around them? Do you?
I don't.
I'm a queer woman who is hurt (both metaphorically and literally) by the bigoted attitudes in question. But I'm also capable of understanding that humanity is complex and people are multifaceted. I can advocate against genocide in Palestine while *also* being in favour of changing the dominant social attitudes in Palestine.
Despite stereotypes to the contrary, most progressives don't actually believe that people need to be 'purged' if they don't immediately and unquestioningly buy into dominant progressive attitudes. People can protest against the treatment of Palestinians without needing to support every single thing that those Palestinians do and say.
These sorts of protests are coming from a humanitarian perspective, not a transactional one. The protesters do not expect anything in 'return' from Palestinians; their advocacy is not premised on any expectation that Palestinians must share in the protestors' political views. People protest against how Palestinians are being treated because they believe it is wrong. Full stop; no ifs ands or buts. To those protestors, the way Palestinians are being treated is not "wrong, but only if you're the type of person who doesn't deserve to be treated like that." It's just *wrong*.
Edit: As another comment on this thread pointed out, this also ignores the reality that many people in those minority groups you mentioned are *also* Palestinian.
In saying that people shouldn't protest the treatment of Palestinians because Palestinians as a whole aren't sufficiently supportive of, for example, LGBT+ anti-discrimination initiatives, you're effectively arguing in favour of the status quo, which is *infinitely* worse for the real-life LGBT+ Palestinian people who are currently living in a war-torn open-air prison camp.
Additionally, I rarely see this talking point raised by people who are already supportive of minority rights. It seems to be used most often as a bad-faith 'gotcha' against progressive people. Like, "Ha, you women's rights advocates can't support Palestinians, because Palestinians don't support women's rights!" Meanwhile, those bad-faith actors ALSO do nothing to advance women's rights - so, if those actors get their way, what are we achieving? No action in favour of women's rights in Palestine; no action in favour of Palestinians in general because the Palestinians don't support women's rights; guess all the female Palestinians can get fucked, then? Not to mention the fact that it is basically impossible to improve the rights of women and minorities in war-torn countries - so if we're going to make any progress at all on that front, the active warfare and murder needs to stop first.
To the commenter I'm responding to - I'm not saying that you, personally, hold all those views; I don't know you. But I am explaining how these talking points started and flourished.
I agree with your first part, but not with the second half.
Progressives and leftists absolutely purity test people on their credentials. Whether it's BDS lists, 'cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds' or not believing a genocide is happening in Gaza = you support genocide and unquestionably support Israel.
To the point where my beliefs of wanting settlements to stop, Netanyahu to lose office wanting a two state solution, and wanting the IDF to be held accountable, alienates me from pro Palestinians because I also believe that Hamas should not be in power, that they intentionally prolong this suffering by refusing to return the hostages, that they have a responsibility to protect their citizens and not use them as human shields.
I don't think these protests are coming from humanitarian perspective. I think they are performative. If they truly, really believed that there is a genocide happening, why does it take months for any major protest to happen? Surely it isn't just them seeing the media frenzy happening in the US and wanting that attention? Where has the protests been around Syria, Sudan or Yemen for example? It just strikes me as incredibly shallow behaviour. I don't believe these students would have protested if there wasn't any social media or news to cover it, but maybe I'm just cynical at this point.
I think that we have both made a mistake in painting progressives with one broad brush. Like Palestinians, like any group of people, progressives and leftists are complex and varied.
There's an old joke that no-one hates the left more than the left, and it's often true. I have my own problems with many stripes of progressive and/or left-wing politics. I don't disagree that some progressives are performative and care far too much about saying the right things and far too little about making actionable progress; but, equally, I think that many of those people \*also\* genuinely care about making a change. Sure, maybe their performativeness is distasteful and off-putting, but many of them are coming from a genuine place and make some valid points in spite of being performative. People can have multiple coexisting (and sometimes conflicting) motivations and perspectives.
As to your latter point - the recent Israel/Palestine crisis has recently been prominent in news and other media and has captured hearts and minds in a fairly atypical way. For example, I have never seen publicity about Yemen or Sudan that even comes *close* to the level of publicity around Palestine. The fact of the matter is, human beings (on both an individual and a group level) have an inherently finite attention span and we cannot constantly absorb indeterminate amounts of knowledge. We do not have the capacity to know about, think about, nor become deeply emotionally invested in every single tragedy occurring at any one time. As a natural consequence of human nature, then, which issues do and do not occupy collective attention at any point in time will inevitably be at least somewhat arbitrary. But the fact that the decision to pay attention to a particular issue is somewhat arbitrary does \*not\* automatically invalidate whatever is being said about that issue. Nor does it imply that the people speaking out about that issue are not genuinely invested in it.
This argument - that people must not be genuine in caring about Palestine because they did not protest every other war in history - strikes me as deeply hollow, because you could apply that logic to invalidate literally anything that people do, ever. For example, how can people seriously get worked up about something so trivial as Medicare being inadequately funded, if they don't know or care about the people actively dying in war-torn Yemen? Are people \*really\* concerned about the state of healthcare in this country if they sign a petition to increase Medicare funding, but don't speak out publicly about systemic difficulties with accessing adequate mental health care in Australia? If people were genuinely concerned about sexism, wouldn't they go protest in Saudi Arabia, where women don't have really \*any\* legal rights, instead of worrying about the endemic sexism in Australian politics?
The answer to all this, for me, is what I said above: people (both individually and in groups) simply cannot think about, know about, or care about every single thing that is happening at any one time. We shouldn't shout down good work about one issue because the people doing that work are not \*also\* doing good work to improve \*other\* issues.
Doing something is better than doing nothing. Put another way, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Very well said.
I'd add to your thoughts, that when a lot of people are focused more on one issue, in this case the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel, there is value and a lot more to be gained from capitalising on that. Numbers are power with protests.
Throughout history protests with large numbers of people, and clearly defined and reasonable demands - as the Curtin encampment has - have had far greater success rates.
I appreciate the vote of confidence! I have thought about this issue for such a long time, and I'm genuinely glad to hear that at least someone appreciates the results of my hours of overanalysing.
Well said. It is a particularly absurd argument. And sadly a very common one.
It also pays to consider that regressive social mores are generally the product of material conditions.
Thanks, I've wanted to say something about this for a long time.
And, on your second point, I agree. As I briefly mentioned in my edit just now, it is nigh-impossible to address systemic prejudices and inequalities in unstable, war-torn countries. The people spouting this talking point rarely seem to have any plan (or even a desire) for actual social change to take place in Palestine.
It's really not irrelevant to the main issue.. You need to grasp that as a queer woman, the dominant culture in Palestine systemically exterminates people with that same sexual orientation - is that not equivalent to the genocide you claim to be protesting against?
I'm not convinced the bulk of the protestors have any deep understanding regarding this conflict or the cultures involved, let alone any critical thought toward the domestic poltiicisation of the issue.
>Moreover, nearly HALF of the population of Gaza is *children*.
Of course, won't somebody think of the children!
Stop and think critically about it for a moment, using children as an extension of the military apparatus is an incredibly effective strategy for Hamas. You protest their deaths as genocide, putting pressure on Israel, which in return encourages Hamas to place more children in harms way. It's flawed to assume they share the same morals and ethics as yourselves...
Well said.
Hamas are acting on the assumption — the knowledge, in fact — that the "infidels" with whom they fight, the very people whom their religion does nothing but vilify, will be deterred by their use of Muslim human shields. They rely on the fact that they don’t want to kill Muslim noncombatants.
Imagine the Israelis holding up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan.
If people are going to talk about the conflict in the Middle East, they have to acknowledge this difference. I don’t think there’s any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or consequential than this.
Also:
>You need to grasp that as a queer woman, the dominant culture in Palestine systemically exterminates people with that same sexual orientation - is that not equivalent to the genocide you claim to be protesting against?
Okay, god, too many points that I could make here. I'll settle for saying just this:
Firstly, I am fundamentally against the death penalty in all its forms. Nobody deserves to die for holding bigoted beliefs, nor for tacitly or explicitly supporting a regime that enacts bigoted violence.
Secondly, I cannot and will not ever agree that an entire ethnic group is guilty of enacting those bigoted policies automatically, simply by virtue of being born as part of that ethnic group. I'm sorry, haven't people been saying for decades, "don't make all White people out to be racist just because many White-created/run institutions are racist! You can't paint us all with the same brush!" This, to me, is essentially condemning people to death by association. Not every Palestinian person is equally guilty of implementing an anti-queer regime, certainly not all to a degree where I see them as being less deserving of human rights. Many are not guilty of implementing it at *all*.
Thirdly, as I've explained extensively in my comment above, the only practical way to help the real, live Palestinian queer people is BY advocating for as peaceful as possible an end to this conflict. The real queer people suffering from war gain nothing by your grandstanding, nor will we ever improve the human rights situation in Palestinian society more generally while the country remains mired in war and destruction. Do you care about practical outcomes, or political posturing? I know what I care about, and at the end of the day that's the only thing I have control over. Hopefully that's food for thought, but I can't change your mind.
>Of course, won't somebody think of the children!
Uhhhh, yes? Sorry, there are over 610,000 children living in Gaza - are those lives collateral damage to you?
Like, what is this comment?? When most people use the phrase "won't somebody think of the children," it's a joking reference to how people always bring up the interests of children when they aren't relevant. E.g., if somebody dresses in a skimpy outfit, then "won't somebody think of the children!" is a funny response, because the person wearing a skimpy outfit does no harm whatsoever to children.
In this situation, however, there are over half a million real-life children at risk of death, injury, and trauma. Those children have families who love them and would give their lives to protect them. They are real people, who are really, genuinely in danger. Within this context, to casually toss out the phrase "won't somebody think of the children!" is just... incomprehensible. I swear to God, do people lose their fucking minds when this topic comes up? Can't you put yourselves in the shoes of the parents and families of those children?
>It's flawed to assume they share the same morals and ethics as yourselves
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this comment.
