Right wing authoritarianism isn’t subtle.
edit:
added context:
Here is what Ben is replying to:
Pro-Palestinian protesters a part of a group called “𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” vandalized a historic painting of Arthur James Balfour at Trinity College Cambridge in England.
Arthur Balfour wrote the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when he was serving as the British Foreign Minister. The letter expressed Britain's support for a Jewish Homeland in what is now Israel.
Direct link(should work for a bit): https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1766117900644151296/vid/avc1/720x1280/pQDXaeuPY2vYbJdX.mp4?tag=14
Added context.
With direct link to video.
Thanks!
Gotta say destroying art, especially historic, is a pretty shitty thing to do. It's literally irreplaceable.
Edit: Oh, I should add that I still can't see the posts on twitter itself. Not sure what their settings are like for non-users these days though, but it looks like it should be there. None of the posts I can see have that format either, with the "breaking news" heading and red light emoticon.
Looking at it from the protestors view:
Protesting the genocide happening: 30,000+ dead
Are Palestinians replaceable as well...
Okay, but what actual reason is there to weigh the two against each other. Destroying art has no actual benefit towards effecting change in Gaza.
I think the protestors wanted backlash and social media coverage.
Again to highlight the genocide in Palestine.
I was able to find this:
https://www.palestineaction.org/lord-balfour-painting/
These protests have actually made me less sympathetic to Palestine, not more so. Destroying property, in particular irreplaceable artwork, is not something I can accept under any circumstances.
If destruction of a painting done in 1914 and hanging in a university of a man responsible for oppression in Ireland and the current Middle East crisis (a known racist and anti-semite that passed the Aliens Act of 1905) makes you less sympathetic to ~600,000 starving people and 30,000 dead people then were you actually sympathetic to begin with?
Given this conflict started with the Palestinian government launching a military raid with the purpose of outright murdering civilians, not really.
That's patently false. The conflict started with the rise of Zionism in the early 20th century fuelled by anti-semitism; wanting Jewish people out of Europe. This led to the Balfour deceleration in 1917, which caused an uprising in Palestine with people demanding an independent homeland. The British crushed this uprising. Then the UN backed a plan in 1947 to give Palestine to Jewish settlers which caused the 1948 war which led to mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland (whom have not been allowed to return since) and the creation of the Gaza ghetto. Every year, more land is taken in what has been called a "Salami" invasion (i.e. one small slice at a time) in Gaza and the West Bank, forcing people into worse and worse conditions in the world's largest open-air prison.
Furthermore, Hamas was not elected. There haven't been elections in Gaza since 2006. The median age in the strip is 18, meaning most of its population wasn't even born when Hamas took power. It is simply the largest gang in the prison.
This is the latest chapter in an incredibly sad story, not the start of it. In fact, just before the Hamas attack, Israel opened fire on unarmed protestors at the boarder. Literally a week before the attack.
Who won that election again?
If more than 50% of your population wasn't born during the last election, no one elected you. If there hasn't been an election for 18 years, no one elected you. If you took power via an armed coup to dissolve the unity government (Battle of Gaza, 2007) no one elected you.
NOTE: Gaza as a distinct political entity did not exist during the last election in 2006
Says a lot that people are wringing their hands over this painting so much