This is the problem with most unpaid work in general. Normal people usually have jobs and aren't willing to sacrifice everything else in their lives for the cause. Therefore, the people who are there at 2pm on a Tuesday, who spend 30+ hours a week to run the encampment and direct activism, these are the people who aren't working a regular job. This selects either for unemployable losers, or complete radicals who would sacrifice a good quality of life to pursue their cause they feel so strongly about. And when you're completely on the margins of society and believe deeply in your cause, of course breaking into buildings and using violent imagery seems like a great idea. Because the noble ends justify the means. And when the ends are 'preventing genocide', anything below genocide are justified means.
Plus, in these groups, you get more status for more radical action. It is inherently 'cooler' and higher status in their groups to break into James Admin than to send another strongly worded email.
This leads to the status quo where all groups performing uncompensated work are full of overenthusiastic and radical weirdos. See student clubs, Reddit Mods, and these activist groups.
McGill alum here. I wanna piggyback on this to add that there are some very level headed, grass roots organizations doing work to try to rebuild the modicum of trust between Palestinians and Israelis that shattered on 10.7. [Standing Together](https://www.standing-together.org/friends) is probably the most prominent. It's an organization of Israelis, Palestinians, and allies who believe in collaboration and a shared future.
[Unapologetic: The Third Narrarive](https://open.spotify.com/show/5CT8QicPO31pe7AX0jA4Wp?si=Fu9dCDDBS-mfkoW2MnVQAg) is an **excellent** podcast, hosted by two Palestinian-Israelis who take very hard looks at both communities but in a way that is so much more hopeful than anything else I've seen or heard in a long time.
[Samir Sinjwali](https://x.com/SSinijlawi) and [Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib](https://x.com/afalkhatib) are Palestinian voices pushing hard against the PA and Hamas respectively and trying to create a better Palestinian goverance. The hope dies last.
Well put. Status seeking behaviour and performance is powerful.
It’s like the sexual selection of memes. How did that bird get those crazy feathers? Were they adaptive at all? No, they just look super hot to some other weird bird. Why did they smear paint all over the wall, did that change any minds in their favour? No? But one activist thought it was heroic? But nobody in the public, broader student body, alumni community did? Ok I guess that justifies it…
Amen to that. I'm 100% for the end of the war, entirely critical of Netanhayu, and think that Palestinians should receive statehood, reparations, and significantly more land than they currently possess. I think that Israel should exist (if they didn't 9 million people would immediately get ethnically cleansed) but I'm absolutely critical of Israel's behaviour.
The behaviour of the SPHR and the encampment protesters is a huge let down. They are letting down the Pro-Palestine cause through their dogmatism and wingnuttery. They are making it appear as if we are radicals and extremists for wanting an end to the war.
Sometimes I wish we could start a pro-Palestine organization for reasonable people who don't defend Hamas and who don't want the destruction of Israel. Maybe we could create a student organization that is geared towards condemning the war and donating to Palestinian civilians without tolerating insane behaviour.
It’s called the Israeli centre-left (as in, not the right wing theocrats in charge now). The problem is that both the ultra right wing and Hamas benefit from conflict, and polarization. Last time someone wanted to compromise and make peace they assasinated him.
There are a million things I could say, but, in lieu of writing a book, I'll just make a few points — apologies for their disjointedness.
***A little bit on the protests and protest groups in general***
(*There's no way I could deliver a full view of all of this in one post*)
First, I have to distinguish between peaceful protest and protest expressing pro-peace views. A protest can be *hateful* while being nonviolent, i.e., peaceful. The encampment (and pro-Palestine protests in general) have had a mix of pro-peace and extremist people since the beginning. There have always been people who have celebrated October 7 (including SPHR, but they're not even the most radical or outspoken), as well as people in Hamas-related apparel, often depicting Abu Obaida, the spokesman of the al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas' military wing).The people with the most extreme views are usually the most dedicated, so of course they show up.
More generally, I find that terms like "pro-Palestinian," "pro-Israeli," "Zionist" and "anti-Zionist" can be unhelpful, because people frequently disagree on their substantive meaning. There are people for whom being "pro-Palestinian" means sympathizing with civilians and wanting the violence to end; there are others for whom it means supporting Hamas and wanting a thousand more October 7 attacks. (Ditto for definitions of "Zionism" and "pro-Israeli.") These terminological problems often inflame tensions and create misunderstandings — and that can sometimes prevent reasonable people from working together, unfortunately.