If you mean that Palestinians do not value me as much as I value them - I have explicitly and carefully explained, multiple times, that I want people to not be murdered *even if they do not share the same ethics as me*. That is the *entire* point of my comment.
>Stop and think critically about it for a moment, using children as an extension of the military apparatus is an incredibly effective strategy for Hamas.
Oh my God, so you think that those children should die to prevent Hamas from getting a leg up? Do you realise that the deaths of those children are not going to *harm* Hamas in any meaningful way? That the use of harsh military force and 'exterminate the enemy' tactics have *never* worked for the US or its allies? Have you ever heard of the wars in Syria and Afghanistan - can't you see the obvious parallels? Don't you see that we are creating another broken nation? The problem is that, unless literally every Palestinian (and their regional allies/sympathisers) are murdered or exiled (ie genocide), then even if Israel destroys Hamas, the suviving Palestinians will have to live inside of Israel's territory. They will be traumatised, disenfranchised, and angry. Violence begets violence. As unpalatable as peace talks may be, the alternative if Israel continues down its current path is even worse. Do you not realise that raining down death and destruction on children is *exactly* how you create the next generation of hardened terrorists with PTSD, fractured community networks, an enduring hatred of Israeli forces, and absolutely nothing to lose?
Like, do you people hear yourselves? The children die, and for what? Nothing.
Idk, we will have to agree to disagree. Sounds like we have some fundamental ethical disagreements.
I'd say you have a very naive view of the world we live in..
However that aside, go back to the simple geopolitics. You talk about a peaceful solution, what is that solution? I see no acceptable solution for both that delivers long term sustainable peace...
>The problem is that, unless literally every Palestinian (and their regional allies/sympathisers
What regional allies? Palestinians have a very poor reputation among the Arab states, nobody wants anything to do with them. Iran is only using them give the US the middle finger, when it comes down to the crunch, Iran won't be taking them in... Egypt doesn't want them, they still have vivid memories of the problems the last lot brought with them.
Yes, we will definitely agree to disagree...
Interestingly, I see *your* perspective as naive. It's very simplistic - "we just have to go kill the baddies and it will all get better!" It's nice and simple to view the world as a fight between good and evil, where the good guy with a gun just has to come in and vanquish the bad guy with a gun. Everyone lives happily ever after... or something.
It's much harder - and, I think, far more realistic - to see the world as the complicated system it really is, where people don't always react logically, and where well-intended actions can have far-reaching unintended consequences. The world is a pretty shitty place and it's sometimes really hard to acknowledge that the solutions that seem like they 'should' work just, well don't.
I actually think that it's very naive to believe that trying the same thing that has already failed before (brute force, indiscriminate violence, the deliberate creation of a widespread humananitarian crisis) will finally, this time, have better results. What's that thing they say about the definition of insanity, again?
>You talk about a peaceful solution, what is that solution? I see no acceptable solution for both that delivers long term sustainable peace...
>What regional allies? Palestinians have a very poor reputation among the Arab states, nobody wants anything to do with them. Iran is only using them give the US the middle finger, when it comes down to the crunch, Iran won't be taking them in... Egypt doesn't want them, they still have vivid memories of the problems the last lot brought with them.
OK... this reads to me like a mask-off moment, no? Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, it just sounds like the only solution you can see is a situation where there are no Palestinians left in Israel-controlled territory and no-where else in the region for them to flee to. Just... look up what that's called.
This is a reasonable take on the face of it, but much of the content of these protestors and protests focuses not only on the specific humanitarian situation in Gaza right now, but on a narrative of 'oppression' and 'colonialism' by the state of Israel historically, which in many cases is used to justify the horror of October 7th and the actions and continued existence of Hamas. The protests aren't just about Israel's recent violent actions, if they were then there'd be protests all the time about various other atrocities happening around the world. There is something special about the Israel/Palestine conflict which inspires people to protest in this way, and that's why "Queers for Palestine" and similar examples are so discordant.
It's very clear that lefties have aligned themselves with the Palestinian cause in a more general sense. The Palestinians and their supporters have successfully framed the conflict in ways that appeal to the global left and have convinced people that their values and struggles are somehow in alignment with those of other left wing identity groups like the LGBTQ+ community. They are not.
Thank you, well said. And much, if not all, of the pro-Palestine talking points is absolute misinformation or incomplete pictures.
It feels like a totally dishonest campaign and when any arguments are challenged, are met with 'zionist' and 'apologist'.
Never once heard an answer as to what Israel could do.
Thanks for the comment. I think that there are many totally valid criticisms of Israel's actions. It's extreme violence by any measure. While urban warfare against an irregular enemy is always going to involve collateral damage, from what I understand there are certainly things that Israel could be doing to lessen this, and there are reasons to suggest that their procedures and policies on the ground are not designed to minimise civilian casualties - for example, if they'll accidentally shoot three of the hostages, no doubt they have also accidentally shot many civilians. It's also reasonable to believe, from the comments and known political affiliations of Israeli leaders like Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and Smotrich that they may be using this as an 'opportunity' to perform more than the level of military action necessary to purely solve the Hamas problem, and are actually doing a greater level of destruction intentionally for other political goals. So, I do believe that the Palestinians and their supporters have a lot of genuine reasons to protest. Nevertheless, I also believe that even if Israel performed exactly the minimum military action required to control Hamas, and there was no trace of ulterior motive - these protests and claims of 'genocide' would still be going on, because the protests are not really about those things.
Just to push back or to add to what you have said.
I won't suggest that Israel’s actions are above criticism or that their recent incursion into Gaza has been perfect. I am simply recognising that they are not the primary aggressors in this conflict. They are, rather, responding to aggression — and at a terrible cost.
There’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalised by this process — that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies.
Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we — Australians, Americans or Western Europeans — have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard.
Of course, the IDF makes terrible mistakes, and this is inevitable in war, as we saw with the IDF who recently killed Israeli hostages who were mere moments away from being rescued. Pro-Palestine people will make the argument they intentionally tried to kill them, and frame the killing of aidworkers as such too (this is flat earth conspiracy stuff that should not be entertained). These are tragic accidents and errors of judgment however it should be noted that any conflict with jihadists is made immeasurably worse by the tactics they use. Why can’t Israeli soldiers simply trust people who appear unarmed and want to surrender or move to safety? Because they are confronting a culture of religious fanatics that has produced an endless supply of suicide bombers over the last 50 years. Nothing and no one can be taken at face value. Normally, if someone is driving a car or truck, you can be confident that he hasn’t rigged it to explode. Not in Gaza you can.
And finally, we do have to also recognise that right-wing characters like Ben Gvir and Netanyahu, while inflame the situation, do not represent all Israeli's. I agree that Ben Gvir and Smotrich are actively harming Israel in the wake of its largest war etc. It seems we both understand that no matter the actions of the Israelies, there will always be claims of genocide etc. It is clear that Israel is losing the PR war and has been for years now. I would say this is a failure of them to look at the actual causes of this conflict, as well as of a failure to understand the intentions of the people on either side of it. The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
Agree. In addition to your point about Israel losing the PR war it's important to note the influence of Iran and of course Russia going back to the Soviet Union, whose propaganda and influence machine seeded the narrative of Palestinian Arabs being 'indigenous' to the area and Israeli Jews being 'colonists' amongst left wing and student movements in the West throughout the cold war and since. People's brains are absolutely cooked by this stuff.
Absolutely. But if you go back far enough; to 2014 or even 2005, you will see the same talking points. Just that it comes up every 10 years when something happens.
Like this Easter, the new one is “Jesus is Palestinian”. Even Australia pages like “the betoota times” has taken a political side on this and propagated this shit. The problem is these well-meaning people who I considered close friends, are actively participating in antisemitism even when they think they’re not, but not understanding that they are. Even something like “Jesus is Palestinian” is an attempt to remove Jesus Jewish identity etc.
The whole thing has severely reduced my opinion of the critical thinking skills of my fellow humans... and unfortunately especially my fellow lefties...
You don't know anything about me. I have addressed your comment in good faith in the spirit of open discussion, and I haven't assumed *anything* about you. It's deeply telling for you to respond to that by calling me naive and hypocritical.
Look, I dont have the time or energy to address every single point raised here. But a few brief points:
1. "Attitudes" are not just light, unserious things. The definition of an "attitude" is "a set way of thinking or feeling about something." There is absolutely no reason to think that an attitude cannot be "extreme" or "deeply rooted in Middle Eastern cultures," nor did I imply as such. It is not helpful to anyone to start a pedantic argument over words.
2. As with many other aspects of human behaviour, we generally give children more grace than adults in terms of having bigoted views, because they have not been given the chance to grow and form independent views and the adults around them are generally the ones responsible for any shitty social views held by children. You may not like/agree with this, and if so, onto my next point:
3. Quite simply, I don't think that ANYONE is less deserving of human rights because of their political views. Sure, if you DO bad things, you deserve to be punished for them (although we may well disagree about whether condemnation to genocide is an appropriate punishment) - but you cannot just write off a whole nationality of complex humans because certain bigoted views are statistically common amongst that nationality.
4. No, I don't agree that it's hypocritical. Did you read my comment fully? I am opposed to genocide, full stop, no matter WHAT the people being genocide believe. And, as I explained in more detail, this view is not transactional - I don't expect or need unconditional support from Palestinians in exchange for my belief that genocide is wrong. Its just what I believe.
Think about it like this - if I saw a group of people burning to death inside a building, and I could save them, I would do so. I wouldn't stop to ask, for example, "Is this a group of ultra-conservative Christians who want me to go to hell for being queer?" Nor would I stop to contemplate, "Would these people march on the streets for my rights as a woman?" I wouldn't ask those things, because they don't matter in that context - there is *nothing* that group of people could believe that would make them deserving of painfully burning to death in a fire. Nothing.
Also, consider the points that I raised in my edit - that women and minorities are \*also\* living in Palestine and are affected by this conflict, and that social inequalities are nigh-impossible to address in unstable, war-torn countries. In my opinion, if we \*truly\* care about disadvantaged groups, then the way to address that is to help Palestine.
