Thanks for the very thoughtful reply, Brad. I would quibble about a whole lot - I don't think a repressive goverment cracking down on a protest is evidence that the protest is violent and I don't think that violence being a part of each of these large-scale events is evidence that the event itself is violent. And I don't think it's fair to suggest that all people saying "Globalize the Intifada" are suggesting they'd like to globalize violently repressive governments or mass self-immolation rather than suggesting that they want to spread the message of the resistance to what they see as violent oppression by the Israeli government.I like her framing because I think it's accurate. I have no interest in Stefanik outside of that. Don't really know much about her.
You asked for substance; it follows. Some of it might be slanted (as is the article you posted, but it's hard to find objective opinions and reporting in this area), as I don't have the time to carefully parse it all out more than I have, but I'll put it here anyway to show you where I, and others probably like Stefanik, are coming from. (I've tried to eliminate snark, but if it's there, I apologize in advance, as I've edited this a lot to try to make it less so and advance the discussion but I'd like to take advantage of the rest of my Sunday, too.)
I. Historical context of intifada
I'll start with the the article you posted as a defense of "global intifada" as a term of peaceful protest. The article's examples actually contradict that notion. In every instance cited, violence is an aspect of the event--in fact, I'd argue that the violence--either from the protestors or the crackdown by the repressive regime--was the point and the crucial aspect that led to the desired (or, in some instances, unintended) consequences. I think the conclusion, then, that some examples of intifada had some peaceful elements is hand waving--hell, even the cited prof in the article tacks on a caveat at the end of his quote, swallowing up the entire point that intifada in historical context means peaceful protest. It just doesn't.
I've taken the time to go through each example cited and link proof that each and every one involved creating violent situations. Taken together, it's reasonable to interpret intifada as a call for violent uprising:
1. Iraqi Intifada: The Iraqi Intifada was a series of national strikes and violent protests against the ruling Hashemite monarchy and the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty.
Iraqi Intifada (1952) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2. Arab Spring--lots here, but in order of relative peacefulness:
(a). Jasmine Revolution--kid lights himself on fire in protest (peaceful? well, he didn't hurt anyone other than himself I guess, but the theme of suicide action sure does seem to be prevalent in Islamic fights against oppression, doesn't it?) and sets off a wave of street protests. What follows? Violence--clashes between the govt crackdowns and the protesters that last a couple of months before the protesters overwhelm the police force and the leader steps down. No, I don't want this type of thing globalized.
Arab Spring | History, Revolution, Causes, Effects, & Facts | Britannica
Arab Spring, wave of pro-democracy protests and uprisings that took place in the Middle East and North Africa beginning in 2010, challenging some of the region’s entrenched authoritarian regimes. Demonstrators expressing political and economic grievances faced violent crackdowns by their...www.britannica.com
(b) Egyptian Uprising--inspired by Tunisia above. Several people kick it off with self immolation (that suicidal theme again in these intifadas). Followed up by street protestors violently clashing with police forces. So not peaceful from the very beginning. Again, no I don't want this globalized.
Egypt Uprising of 2011 | Causes, Impact & Legacy | Britannica
Beginning in December 2010, unprecedented mass demonstrations against poverty, corruption, and political repression broke out in several Arab countries, challenging the authority of some of the most entrenched regimes in the Middle East and North Africa. Such was the case in Egypt, where in 2011 a
(c) Yemen, Libya, Syria--violent clashes, many dead, civil wars that rage on to this day. I don't want this globalized.
3. First intifada--violent crack downs, stone throwing, molotov cocktails. Hundreds dead
First Intifada - Wikipedia
4. Second intifada--shootings, suicide bombings (theme here again), many dead
Second Intifada - Wikipedia
I want exactly zero of these instances to be globalized. I think every single one of them more violent than our own BLM protests.
II. Intentions of professional (as opposed to college kids) advocates of "Globalize the Intifada"
Opinion | Activists are calling to ‘globalize the intifada.’ It’s a demand for death, not peace
It’s the peak of privilege for people living thousands of miles away from the region to call for a violent uprising from the comfort of their couches.forward.com
There are so many examples of fliers, speeches, etc. by people calling for intifada and using the phrase "by any means necessary" I don't think more is required here. Peaceful groups don't need to use that term. They can use phrases like "End the Occupation," "Free, free Palestine," etc. When Hamas, etc. use intifada, they use it for a very particular reason.
III. Psychological Effect of the phrase "Globalize the Intifada" on Jews
What Does “Globalize the Intifada” Mean and How Can it Lead to Targeting Jews with Violence?
