"They had every right to assemble in protest. They also had a responsibility to keep themselves safe from Zionist thugs and agent provocateurs while they protested since campus security and LAPD were no help at all."

Would you defend this same practive if it were being carried out by supporters of the Gaza campaign?

What if it were White Supremacists, or the Westboro Baptist Church, or Proud Boys making sure that no Antifa thugs entered their encampment?

"I don't care about his feelings. I doubt the protesters do either."

Would you care if it were a Palestinian student being told by jews they were not free to roam the campus?

Would that be OK too?

"The UCLA encampment this article is about was assaulted by hoards of violent Zionist agitators while law enforcement just stood there and watched."

The campus had already been overrun by violent jihadists...what would your position have been had they cracked skulls then.

This seems more a case of spoiled kids who have acclimated themselves to thinking violence is OK when it supports a cause in which they favor. And many times, at least on the progressive side, you have people rushing in to support them.

It's probably not that often they've come across an adversary who was not law enforcement, and might just fight back.

#26

But for if only Hitler had been able to complete his mission...

...alas...

There might night even be any cockroaches on college campuses in the US...much less illegally occupying the land of the prophet.

"No? Because the people who champion murdering Jews are always the victims. Whether that be in Gaza or at UCLA."

ALWAYS the victim.

I would sit here and rattle off war crimes committed by the Islamic Resistance and their supporters in Gaza...even outside of 10/7.

Jihadists aren't going to protest other Jihadists...ever.

That said, I'm still fairly certain that our friends from Team Tik Tok who spend their minutes defending the Jihadists have no actual klew what they're defending. And most would be horrified to find out that they're basically stumping for ISIS.

"There weren't any checkpoints, there were well controlled camp entrances. The spin is calling them checkpoints and insinuating they were put up at random places on campus."

Who out them up? The campus or the rioters?

I can tell you I didn't look at your Twitter stuff, because I don't have Twitter and they wouldn't display. But I have watched video of the riots at UCLA, and there is clearly a checkpoint set up on the sidewalk adjacent to the camp. Additionally, it had been fortified with 4x8 plywood and police barriers that had been snatched by the jihadists.

Did you see the people wearing the Hamas arm bands?

I did.

"These camp entrances, by they way, were behind police barricades meant to keep people who didn't belong there from wandering into the encampments."

People who didn't belong?

Jews, you mean, right?

"Are you joking, or telling the truth?"

Hey, if Hitler had finished the job, the final solution to the Jewish question would be far less of a question.

And it would be even less likely that they would be desecrating the land of the prophet (pbuh), and inciting the ire of the Islamic Resistance.

Had Hitler finished the job, there would have been a much smaller number of Jews migrating to Israel after 1943. It's tough to say what the Brits would have done with their lands in the levant, but I think the most likely outcome would have been a bigger Jordanian state. Maybe they let Jews live. Maybe not.

We know that the other Arab states have almost completely extirpated their Jewish populations here in the real world.

"A good segment of the students and faculty at UCLA are Jewish."

Uh huh.

Why do you think this fight broke out? Because Jihadist empathizer's and supporters wanted to hurt Jews...anywhere they could.

"Look at Hitler boy over here."

Bruh,

Be honest.

Had Hitler been successful, jews (or any other kafir groups) would have never had any control within the land of the prophet-it would have remained Islamic territory-and none of what is happening today would be happening.

As a side. I think you may know (but may not-you're Team Tik Tok), Israel's geopolitical reality has been shaped by thew fact that it wasn't just National Socialists that wanted to extirpate Jews. It was all of Israel's neighbors as well. On three separate occasions in three very big wars.

Does that ever factor into your decision calculus, or that of your fellow they/thems?

"Ever consider why the decision wasn't to move them here, to America?"

Well, I don't think the Brits could have made that decision.

It's like asking why they didn't move all the Palestinians to the Falkland Islands.

"Because off campus agitators came on campus to confront the pro Palestinian protesters."

You mean the off-campus pro-Israeli agitators came to confront the off-campus pro-Palestinian agitators.

Agreed.

I've seen the long video. The pro-Israeli agitators looked almost identical to the pro-Palestinian agitators. I would be hard pressed to identify who was antifa on either side.