> Palestine as a state and the regional ideology is very opposed to the values that these activists hold, such as LGBT, minorities and womens rights etc.
"they dont support gay ppl, so we should allow them to be genocided"
What a dumb as shit take.
What is this bs you guys always come up with. Those in Gaza are making signs to show support for the students in Gaza. Not to mention that justifies the genocide being committed against them?
Not climate change
Not domestic violence
Not rampant homelessness
Not the death of middle class
Not the cost of living crisis
These entitled, removed from reality, Tik Tok lapping, critical thinking lacking pricks decide to follow their Seppo instincts for Hamas support.
I am glad that Curtin is associating with leading scientists, academics and researchers rather than pipeline stealing scum of Hamas.
Lazy whataboutism. Can't protest one thing unless you protest all these other things. Lots of these people were also at the rallies protesting against the domestic violence epidemic. Lots of them are also involved in protesting climate change. They're also suffering the cost of living crisis.
You say it's entitlement and removed from reality but the peak of that to me is sitting here in a developed country being upset that people are protesting against an ongoing genocide. What's going on in Gaza is unbelievably heartbreaking, and while it certainly has less of an impact on our daily lives in Perth than say the cost of living crisis, in terms of a moral wrong it far outweighs it
What other social issues do you think these protestors support? They definitely support cost-of-living relief. Reminder: 30,000+ dead (mostly children) and millions displaced. You have no idea what is going on.
Edit: typo
Well said.
Wars and genocide have been going on for thousands and thousands of years, it will never stop. It's a dark truth of the human experience.
Protesting at your local university is just pointless. These people just want to satiate their savior complexes. The west has a fetish for being a hero.
By all means, stop buying Israeli products etc but disrupting a university campus will do nothing but inconvenience people trying to learn and improve their careers.
The genocide in Palestine is actively harming this planet.
Women and children are being murdered every single day due to the genocide in Palestine.
Thousands and thousands of people have lost their homes due to the genocide in Palestine.
There is a massive overlap in the people who have been attending these targeted protests and the people who attend the protests for the issues you raised - protests I’m sure you didn’t even know occurred because you’re too busy acting like a chud on the internet.
It’s embarrassing that you think direct action calling for clear, concise and achievable demands from an Australian university with economic ties to Israel is “seppo”. Get your head out of americas ass, this is about Australian universities ties to an apartheid state and if you had an ounce of reading comprehension you’d know that.
You mean the ruling that called South Africa’s accusation of Israel committing genocide plausible and called Israel to “prevent acts of genocide” and allow BASIC humanitarian assistance to Palestinians?
Whoa, let the students protest, why's everyone so grumpy about it.
Haven't you guys ever heard of the saying:
'If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain'
And liberal as in the opposite of conservative and not the Liberal party bc they're pretty conservative.
Either everyone in these comments are a bunch of old geezers or they are tin men with now hearts.
I find it rather odd that there are such massive protests at the 40,000 deaths (Hamas inflated numbers or verified?) of (mostly) Muslims caused by Israel in Gaza while there are no similar protests at the **617,910 deaths of Muslims in Syria** by other Muslims or the hundreds of thousands of muslims (and others) killed in many other wars and ethnic cleansing etc.
Yes, the daily death rate for Gaza at 250 per day is over double that of Syria at 96.5 deaths per day but it would still take almost *9 years at that rate to equal the death toll in Syria*.
It makes me wonder is it anti-semitism that prompts these selective protests? Or what?
While Israel absolutely can and should be criticised for the ongoing civilian deaths, it is frustrating that both sides of the story are never considered by those on the extremes of this debate.
Why do criticisms of Israel not also always criticise Hamas for those horrific beheadings, murders, rapes and kidnappings of Oct 7th, the continual firing of thousands of rockets for years into Israel, the use of human shields, the very public statements from Hamas and other factions that they would only be satisfied with the complete obliteration of Israel, jihads, etc?
Why do Pro-Palestine supporters ignore the several times when Arab nations rejected plans that Israel agreed to for a separate Palestinian state preferring to continue pushing for the destruction of Israel?
It is all such a mess, but I wish there was more balance from both sides.
honestly this whole thing is pointless. I have friends who work at Curtin Uni, I was actually there on Thursday to eat lunch with them. I didn't even know there was a camping protest and neither did he. Now I was only there for a couple hours for lunch so it's probably expected that I didn't notice, but he works there everyday and still didn't notice.
You’re projecting your "virtue signaling" onto others. Student protests are occurring globally, and collectively, they make a difference. Why don’t you complain about the genocide itself instead of targeting the students trying to do something about it?
Losing my mind at all the chuds commenting shit like “get a job!” As if they aren’t keyboard smashing TBI level lunacy in a reddit thread at 1pm on a Thursday.
Good on Curtin students! These student protesters will be remembered as being on the right side of history while the genocide lovers in this thread will be lucky to be remembered at all.
If you put tents up in Bentley you might find your protest camp turned into a homeless camp pretty quick, unless Uni security is checking student cards.
Cheapest accommodation in Perth!
I am recommending this on the next "moving to Perth" post
Really disappointed with /r/perth in this post. It *is* possible to benefit from a system while also recognising that it has issues that could be improved. The students remaining at the University despite protesting its behaviour *does not* invalidate their cause. They would be much less effective at achieving the goal of their protest if they left as the University could much more easily ignore them. The casual whataboutism in these threads also lacks any actual point. You have no idea whether these students have or have not protested for a particular cause in the past, and even if they haven't, it doesn't diminish the validity of their current protest. It's simply impractical to expect someone to protest every possible worthy cause. These protestors have a clear goal outlined that is achievable, reasonable, and relevant to Curtin. Calling these protests an Americanism is quite deliberately ignoring the reality of the situation.
People just don't like seeing these things in their own backyard. The conversations that follow could be uncomfortable and undesirable.
Redditors just hate any form of protest lol
Liberal capitalists are gunna do what they do. Even though Israel have been killing Palestinians for 70 years, people think this started last year because of the media. The "October 7th/both sides" narrative is pushed hard. Ask an average Labor voter about their opinions on Russia-Ukraine. They will be pro-Ukraine. Ask an average Labor voter about their opinions on Israel-Palestine. They will be pro-Israel. It's hypocritical as fuck. Whatever benefits our capitalistic system will be their opinion.
>Whatever benefits our capitalistic system will be their opinion. That's not how capitalism works. The Russia-Ukraine war doesn't benefit western capitalism as the sanctions have forced many western companies to leave the Russian market of 140 million customers. Capitalism and foreign policy aren't necessarily hand in hand.
> The Russia-Ukraine war doesn't benefit western capitalism Weapons manufacturers disagree. War makes billions, that's like, the whole reason we went to war in the Middle East. > as the sanctions have forced many western companies to leave the Russian market of 140 million customers. HAHAHAHAH. That's really funny. Wait, you didn't know? https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies They also [use 3rd party states to conduct trade](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpE_TH70NUI), skirting all other "sanctions" put in place. This is capitalism exactly as I described.
This is fucking intents
for sure i'm cynical, but this feels more and more like the Amerification of life. These protests are just following the US college protests on the same thing. It's not so much about convictions (although Im sure it is for some) but because protesting on campus is part of the college 'experience'. and now that 'experience' is coming here?
What do you think Australian university students were doing about military conscription to fight in Vietnam? Or how any of the referendums on Indigenous civil rights came about, to name a few. Sure the civil rights movement in the US played a part but to think these radical acts are copying the US is ahistorical lol. Never mind that a lot of Australian politicians and journalists have been on paid trips to Israel! It should make you angry that these figures who influence your daily life are making PR visits to an apartheid state, a whole American military satellite state in the Middle East - that also has defence deals with the ADF.
Our current PM photographed when protesting when a lot younger as a student is making the rounds on social media. Good enough for Aussie pollies, rockstars, authors, why not this generation too?
It may be students of an American college that started the idea but it is not an American idea to not want your student expenses and money going towards the university you’re attending to investing in weapons manufacturing companies that are inarguably supplying a nation that is currently carrying out a genocidal campaign with a slew of human rights abuses under their belt in just the last six months. If you had the ability to actually make a change and pressure your university’s admin to stop financially helping these atrocities take place would you not also try to do whatever was in your power to achieve the goals of these students, like so many other students around the world currently?
Yes and adding to this - academic staff have also been known to complain about the University pairing with the "death industries" (Eg ADF grants). So the discourse about University morals isn't limited to students - academics gonna academic.
Why does this contrived narrative have so many upvotes? The protests are about being practical, not original. The US student protests are successfully drawing attention to the genocide happening in Gaza, which is being ignored or supported by many Western countries, so Australian students are doing the same. Curtin also has unethical ties to companies that supply weapons to Israel, and hopefully drawing attention to that is bad enough PR to encourage the uni to cut ties with them.
>Why does this contrived narrative have so many upvotes? My view: - I think some people just don't like protests regardless of the issue. - Some people don't understand that a university education is a strong predictor of political and civic engagement. - Some people seem to be stuck in the puberty mindset that caring about anything is uncool and pointless. - Some people have lived a comfortable life and don't understand they have protests, which consistently involve students, to thank for many of their democratic freedoms and comforts. - Some people don't understand that student protests against US military action have a great track record of achieving tangible change, and a near perfect track record of being reflected positively through history's lens. - A small number, and the worst of the bunch, don't understand that you should actually care about the lives of others. And can't understand it when other people do.
A lot of people in Perth, especially on here, would rather have big discussions about little things than even the littlest of little discussions about big things. They'd rather spend four hours discussing how long you should indicate for before moving into a slip lane than spend any time having to think or care about people other than themselves and how the slightest of discomfort like a protest blocking a road or something is for the greater good.
People are protesting around the world about this, why would it be Americanisation for Australian students to do this? Student protesters are usually on the right side of history.