What does “Globalize the Intifada” mean, how is it tied to past Palestinian activist violence against Israel, and how can it lead to targeting Jews today?www.ajc.org
Welcome to the Global Intifada
No police force can hold back a culture that has embraced violence as a means of expression—and that has lost hold of the difference between life and death, writes Bari Weiss.www.thefp.com
I could also detail conversations I've had with my Jewish friends, all of whom are left-leaning (most, not all, partisan Dems). Some don't care. Some care a lot and are terrified by what is going on. We could get more perspective from @JamieDimonsBalls and @Eppy99
*************
I think, though, that we are concerned with two different things. You seem to be concerned with the intentions of the majority of these college kids. I think I've written about that before--what is driving them, psychologically. I agree that for them it is not some internal antisemitic drive.
But I disagree with you about what the effect of their actions is, and their relative value (morally, and instrumentally from their point of view). I think that they are unwittingly (or callously for a few of them, depends on the person) using phrases and jargon that is stoked by Hamas and anti-semites in general to terrorize Israelis and Jews. I have no doubt, either, that these protests are organized and the chants started by adults, either outside the universities or within who are allied with Hamas-adjacent groups**, with ill intentions towards Israel and Jews. These are the adults that deserve the most blame, with the administrators who allow these things to go overboard in second.
**If geneology of a movement or arguments matters to you (it does not to me, but Sopecreek at one point argued with me about it w/r/t the pro-life movement in America), there is some interesting stuff out there about how the Soviets pushed the Palestinian agenda and movement back in the 60s-80s.
But, moreover, I disagree that we are concerned about different things. I think we are both very sincerely interested in peace in Israel, peace in Gaza, peace in Palestine, the end of antisemitism (which is likely an impossible thing to achieve), the end of Islamophobia (likewise probably an impossibility), and the opportunity for self-determination and freedom of worship for the people of the region (heck, for everyone, everywhere). That's a pretty ambitious list, but fortune favors the bold, so let's go for it (not that what you or I say or do is likely to drive such a massive shift, but we can do our part!) What I think we disagree on more is what is most important in getting there.
And I think the line from your post,
"Some of it might be slanted (as is the article you posted, but it's hard to find objective opinions and reporting in this area)..."
maybe acknowledges what I've been getting at - there are different interpretations, motivations, and understandings in those phrases and it takes digging into those things to really get somewhere in our to-do list.
To get there, you seem focused on first identifying the university protests as antisemitic. I assume there are numerous reasons for this focus, but I suspect primary ones are support for the right for Israel to exist (which you maybe believe these protest question) and concern about Jewish students being and feeling safe in going to class (which, to me, is 100% justified).
My focus in getting there is in establishing peaceful dialogue and understanding between people who support the Gaza protests and people who support Israel's right to defend itself and its people. Forgive my simple drawing here, but that's my rough approximation of the two "sides" here and I think both of them are valid and in not necessarily contradictory (I'll re-link this heavily biased piece on Jews participating in campus protests).
What I don't think are justifiable positions are the folks throwing around things like "FAFO Gaza" or "Israel should carpet bomb the whole place and start over" in response to people questioning the way Israel is conducting their operations in Gaza. So, that leads me to Stefanik, who I don't find to be interested in anything more than rabblerousing and partisan cheerleading. I don't think Stefanik fairly paints the picture of the protests by saying that the use of those two phrases is tantamount to supporting the genocide of Jews and I don't think she's done much to advance any of the things on our list. It certainly doesn't promote dialogue between differing viewpoints by painting the diverse groups of people protesting as all seeking Jewish genocide.
That's not at all to say that there haven't been antisemitic elements to campus protests and I would not be surprised to find people there seek the elimination of Israel. I also don't discount at all the fears of violence against them that Jews feel merely for being Jewish. To get somewhere, we have to separate the people who favor the killing of Jews and the killing of Palestinians from the people who support peace. If I had been counseling the adults in charge of campus safety at those universities, I would had a much stronger presence from campus police and university leadership from the outset to calmly and deliberately manage accessibility to all buildings, insure passage safe from direct harassment for all students, and insure space and safety from counterprotesters to give the space for protesters to loudly and passionately express their view. The adults at UCLA took a "let them yell and they'll get tired and go home" approach to managing the protests and that led to some awful outcomes. If I had been counseling the campus protesters, I would have suggested that they would get much further by altering those chants to acknowledge the fear they cause, acknowledge the utter wrongness in Hamas targeting civilians, and emphasize the desire for peace for Israelis, Gazans, Jews, and Muslims alike.
Because, having been on campus to see the protests at UCLA for myself, I firmly believe that the great majority of people participating in them believe in that last sentence. With engaged leaders who fostered dialogue instead of seeing it as a nuisance, some good could have come of it. That wasn't what we got because listening is hard. So, again I appreciate your thoughtful reply and do hear your valid concerns about some of the history of their usage. I disagree that the overriding point of their usage in campus protests was to terrorize Jews, but I respect that you have that concern. I wish I believed that Stefanik was interested in being a part of the solutions I think we both seek, but I haven't seen much evidence of it thus far. Her suggestion that universities ban the use of those phrases is just more evidence that she doesn't want to hear.
My post is definitely TLDR territory, but I appreciate you engaging from our different perspectives.