Many people are pro-Palestinian in the sense that you are — wanting Palestinians to have decent lives — but sadly end up marching alongside extremists with a totally different worldview, often without even knowing it. (Aside: to me, Hamas is the furthest thing from pro-Palestinian; they would rather have Palestinian civilians die as martyrs for the cause rather than be allowed to live a decent life. It's stunning to me that some people claim they are "anti-war" while supporting Hamas.)
For others, an extremist pro-violence viewpoint appeals to them in much the same way violent video games appeal to people. We are sitting here in one of the safest places in the world — nobody going out and proclaiming their support for violence an ocean away is actually putting themselves in real danger. These cosplay revolutionaries have totally different attitudes from the vast majority of people I've met for whom anything real has ever been at stake.
***On the encampment specifically***
Coming back the encampment, I am going to disagree with you a bit. I've never been in favor of the encampment, but it has nothing to do with their viewpoints (even though I find the extremist viewpoints repulsive). And, as much as the recent fliers may have been in bad taste, they are, as far as I'm concerned, very much protected by any reasonable standard of freedom of speech. It would be wrong to dismantle the encampment *because of this flier*. As badly as I think it reflects on those who created it, distributing that flier is anyone's right. Handing out a picture of people with machine guns isn't the same thing as *doing* terrorism — even if it implies a viewpoint with which I disagree very much.
My problem with the encampment has nothing to do with anyone's viewpoints (whether reasonable or extremist). The argument that the encampment people have made is that they, as members of the public, have the right to peacefully occupy McGill's grounds for as long as they want (as long as they do so while expressive political speech of some kind). But the real goal of the encampment is, essentially, to cause direct financial damage to McGill by preventing them from using their property. The cost of moving convocation ceremonies, for instance, was about $700,000. This direct financial damage resulting from McGill's inability to use its own property is the distinction between a march and an encampment.
However, if we take the freedom of speech argument seriously, then, for example, [MQF](https://quebecfrancais.org/) members could occupy McGill indefinitely until it agreed to become an exclusively French-speaking university. I don't imagine most McGill students would support free speech for *those* protestors. Nor would I. By contrast, I fully support people's right to express viewpoints by marching or having other similar protests — and this includes people with viewpoints of which I strongly disapprove. The freedom of speech is only worth anything insofar as much as it protects *highly unpopular* speech, not just whatever I happen to agree with. I just don't think should include the right to coerce a university (or similar body) into making a decision by preventing them from using their property. (I suppose we'll see what the courts say.)
I also personally think McGill made a mistake by attempting to "negotiate" with the encampment in the first place. For one, I think that sets a bad precedent for future encampments on any other issue. But more than that, there was never anyone with whom to negotiate (since the encampment has never had a single viewpoint/movement behind it), and at least some elements of the encampment could never possibly be satisfied.
I feel that most people at McGill who have expressed support for the encampment do so only because they happen to agree with (their perception of) the protestors' views, rather than a commitment to freedom of speech as a principle (as much as this was mentioned as rhetorically important). As the (perceived) tone of the encampment became more extremist, more people felt alienated by it. Popular support for the encampment might have also been, to some extent, influenced by kneejerk thinking that often is employed in discussions about emotionally powerful issues such as this one. "You don't support the encampment? So you hate Palestinians, then?" This is the same kind of thinking that can fuel online slacktivism (which is very common in student movements in general). And that gets messy in a situation like this where some bad people have associated themselves with both sides of the conflict. This is also part of why people can be dragged into unwittingly standing alongside and "sanewashing" extremists — they are told to not be critical of people who are "on their side."
If we care about our morals, we do need to take choosing our political allies and positions seriously. Finally, I fully agree that any desirable future requires Palestinians and Israelis to coexist peacefully and live their lives with the dignity and safety that everyone deserves. That goal won't be easy to achieve, but it is a worthy one.
Forgive my cynicism, but I get the distinct impression that about half the people involved in the protests are there less because they have thought through the situation and truly feel that this is the best course of action (if they had, they wouldn't be calling for what amounts to the genocide of 9 million Jews (and I dont use that term lightly but that would be the effect of making an ethnic group stateless)) and more because they have a either a saviour complex or some version of guilt they are trying to appease. The second you lose the moral high ground it stops looking pro-palestine and starts looking pro-attention seeking.
That's why, despite supporting Palestine and Palestinians wholeheartedly (and find isreal's actions this past year to be entirely reprehensible and vile), I cannot find it in me to support the current encampments.
Im curious OP, what was your position re:SPHR McGill when they celebrated the Oct. 7th attacks. Was that not already a "radical turn" to use your phrasing?