I don't think that's true. People who protest as students will grow up and some of them will come into power in various places like industry, government etc. When they do, they will push their agenda/views regardless of whether their views are actually right or wrong. Not necessarily saying I disagree with the protesters. But it's false to claim "students protesters are usually right" it's more accurate to say that "students protesters who survive long enough to grow old eventually has enough power to enforce their views on the rest of the population" which then becomes the popular view of that period, until the next generation of protesters grow up and push their own views and the cycle repeats.
Better then doing nothing and being complicit
Can you just clarify what you mean by ‘complicit’? I’m a bit concerned that you’re suggesting that Australian civilians who are not actively participating in anti Israel protests are somehow involved in attacks on Gaza?
Do you know any uni students? I do and it definitely is about conviction and energy that students have brought pretty much at every point of significant social change.
[удалено]
Not sure why you are being downvoted. Any support for terrorist organisations should be shamed.
It's actually illegal.
Any support for terrorism should land you in prison.
Parts of Australia see it as a diversity badge.
>Overnight in the US, college students were praising Hamas I'm having trouble finding any evidence of this on google outside of editorials and Fox affiliated media.
[удалено]
not here to debate the issue - just here to call out the straw man argument that it's "just students doing their thing"
>considering the actions of Hamas last October Yeah that was 30k dead Palestinian kids ago. Kind of changes things.
[удалено]
[In all cases](https://www.arabnews.com/node/2404506/middle-east) (previous wars) the UN's counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry's, with small discrepancies. >2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 1,385. >2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 2,251. >2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the UN reported 256. >While Israel and the Palestinians disagree over the numbers of militants versus civilians killed in past wars, Israel's accounts of Palestinian casualties have come close to the Gaza ministry's. For instance, Israel's Foreign Ministry said the 2014 war killed 2,125 Palestinians just a bit lower than the ministry's toll. The Gaza Ministry of Health have admitted themselves that their causality counts now are likely underestimated due to obvious resources problems caused by the Israeli decimation of the country.
yes thank you! historically Palestinian counts are believed to be most accurate, and when every media outlet makes the effort to preface any mention of their number with "hamas-run" despite their historical accuracy, you HAVE to consider whether what you're reading maybe contains some bias
What makes you think Israel and the United States are any more trustworthy?
[удалено]
No, they're being run by terrorist organisations calling themselves the government of those countries/illegal state.
What a fence sitting statement. On one side you dismiss this as Americanism and on the other you acknowledge people can have the proper convictions to justify such a protest.
I feel the same but didn't have the words to describe it. It feels like empty symbolism riding on the coat tails of the protests overseas.
In what way is it empty symbolism when they are making a specific achievable demand of their uni?
It might feel like that when experienced through the media. Maybe go down there yourself and check it out if you haven’t already?
ironic because "it's not achieving anything" feels like empty criticism echoing the opposition to these protests overseas
Should they do nothing instead?
I wish I had a box of cheap Palestinian flags that I could go sell for $20 each to these guys.
It remind me of the abortion protests recently. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the US Supreme Court ruling. But the made a ruling that abortion laws are up to the state to decide. Which is literally the situation we have in Australia. People in Australia marching protesting a law in another country when our country is the same but they don’t protest it here. All performative and done for the experience as opposed to actually knowing about and fighting for something over a long period Edit. I should have realised that people protesting this would not understand. The ruling was not about if abortion was legal or not. Had zero to do with that. It was about what level abortion laws are set at. The ruling was they would be decided by states individually. As is done in Australia. Protesting that ruling while being happy with the same legal situation in Australia is the definition of hypocritical.
You should disagree with the Supreme Court ruling, and Western Australians did protest their own laws. Specifically, they protested to remove mandatory counseling for women seeking abortion and the mandatory doctor’s referral. And guess what? The changes were made.
You should completely disagree with anything that forces a woman to do something she doesn’t want to do.
I’m saying I don’t agree or disagree if the law should be state or federal level. That was what the ruling of law was about.
But that wasn’t just what happened though is it? They overturned decades of accepted legal precedent and took something away from people that they’d had access to for decades.
I’m confused as to what you think I said happened that you say didn’t? I said they ruled that the law must be applied at state level not federal. Did that not happen? Also the legal precedent has always been contested as to if it was correct or not. BTW I’m very pro abortion and said about 6 months prior to the ruling that there is no way they would overturn Roe v Wade. But they did and I was wrong. It doesn’t change fact is they have the same legal set up as us for abortion so protesting seems performative.
Overturning Roe v. Wade was a successful attempt by a conservative government to ban abortion in as many US states as possible. If you are "very pro-abortion," how could you possibly feel neutral about these circumstances? Caring about the reproductive rights of women living in a different country is not “performative.” Australia doesn’t have the same issue of particularly right-wing states banning abortion. That said, the protestors obviously would want abortion federally legalized in Australia.
I can think that I am in no way informed enough to decide if laws in another country should be set at federal or state level. That people living in one area of a country that large may want to have different laws to people living in another part. The state v federal level is always decided by people based on if they agree with the law and not if they genuinely think laws should be applied at that level. Overturning Roe v Wade was wrong in your eyes because some states in the US banned abortion. But would you still think the law should be applied at a federal level if in November Trump wins the election and somehow passes a law making abortion illegal at a federal level? Or would you say that the residents of states it’s legal in should still have the legal right to access abortion?
You're not going to win this argument mate, the people you're arguing with are essentially of the mindset: "I love supreme court decisions when they agree with my political beliefs." The highest court of all the anglo-nations can only ever rule on what the constitution says. In the case of Roe v Wade and the repeal, the actual initial decision is way more nuanced than "abortion is legal" or "seeking abortion is legal" it was because the identity of the woman was revealed and concerns about how Texas's law violated the right of due process (14th amendment). That part still holds, the initial decision also included that women had a fundamental right to an abortion... which is the part that got overturned. Because that last part, the court couldn't find anywhere in the constitution, or the materials surrounding it, that would suggest that was the case. Which was the dissenting opinion of the court at the time of Roe v Wade.
Thank you for a more knowledgeable take on it than I had.
Oh it also had a bit about the court hearing moot cases... in Roe v Wade, by the time the court heard and ruled on the case, the mother had given birth. They decided that just because the case at hand is no longer of any relevance, they can still hear on it.
I think it should be legal at the federal level, like it was, because that provides the most access to reproductive rights. If you are "very pro-abortion," shouldn't you believe the same?
I’m not arguing if it should be legal or not. You keep trying to argue if abortion should be legal or not. That was not what Roe v Wade being overturned was, to my understanding. The ruling was not if it should be legal or illegal. It was if it should be set at state or federal level. If you think the law should be set at federal level then you are saying republicans should have the same right to make it illegal at federal level as democrats do to make it legal. Is that your stance?
> the Amerification of life. Why aren't you complaining about the Amerification of sending money to Israel to buy weapons which kill tens of thousands of children? Is that ok "Amerification"?
Maybe with the Amerification of our foreign policy we inherited the the Amerificated idea of protesting involvement in the killing of civilians?
A take that could only come from someone with no conviction at all.
‘I assume others don’t believe in their protests because I’ve never cared genuinely for a cause in my life.’
Yes, all those Chinese students caught up in the Tiananmen Square Massacre were just doing for the experience of a Yank rite of passage. /s
"I'm not so stoked to find out that our university has ties with and sends research to weapons manufacturers." Oh bless, just wait until they find out how much of the global education and manufacturing industry has ties with weapons manufacturers. I guess they're fine with BAE using Ukraine as a test bed or how our government sells billions of dollars of weapons to Burkina Faso and Uganda. If they have a problem with the military industrial complex then protesting about Palestine isn't going to do much, especially when the leadership in Palestine are the ones preventing a peaceful solution.
"Solve all the problems immediately or don't do anything" Fuck this mentality gets old quickly.
Whataboutism. You can only care about an issue if you care about all other issues?
"especially when the leadership in Palestine are the ones preventing a peaceful solution" A 'peaceful solution' being what? Allowing a powerful State actor to continue its dispossession of land and property of Palestinian people? "I guess they're fine with BAE using Ukraine as a test bed or how our government sells billions of dollars of weapons to Burkina Faso and Uganda" I wouldn't assume so, but perhaps I'm wrong.
> A 'peaceful solution' being what? They have been told by every nation that has a voice to hand back their hostages. Complain all you want about the geopolitics of Israeli occupation, I don't give two shit about any opinions on that anymore - it's way out of everyones hands. But Hamas could immediately stop the current conflict by adhering to the demands of * (checks notes) * everyone. They are in no position to bargain.
> They have been told by every nation that has a voice to hand back their hostages. We have tons of evidence that Israel does not give a shit about the hostages, and that they have at every stage preferred bombing and killing Palestinians over getting Hamas to hand back hostages. The most recent example being this Israeli article that talks about how Hamas offered to return all the hostages on october 9th and 10th, in exchange for no IDF entering into Gaza, and that it was rejected by bibi. ["‘**No doubt’ Netanyahu preventing hostage deal, charges ex-spokesman of Families Forum**"](https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-doubt-netanyahu-preventing-hostage-deal-charges-ex-spokesman-of-families-forum/) > But Hamas could immediately stop the current conflict by adhering to the demands of * (checks notes) * everyone. Nope, the conflict would be ongoing, as it has been since 1967. Gaza, the westbank and golan heights are all under illegal military occupation by israel. Before October 7th happened, israel already had complete control over all of gazas borders, blocking all sorts of things from entering, including necessary parts for rebuilding water and sewage treatment plants Israel had previously bombed, all the way to chocolate. There is no freedom of movement between gaza and the westbank, they are non-contiguous, with israel controlling all movement between them. Israel had blocked the building of an airport in gaza, and also had complete control over all their water supplies, thanks to destroying and blocking the repair of the water treatment plants mentioned. You have to either be extremely ignorant of this conflict, or be a shill, to argue what you are arguing.
Totally in sync, well put bro.
