Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Well, I’m 100% confident that the answer to “what would Jesus do” is “starve out people to complete ethnic cleansing.” It’s right there in the Gospel of Trump, which is the only book of the Bible they believe in.

That and Psalm 2A

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Well, I’m 100% confident that the answer to “what would Jesus do” is “starve out people to complete ethnic cleansing.” It’s right there in the Gospel of Trump, which is the only book of the Bible they believe in.

Why doesn't anyone ever ask "What Would Joshua Do"? or "What Would God Have Jews Do"? and reference some good old fashion war and cleansing of the Levant?

God in the Torah and Nevi'im is pretty clear that, according to God, there is a time to kill and a time to....you know...

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Israel and the US say no to the Pan arab plan to rebuild gaza. I read it and it is well designed. I thought this is what would happen. Damn I was wrong. 

The US and Israel have rejected an Arab plan for the post-war reconstruction of the Gaza Strip that would allow the 2.1 million Palestinians living there to stay in place.

The proposal, endorsed by Arab leaders at a summit in Cairo, is their alternative to President Donald Trump's idea for the US to take over Gaza and permanently resettle its population.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas welcomed the Arab plan, which calls for Gaza to be governed temporarily by a committee of independent experts and for international peacekeepers to be deployed there.

But both the White House and Israeli foreign ministry said it failed to address realities in Gaza and stood by Trump's vision.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vd4pnxx3o

 

so much for the theory he was just tossing ethnic cleansing out there to prompt others to come up with a plan

 

he's also negotiating directly with hamas, while telling gazans (who are also hostages of hamas) that they need to give up the israeli hostages or it will be levelled, but chummy with russia which has been taking ukrainians hostage for a decade+ now.

Edited by elfenix
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

Donald Glover Reaction GIF

Question for you spoilered, in case you think it is a personal call out, or attack.

Spoiler

Is this not a clear violation of the first amendment? And, if not, why isn’t it?

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Question for you spoilered, in case you think it is a personal call out, or attack.

  Reveal hidden contents

Is this not a clear violation of the first amendment? And, if not, why isn’t it?

 

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, GoneFission said:

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

Thanks for your answer. Do you know if a court came to the conclusion he went too far? Does that matter?

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted
1 hour ago, GoneFission said:

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

Read the article. They (both the school and the DHS) have no standing to do any of what was threatened and that's why both backed down when pressed by attorneys. It is 100% a scare tactic being used in order to silence constitutionally protected speech that the president doesn't agree with.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, GoneFission said:

Key provision is the right to peacefully protest. Not sure the specifics of these individuals but it seems the argument is that some of the protestors went too far with it. I don't know enough of the details of this case to pass judgement but just giving the argument. 

The specifics listed in the article state that he was actually granted his green card AFTER the protests that you are claiming (and being repped in support lulz) were unlawful or "went too far with it". If he had broken any laws, do you think he would have still been granted a green card?

His school claimed that he had allegations of misconduct and withheld his academic records. When his lawyers asked "no but really", suddenly there was no issue.

 

This is simply silencing speech that you don't care to hear. I certainly know that many of the surly community delight in crushing free speech and are delighted at what is yet to come.

Posted
1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Thanks for your answer. Do you know if a court came to the conclusion he went too far? Does that matter?

In effect the answer to both in this specific case has been no. Not saying that is right or wrong but definitely seems like going to have a legal battle. 

  • Drool 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The specifics listed in the article state that he was actually granted his green card AFTER the protests that you are claiming (and being repped in support lulz) were unlawful or "went too far with it". If he had broken any laws, do you think he would have still been granted a green card?

His school claimed that he had allegations of misconduct and withheld his academic records. When his lawyers asked "no but really", suddenly there was no issue.

 

This is simply silencing speech that you don't care to hear. I certainly know that many of the surly community delight in crushing free speech and are delighted at what is yet to come.

I was just answering a question on the legal argument from one side here in relation to the right to protest and put no personal opinion. Please stop projecting an opinion on my statements. 

  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, GoneFission said:

I was just answering a question on the legal argument from one side here in relation to the right to protest and put no personal opinion. Please stop projecting an opinion on my statements. 