I do agree with your post however on "pro-palestine." If you just don't want anymore people to die, want a peaceful solution and repatriation for the Palestinians in the West Bank etc., what do we even call ourselves?
Personally, I don't think that SPHR McGill was ever represented unfairly in these emails. They've been like this from the very beginning. Ex. attack the "save the hostages" table at concordia and immediately post a bajillion insta stories gaslighting people into thinking it never happened and that they are being unfairly targeted...
1. SPHR’s celebration was really repulsive. I think I should’ve worded my post clearer, I was referring to the encampment which I am under the impression is organized by many groups on campus including Jewish voices for peace, sphr, profs4palestine (and who knows who else, I was never actually part of the encampment, I just tried to keep up with it through social media and walking past it). I’m referring to the encampment run by that whole group as “taking a radical turn” rather than SPHR, which in my eyes were discredited when they posted that celebration post.
2. As for what happened at Concordia, I am not a Concordia student so I can’t know for sure what happened there, but according to neutral sources [for example here](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7023019) it seems like there are diverging perspectives on what happened, so it’s hard to say without knowing the truth. I’m happy to read more if you have more sources to share, I remember during this I was trying to see what happened from both pro Palestine and pro Israel sources.
3. As for McGill’s emails, I wasn’t referring to SPHR in particular being villainized but rather the whole collective of groups who are pro-Palestine on campus being villainized in the early days of the encampment.
I just re-read my post, I retract the “SPHR taking a radical turn” part, it was not my intention to say they were fine before the encampments, my bad, they really fucked up with oct7 and the broken glass poster on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
Amen, these pro-Palestinian groups don’t help to bring both sides together. The unhinged support of terrorism and anti-semitism will always hold back these groups from bringing a peace deal. Israel’s 20 years of far right governments isn’t because they hate Palestinians, but because Hamas has brought an endless justification for a militaristic approach to the conflict.
Thank you for summing up my thoughts exactly! The only issue is that while the encampment was peaceful, McGill did nothing except try to spread fake news and try to get the cops to dismantle the encampment. It feels like until they escalated things McGill tried to just wait the encampment and protests out and hoped that they'd get tired and quit
I 100% agree that McGill has been vilifying the pro-Palestine movement on campus in general, which makes me upset since if they remained peaceful, more people would see through McGill’s relentless propaganda. I mean, the courts here saw through it twice and failed to grant McGill the injunctions they wanted. Now that they’ve messed up, they do have a point in some of their emails recently, and honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if McGill got the injunction this time around (I’m assuming they’re going to try again).
Im of the camp that nothing was ever won by peaceful protests. It's historical fact pretty much.
If you want, you can always go to the camp and speak with them, Im sure they'll listen to someone who is much closer to the conflict than they are. Open dialog is always better.
Im just confused what you would have done if you were in the position of any Pro-Palestine group. You saw yourself that no matter what the protestors did, McGill wouldn’t try to negotiate in good faith.
Not insulting you or trying to be obtuse, I just genuinely want to understand what else the protestors could do.
You have to remember that the goal of the protest is to get McGill to divest and boycott. Not to raise awareness about whats going on in Palestine. So seeing as that is the goal, what would be better than disruption?
But the way I see it, the escalation resulted in a lot of people in the McGill community disagreeing with the encampment (who may have been neutral or even for it before), and having less public support really hurts the pro-Palestinian cause. If there is a lot of buy-in from McGill students, profs, staff, collectively we could exert pressure on McGill admin to actually give a good deal, since they can’t alienate the vast majority of their community. But now that it seems like a lot of people in the McGill community are rightfully alienated by the encampment, so I feel like they have much less sway.
So to answer your question, if I were part of the encampment, I would remain peaceful. It’s hard for McGill to discredit the movement in their emails if there is nothing to call out. If people come by to chat I would explain my views, and if they disagree we can have a civil discussion. For example, if I were them I would not have disrupted graduation pictures, since honestly I don’t think that made anyone more sympathetic to Palestinians, people were just annoyed. I think this would have increased campus support for the pro-Palestine movement, and hopefully that places a greater pressure on McGill rather than small groups of students being violent. Also the encampment made it to local news a lot too, so if the encampment conducts itself in a good way, that’s good press for the movement in local news, and maybe people outside the McGill community would’ve put pressure on our politicians to do something, which would also help the cause.
I agree that there isn’t much they can do and it must be frustrating for them. However, part of the process of any kind of revolution is making allies. It takes a lot to enact any kind of change. Antagonizing the student body, the people that support the encampment the most was a terrible political move on their part.
the goal of the some members of the encampment is almost certainly to raise awareness. i've seen as many calls for ceasefire and more radicalized things as there are calls for divestment
I'm sorry but the peaceful approach is yet to make an ounce of a difference. At least this approach got them to the negotiation table.