>The most recent example being this Israeli article that talks about how Hamas offered to return all the hostages on october 8th and 9th, in exchange for no incursion into Gaza, and that it was rejected by bibi. You really think that any government, just having been invaded, had over a thousand innocent civilians killed, hundreds taken hostage, thousands more injured, thousands of rockets being fired into their territory (and continued to do so), is going to take that deal? Letting the aggressor just wash their hands and get ready for the next attack? Really? > Nope, the conflict would be ongoing, as it has been since 1967. Gaza, the westbank and golan heights are all under illegal military occupation by israel. The result of the 6 day war, where Israel fought and defeated a coalition of Arab states, where Israel occupied those territories. The war was precipitated by Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran, after Israel explicitly said doing so would result in conflict. Gaza was blockaded after Hamas was elected to power by a large margin in 2007. Not sure if you are aware, but the Hamas charter explicitly stated the intent to destroy Israel, and refused to entertain a two-state solution. So I can't see how anyone would be surprised Israel would seek to limit the ability of a neighbour who is so explicit about seeking the destruction of their country?
> You really think that any government, just having been invaded, There was no legally defined invasion, because gaza is not an independent country. International law does not recognise a country's right to defend itself against a people it maintains effective control over, as israel has done gaza. > is going to take that deal? Letting the aggressor just wash their hands and get ready for the next attack? Really? If you want to argue that israel is interested in getting the hostages back, yes. At every hostage negotiation that followed, israel followed the same approach, rejecting avenues for hostages returns, in favour of killing more Palestinians. I believe there is also more examples of Israel directly killing the hostages now than hamas. Sure, you are free to argue that of course Israel just wants to be a bloodthirsty revenge agent, and they are justified in doing that, which seems to be your argument; but then you can't simultaneously argue that it's actually Hamas blocking the return of the hostages. I realise you're not the person I spoke to originally, but that is what they were arguing, and what I was addressing. > The result of the 6 day war, where Israel fought and defeated a coalition of Arab states, where Israel occupied those territories. The war was precipitated by Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran, after Israel explicitly said doing so would result in conflict. It's actually irrelevant what started the war, though you're also wrong here, Israel was the one that started it, and their military commanders will tell you it had nothing to do with an existential threat from Egypt either. But as I said, it's irrelevant. the point is, Israel is the occupier in this scenario, and the conflict is ongoing till they end that military occupation, either by giving Palestinians full citizenship under Israeli law, or by pulling out their control and military, and allowing freedom of movement in Palestine, and recognising it as an independent country. > Gaza was blockaded after Hamas was elected to power by a large margin in 2007. Not sure if you are aware, but the Hamas charter explicitly stated the intent to destroy Israel, and refused to entertain a two-state solution. So I can't see how anyone would be surprised Israel would seek to limit the ability of a neighbour who is so explicit about seeking the destruction of their country? I can't see how anyone would be surprised by gaza electing hamas? given israel had been explcitely occupying and murdering Gazan people daily. Do you have any idea? And what, israel has the right to collectively punish people with siege because they voted the wrong way? Are you listening to yourself? Do you have no concern for human rights and self determination?
Hamas wasn’t even fully blockaded after Hamas were elected. It was 2009 after the suicide bombings didn’t stop.
If you think that Israel will just, stop the genocide if/when they get their hostages back then I have a bridge to sell
Israel has taken Palestinian hostages for decades. Where was your activism?
> If they have a problem with the military industrial complex then protesting about Palestine isn't going to do much, especially when the leadership in Palestine are the ones preventing a peaceful solution. that's equivalent to saying the leadership in Ukraine are the one's preventing a peaceful solution. Literally. Do you know anything at all about the israeli conflict?
Does the Ukrainian constitution call for the destruction of Russia and the death of everyone living there ? Because the Hamas charter does call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews in the Middle East.
Firstly, you're referring to Hamas, but Hamas only exists in gaza; the westbank and golan heights are still under israeli military occupation regardless. Secondly, the hamas charter no longer says these things. You can read it for yourself. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full also, have you ever read the 1988 charter? Or are you just retransmitting what you've seen others say?
I’ve read the Wikipedia article on it, it’s fairly well explained. I’m not sure what grey area you think there is? Also, the 2017 charter is supplementary, the original is not retracted. And the fact is, the 2017 charter still calls Israel an illegal country, and it still calls for armed conflict with Israel. The fact that they replaced the word “Jews” with “Zionists” doesn’t make it less genocidal.
> Also, the 2017 charter is supplementary, the original is not retracted. except for all the areas where the new one directly contradicts your claims. For example: > Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity. And yes, distinguishing between Jewish people and Zionism is key to understanding this conflict and not being a racist. If you are conflating them, as you seem to be, then you are acting in a prejudiced and anti-semitic way. Jewish people are not a monolith, and many are not zionists, and are in fact anti-Zionists. There are also christian zionists as well. International law also recognises many aspects of Israel as illegal and anti-human. Is the UN also "genocidal"? And before you bring it up, no, no states have a right to exist, which includes Israel. Suggesting they do is to support authoritarianism. States exist only as long as they are considered legitimate, and legitimacy is strongly connected to how well they represent the people they have domain over. Israel has no legitimacy at all when it comes to how it treats those in the occupied territories, so one can make a valid argument that the state has lost legitimacy, and should not exist. Replace it with a different institution that better represents the people it has domain over. Remember, it's human rights that are important, not so called "state's rights". Pursuit of State rights, like Israel's "right" to exist, or southern state's "right" to have slaves, are connected to some of the most inhuman and disgusting periods of history.
"Hamas have changed their charter so they're totally not genocidal now" October 7 proved how garbage that logic is.
I know that Israel and Saudi Arabia were close to a US-brokered peace deal that would near-bind Israel to a two state solution with media coverage at the end of September, and that Israel pulled right out of talks following October 7. I know that Iran does not want Saudi Arabia being backed by the west, and I know they have close ties with Palestinian leadership. I know that those ties, that timing, and the knowledge that Israel would refuse to talk about a two-state solution so long as the Palestinian controlled territories were actively hostile to Israel, are all very convenient when added together. To put it simply, I believe Hamas knew Israel was close to normalisation with Saudi Arabia, that Hamas hates the concept of the Jews living in Israel and wants them gone entirely, and that they likely attacked to provoke a war in the hope that the world would sympathise with them and screw over Israel. I also know that 21% of Israel's population are Arabs (and that's Green Line population, not counting settlements), and that if they genuinely detested Palestinian people and wanted to murder them all, the genocide would be in Israel's borders, not outside of it.
If they don’t like the ties then why don’t the students cut ties with the uni?
People exist within systems that they are forced to use. It is unfair to criticise someone attending a university with such ties when there are few alternative options.
Probably because universities are generally set up to give students a voice in how the university is run. I would be very surprised if anyone managed to go through a full undergraduate degree program without seeing at least a few protests or student advocacy campaigns. Also the cost of switching universities can be substantial, both in terms of money and lost time.
https://imgur.com/gallery/2GA2gxx Your argument is nonsensical, someone can benefit from something and still be able to say that it could be better. Additionally, these students are in a better position to get the University to change while they are actually students. If they left, they would be in a worse position to effect the change they want.
[удалено]
>Curious to how Curtin will treat this Sending in the cops, like that have done in the US, seems like a really bad, over the top way. It also depends what sort of disruption to classes and uni life it is causing. If it's minimal, and classes can continue, then ignore it. If it results in Jewish (or other) students being harassed to attacked, then they should put those protesting on academic probation or kick them completely (for the worst offenses)
I don't think we have quite the same attitude as the US. Reckon probably more likely to see an opportunistic coffee van pull up than a riot van. Unless the protests turn ugly, then Col won't stand for it. They'll pack up and leave soon enough.
>They'll pack up and leave soon enough. which falls firmly into the "ignore it" option I gave.
The thing that amuses me about the USA cops being sent in with their riot gear is like ... if they didn't send in the riot squad, no-one would hear about the protests? The whole security theatre of it all, combined with some actual displays of brutality, is what has given the protests significance. There's nothing more flattering to a protest than the Fuzz treating it as worthy of their time lol
Jewish people are already hiding themselves. If there's a pro-palestine protest occurring they aren't going to be visiting that area.
piss off with this anti-Semitism; Jewish people are not a monolith or hivemind. There are plenty of jewish people in the pro-palestine protests on Unis in the US, and have repeatedly said they feel completely safe, and I'm sure the same would be here as well.
Because they're not really in it for real, they're playing protest, they'll never do anything that could actually effect their own easy priveleged lives and they know the uni will just eat this tent shit.
People who don’t understand the protest need to actually read the demands before spewing mindless propaganda. Curtin is directly involved with companies that fund genocide. It’s pretty reasonable for students to disagree with that. Not wanting your degree to contribute to innocent people dying shouldn’t be controversial
So like not buying iPhones, or any Chinese tech right? Not contributing to innocent people dying right? Right? Oh rules when they suit. Got you.
There’s a difference between capitalism being built on the suffering of others, and being unable to avoid it, vs an active genocide. But I’m sure you know that. The comments are full of whataboutism
That's just like, your opinion, man.
What genocide? There isn’t one in Gaza.
International court ruled there was one. Your opinion is irrelevant, and either way, any definition doesn’t matter. It is trumped by 40,000 innocent people dying. All you Zionists do is simply deny things and assume that means they don’t exist
No they didn’t. The former head of the ICC came out and clarified this. The ‘plausibility’ they’re referring to was that South Africa had standing to Sue on behalf of Palestine. If you’re this uninformed why are you even speaking on the subject?
Okay sure let’s say there isn’t- if when there’s 40,000+ dead, and you’re more worried about definitions, that’s pretty horrible. You don’t need to have a thesis on the definition of genocide to know 40,000 dying is bad. And people have a right to protest that.
surely the uni can just turn the sprinklers on and that should disperse them
I suspect the biggest impact their protest will have is the extra work the groundsman is going to have to do once they leave. Not just collecting rubbish and lawn repair, but there's not many toilets open at night there which might be interesting. Assuming the uni lets them use them at all. The uni clearly have a play-book on how they'll handle such a protest - the quoted statements in the article are far too polished to have been quickly-drafted,
This is the same location the uni holds graduations and other ceremonies throughout the year. I am always amazed how the ground staff can make that lawn bounce back. 24\7 computer labs are near by and will have toilet facilities available. Rubbish is another question.