I don't think his intent was to accuse you of anything, probably just poor word choice.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Looking at the rights of a green card holder:

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

Posted
Just now, Bevo said:

Looking at the rights of a green card holder:

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

Gotta read the fine print:

 

* NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO YOU UNDER A LAWLESS, FASCIST REGIME.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Looking at the rights of a green card holder:

As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:

Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law

Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)

Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions

And yet, you liked the post of the dipshit saying it was "good" that someone is being deported for speech that is protected under the law. Interesting.

Posted

 8 USC 1182

Quote

(B) Terrorist activities

Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.

and 8 USC 1227

Quote

B) Terrorist activities (i) In general Any alien who- (I) has engaged in a terrorist activity; (II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv)); (III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity; (IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of- (aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity; (V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi); (VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; (VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization; (VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or (IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years, is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity

This has been this way since 2005 and worst, has been used this way in the past. Note that no “material” support of terrorism needs to be alleged and no formal crime must be committed. Mere speech suffices. No due process, only "reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry".

As someone who works with international students on a daily basis, this is why I caution them all to not get involved in things like this. There is a much different set of rules for a green card holder or being on a student visa and being a citizen. It is not very difficult to come up with "a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity" as defined as "(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
32 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

 8 USC 1182

and 8 USC 1227

This has been this way since 2005 and worst, has been used this way in the past. Note that no “material” support of terrorism needs to be alleged and no formal crime must be committed. Mere speech suffices. No due process, only "reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry".

As someone who works with international students on a daily basis, this is why I caution them all to not get involved in things like this. There is a much different set of rules for a green card holder or being on a student visa and being a citizen. It is not very difficult to come up with "a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity" as defined as "(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" 

Hell, I told my cousin's stepdaughter the other day to not get involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Even though she's a full US citizen, her mom is from Azerbaijan and there is no telling what this administration will do to your family if you publicly protest against Israel. Her mom is also a US citizen, but Azerbaijan does not formally recognize dual citizenship and it is unclear what would happen if, say, the DHS were to deport her mom if she was arrested for protesting.

What a fucking paragraph to type regarding US citizens, by the way, but this is the world we live in now. It's amazing to me that some of you (not referring to the person I am quoting) are seemingly on board with this administration flat out making peaceful protests against a foreign country illegal and/or straight up black bagging people that do so.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

And by the way, if you think this shit is going to stop at pro-Palestinian green card/visa holders, you're kidding yourself. This is simply a test run for what they want to do to any person inside the US (citizen or not) that is critical of the administration.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I have exactly zero percent sympathy for this person’s activities or views but it is impossible to view this any other way than a blatant attempt to deport someone for protected speech.  They haven’t even provided examples of his support for Hamas rhetorically, just that he led a campus protest. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I have exactly zero percent sympathy for this person’s activities or views but it is impossible to view this any other way than a blatant attempt to deport someone for protected speech.  They haven’t even provided examples of his support for Hamas rhetorically, just that he led a campus protest. 

A perfectly fair perspective. We don't have to agree on the subject matter, but the bottom line is that protesting against Israel is not a fucking crime and shouldn't be treated as one.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Hamas was listed as a terrorist organization by the US DNI all the way back in 1997. The Rules and Regulations that Laxtonto posted (all the way back from 2005) make it pretty clear in Article VII, that even support for a terrorist organization can get your green card revoked and get you deported. How hard do you think it would be to find video coverage of this guy supporting Hamas, or have witnesses come forward and say that he voiced support for Hamas? Is shouting "From the River to the Sea" showing support for Hamas? I would imagine there is footage of him shouting it.  

If a university campus wasn't vandalized, and Jewish students weren't verbally attacked, and regular students weren't inconvenienced on their way between classes, and it was a true "peaceful protest" I don't think there would be much made of the situation. But, where would be the fun in that. Those actions galvanized what little sympathy they had, against them. Those actions are going to lead to FAFO. 

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I have exactly zero percent sympathy for this person’s activities or views but it is impossible to view this any other way than a blatant attempt to deport someone for protected speech.  They haven’t even provided examples of his support for Hamas rhetorically, just that he led a campus protest. 

 

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

A perfectly fair perspective. We don't have to agree on the subject matter, but the bottom line is that protesting against Israel is not a fucking crime and shouldn't be treated as one.

