This is the language of their resistance. They even think of themselves that way, as evidenced by one of their spokespersons, graduate student worker Johannah King-Slutsky who complained that the university was trying to starve them all out by not allowing in their GrubHub orders. A pity for them that no one else will think of them as martyrs now the police have swept in and crushed their uprising, which hadn't enough popular support anyway. They will, instead, be remembered only as dumb kids. Which, given that they entered Columbia during a period when it didn’t even check their SAT scores, they may well have been.
By the time hundreds of NYPD officers were marching up Broadway at the request of university heads, it became clear that these students were simple insurrectionists. That they were dragged out of their hiding places, summarily arrested, their tents trashed, shows that even blue states can sometimes come to their senses in the face of unapologetic, adolescent stupidity. Even before their farcical attempt at “revolution” was squashed like a grape, the students accused Columbia of “instituting a police state with military-style checkpoints, repressing and isolating students on campus, calling armed riot cops for the largest mass arrests on campus since 1968.” They wanted to write themselves into the historical narrative of great revolts, but most of them couldn't even tell you what they were protesting for. Divestment from Israel? Ceasefire? More snacks? Less homework? Who can say, really.
Given that they already believed that they were living in a police state, we have to wonder: just what the hell did they think was going to happen? As they whined and complained about missing finals, or just wanting to go home, it seems they'd forgotten that they were protesting what they defined as a brutal, evil empire. If you think you’re standing up against an evil empire, you should expect it to behave like an evil empire. Were they really foolish enough to think their behavior would usher in some sort of liberated utopia? Did they really think there would be no consequences?
Apparently, judging by their statements before the police swept in, that is exactly what they expected, and even demanded. Because they were LARPing, not resisting; they were raising emoji fists, not real ones. Most of them probably faint at the sight of blood.
In a speech in front of Hamilton Hall, King-Slutsky described their goals as threefold: “Divestment, financial transparency, and amnesty.” By divestment, they meant university divestment from Israel and any Israeli-owned businesses. By financial transparency, they meant that they wanted to be allowed to comb through Columbia’s books for anything else upon which they can slap a yellow star, or perhaps a watermelon emoji (what would terrorism be without cute symbols), and demand its removal. And by amnesty, they meant no consequences at all for their having “taken back” (read: occupied) a school building. Administrators had threatened expulsion for anyone who'd occupied the building. King-Slutsky's bio was even removed from the Columbia website by close of business Tuesday.
Even the most generous observer would have to ask these protesters…seriously? These near children, these career PhD students, thought that acting like Hamas rebels would make the university not only fold, but hand veto power over its finances to people who have (if possible) even less of an understanding of finance than they have of international politics. To people who not only aren’t trustees of the university, but many of whom aren’t even paying for their education themselves? In fact, even for the rare few who were paying for that education, this was wildly unreasonable. Even the most loyal customer at a business has no right to look at that business’s balance sheets, let alone demand that business cease its transactions with an entire nation out of some misplaced notion of collective guilt. There’s naivete, and then there’s utter delusion, which these kids had in spades.
Even if you take their most delusional demands out of the picture, and boil this all down to a simple request for amnesty, why would they possibly think that would be on offer? They certainly wouldn’t grant amnesty for what they did to anyone else. You know how we know? Because they’ve made no secret of the fact that they think Israel—and America itself—are on stolen land, which both nations then renamed to suit their purposes. Which is exactly what the protesters did to Hamilton Hall. They literally stole land. Why would they expect such tender mercy for their own theft, when they show none at all to the nations they accuse of these alleged crimes, or for the people who inhabit those nations?
Or, maybe the delusion is worse even than this. Maybe—hard to even conceive though this is—they thought that the people of New York, or of the United States, were on their side. If so, then let us be the first to offer them some not-so-friendly advice: if you want people to side with you, you should probably not announce that you think they have no right to their own homes. Which they did – loudly – not just about Israel, but about America itself.