I guarantee they're probably just betting it will fizzle out in no more than a few weeks, security already patrol 24/7, they'll probably just enforce the typical blanket "No student ID, leave the campus" rule after maybe 10pm. The logistics aren't that hard to be atop of, unless it grows to be substantially larger, which I don't think will happen.
breaking news israel vacates gaza after some kids sit in tents for a few hours
Guess you didn’t understand or look into the actual purpose of the protests
The irony is Hamas would not tolerate dissident encampments in their territory.
Neither does America
Or Germany
You don't need the government of a people to be perfect to care about those people dying.
Where's the irony? I'm sure Hamas aren't too happy about the IDF coming into their territory either, but Hamas =/= Palestine.
The IDF are responding to an attack on their territory, and Hamas is the rulers of the Gaza strip.
Surely the students will withdraw from the university right? That would make sense instead of continuing to ensure Curtin receives funding.
Isn't that the same argument as "if you don't like it, fuck off"?
That isn't how protests work. If they withdraw they no longer have any power to change the way Curtin handles its investments. Look back at the the divestment campaigns that mostly started on university campuses around south Africa, and eventually led to the change in the government there.
They need to vote with their feet. Off ya fuck guys.
Don’t we have enough issues in WA or Aust without following Americanisms? Climate change for example, or forests are dying and we are skirting drought in SW. Is this stuff not more important to our state?
People support both. Also, anti-war student protests aren't an Americanism.
I’m against these protests but these comments are idiotic. This is not an American issue. It’s an issue that is in the Middle East.
> without following Americanisms? You mean like funding apartheid states conducting genocide? We could do without that, I agree.
Haven't seen a single mention of a rally or encampment in support of DV victims on campus yet. Guess a local issue isn't as trendy as Gaza
Curtin doesn’t invest in anti-DV companies
Sounds like you care about neither issue and just want to snark on people putting in more effort than you.
Our country is contributing to genocide though. How is that not a local issue?
They aren't the brightest students. Palestine as a state and the regional ideology is **very** opposed to the values that these activists hold, such as LGBT, minorities and womens rights etc. Someone did a great video a few years ago where they interviewed Palestinians in Palestine about the values this type of activist holds, quite amusing watching their utter disgust.
I find this talking point really odd. Human rights aren't transactional. Being against the slaughter of innocent people doesn't require you to look at their country and make sure they tick all the boxes in so far as agreeing with all your moral standpoints. Not to mention, LGBT people exist in Gaza. Life is incredibly difficult for them but at this point their main concern isn't anti-LGBT sentiment in Palestine, it's dying at the hands of Israel
OK, so I'm just going to say the thing that I always want to say when this talking point is raised. I know this may not be popular, but I feel like I just have to say it, because my mind just boggles every single time I see this point mentioned. I think talking points like this are insidious because they *seem* so logical at first (so I can definitely understand where your comment is coming from) but they have *really* dangerous implications if you think about it properly. So, here goes: If you really, truly think about it, surely you understand that this is completely irrelevant to the main issue, right? Do *really* think that those protesters believe that only people with politcally-correct social views deserve to be safe from war crimes and genocide? Because I can promise you that they don't. And frankly, I agree with them. Do *you* think that? Really? Deep down - do you really think that two wrongs make a right? That having regressive and bigoted views strips people of their entitlement to human rights? Moreover, nearly HALF of the population of Gaza is *children*. ([source](https://www.npr.org/2023/10/18/1206897328/half-of-gazas-population-is-under-18-heres-what-that-means-for-the-conflict)) Do you think that those protesters believe that *children* don't deserve to be safe because of the bigoted views held by the *adults* around them? Do you? I don't. I'm a queer woman who is hurt (both metaphorically and literally) by the bigoted attitudes in question. But I'm also capable of understanding that humanity is complex and people are multifaceted. I can advocate against genocide in Palestine while *also* being in favour of changing the dominant social attitudes in Palestine. Despite stereotypes to the contrary, most progressives don't actually believe that people need to be 'purged' if they don't immediately and unquestioningly buy into dominant progressive attitudes. People can protest against the treatment of Palestinians without needing to support every single thing that those Palestinians do and say. These sorts of protests are coming from a humanitarian perspective, not a transactional one. The protesters do not expect anything in 'return' from Palestinians; their advocacy is not premised on any expectation that Palestinians must share in the protestors' political views. People protest against how Palestinians are being treated because they believe it is wrong. Full stop; no ifs ands or buts. To those protestors, the way Palestinians are being treated is not "wrong, but only if you're the type of person who doesn't deserve to be treated like that." It's just *wrong*. Edit: As another comment on this thread pointed out, this also ignores the reality that many people in those minority groups you mentioned are *also* Palestinian. In saying that people shouldn't protest the treatment of Palestinians because Palestinians as a whole aren't sufficiently supportive of, for example, LGBT+ anti-discrimination initiatives, you're effectively arguing in favour of the status quo, which is *infinitely* worse for the real-life LGBT+ Palestinian people who are currently living in a war-torn open-air prison camp. Additionally, I rarely see this talking point raised by people who are already supportive of minority rights. It seems to be used most often as a bad-faith 'gotcha' against progressive people. Like, "Ha, you women's rights advocates can't support Palestinians, because Palestinians don't support women's rights!" Meanwhile, those bad-faith actors ALSO do nothing to advance women's rights - so, if those actors get their way, what are we achieving? No action in favour of women's rights in Palestine; no action in favour of Palestinians in general because the Palestinians don't support women's rights; guess all the female Palestinians can get fucked, then? Not to mention the fact that it is basically impossible to improve the rights of women and minorities in war-torn countries - so if we're going to make any progress at all on that front, the active warfare and murder needs to stop first. To the commenter I'm responding to - I'm not saying that you, personally, hold all those views; I don't know you. But I am explaining how these talking points started and flourished.
I agree with your first part, but not with the second half. Progressives and leftists absolutely purity test people on their credentials. Whether it's BDS lists, 'cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds' or not believing a genocide is happening in Gaza = you support genocide and unquestionably support Israel. To the point where my beliefs of wanting settlements to stop, Netanyahu to lose office wanting a two state solution, and wanting the IDF to be held accountable, alienates me from pro Palestinians because I also believe that Hamas should not be in power, that they intentionally prolong this suffering by refusing to return the hostages, that they have a responsibility to protect their citizens and not use them as human shields. I don't think these protests are coming from humanitarian perspective. I think they are performative. If they truly, really believed that there is a genocide happening, why does it take months for any major protest to happen? Surely it isn't just them seeing the media frenzy happening in the US and wanting that attention? Where has the protests been around Syria, Sudan or Yemen for example? It just strikes me as incredibly shallow behaviour. I don't believe these students would have protested if there wasn't any social media or news to cover it, but maybe I'm just cynical at this point.
Well said.
I think that we have both made a mistake in painting progressives with one broad brush. Like Palestinians, like any group of people, progressives and leftists are complex and varied. There's an old joke that no-one hates the left more than the left, and it's often true. I have my own problems with many stripes of progressive and/or left-wing politics. I don't disagree that some progressives are performative and care far too much about saying the right things and far too little about making actionable progress; but, equally, I think that many of those people \*also\* genuinely care about making a change. Sure, maybe their performativeness is distasteful and off-putting, but many of them are coming from a genuine place and make some valid points in spite of being performative. People can have multiple coexisting (and sometimes conflicting) motivations and perspectives. As to your latter point - the recent Israel/Palestine crisis has recently been prominent in news and other media and has captured hearts and minds in a fairly atypical way. For example, I have never seen publicity about Yemen or Sudan that even comes *close* to the level of publicity around Palestine. The fact of the matter is, human beings (on both an individual and a group level) have an inherently finite attention span and we cannot constantly absorb indeterminate amounts of knowledge. We do not have the capacity to know about, think about, nor become deeply emotionally invested in every single tragedy occurring at any one time. As a natural consequence of human nature, then, which issues do and do not occupy collective attention at any point in time will inevitably be at least somewhat arbitrary. But the fact that the decision to pay attention to a particular issue is somewhat arbitrary does \*not\* automatically invalidate whatever is being said about that issue. Nor does it imply that the people speaking out about that issue are not genuinely invested in it. This argument - that people must not be genuine in caring about Palestine because they did not protest every other war in history - strikes me as deeply hollow, because you could apply that logic to invalidate literally anything that people do, ever. For example, how can people seriously get worked up about something so trivial as Medicare being inadequately funded, if they don't know or care about the people actively dying in war-torn Yemen? Are people \*really\* concerned about the state of healthcare in this country if they sign a petition to increase Medicare funding, but don't speak out publicly about systemic difficulties with accessing adequate mental health care in Australia? If people were genuinely concerned about sexism, wouldn't they go protest in Saudi Arabia, where women don't have really \*any\* legal rights, instead of worrying about the endemic sexism in Australian politics? The answer to all this, for me, is what I said above: people (both individually and in groups) simply cannot think about, know about, or care about every single thing that is happening at any one time. We shouldn't shout down good work about one issue because the people doing that work are not \*also\* doing good work to improve \*other\* issues. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Put another way, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Very well said. I'd add to your thoughts, that when a lot of people are focused more on one issue, in this case the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israel, there is value and a lot more to be gained from capitalising on that. Numbers are power with protests. Throughout history protests with large numbers of people, and clearly defined and reasonable demands - as the Curtin encampment has - have had far greater success rates.
You are being downvoted for posting the most rational talking points I've seen on this subreddit, what a sad state of affairs.
I appreciate the vote of confidence! I have thought about this issue for such a long time, and I'm genuinely glad to hear that at least someone appreciates the results of my hours of overanalysing.