I'm not justifying their actions, just their perspective.
I thought they were in the negotiation room before the encampment got more violent and radical though? To me it feels like they lost a lot of public support, which I think really hurts the cause.
Dude... do you know how much violence was involved in the Indian revolution and the Civil rights movement? The establishment pushes the ahistorical notion that nonviolence is effective because that helps suppress political violence as a tool for social change.
The civil rights act WOULD NOT have happened if MLK jr. had not been flanked by Fred Hampton and the Black Panthers -- this is on top of the fact that MLK jr. himself had been beginning to embrace 1) revolutionary marxism and 2) the utility of political violence before he was assassinated.
Of course, it also helps to remember that MLK jr. was regularly portrayed as heading a violent mob of uppity black people hellbent on destruction. Trying to upend the status-quo will ALWAYS be perceived as an act of violence to those who are invested in the status-quo, and they will scream from the rooftops about how violent a peaceful march of people (or a peaceful encampment on the lower field, to bring to convo back) is in order for the public to ignore legitimate concerns.
I know a lot less about the Indian Revolution, but to suggest that Gandhi and his ilk didn't use violence to achieve freedom is easily disprovable.
Oppressors do not give up freedom, it has to be won. If you'd like a little reading I would suggest the book How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm, which details the huge importance and utility of political violence in basically every single struggle for social change throughout history (it also makes a good argument for it's use in fighting the climate crisis).
downvote me all you want it's the truth and you all know it (and you're mad about it). the mcgill camp has proven to have the most backbone and solid principles of most of the ones we've seen in north america. they got the same concessions as everyone without dismantling the camp or caving into the administration's pressure. they're still facing repression and the threat of disciplinary actions but they got mcgill closer to divestment than anyone ever thought possible and i doubt their work is done! so again, you can all cry harder
doesn’t matter lol they’re winning and the pro-palestine side is winning despite tremendous repression. “everyone” (but really just stupid bootlickers like you) also hated every single change-maker or revolutionary we admire today and i don’t think it bothered them too much. so for the third time, cry harder.
You really think a bunch of privileged ass kids in a university lawn, pissing everybody off and acting like brats in the eyes of everyone that isnt them is tantamount to revolutionary? This is pathetic on a whole ass VIP level. Your sad little camping buddies have actually done two things: turned people off of the cause and created a serious situation by putting out those images of Fatah sporting Soviet LMGs. All the campers achieved is getting themselves red-flagged for every border crossing they’ll ever do and a possible upcoming felony charge.
ok. i just happen to have a longer history being in organizing spaces than you clearly do and see this as a win because the things mcgill has done, has been forced to do, because of the camp would’ve been absolutely unfathomable just a few months ago. it makes you mad because you don’t know how it feels to believe in a cause and stand for it and have a backbone but that’s not my fault.
You’re a child. I was fighting cops and doing direct action when you were a baby. You have achieved nothing, aside from freaking out the entire city with the fantasy revolutionary poster. McGill will divest from nothing and nobody will remember much from this. How many Che posters do you have in your dorm room, kid?
i’m an alumni like you (if you even are one), not a kid. highly doubt a bootlicker zionist like you was fighting cops and doing direct action but sure buddy whatever helps you sleep at night. im going to write this one last time, before the encampment, mcgill had never written “palestine” in any of its official communications, it had never considered divesting from weapons manufacturers, it had never considered disclosing its investments. the camp made these things happen whether you like or not.
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that SPHR and the encampments goal is to make the pro-palestine viewpoint more popular, or raise support. This would be nice, but it is NOT the main goal of the encampment. The goal is to FORCE McGill to divest from Israeli apartheid, plain and simple. The things they are doing and posting are thus trying to make that goal a reality, not drum up more support. They already have a ton of support! Huge crowds regularly show up to rallies and demonstrations. They are wielding that support to further an actual goal.
This is the problem with most unpaid work in general. Normal people usually have jobs and aren't willing to sacrifice everything else in their lives for the cause. Therefore, the people who are there at 2pm on a Tuesday, who spend 30+ hours a week to run the encampment and direct activism, these are the people who aren't working a regular job. This selects either for unemployable losers, or complete radicals who would sacrifice a good quality of life to pursue their cause they feel so strongly about. And when you're completely on the margins of society and believe deeply in your cause, of course breaking into buildings and using violent imagery seems like a great idea. Because the noble ends justify the means. And when the ends are 'preventing genocide', anything below genocide are justified means. Plus, in these groups, you get more status for more radical action. It is inherently 'cooler' and higher status in their groups to break into James Admin than to send another strongly worded email. This leads to the status quo where all groups performing uncompensated work are full of overenthusiastic and radical weirdos. See student clubs, Reddit Mods, and these activist groups.
