Zionists and Pro-Palestinians at UCLA

Counter protesters, presumably Zionists and likely including many Jews, physically attacked the pro-Palestinian protests at UCLA. The result was that the pro-Palestinian sites were removed. Imagine pro-abortion protesters putting up an encampment at a university and attacked by right-to-life advocates. The police would arrest the attackers and leave the encampment in place.

Make no mistake, the powers that be will shut down these protests and heavily penalize them. Another win for the Zionists.

Surprisingly, this is from the LATimes daily email, by Paul Thornton, :

A lot gets blurred in protests. Simple acts that would be easy to judge in normal circumstances — say, who yelled at whom first — become muddled among crowds of people who are just as convinced of their own righteousness as onlookers may be of their depravity.

Which is what makes nonviolence so important. In the fog of mass protest, nonviolence is the clear, bright line we can all see that distinguishes free expression from hooliganism and assault. When that line is breached and peaceful protesters are attacked, even people who disagree wholeheartedly with their message or rhetoric must come to their defense. Beating up people whose views we find abhorrent is un-American — or at least it ought to be.

That line was crossed at UCLA on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, when pro-Palestinian students camped in front of Royce Hall were attacked by counterprotesters (who, at that moment, became something besides counterprotesters). The attackers sustained their assault for hours and even targeted student journalists with the UCLA Daily Bruin. Questions are being raised as to why police took so long to subdue the violence.

The next day, police showed up in force — to dismantle the encampment that had just been attacked, arresting at least 200 protesters. The difference was jarring, and UCLA and law enforcement should account for why the institutional response appeared to have come down so hard in one circumstance but not the other.

As The Times’ editorial board notes, being arrested is a likely outcome of civil disobedience. What shouldn’t be a likely outcome, in a country that values free speech, is the kind of attack that happened at UCLA:

“Protesters in encampments on college campuses know they could face arrest over trespassing or failure to disperse, which is what happened Thursday morning as police cleared the UCLA encampment and arrested more than 200 people. That’s part of the deal when undertaking acts of civil disobedience. But protesters should not be subject to physical attacks from people who disagree with them.

“Free speech and protest are foundations of the United States — and it’s been a cornerstone of American university life for decades. It’s unacceptable for anyone to try to silence an opinion they don’t agree with through intimidation and violence.”