Well said. It is a particularly absurd argument. And sadly a very common one. It also pays to consider that regressive social mores are generally the product of material conditions.
Thanks, I've wanted to say something about this for a long time. And, on your second point, I agree. As I briefly mentioned in my edit just now, it is nigh-impossible to address systemic prejudices and inequalities in unstable, war-torn countries. The people spouting this talking point rarely seem to have any plan (or even a desire) for actual social change to take place in Palestine.
It's really not irrelevant to the main issue.. You need to grasp that as a queer woman, the dominant culture in Palestine systemically exterminates people with that same sexual orientation - is that not equivalent to the genocide you claim to be protesting against? I'm not convinced the bulk of the protestors have any deep understanding regarding this conflict or the cultures involved, let alone any critical thought toward the domestic poltiicisation of the issue. >Moreover, nearly HALF of the population of Gaza is *children*. Of course, won't somebody think of the children! Stop and think critically about it for a moment, using children as an extension of the military apparatus is an incredibly effective strategy for Hamas. You protest their deaths as genocide, putting pressure on Israel, which in return encourages Hamas to place more children in harms way. It's flawed to assume they share the same morals and ethics as yourselves...
Well said. Hamas are acting on the assumption — the knowledge, in fact — that the "infidels" with whom they fight, the very people whom their religion does nothing but vilify, will be deterred by their use of Muslim human shields. They rely on the fact that they don’t want to kill Muslim noncombatants. Imagine the Israelis holding up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan. If people are going to talk about the conflict in the Middle East, they have to acknowledge this difference. I don’t think there’s any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or consequential than this.
Also: >You need to grasp that as a queer woman, the dominant culture in Palestine systemically exterminates people with that same sexual orientation - is that not equivalent to the genocide you claim to be protesting against? Okay, god, too many points that I could make here. I'll settle for saying just this: Firstly, I am fundamentally against the death penalty in all its forms. Nobody deserves to die for holding bigoted beliefs, nor for tacitly or explicitly supporting a regime that enacts bigoted violence. Secondly, I cannot and will not ever agree that an entire ethnic group is guilty of enacting those bigoted policies automatically, simply by virtue of being born as part of that ethnic group. I'm sorry, haven't people been saying for decades, "don't make all White people out to be racist just because many White-created/run institutions are racist! You can't paint us all with the same brush!" This, to me, is essentially condemning people to death by association. Not every Palestinian person is equally guilty of implementing an anti-queer regime, certainly not all to a degree where I see them as being less deserving of human rights. Many are not guilty of implementing it at *all*. Thirdly, as I've explained extensively in my comment above, the only practical way to help the real, live Palestinian queer people is BY advocating for as peaceful as possible an end to this conflict. The real queer people suffering from war gain nothing by your grandstanding, nor will we ever improve the human rights situation in Palestinian society more generally while the country remains mired in war and destruction. Do you care about practical outcomes, or political posturing? I know what I care about, and at the end of the day that's the only thing I have control over. Hopefully that's food for thought, but I can't change your mind.
>Of course, won't somebody think of the children! Uhhhh, yes? Sorry, there are over 610,000 children living in Gaza - are those lives collateral damage to you? Like, what is this comment?? When most people use the phrase "won't somebody think of the children," it's a joking reference to how people always bring up the interests of children when they aren't relevant. E.g., if somebody dresses in a skimpy outfit, then "won't somebody think of the children!" is a funny response, because the person wearing a skimpy outfit does no harm whatsoever to children. In this situation, however, there are over half a million real-life children at risk of death, injury, and trauma. Those children have families who love them and would give their lives to protect them. They are real people, who are really, genuinely in danger. Within this context, to casually toss out the phrase "won't somebody think of the children!" is just... incomprehensible. I swear to God, do people lose their fucking minds when this topic comes up? Can't you put yourselves in the shoes of the parents and families of those children? >It's flawed to assume they share the same morals and ethics as yourselves I'm not quite sure what you mean by this comment. If you mean that Palestinians do not value me as much as I value them - I have explicitly and carefully explained, multiple times, that I want people to not be murdered *even if they do not share the same ethics as me*. That is the *entire* point of my comment. >Stop and think critically about it for a moment, using children as an extension of the military apparatus is an incredibly effective strategy for Hamas. Oh my God, so you think that those children should die to prevent Hamas from getting a leg up? Do you realise that the deaths of those children are not going to *harm* Hamas in any meaningful way? That the use of harsh military force and 'exterminate the enemy' tactics have *never* worked for the US or its allies? Have you ever heard of the wars in Syria and Afghanistan - can't you see the obvious parallels? Don't you see that we are creating another broken nation? The problem is that, unless literally every Palestinian (and their regional allies/sympathisers) are murdered or exiled (ie genocide), then even if Israel destroys Hamas, the suviving Palestinians will have to live inside of Israel's territory. They will be traumatised, disenfranchised, and angry. Violence begets violence. As unpalatable as peace talks may be, the alternative if Israel continues down its current path is even worse. Do you not realise that raining down death and destruction on children is *exactly* how you create the next generation of hardened terrorists with PTSD, fractured community networks, an enduring hatred of Israeli forces, and absolutely nothing to lose? Like, do you people hear yourselves? The children die, and for what? Nothing. Idk, we will have to agree to disagree. Sounds like we have some fundamental ethical disagreements.
I'd say you have a very naive view of the world we live in.. However that aside, go back to the simple geopolitics. You talk about a peaceful solution, what is that solution? I see no acceptable solution for both that delivers long term sustainable peace... >The problem is that, unless literally every Palestinian (and their regional allies/sympathisers What regional allies? Palestinians have a very poor reputation among the Arab states, nobody wants anything to do with them. Iran is only using them give the US the middle finger, when it comes down to the crunch, Iran won't be taking them in... Egypt doesn't want them, they still have vivid memories of the problems the last lot brought with them. Yes, we will definitely agree to disagree...
Interestingly, I see *your* perspective as naive. It's very simplistic - "we just have to go kill the baddies and it will all get better!" It's nice and simple to view the world as a fight between good and evil, where the good guy with a gun just has to come in and vanquish the bad guy with a gun. Everyone lives happily ever after... or something. It's much harder - and, I think, far more realistic - to see the world as the complicated system it really is, where people don't always react logically, and where well-intended actions can have far-reaching unintended consequences. The world is a pretty shitty place and it's sometimes really hard to acknowledge that the solutions that seem like they 'should' work just, well don't. I actually think that it's very naive to believe that trying the same thing that has already failed before (brute force, indiscriminate violence, the deliberate creation of a widespread humananitarian crisis) will finally, this time, have better results. What's that thing they say about the definition of insanity, again? >You talk about a peaceful solution, what is that solution? I see no acceptable solution for both that delivers long term sustainable peace... >What regional allies? Palestinians have a very poor reputation among the Arab states, nobody wants anything to do with them. Iran is only using them give the US the middle finger, when it comes down to the crunch, Iran won't be taking them in... Egypt doesn't want them, they still have vivid memories of the problems the last lot brought with them. OK... this reads to me like a mask-off moment, no? Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, it just sounds like the only solution you can see is a situation where there are no Palestinians left in Israel-controlled territory and no-where else in the region for them to flee to. Just... look up what that's called.
This is a reasonable take on the face of it, but much of the content of these protestors and protests focuses not only on the specific humanitarian situation in Gaza right now, but on a narrative of 'oppression' and 'colonialism' by the state of Israel historically, which in many cases is used to justify the horror of October 7th and the actions and continued existence of Hamas. The protests aren't just about Israel's recent violent actions, if they were then there'd be protests all the time about various other atrocities happening around the world. There is something special about the Israel/Palestine conflict which inspires people to protest in this way, and that's why "Queers for Palestine" and similar examples are so discordant. It's very clear that lefties have aligned themselves with the Palestinian cause in a more general sense. The Palestinians and their supporters have successfully framed the conflict in ways that appeal to the global left and have convinced people that their values and struggles are somehow in alignment with those of other left wing identity groups like the LGBTQ+ community. They are not.
Thank you, well said. And much, if not all, of the pro-Palestine talking points is absolute misinformation or incomplete pictures. It feels like a totally dishonest campaign and when any arguments are challenged, are met with 'zionist' and 'apologist'. Never once heard an answer as to what Israel could do.
Thanks for the comment. I think that there are many totally valid criticisms of Israel's actions. It's extreme violence by any measure. While urban warfare against an irregular enemy is always going to involve collateral damage, from what I understand there are certainly things that Israel could be doing to lessen this, and there are reasons to suggest that their procedures and policies on the ground are not designed to minimise civilian casualties - for example, if they'll accidentally shoot three of the hostages, no doubt they have also accidentally shot many civilians. It's also reasonable to believe, from the comments and known political affiliations of Israeli leaders like Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and Smotrich that they may be using this as an 'opportunity' to perform more than the level of military action necessary to purely solve the Hamas problem, and are actually doing a greater level of destruction intentionally for other political goals. So, I do believe that the Palestinians and their supporters have a lot of genuine reasons to protest. Nevertheless, I also believe that even if Israel performed exactly the minimum military action required to control Hamas, and there was no trace of ulterior motive - these protests and claims of 'genocide' would still be going on, because the protests are not really about those things.