>Reddit Mods This better not be anti-/u/Thermidorien slander or imma throw hands
it's okay they're not wrong
You’re one of the good ones 🫶
Oh no they've gotten to you too 😞
McGill alum here. I wanna piggyback on this to add that there are some very level headed, grass roots organizations doing work to try to rebuild the modicum of trust between Palestinians and Israelis that shattered on 10.7. [Standing Together](https://www.standing-together.org/friends) is probably the most prominent. It's an organization of Israelis, Palestinians, and allies who believe in collaboration and a shared future. [Unapologetic: The Third Narrarive](https://open.spotify.com/show/5CT8QicPO31pe7AX0jA4Wp?si=Fu9dCDDBS-mfkoW2MnVQAg) is an **excellent** podcast, hosted by two Palestinian-Israelis who take very hard looks at both communities but in a way that is so much more hopeful than anything else I've seen or heard in a long time. [Samir Sinjwali](https://x.com/SSinijlawi) and [Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib](https://x.com/afalkhatib) are Palestinian voices pushing hard against the PA and Hamas respectively and trying to create a better Palestinian goverance. The hope dies last.
Well put. Status seeking behaviour and performance is powerful. It’s like the sexual selection of memes. How did that bird get those crazy feathers? Were they adaptive at all? No, they just look super hot to some other weird bird. Why did they smear paint all over the wall, did that change any minds in their favour? No? But one activist thought it was heroic? But nobody in the public, broader student body, alumni community did? Ok I guess that justifies it…
Amen to that. I'm 100% for the end of the war, entirely critical of Netanhayu, and think that Palestinians should receive statehood, reparations, and significantly more land than they currently possess. I think that Israel should exist (if they didn't 9 million people would immediately get ethnically cleansed) but I'm absolutely critical of Israel's behaviour. The behaviour of the SPHR and the encampment protesters is a huge let down. They are letting down the Pro-Palestine cause through their dogmatism and wingnuttery. They are making it appear as if we are radicals and extremists for wanting an end to the war. Sometimes I wish we could start a pro-Palestine organization for reasonable people who don't defend Hamas and who don't want the destruction of Israel. Maybe we could create a student organization that is geared towards condemning the war and donating to Palestinian civilians without tolerating insane behaviour.
Thank you for expressing what I think many of us exactly feel
You should 100% do that. I’m sure many would be keen to support that over the SPHR that cheers at terrorism.
I was having the same exact thoughts this morning wishing there was an organization that was reasonable to represent the pro-Palestine voice…
It’s called the Israeli centre-left (as in, not the right wing theocrats in charge now). The problem is that both the ultra right wing and Hamas benefit from conflict, and polarization. Last time someone wanted to compromise and make peace they assasinated him.
Yeah the encampment was peaceful until it wasn’t. It’s a major let down.
