108
405 Freeway: Gaza protesters block traffic in West Los Angeles
(www.foxla.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
108 points (95.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
209 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Because West Los Angeles is just full of people who have any say about what happens in Gaza... 🙄
What's happening in Gaza is being directly funded by all of our taxes, there's not a particular location that the protesting needs to be done, it just needs to be done.
If you want to protest tax dollars, take it to the Mall in D.C. and shut down their infrastructure.
If you actually care about what's happening in Gaza, take it to Tel Aviv.
Anything else is a pointless "look at me!" protest.
lol “if you wanna protest, literally travel across the whole ass country or the world. Nothing local matters.”
You’re either a supporter of Israel or you don’t know history. I can’t think of any other way to get to what you just posted.
So do you support Israel or do you not understand how every expansion of civil rights in the 20th and 21st century were won?
Local very much matters, for local issues. See the protests directly in Ferguson for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest
The related protests outside Ferguson accomplished fuck all.
If the issue is an international issue, a local protest means and accomplishes NOTHING other than a mild inconvenience for people completely unrelated to the problem.
You don’t think the nationwide protests and international reaction to the killing of Michael brown had any effect.
Would you say there was any effect when politicians and police in areas outside furgeson had to make statements in response to the protests in their regions?
Do you think catapulting blm to the national level and international recognition had any effect?
Since you said a local protest means nothing if the issue is international do you think that the various anti war protests throughout Americas 20th and 21st centuries have meant anything?
Nope, not really:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/08/omar-tlaib-bush-bowman-primaries-squad-democrats-aipac-israel.html
"Both BLM activists voted into Congress have been pushed out."
Do you think that those politicians had any effect while in office?
Since you said a local protest means nothing if the issue is international do you think that the various anti war protests throughout Americas 20th and 21st centuries have meant anything?
Some protests did, some did not. None of the Iraq war protests in the 90s or 00s had any impact whatsoever.
Worldwide protests before the American invasion of Iraq were the cause of would be coalition members reluctance and the reason Colin Powell had to get up in front of the un and lie.
Worldwide opposition to the global war on terror is the reason the consent manufacturing machine ran so hot and, as a consequence, is the reason no one trusts media anymore.
It was no coincidence that figures like obama and trump rose to prominence in American politics after early criticism of universally decried foreign action came to light.
Even in entertainment, the Israeli “shoot and cry” format was adopted in order to synthesize domestic opposition to the war into more acceptable sympathy for the troops.
If, like Korea, either gwot or shield/storm had been even just domestic propaganda victories we wouldn’t have experienced such huge shifts and would be living in a different world.
Worldwide protests were completely ignored in favor of 23 years worth of war. It ended because we got tired of paying for it, not because anyone protested.
I never suggested that the protests stopped the war. Is that your metric for if an antiwar protest “works”?
It’s important to push back on what you said about completely ignored though.
As I said before, the media environment we have now where no one trusts anything stems directly from the media responses to mass unrest.
An entire genre of American film grew in response to that unrest.
Twelve years of presidents were famously skeptical of the global war on terror and the Iraq invasion and one of those two started the chain of events that would lead to withdra from Afghanistan and the end to that war. I’ll concede that they were both lying snakes who brought with them administrators complicit in what would become 23 years of war, but neither would have the trust from their respective bases early on if it hadn’t been for their in the moment condemnation and skepticism about the war.
Not everyone can just ship themselves off to DC and like, shut down infrastructure. Let alone travel internationally. Being in a financial position where you can do that is an incredibly privileged position to be in. We have to do what we can, where we are to make change - and for people living in LA that means protesting in LA. A lot of protesting IS about visibility, and doing it so you can be noticed is far from pointless! Blocking traffic anywhere in this country is directly making sure that you and your message cannot be ignored.
Not everyone can be part of an effective protest then...
You really haven't established that that's the case. Wherever you protest, you're getting visibility and costing the state money to manage.
lemmmy.world strikes again
Especially telling as they mod politics and news comms there
Local and state governments absolutely have a say through their investments to Israel. It's just as important to pressure them for divestment as the federal government and corporations on the BDS list.
Let me paint you a picture of the fucked up situation in the Middle East.
If the US withdraws support of Israel, Iran attacks, they have pretty much openly stated that they would if that were to happen. If Iran attacks and Israel is out of options, Israel uses nukes. If Israel uses nukes, Pakistan uses nukes. Then India. During all of this, due to the massive amount of destabilization, extremist warlords start popping up. Russia and China start sticking their fingers into things, and not just in the Middle East, but any country/territory they've had their eye on, such as Taiwan. All of this takes place a stones throw away from European countries in NATO, and if any of them get hit, all of NATO is obligated to respond. That's not getting into the shit places like Turkey or North Korea would start during the chaos.