In an article for the Columbia Spectator, the leaders of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), one of the groups behind the occupation of Hamilton Hall, list the following peoples as oppressed: “the peoples of Palestine, Kurdistan, Sudan, Congo, Armenia, Ireland, Puerto Rico, Korea, Guam, Haiti, Hawai’i, Kashmir, Cuba, [and] Turtle Island.” “Turtle Island,” for those who don’t know, is a term used by radical Native American activists to refer to North America. By implication, then, we can assume that they hope for the kind of terrorism currently afflicting Israelis will also afflict the United States and Canada for having the audacity to be better at conquest (and more humane at it) than the many Native American tribes which constantly conquered and committed violence against each other before we even showed up.
To that end, they add, “We believe in the right of self-determination, Land Back, and the Right of Return, from Palestine to Turtle Island.” In other words, if you live in the United States and you are not a Native American, then according to these protesters, in the name of equity, or social justice, or whatever, you should be forced out. Gee, we wonder why people were happy to see them go.
Ironically, like everything else they demanded of others, this was a demand that the protesters themselves could not possibly have met. We know this because, in their press releases, they complained about Columbia “weaponizing food insecurity and houselessness” (IE threatening to cut off the students’ access to the dining halls and dorm rooms which provide the basic necessities they needed to keep up this charade). Yes, people who were seriously arguing for the uprooting of entire existing nations of people had the gall to complain about “houselessness.” The lack of self-awareness on display truly knows no bounds.
One of those who did just that was Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's Barnard-attending daughter Isra Hirsi, who was suspended from the Ivy sister school for participating in the Gaza Camp. She complained to Teen Vogue in an interview that she was now "houseless" after suspension meant she was denied access to her dorm room. She also whined that her meal card didn't work at the dining hall.
And speaking of lack of self-awareness, let us ask another perhaps basic question: if these students really believe that the United States is stolen land, then why were they attending an American university? Are there no universities in the places where these oppressed folx came from to which they may be better suited? How can they claim that “Turtle Island” should be liberated in one breath, and then proceed to avail themselves of the bounty and educational excellence offered by the thieves who allegedly stole Turtle Island? The sheer hypocrisy boggles the mind.
But as if this were not enough, there is one more point to be made: these students announced, often and loudly, that they wanted revolution. And they very clearly meant violent revolution. If you doubt that, look at how they compare themselves to the student protesters of 1968, 1985, and 1992 in their public statements. 1968’s student protesters were infamously violent (which is why the Democrats are afraid of a repeat of their tactics at this year’s convention).
Moreover, given that these students hung an Intifada flag out the windows of Hamilton Hall – a word which is a literal call for violent revolution —it’s obvious that they were and are interested enacting just that kind of behavior. Their real cause was simple: revolution. They were very clear that not only would they not abide by the law, but they would not even abide by the rules of the university. The university already said it would not tolerate two of the groups who helped organize this idiotic rebellion. Both the Hamas front groups Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace were suspended from campus. That should’ve been the students’ one warning. To them, however, it was all a big revolution game, and they showed up in the utilitarian costume of the revolution.
Obviously, they chose to ignore that warning, they thought it was beneath them, and now, they must take the consequences for their obvious insurrection against their university and against their country. The police cutting through them like a hot knife through butter was a good start, but only that: a start. They are likely to face far worse consequences, namely expulsion and a not-so-pleasant jaunt through New York's criminal justice system. It will be interesting to see if Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office lets them loose, as they do with so many actually violent criminals, or gives them the full Donald Trump prosecutorial treatment.
If it's the latter, we think they should welcome the experience. After all, by attending Columbia in the first place, they were paying huge amounts of tuition to a school they believed invested in genocide, and which was located on the stolen land of “Turtle Island.” They should have divested themselves from both Columbia and the United States, don'tcha think? We can only hope that both Columbia and the United States will see that it is better off without the presence of such would-be traitors and rebels staining such a school—and such a society—with their presence.