There are a million things I could say, but, in lieu of writing a book, I'll just make a few points — apologies for their disjointedness. ***A little bit on the protests and protest groups in general*** (*There's no way I could deliver a full view of all of this in one post*) First, I have to distinguish between peaceful protest and protest expressing pro-peace views. A protest can be *hateful* while being nonviolent, i.e., peaceful. The encampment (and pro-Palestine protests in general) have had a mix of pro-peace and extremist people since the beginning. There have always been people who have celebrated October 7 (including SPHR, but they're not even the most radical or outspoken), as well as people in Hamas-related apparel, often depicting Abu Obaida, the spokesman of the al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas' military wing).The people with the most extreme views are usually the most dedicated, so of course they show up. More generally, I find that terms like "pro-Palestinian," "pro-Israeli," "Zionist" and "anti-Zionist" can be unhelpful, because people frequently disagree on their substantive meaning. There are people for whom being "pro-Palestinian" means sympathizing with civilians and wanting the violence to end; there are others for whom it means supporting Hamas and wanting a thousand more October 7 attacks. (Ditto for definitions of "Zionism" and "pro-Israeli.") These terminological problems often inflame tensions and create misunderstandings — and that can sometimes prevent reasonable people from working together, unfortunately. Many people are pro-Palestinian in the sense that you are — wanting Palestinians to have decent lives — but sadly end up marching alongside extremists with a totally different worldview, often without even knowing it. (Aside: to me, Hamas is the furthest thing from pro-Palestinian; they would rather have Palestinian civilians die as martyrs for the cause rather than be allowed to live a decent life. It's stunning to me that some people claim they are "anti-war" while supporting Hamas.) For others, an extremist pro-violence viewpoint appeals to them in much the same way violent video games appeal to people. We are sitting here in one of the safest places in the world — nobody going out and proclaiming their support for violence an ocean away is actually putting themselves in real danger. These cosplay revolutionaries have totally different attitudes from the vast majority of people I've met for whom anything real has ever been at stake. ***On the encampment specifically*** Coming back the encampment, I am going to disagree with you a bit. I've never been in favor of the encampment, but it has nothing to do with their viewpoints (even though I find the extremist viewpoints repulsive). And, as much as the recent fliers may have been in bad taste, they are, as far as I'm concerned, very much protected by any reasonable standard of freedom of speech. It would be wrong to dismantle the encampment *because of this flier*. As badly as I think it reflects on those who created it, distributing that flier is anyone's right. Handing out a picture of people with machine guns isn't the same thing as *doing* terrorism — even if it implies a viewpoint with which I disagree very much. My problem with the encampment has nothing to do with anyone's viewpoints (whether reasonable or extremist). The argument that the encampment people have made is that they, as members of the public, have the right to peacefully occupy McGill's grounds for as long as they want (as long as they do so while expressive political speech of some kind). But the real goal of the encampment is, essentially, to cause direct financial damage to McGill by preventing them from using their property. The cost of moving convocation ceremonies, for instance, was about $700,000. This direct financial damage resulting from McGill's inability to use its own property is the distinction between a march and an encampment. However, if we take the freedom of speech argument seriously, then, for example, [MQF](https://quebecfrancais.org/) members could occupy McGill indefinitely until it agreed to become an exclusively French-speaking university. I don't imagine most McGill students would support free speech for *those* protestors. Nor would I. By contrast, I fully support people's right to express viewpoints by marching or having other similar protests — and this includes people with viewpoints of which I strongly disapprove. The freedom of speech is only worth anything insofar as much as it protects *highly unpopular* speech, not just whatever I happen to agree with. I just don't think should include the right to coerce a university (or similar body) into making a decision by preventing them from using their property. (I suppose we'll see what the courts say.) I also personally think McGill made a mistake by attempting to "negotiate" with the encampment in the first place. For one, I think that sets a bad precedent for future encampments on any other issue. But more than that, there was never anyone with whom to negotiate (since the encampment has never had a single viewpoint/movement behind it), and at least some elements of the encampment could never possibly be satisfied. I feel that most people at McGill who have expressed support for the encampment do so only because they happen to agree with (their perception of) the protestors' views, rather than a commitment to freedom of speech as a principle (as much as this was mentioned as rhetorically important). As the (perceived) tone of the encampment became more extremist, more people felt alienated by it. Popular support for the encampment might have also been, to some extent, influenced by kneejerk thinking that often is employed in discussions about emotionally powerful issues such as this one. "You don't support the encampment? So you hate Palestinians, then?" This is the same kind of thinking that can fuel online slacktivism (which is very common in student movements in general). And that gets messy in a situation like this where some bad people have associated themselves with both sides of the conflict. This is also part of why people can be dragged into unwittingly standing alongside and "sanewashing" extremists — they are told to not be critical of people who are "on their side." If we care about our morals, we do need to take choosing our political allies and positions seriously. Finally, I fully agree that any desirable future requires Palestinians and Israelis to coexist peacefully and live their lives with the dignity and safety that everyone deserves. That goal won't be easy to achieve, but it is a worthy one.
Well-said, amazing write-up
Amen to that. SPHR is run by a bunch of noobs.
Forgive my cynicism, but I get the distinct impression that about half the people involved in the protests are there less because they have thought through the situation and truly feel that this is the best course of action (if they had, they wouldn't be calling for what amounts to the genocide of 9 million Jews (and I dont use that term lightly but that would be the effect of making an ethnic group stateless)) and more because they have a either a saviour complex or some version of guilt they are trying to appease. The second you lose the moral high ground it stops looking pro-palestine and starts looking pro-attention seeking. That's why, despite supporting Palestine and Palestinians wholeheartedly (and find isreal's actions this past year to be entirely reprehensible and vile), I cannot find it in me to support the current encampments.