Do we know how he led the protest? Was he putting up flyers? Was he actively engaged in the illegal aspects? What's the line he's supposed to have crossed from protesting to supporting Hamas?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, gsoda3 said:

 

Do we know how he led the protest? Was he putting up flyers? Was he actively engaged in the illegal aspects? What's the line he's supposed to have crossed from protesting to supporting Hamas?

Well he wasn't charged with anything and the university didn't even officially claim he broke their rules of conduct

The current reporting that I can find (unless you can find something else to refute it) is that he was pointed out to senators Cruz and Fetterman by Jewish student groups, and then ICE arrested him (I found the link from his wiki page)

https://forward.com/news/703018/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-cuad-ice/

Posted
2 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

Do we know how he led the protest? Was he putting up flyers? Was he actively engaged in the illegal aspects? What's the line he's supposed to have crossed from protesting to supporting Hamas?

These people do not differentiate. As far as the administration is concerned, protesting in any way in favor of Palestinian emancipation is support for Hamas, full stop. That's the end of it. The fact that the notion is patently absurd on its face and that the actions of ICE/DHS are illegal as fuck be damned.

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Well he wasn't charged with anything and the university didn't even officially claim he broke their rules of conduct

The current reporting that I can find (unless you can find something else to refute it) is that he was pointed out to senators Cruz and Fetterman by Jewish student groups, and then ICE arrested him (I found the link from his wiki page)

https://forward.com/news/703018/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-cuad-ice/

Don't forget that piece of shit Shai Davidai.

Quote

By the time DHS officers showed up at Khalil’s door, right-wing commenters on and off Columbia’s campus had been agitating for his arrest for days. Shai Davidai, a Columbia professor banned from campus for harassing pro-Palestinian students, posted on X thanking Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the withdrawal of funding—and directly encouraging him to take “strong action” against Khalil individually.

 

Posted
21 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

And by the way, if you think this shit is going to stop at pro-Palestinian green card/visa holders, you're kidding yourself. This is simply a test run for what they want to do to any person inside the US (citizen or not) that is critical of the administration.

The arrest was described as a blueprint to the Free Press (high credibility, right-center bias per mbfc.)

image.thumb.png.6e4179aca579859309edb04b93a0b669.png
 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The arrest was described as a blueprint to the Free Press (high credibility, right-center bias per mbfc.)

image.thumb.png.6e4179aca579859309edb04b93a0b669.png
 

 

I just don't think people realize how strong the "designated terrorist organization" language is vs pretty much anything else regarding how the immigration law is written. It is multiple levels more harsh than any other process tied to an illegal activity or falsity. I am now interested in how many other movements on college campuses can be tied to supporting a known terrorist organization. Outside of HAMAS, Iran, and maybe now with the immigration strife in Ireland, the New Irish Republican Army, I don't see any other potential groups that are easy fodder for domestic academic institutions, 

And before anyone gets into the discussion about protected political free speech, remember that political campaign donations are even considered political free speech and even those are barred from non-US citizens.

  • Drool 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

I just don't think people realize how strong the "designated terrorist organization" language is vs pretty much anything else regarding how the immigration law is written. It is multiple levels more harsh than any other process tied to an illegal activity or falsity. I am now interested in how many other movements on college campuses can be tied to supporting a known terrorist organization. Outside of HAMAS, Iran, and maybe now with the immigration strife in Ireland, the New Irish Republican Army, I don't see any other potential groups that are easy fodder for domestic academic institutions, 

And before anyone gets into the discussion about protected political free speech, remember that political campaign donations are even considered political free speech and even those are barred from non-US citizens.

Sure, I think everyone here understands that, at least at a basic level. The issue at hand here is that equating anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian liberation, etc. speech with supporting Hamas is a completely ludicrous conflation. However, that extremely flawed premise is exactly what is being used here by this administration (and the previous one, to a lesser degree) in a pretty naked attempt to muddy the distinction and suppress what should be protected speech. No matter what your position on Israel/Palestine, saying "Fuck Israel" or "Free Palestine" (or whatever you want to say in the opposite direction) should not get you arrested, deported, and/or black bagged by the state, period. This should not be a controversial thing to say.