It's not as fucking simple as just cutting off Israel. It's a big, complicated, shitty machine that is likely to fucking explode if you remove the wrong pieces. And as shitty as it sounds, 40k casualties over 10 months is a lot less than the millions that would die within a week were shit to hit the fan.
The premise of your idea, is wrong. Iran is threatening to retaliate unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire
Only Israel can agree to a ceasefire. The US does not make that decision for them. Netanyahu is a war criminal dictator. You think the US withdrawing would be the end of it? Fuck no. And what do you think happens if the US withdraws support and Netandipshit doesn't agree to a ceasefire?
I get it, you want a genocide to stop. But the thing you are arguing for (US withdrawing support) doesn't stop the genocide. You think Israel doesn't at least have the resources already in hand to still level Gaza? Plus, currently the US is the only country sort-of able to talk and negotiate with them, withdraw support and no one can. And again, if they are out of allies, out of options, and other countries start invading, Israel WILL use nukes. It's not even a question in my mind. Netanyahu will do whatever he can to stay in power.
The people screaming for divestment have no idea what's involved. In many cases there are contractual obligations that make it impossible.
The people screaming for it have no idea how any of it works, they just want it stopped and will continue to get angry when it doesn't.
This is nonviolent civil disobedience to protect the financial support of an ongoing genocide. Acting like this isn't a valid form of protest or that the BDS movement have "no idea what's involved" when putting pressure on corporations and institutions to Divest is ridiculous.
These kind of protests do put pressure and bring the issue to the forefront of the local and state administrative bodies. The BDS movement was successful in the divestment of Apartheid South Africa, this isn't too different
MLK protested where the offenses were actually happening. That's why they were effective.
Yeah dude, that's why the anti-apartheid protests and BDS movement in the United States were so unsuccessful and not effective when it came to South Africa
The offenses are actually happening in the US, too. That's where the voters voting for genocide enablers are located, that are sending all the bombs to Gaza to blow up schools and hospitals.
I'm sorry, hundreds of thousands of innocent children. This piece of paper says it's impossible to stop paying for you to be murdered.
Pretty much, that's how "contractual obligations" work.
In my state, we've been trying to get the state Public Employees Retirement System to divest from oil investments for a few decades now. The big problem is PERS is tied up with contractual obligations to provide a specific return on investment, a return which can't be made if they dump fossil fuels:
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/07/oregon-retirement-fund-carbon-neutrality/
The folks supporting divestment think it's like a light switch. "Well, just STOP!" and it doesn't work that way.
It literally does just work that way. A piece of paper is a piece of paper. "But we won't make as much money" is the part that holds it together. Contracts and laws in general are no more or less than a pretext to exercise class power. They're broken at will in other contexts. The US was literally founded on it.
Tell me you don't understand how a contract works without telling me you don't understand how a contract works.
There are legal liabilities for breaking a contract. It's not that simple.
Tell me you don't interact with people without a keyboard without telling me [useless repetition]. Fucking weirdo.
Yes it is that simple. The law is, and only is, a mechanism for people with power to exercise that power under the veil of legitimacy. Ask any Indian tribe. Ask anyone with x amount of money attempting to litigate a contract with someone with 1000x amount of money.
The reality of the system cannot be disputed without looking like a fucking joke.
Lmao contracts are broken every day... and you say other people have no idea what's involved
Ahh yes. Gatekeeping of what is considered valid protest and white liberalism, name a more iconic duo.
An effective protest reaches the hearts and minds of people who can actually have an impact.
Protesting in L.A. does neither of those things.
I'm 100% disinterested in your opinion of what you consider a valid protest.
What you or I consider a valid protest is irrelevant unless we organized it.
Fine, tell me who in LA on the 405 freeway can stop investment in Israel. It's cool... I'll wait.
Oh, right, nobody. They are protesting to nobody so they can feel good about themselves while not actually having a chance at changing anything.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_activism
Since you seem to lack reading comprehension.
I'm not interested in the opinions of reactionaries masquerading or deluding themselves into thinking they are revolutionaries.
Well you chose to be in a thread literally about reactionaries masquerading or deluding themselves into thinking they are revolutionaries...
Freeway shutdowns are one of the only actually effective nonviolent protests available to modern civilians, as they disrupt industry. Also these people consciously risked jail time to stand up for victims of genocide. Calling them performative... Fuck you.
A more idiotic and ahistoric statement is rarely uttered
Except every single useless protest ever.
Incoherent doesn't count as more idiotic. Not sure why you're trying for it but please stop.