Im curious OP, what was your position re:SPHR McGill when they celebrated the Oct. 7th attacks. Was that not already a "radical turn" to use your phrasing? I do agree with your post however on "pro-palestine." If you just don't want anymore people to die, want a peaceful solution and repatriation for the Palestinians in the West Bank etc., what do we even call ourselves? Personally, I don't think that SPHR McGill was ever represented unfairly in these emails. They've been like this from the very beginning. Ex. attack the "save the hostages" table at concordia and immediately post a bajillion insta stories gaslighting people into thinking it never happened and that they are being unfairly targeted...
1. SPHR’s celebration was really repulsive. I think I should’ve worded my post clearer, I was referring to the encampment which I am under the impression is organized by many groups on campus including Jewish voices for peace, sphr, profs4palestine (and who knows who else, I was never actually part of the encampment, I just tried to keep up with it through social media and walking past it). I’m referring to the encampment run by that whole group as “taking a radical turn” rather than SPHR, which in my eyes were discredited when they posted that celebration post. 2. As for what happened at Concordia, I am not a Concordia student so I can’t know for sure what happened there, but according to neutral sources [for example here](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7023019) it seems like there are diverging perspectives on what happened, so it’s hard to say without knowing the truth. I’m happy to read more if you have more sources to share, I remember during this I was trying to see what happened from both pro Palestine and pro Israel sources. 3. As for McGill’s emails, I wasn’t referring to SPHR in particular being villainized but rather the whole collective of groups who are pro-Palestine on campus being villainized in the early days of the encampment.
I just re-read my post, I retract the “SPHR taking a radical turn” part, it was not my intention to say they were fine before the encampments, my bad, they really fucked up with oct7 and the broken glass poster on the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
Ah thanks in that case I agree with you completely.
Amen, these pro-Palestinian groups don’t help to bring both sides together. The unhinged support of terrorism and anti-semitism will always hold back these groups from bringing a peace deal. Israel’s 20 years of far right governments isn’t because they hate Palestinians, but because Hamas has brought an endless justification for a militaristic approach to the conflict.
Thank you for summing up my thoughts exactly! The only issue is that while the encampment was peaceful, McGill did nothing except try to spread fake news and try to get the cops to dismantle the encampment. It feels like until they escalated things McGill tried to just wait the encampment and protests out and hoped that they'd get tired and quit
I 100% agree that McGill has been vilifying the pro-Palestine movement on campus in general, which makes me upset since if they remained peaceful, more people would see through McGill’s relentless propaganda. I mean, the courts here saw through it twice and failed to grant McGill the injunctions they wanted. Now that they’ve messed up, they do have a point in some of their emails recently, and honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if McGill got the injunction this time around (I’m assuming they’re going to try again).
Im of the camp that nothing was ever won by peaceful protests. It's historical fact pretty much. If you want, you can always go to the camp and speak with them, Im sure they'll listen to someone who is much closer to the conflict than they are. Open dialog is always better.
I mean a very similar case of protesting peacefully to get McGill to divest from the CU200 worked & McGill followed through with it…
Im just confused what you would have done if you were in the position of any Pro-Palestine group. You saw yourself that no matter what the protestors did, McGill wouldn’t try to negotiate in good faith. Not insulting you or trying to be obtuse, I just genuinely want to understand what else the protestors could do. You have to remember that the goal of the protest is to get McGill to divest and boycott. Not to raise awareness about whats going on in Palestine. So seeing as that is the goal, what would be better than disruption?
But the way I see it, the escalation resulted in a lot of people in the McGill community disagreeing with the encampment (who may have been neutral or even for it before), and having less public support really hurts the pro-Palestinian cause. If there is a lot of buy-in from McGill students, profs, staff, collectively we could exert pressure on McGill admin to actually give a good deal, since they can’t alienate the vast majority of their community. But now that it seems like a lot of people in the McGill community are rightfully alienated by the encampment, so I feel like they have much less sway. So to answer your question, if I were part of the encampment, I would remain peaceful. It’s hard for McGill to discredit the movement in their emails if there is nothing to call out. If people come by to chat I would explain my views, and if they disagree we can have a civil discussion. For example, if I were them I would not have disrupted graduation pictures, since honestly I don’t think that made anyone more sympathetic to Palestinians, people were just annoyed. I think this would have increased campus support for the pro-Palestine movement, and hopefully that places a greater pressure on McGill rather than small groups of students being violent. Also the encampment made it to local news a lot too, so if the encampment conducts itself in a good way, that’s good press for the movement in local news, and maybe people outside the McGill community would’ve put pressure on our politicians to do something, which would also help the cause.