I don't think anyone here would argue that Hamas is a good actor or that support for Hamas is an acceptable position for anyone to take. Certainly, offering material support to Hamas in any way should be considered completely unacceptable, I wouldn't think a single person that posts on this site would disagree with that position.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The arrest was described as a blueprint to the Free Press (high credibility, right-center bias per mbfc.)

image.thumb.png.6e4179aca579859309edb04b93a0b669.png
 

 

Negged for describing Bari Weiss' rag as having high credibility.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

It's gonna be real fun when the president follows through with designating protests against his primary donors companies as "domestic terrorism". So great job thinking ahead, as always Rex.

Yep.  Read the quoted text above.  That is 100% the play here.  And Rex and crew will support it because "real Americans shouldn't be disloyal to the regime anyway."

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Read the quoted text above.  That is 100% the play here.  And Rex and crew will support it because "real Americans shouldn't be disloyal to the regime anyway."

It’s like you don’t pay attention. I detest Trump and Teslas. I’d never commit violence against anyone but consider cutting off every Tesla I see on the road. 

That is beside the point. I’ve been very consistent on the school protest issue. I thought Hartzell did a fantastic job. Columbia was ground zero for doing a terrible fucking job. Their president as well as many others lost their jobs - under the Biden admin. Their job loss was appropriate. As was whatever happens to Hamas protest agitators. Zero to do with Trump. Good riddance to this assclown. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Zero to do with Trump.

Yet that is where you are dead wrong.  You are being played.  Like a fucking fiddle.

They get you to go along with their tactics, cheering in support, because you dislike the people they are going after today.  Cool.  There are plenty of people I dislike, who take positions and hold beliefs I find abhorrent.  Let's have fun making a list of all of them sometime, I'm sure we have lots of overlap.  But that's not the point.  This is the point:

Once you have validated and legitimized the tactic, then it is deployed against a wider pool of people.  And you are fucking stuck with it, because "we the people" (you and those like you, in particular) have totally legitimized the move.

That someone so pro-Israel and so pro-Jewish can't seem to place his Niemöller, and his "first they came for...." lesson is pretty amazing.  When you legitimize and enable the tactic and process, it is legitimized and enabled across the board, without restriction.  That's a lesson that I thought history had taught us.  I guess I was wrong, and we don't learn jack shit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet that is where you are dead wrong.  You are being played.  Like a fucking fiddle.

They get you to go along with their tactics, cheering in support, because you dislike the people they are going after today.  Cool.  There are plenty of people I dislike, who take positions and hold beliefs I find abhorrent.  Let's have fun making a list of all of them sometime, I'm sure we have lots of overlap.  But that's not the point.  This is the point:

Once you have validated and legitimized the tactic, then it is deployed against a wider pool of people.  And you are fucking stuck with it, because "we the people" (you and those like you, in particular) have totally legitimized the move.

That someone so pro-Israel and so pro-Jewish can't seem to place his Niemöller, and his "first they came for...." lesson is pretty amazing.  When you legitimize and enable the tactic and process, it is legitimized and enabled across the board, without restriction.  That's a lesson that I thought history had taught us.  I guess I was wrong, and we don't learn jack shit.

This just makes me think...will turnabout be fair play? No party keeps majority and power forever...

Maybe the Republicans don't fear a response from the Dem's inkind. In politics, like in geopolitics, a little old fashioned "mutually assured destruction" threat goes a long way.

Let me be 100% clear. The Dems are not to be blamed for MAGA and half the country being MAGATs. That's victim blaming.

But there are things that could have been done better that we should review and learn from and implement moving forward.

Dem's have abdicated the responsiblity to "discipline" (or punish, if you will) rogue/bad behavior. Like with a child, spare the rod and spoil the child, we allowed for increasing and escalating horrible behavior to normalize. And here we are.

In short, maybe the Dem's oughta think about how they will serve a cold dish when they get power again. And you can't be scared of division or another civil war because sitting idle is what got us here...

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
7 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

In short, maybe the Dem's oughta think about how they will serve a cold dish when they get power again. And you can't be scared of division or another civil war because sitting idle is what got us here...

Oh, you're singing my song.  I think that these sorts of actions are abhorrent and destructive.  But once one side decides to use them, unabashedly....then those are the rules now.  Ignore them and play by the old rules at your peril.

