Why are Palestinian protests filled with feds?
Why are Palestinian protests filled with feds?
Went to a Palestinian solidarity protest/rally with some new folks who’d become radicalised against America/the West over the last six months. They aren’t socialists (yet, I’m working on it) - but they’re good people. So, seeing the genocide and its support by our governments filled them with disgust. We talked about the Nakba, the history of Zionism, and the current apartheid etc.
Now, we come to the protest.
Overall, the atmosphere was incredible. Lots of cool signs, different kinds of people, and, of course the pigs. That’s not the problem.
The problem was the fucking speakers. I swear, at least half of them had to be feds whose entire job was to turn people away from turning up at these events.
Some of them, and I mean this literally, wanted the crowd to chant “we support October 7” and “we stand with Hamas”.
I swear, the way the people I was with turned to look at me.
Not every speaker was like this - most were genuine. They talked of labor solidarity, campus organizing, personal anecdotes. But all of that made these speakers stand out all the more.
The worst part is that when it would happen, the organisers was one of them. So this entire thing was a sham from the start.
I feel so bad. I shouldn’t have just brought people to a random protest I saw and should’ve vetted it first.
Like, seriously. I can’t fucking get over this. Who organizes a protests of people from all walks of life in support of Palestine and wants them to chant we stand with Hamas and let’s do one hundred more October 7s?.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Like, of fucking course Hamas is a natural reaction to apartheid and ethnic cleansing and genocide. And of course Oct 7 is nothing compared to the 200 days that followed since (or the 75 years that preceded it). But come the fuck on.
You're viewing a single thread.
I think that some people have this idea that protests are a kind of negotiation where two forces start at different ends and meet at the middle, and therefore they should make extreme statements that they don't even really mean in order for the ultimate compromise to be closer to what they want. This is how we are taught to think that public opinion is generated. It's also not true, at least not for political movements of thinking people.
I stand with Hamas and support October 7th
In a culture drowned in liberal horseshit protests are actually a great place to share correct understandings that disagree with that horseshit.
Sure. But our correct understanding is like "resistance is justified, and we think this was the character of October 7th, but also it seems to have resulted in Israel kicking off a genocide instead of the liberation of Palestine, and Hamas is a reactionary religious group". I know there is a tendency for liberals to support Palestinians only when they're losing. But rather than unlimited support for Hamas 10000 Oct 7ths on the first world I think we should tell them the truth: it's critical support, here's the reasons Hamas has surpassed the PFLP or Fatah, etc etc. People don't arrive at real political ideology by taking the average of everything they've ever heard.
And how do you make this a protest chant? There has to be some concise expression to allow a more nuanced conversation to develop, and I struggle to find one better than saying you support the resistance
I stand by it specifically when it comes to protests as part of a larger organizing effort that has demands attached.
You're always gonna clash with hegemony in one form or another. They'll always claim you're being too difficult to work with and will always try to talk you down. So don't initially dilute your original demands to where it's already at the minimum you want because after the tense bargaining phase they'll then be rendered effectively useless.
If you want a $1 raise you ask for $2.
If you want a lower campus police budget you ask for none.
Otherwise you're getting 50¢ and the cop budget stays the same but they just do more desk work and less patrolling to make it look like they scaled back.Compromising by default is a tactical mistake by assuming the other party is operating in good faith. They're usually not. Because they're usually something like the boss or academic administration. Sometimes both. It's in their best interests to both make you believe they're on your side and also to fuck you.
However that's not this.
I think that we should make winnable but meaningful (transitional) demands and achieve them. Strike for $30/hr and no transport of weapons and we bind ourselves to not getting "negotiated down" to $20 and some transport of weapons. The student protestors won't be satisfied by a 50% divestment. Workers are used to getting promised the sun by politicians and getting a light bulb once they're in office. If we lead with clear, realistic, meaningful demands and don't back down an inch, we can set ourselves apart.