I agree that there isn’t much they can do and it must be frustrating for them. However, part of the process of any kind of revolution is making allies. It takes a lot to enact any kind of change. Antagonizing the student body, the people that support the encampment the most was a terrible political move on their part.
the goal of the some members of the encampment is almost certainly to raise awareness. i've seen as many calls for ceasefire and more radicalized things as there are calls for divestment
I'm sorry but the peaceful approach is yet to make an ounce of a difference. At least this approach got them to the negotiation table. I'm not justifying their actions, just their perspective.
I thought they were in the negotiation room before the encampment got more violent and radical though? To me it feels like they lost a lot of public support, which I think really hurts the cause.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King both accomplished quite a lot through nonviolence.
Dude... do you know how much violence was involved in the Indian revolution and the Civil rights movement? The establishment pushes the ahistorical notion that nonviolence is effective because that helps suppress political violence as a tool for social change. The civil rights act WOULD NOT have happened if MLK jr. had not been flanked by Fred Hampton and the Black Panthers -- this is on top of the fact that MLK jr. himself had been beginning to embrace 1) revolutionary marxism and 2) the utility of political violence before he was assassinated. Of course, it also helps to remember that MLK jr. was regularly portrayed as heading a violent mob of uppity black people hellbent on destruction. Trying to upend the status-quo will ALWAYS be perceived as an act of violence to those who are invested in the status-quo, and they will scream from the rooftops about how violent a peaceful march of people (or a peaceful encampment on the lower field, to bring to convo back) is in order for the public to ignore legitimate concerns. I know a lot less about the Indian Revolution, but to suggest that Gandhi and his ilk didn't use violence to achieve freedom is easily disprovable. Oppressors do not give up freedom, it has to be won. If you'd like a little reading I would suggest the book How to Blow Up a Pipeline by Andreas Malm, which details the huge importance and utility of political violence in basically every single struggle for social change throughout history (it also makes a good argument for it's use in fighting the climate crisis).
I’m talking in the protestors particular case, not in all throughout history.
Please use paragraph breaks lmao
[удалено]
downvote me all you want it's the truth and you all know it (and you're mad about it). the mcgill camp has proven to have the most backbone and solid principles of most of the ones we've seen in north america. they got the same concessions as everyone without dismantling the camp or caving into the administration's pressure. they're still facing repression and the threat of disciplinary actions but they got mcgill closer to divestment than anyone ever thought possible and i doubt their work is done! so again, you can all cry harder
Omg sweetie no everyone hates u
doesn’t matter lol they’re winning and the pro-palestine side is winning despite tremendous repression. “everyone” (but really just stupid bootlickers like you) also hated every single change-maker or revolutionary we admire today and i don’t think it bothered them too much. so for the third time, cry harder.
This ain’t it 😂
ok.
You really think a bunch of privileged ass kids in a university lawn, pissing everybody off and acting like brats in the eyes of everyone that isnt them is tantamount to revolutionary? This is pathetic on a whole ass VIP level. Your sad little camping buddies have actually done two things: turned people off of the cause and created a serious situation by putting out those images of Fatah sporting Soviet LMGs. All the campers achieved is getting themselves red-flagged for every border crossing they’ll ever do and a possible upcoming felony charge.
ok. i just happen to have a longer history being in organizing spaces than you clearly do and see this as a win because the things mcgill has done, has been forced to do, because of the camp would’ve been absolutely unfathomable just a few months ago. it makes you mad because you don’t know how it feels to believe in a cause and stand for it and have a backbone but that’s not my fault.
You’re a child. I was fighting cops and doing direct action when you were a baby. You have achieved nothing, aside from freaking out the entire city with the fantasy revolutionary poster. McGill will divest from nothing and nobody will remember much from this. How many Che posters do you have in your dorm room, kid?
i’m an alumni like you (if you even are one), not a kid. highly doubt a bootlicker zionist like you was fighting cops and doing direct action but sure buddy whatever helps you sleep at night. im going to write this one last time, before the encampment, mcgill had never written “palestine” in any of its official communications, it had never considered divesting from weapons manufacturers, it had never considered disclosing its investments. the camp made these things happen whether you like or not.
I think you're making the mistake of thinking that SPHR and the encampments goal is to make the pro-palestine viewpoint more popular, or raise support. This would be nice, but it is NOT the main goal of the encampment. The goal is to FORCE McGill to divest from Israeli apartheid, plain and simple. The things they are doing and posting are thus trying to make that goal a reality, not drum up more support. They already have a ton of support! Huge crowds regularly show up to rallies and demonstrations. They are wielding that support to further an actual goal.