And the tactics were virtually identical.

Some on the Israeli side were wearing the Kaffiyeh...most of the pro-Israeli agitators seemed to favor the black hoodie.

"Well. The Palestinians didn't move anywhere. They've been the people of that region for centuries."

Not as long as the Jews.

Ethnically, the Palestinians are mostly descendants of Arabs who moved into the region after the Islamic conquests.

"No room in America to bring the Holocaust survivors?"

Plenty of room. And thousands of Jews did move to the US after WWII. My relatives among them.

But again, the region we are discussing was a territory of the British Commonwealth at a time they were divesting their colonial and/or inherited holdings. The levant had been Ottoman territory until the end of WWI. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, The responsibility for governance was handed over to the British and the French.

Collectively, they decided how to divest those lands. And at the time, the Jewish population actually owned more land in the region yet to be known as Israel than the Palestinians did. So given the historical connection to the land, it made as much sense to create a Jewish state as it did to create a Palestinian state. The Brits, of course, did both. Even though there was no historical precedent for a Palestinian state. That's OK. Very similarly, they created Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims on the Indian subcontinent, even though there is no historical precedent for Pakistan.

It's also worth mentioning that the newly formed state of Israel didn't just run the Palestinians out. In fact, they encouraged them to stay. The regional leaders at the time, who had allied themselves with the Germans during WWII, encouraged Palestinians to evacuate, with the understanding that the Arab countries would quickly crush Israel, and the Palestinians would have the entire region to themselves.

The Zionists had generally purchased large tracts of desert and turned it into arable land. Mostly citrus groves. It was a compelling argument by the Arab leaders to the Palestinians that they could have this all...once the Jews were eliminated.

"What does any of that have to do with moving European holocaust survivors there?"

They were Jewish. Same haplogroup as their ancestors who left when they were driven out hundreds of years earlier.

It's not like you had people of Sami or Norwegian or Bulgar heritage moving there arbitrarily.

"You know, besides colonialism."

Was the establishment of Pakistan yet another example of colonialism?

Would the Indians be justified in trying to wipe this stain from their subcontinent?

"I don't quite think that's how it happened..."

Dunno Bruh,

Tell me, what does Tik Tok say? Or Instagram?

Wherever it is you learn about history from?

"Um... it was still a geopolitical move to put them there, where the Brits had planted a flag in 1917."

Mass immigration to Israel, then part of the Ottoman Empire, had started in earnest about 20 years prior to the beginning of the British Mandate. And the Jewish population had been growing since the beginning of the 19th century.

"It was their Warsaw Ghetto Uprising moment."

Was that the time the Jews in Warsaw attacked, raped, and murdered the civilian population of Warsaw?

#87

Yeah, but the Jews at least got to rape a few Polish women or disembowel a few babies, right?

Who did the Jews attack in Warsaw?

Random civilians?

Old people?

Babies?

Kids at a music festival?

"What is never talked about is the Israeli regular arrest without charges of many many Palestinians."

Yeah. You're super concerned.

The Islamic Resistance throwing people off of rooftops isn't that big of a deal. It's really the Israeli's arresting people that's the problem.

"Just like it's not possible for you to understand that Netanyahu supported Hamas, including throwing people off rooftops, because he thought that was best for Israel."

The Islamic Resistance was elected by the people of Gaza to govern them.

Tell me, would you have been supporting if Israel had said NFW?

I'm guessing you would have regarded that as another example of anti-democratic, imperialist, reactionary bourgeoise capitalism...but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

...And I don't expect you to be honest one way or the other.

"I realize that certain mindsets can't distinguish between groups but the whole throwing people off buildings is IS not Hamas"

OK.

So the Islamic Resistance doesn't throw people off buildings? They just rape and murder them in other ways?

I mean, technically, HAMAS is just the Islamic State chapter in that part of the world. It's just that HAMAS seems to be a bigger bunch of ------- than the Islamic State leaders were.

Most of the IS leaders die every other month or so. HAMAS leaders are living in Doha, sniffing coke off the asses of eastern European hookers while the people of Gaza die on their behalf.