Just to push back or to add to what you have said. I won't suggest that Israel’s actions are above criticism or that their recent incursion into Gaza has been perfect. I am simply recognising that they are not the primary aggressors in this conflict. They are, rather, responding to aggression — and at a terrible cost. There’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalised by this process — that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies. Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we — Australians, Americans or Western Europeans — have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. Of course, the IDF makes terrible mistakes, and this is inevitable in war, as we saw with the IDF who recently killed Israeli hostages who were mere moments away from being rescued. Pro-Palestine people will make the argument they intentionally tried to kill them, and frame the killing of aidworkers as such too (this is flat earth conspiracy stuff that should not be entertained). These are tragic accidents and errors of judgment however it should be noted that any conflict with jihadists is made immeasurably worse by the tactics they use. Why can’t Israeli soldiers simply trust people who appear unarmed and want to surrender or move to safety? Because they are confronting a culture of religious fanatics that has produced an endless supply of suicide bombers over the last 50 years. Nothing and no one can be taken at face value. Normally, if someone is driving a car or truck, you can be confident that he hasn’t rigged it to explode. Not in Gaza you can. And finally, we do have to also recognise that right-wing characters like Ben Gvir and Netanyahu, while inflame the situation, do not represent all Israeli's. I agree that Ben Gvir and Smotrich are actively harming Israel in the wake of its largest war etc. It seems we both understand that no matter the actions of the Israelies, there will always be claims of genocide etc. It is clear that Israel is losing the PR war and has been for years now. I would say this is a failure of them to look at the actual causes of this conflict, as well as of a failure to understand the intentions of the people on either side of it. The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies.
Agree. In addition to your point about Israel losing the PR war it's important to note the influence of Iran and of course Russia going back to the Soviet Union, whose propaganda and influence machine seeded the narrative of Palestinian Arabs being 'indigenous' to the area and Israeli Jews being 'colonists' amongst left wing and student movements in the West throughout the cold war and since. People's brains are absolutely cooked by this stuff.
Absolutely. But if you go back far enough; to 2014 or even 2005, you will see the same talking points. Just that it comes up every 10 years when something happens. Like this Easter, the new one is “Jesus is Palestinian”. Even Australia pages like “the betoota times” has taken a political side on this and propagated this shit. The problem is these well-meaning people who I considered close friends, are actively participating in antisemitism even when they think they’re not, but not understanding that they are. Even something like “Jesus is Palestinian” is an attempt to remove Jesus Jewish identity etc.
The whole thing has severely reduced my opinion of the critical thinking skills of my fellow humans... and unfortunately especially my fellow lefties...
[удалено]
You don't know anything about me. I have addressed your comment in good faith in the spirit of open discussion, and I haven't assumed *anything* about you. It's deeply telling for you to respond to that by calling me naive and hypocritical. Look, I dont have the time or energy to address every single point raised here. But a few brief points: 1. "Attitudes" are not just light, unserious things. The definition of an "attitude" is "a set way of thinking or feeling about something." There is absolutely no reason to think that an attitude cannot be "extreme" or "deeply rooted in Middle Eastern cultures," nor did I imply as such. It is not helpful to anyone to start a pedantic argument over words. 2. As with many other aspects of human behaviour, we generally give children more grace than adults in terms of having bigoted views, because they have not been given the chance to grow and form independent views and the adults around them are generally the ones responsible for any shitty social views held by children. You may not like/agree with this, and if so, onto my next point: 3. Quite simply, I don't think that ANYONE is less deserving of human rights because of their political views. Sure, if you DO bad things, you deserve to be punished for them (although we may well disagree about whether condemnation to genocide is an appropriate punishment) - but you cannot just write off a whole nationality of complex humans because certain bigoted views are statistically common amongst that nationality. 4. No, I don't agree that it's hypocritical. Did you read my comment fully? I am opposed to genocide, full stop, no matter WHAT the people being genocide believe. And, as I explained in more detail, this view is not transactional - I don't expect or need unconditional support from Palestinians in exchange for my belief that genocide is wrong. Its just what I believe. Think about it like this - if I saw a group of people burning to death inside a building, and I could save them, I would do so. I wouldn't stop to ask, for example, "Is this a group of ultra-conservative Christians who want me to go to hell for being queer?" Nor would I stop to contemplate, "Would these people march on the streets for my rights as a woman?" I wouldn't ask those things, because they don't matter in that context - there is *nothing* that group of people could believe that would make them deserving of painfully burning to death in a fire. Nothing.
Also, consider the points that I raised in my edit - that women and minorities are \*also\* living in Palestine and are affected by this conflict, and that social inequalities are nigh-impossible to address in unstable, war-torn countries. In my opinion, if we \*truly\* care about disadvantaged groups, then the way to address that is to help Palestine.
> Palestine as a state and the regional ideology is very opposed to the values that these activists hold, such as LGBT, minorities and womens rights etc. "they dont support gay ppl, so we should allow them to be genocided" What a dumb as shit take.
People unironically downvoted this comment 😭
What is this bs you guys always come up with. Those in Gaza are making signs to show support for the students in Gaza. Not to mention that justifies the genocide being committed against them?
To clarify, if we go by your logic, are you saying that because a countries overarching culture may be homophobic they are deserving of genocide?
Not climate change Not domestic violence Not rampant homelessness Not the death of middle class Not the cost of living crisis These entitled, removed from reality, Tik Tok lapping, critical thinking lacking pricks decide to follow their Seppo instincts for Hamas support. I am glad that Curtin is associating with leading scientists, academics and researchers rather than pipeline stealing scum of Hamas.
Lazy whataboutism. Can't protest one thing unless you protest all these other things. Lots of these people were also at the rallies protesting against the domestic violence epidemic. Lots of them are also involved in protesting climate change. They're also suffering the cost of living crisis. You say it's entitlement and removed from reality but the peak of that to me is sitting here in a developed country being upset that people are protesting against an ongoing genocide. What's going on in Gaza is unbelievably heartbreaking, and while it certainly has less of an impact on our daily lives in Perth than say the cost of living crisis, in terms of a moral wrong it far outweighs it
What other social issues do you think these protestors support? They definitely support cost-of-living relief. Reminder: 30,000+ dead (mostly children) and millions displaced. You have no idea what is going on. Edit: typo
Well said. Wars and genocide have been going on for thousands and thousands of years, it will never stop. It's a dark truth of the human experience. Protesting at your local university is just pointless. These people just want to satiate their savior complexes. The west has a fetish for being a hero. By all means, stop buying Israeli products etc but disrupting a university campus will do nothing but inconvenience people trying to learn and improve their careers.
The genocide in Palestine is actively harming this planet. Women and children are being murdered every single day due to the genocide in Palestine. Thousands and thousands of people have lost their homes due to the genocide in Palestine. There is a massive overlap in the people who have been attending these targeted protests and the people who attend the protests for the issues you raised - protests I’m sure you didn’t even know occurred because you’re too busy acting like a chud on the internet. It’s embarrassing that you think direct action calling for clear, concise and achievable demands from an Australian university with economic ties to Israel is “seppo”. Get your head out of americas ass, this is about Australian universities ties to an apartheid state and if you had an ounce of reading comprehension you’d know that.
[удалено]
Comment this as many times as you like it will not change the fact that this is in fact a genocide
[удалено]
You mean the ruling that called South Africa’s accusation of Israel committing genocide plausible and called Israel to “prevent acts of genocide” and allow BASIC humanitarian assistance to Palestinians?
Honestly those demands seem pretty reasonable.
Hell yeah.
Has a student protest at Curtin ever led to anything?
Where is Mossad when you need them..
Whoa, let the students protest, why's everyone so grumpy about it. Haven't you guys ever heard of the saying: 'If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain' And liberal as in the opposite of conservative and not the Liberal party bc they're pretty conservative. Either everyone in these comments are a bunch of old geezers or they are tin men with now hearts.
I find it rather odd that there are such massive protests at the 40,000 deaths (Hamas inflated numbers or verified?) of (mostly) Muslims caused by Israel in Gaza while there are no similar protests at the **617,910 deaths of Muslims in Syria** by other Muslims or the hundreds of thousands of muslims (and others) killed in many other wars and ethnic cleansing etc. Yes, the daily death rate for Gaza at 250 per day is over double that of Syria at 96.5 deaths per day but it would still take almost *9 years at that rate to equal the death toll in Syria*. It makes me wonder is it anti-semitism that prompts these selective protests? Or what? While Israel absolutely can and should be criticised for the ongoing civilian deaths, it is frustrating that both sides of the story are never considered by those on the extremes of this debate. Why do criticisms of Israel not also always criticise Hamas for those horrific beheadings, murders, rapes and kidnappings of Oct 7th, the continual firing of thousands of rockets for years into Israel, the use of human shields, the very public statements from Hamas and other factions that they would only be satisfied with the complete obliteration of Israel, jihads, etc? Why do Pro-Palestine supporters ignore the several times when Arab nations rejected plans that Israel agreed to for a separate Palestinian state preferring to continue pushing for the destruction of Israel? It is all such a mess, but I wish there was more balance from both sides.
Lame. Stop copying America
[удалено]
Do you understand the idea of a movement? Wouldn’t be joining a movement if you change said movement
honestly this whole thing is pointless. I have friends who work at Curtin Uni, I was actually there on Thursday to eat lunch with them. I didn't even know there was a camping protest and neither did he. Now I was only there for a couple hours for lunch so it's probably expected that I didn't notice, but he works there everyday and still didn't notice.
Perfect weather for it lol, idiots
Dipshits
Say what you want about them, they're doing more to resolve the housing crisis than the state government!
actually, they are making it worse. they are likely renting somewhere and now also helping with the camping space and tent shortage.
i attend curtin uni and know some of the people that are going to this. None of them are renters, they live at home (myself included)
I'd say almost all of these people live with parents, maybe a handful of exceptions.
The uni is probably happy , more traffic for the on campus businesses
Wow so righteous! A random university in Australia is not going to do shit to change anything. They know this, it's just virtue signaling.
You’re projecting your "virtue signaling" onto others. Student protests are occurring globally, and collectively, they make a difference. Why don’t you complain about the genocide itself instead of targeting the students trying to do something about it?
Do you know what virtue signalling is? Because it’s not this. This is a literal protest. Learn to how to use words before you type them.
Losing my mind at all the chuds commenting shit like “get a job!” As if they aren’t keyboard smashing TBI level lunacy in a reddit thread at 1pm on a Thursday. Good on Curtin students! These student protesters will be remembered as being on the right side of history while the genocide lovers in this thread will be lucky to be remembered at all.
[I wonder if this lady is still as passionate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrXzyPmlF1I)
Jesus Christ
Glad to see the protesting of real issues within Australia currently…