If the Dems can ever take power again (they can't, and they won't -- the system has now been irreparably broken, and there will be no future electoral power shifts because the party in power simply won't allow it), they need to go full-on vengeance, prosecute, persecute, and ruin against the enemies of the Republic.  Them's the rules now.  They are really, really, really stupid rules.  But here we are.

Posted
33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet that is where you are dead wrong.  You are being played.  Like a fucking fiddle.

They get you to go along with their tactics, cheering in support, because you dislike the people they are going after today.  Cool.  There are plenty of people I dislike, who take positions and hold beliefs I find abhorrent.  Let's have fun making a list of all of them sometime, I'm sure we have lots of overlap.  But that's not the point.  This is the point:

Once you have validated and legitimized the tactic, then it is deployed against a wider pool of people.  And you are fucking stuck with it, because "we the people" (you and those like you, in particular) have totally legitimized the move.

That someone so pro-Israel and so pro-Jewish can't seem to place his Niemöller, and his "first they came for...." lesson is pretty amazing.  When you legitimize and enable the tactic and process, it is legitimized and enabled across the board, without restriction.  That's a lesson that I thought history had taught us.  I guess I was wrong, and we don't learn jack shit.

"I hate Trump but I love his blatant Gestapo ops against people that make me feel feelings" is certainly a position to take. Once again, I weep for our education system.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

This just makes me think...will turnabout be fair play? No party keeps majority and power forever...

Maybe the Republicans don't fear a response from the Dem's inkind. In politics, like in geopolitics, a little old fashioned "mutually assured destruction" threat goes a long way.

Let me be 100% clear. The Dems are not to be blamed for MAGA and half the country being MAGATs. That's victim blaming.

But there are things that could have been done better that we should review and learn from and implement moving forward.

Dem's have abdicated the responsiblity to "discipline" (or punish, if you will) rogue/bad behavior. Like with a child, spare the rod and spoil the child, we allowed for increasing and escalating horrible behavior to normalize. And here we are.

In short, maybe the Dem's oughta think about how they will serve a cold dish when they get power again. And you can't be scared of division or another civil war because sitting idle is what got us here...

image.thumb.png.9646d5be23fed4cb3f26adcc216d8c47.png

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

image.thumb.png.9646d5be23fed4cb3f26adcc216d8c47.png

But will D's be man enough to use the boot in retaliation. That's the inherent misogynistic question I'm trying to ask.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

This the war or protest thread?

As the protests concern the war, I post the following: students are being arrested for peacefully protesting. One student made a speech, and was asked to leave. She left. And was then arrested. The protest was a walkout, and 16 folks were arrested in all.

Quote

At least 16 students and community members were arrested or detained on Monday during a peaceful walkout at Cornell University’s Ithaca campus. The demonstration, organized by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Cornell, protested the presence of former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni at the “Pathways to Peace” event hosted by Interim President Michael Kotlikoff.

Livni, who led Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, has been the subject of an arrest warrant in the UK for alleged war crimes. Other speakers at the event included Daniel B. Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, and Salam Fayyad, a former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. Protesters criticized the panel for presenting a biased view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

SJP published a guest column in the Cornell Daily Sun early Monday outlining their opposition to the event. Hours later, the Coalition for Mutual Liberation displayed a banner outside Willard Straight Hall announcing the walkout.

During the event, Kotlikof initially assured the audience that expressions of opinions would be allowed. However, after a few attendees spoke against Livni’s involvement, the university police began making arrests. The first protester, who spoke about Livni’s alleged war crimes, left peacefully when asked but was still arrested. More arrests followed as attendees exited, with some detained despite not actively disrupting the event.

Witnesses described the police response as excessive, with some individuals being restrained or forcefully removed. One student was arrested while asking to retrieve their car keys from the building, while another was targeted for wearing a keffiyeh. Protesters who remained outside Bailey Hall in solidarity included students observing Ramadan, who broke their fast while waiting for the event to end.

Cornell University has not yet commented on the arrests.

 

 

 

https://www.fingerlakes1.com/2025/03/11/protesters-arrested-during-peaceful-walkout-at-cornell-university/

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Rage+1 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...