NYC high school "riots" over pro Israel teacher

[lfromnj]

https://nypost.com/2023/11/25/metro/jewish-teacher-hides-in-queens-high-school-as-students-riot/

About 25 NYPD cops raced to the school to quell the disturbance, principal Scott Milczewski told parents. Administrators placed the school in a “soft lockdown,” activating a team of staffers and safety agents trained to handle emergencies.

The NYPD not only sent a couple dozen cops to restore order, but tapped its counterterrorism bureau to investigate a possible threat against the school, according to City Councilman James Gennaro (D-Queens), citing officials.

The mayhem at Hillcrest High School in Jamaica unfolded shortly after 11 a.m. Monday in what students called a pre-planned protest over the teacher’s Facebook profile photo showing her at a pro-Israel rally on Queens Oct. 9 holding a poster saying, “I stand with Israel.”

“The teacher was seen holding a sign of Israel, like supporting it,” a senior told The Post this week.

“A bunch of kids decided to make a group chat, expose her, talk about it, and then talk about starting a riot.”

Hundreds of kids flooded into hallways and ran amok, chanting, jumping, shouting, and waving Palestinian flags or banners.

...

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Sounds like it was handled appropriately by the authorities. There are going to have to be some harsh lessons taught about the meaning of "hate crime" and "Terrorism" before things like this and the firebombing attempt in New Hampshire quiet down.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Three things need to happen :

1. Ban TikTok now

2. suspend these kids and make the suspension pretty harsh

3. Start actually teaching what Islamists who control Palestine want to do

[Fuzzy Bear]

Are these people citizens?  If not, are they appropriate to remain in this country?

We don't throw people in jail for advocating reprehensible ideas (e. g. Nazism, Stalinism, Ethnic Cleansing) unless they act out violently on such ideas.  We DO, however, not allow adherents to all sorts of abhorrent ideologies into our Country in the first place, and we kick them out when we find out we've been had.  We didn't knowingly allow Nazis into the US after WWII and we have expelled those that we later found out were Nazis and turned over to authorities those accused of War Crimes.  We don't allow Stalinists into America as Guest Lecturers.  We don't allow open Islamic Jihadists into America who consider us the Great Satan and wish our destruction.

If a foreigner is in this country and advocates the destruction of Israel to the point where they harass and intimidate (let alone commit violence ageings) Jews in America, most of whom are citizens, should such people remain here if they are not citizens?  If they ARE citizens, but they are pro-Hamas, but denied it on their application for entry into the United States and their applications for citizenship, is denaturalization not in order?  We've done it for other Nazis and Bolsheviks; why should we not do it for Hamas supporters and open Jihadists?  

If these people are citizens, they need to go to jail.  They need to be removed from public high schools, period.  The "From the River to the Sea!" crowd needs to be shown, forcibly, that "We don't do this here!".

[Ferguson97]

We didn't knowingly allow Nazis into the US after WWII

Oh wow, I'm about to blow your mind. Google "Operation Paperclip".

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

If these people are citizens, they need to go to jail.  They need to be removed from public high schools, period.  The "From the River to the Sea!" crowd needs to be shown, forcibly, that "We don't do this here!".

This school seems to be in a mostly black area. Should the kids who are African American native born US citizens also be put in prison and removed from public high schools too?

[Fuzzy Bear]

We didn't knowingly allow Nazis into the US after WWII

Oh wow, I'm about to blow your mind. Google "Operation Paperclip".

I'm well aware of Operation Paperclip; of folks such as Werner Von Braun and other German scientists.  I'm aware of the controversies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Before his official approval of the program, President Truman was indecisive about it for sixteen months.[13] Years later in 1963, Truman recalled that he was not in the least reluctant to approve Paperclip; that because of relations with the Soviet Union "this had to be done and was done".[51] Several of the Paperclip scientists were later investigated because of their links with the Nazi Party during the war. Only one Paperclip scientist, Georg Rickhey, was formally tried for any crime, and no Paperclip scientist was found guilty of any crime, in the United States or Germany. Rickhey was returned to Germany in 1947 to stand at the Dora Trial, where he was acquitted.[52]

In 1951, weeks after his U.S. arrival, Walter Schreiber was linked by the Boston Globe to human experiments conducted by Kurt Blome at Ravensbrück; he emigrated to Argentina with the aid of the U.S. military.[53]

In 1984, Arthur Rudolph, under perceived threat of prosecution relating to his connection – as operations director for V-2 missile production – to the use of forced labor from Mittelbau-Dora at the Mittelwerk, renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to West Germany, which granted him citizenship.[54] Von Braun was investigated in 1961 for his involvement in the Nazi party as an SS member. The FBI concluded that he had joined the Nazi Party solely to advance his academic career and to avoid imprisonment.[55]

For 50 years, from 1963 to 2013, the Strughold Award – named after Hubertus Strughold, The Father of Space Medicine, for his central role in developing innovations like the space suit and space life support systems – was the most prestigious award from the Space Medicine Association, a member organization of the Aerospace Medical Association.[56] On October 1, 2013, in the aftermath of a Wall Street Journal article published on December 1, 2012, which highlighted his connection to human experiments during WWII, the Space Medicine Association's executive committee announced that the Space Medicine Association Strughold Award had been retired.[56][57]

"Operation Paperclip" was used to take advantage of the intellectual and scientific resources these individuals provided given that we were then in an arms race against the USSR.  Individuals such as Von Braun joined the Nazi Party to not be arrested and to continue their research.  Only one of these individuals was charged with a War Crime, and he was acquitted.  Furthermore, these people were not going about America, starting neo-Nazi groups, advocating a Fascist reunification of Germany, etc.  They were here for America's benefit, and there is a difference between people that America has a need for and people who bring nothing here who need American more than America needs them.  

The last line certainly sounds harsh, but our immigration policies are supposed to be for the benefit of America and its citizens.  Foreigners don't have a right to come here, and we can exclude them for pretty much any reason we choose, including demographic concerns.  We certainly should not allow people into the US whose primary loyalty is to their tribe or former nation and who are not open to a republican form of government with democratic features that guarantees the individual liberties of individual citizens.  If these people doing what they are doing in sympathizing Hamas and harassing Jewish citizens of America, they are not cut out to be citizens of a country where individual liberties are paramount, and whose presence in America constitutes an obstacle to Civil Peace and the Rule of Law.

[Ferguson97]

Foreigners don't have a right to come here, and we can exclude them for pretty much any reason we choose, including demographic concerns. 

What is the non-racist explanation for what this means? What are your "demographic concerns"?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If these people are citizens, they need to go to jail.  They need to be removed from public high schools, period.  The "From the River to the Sea!" crowd needs to be shown, forcibly, that "We don't do this here!".

This school seems to be in a mostly black area. Should the kids who are African American native born US citizens also be put in prison and removed from public high schools too?

If they are violating criminal laws, then, yes, they should be subject to criminal penalties.  If these are high school students, they would likely be dealt with as juveniles, but inciting rioting is a crime.   And the students' actions went beyond what they did at the school; they sought to doxx this teacher and harass her at home.  That's more than "not OK"; those actions rise to the level of crimes.  

[Upper Canada Tory]

Three things need to happen :

1. Ban TikTok now

2. suspend these kids and make the suspension pretty harsh

3. Start actually teaching what Islamists who control Palestine want to do

Agreed.

[dead0man]

did these children learn how to "protest" from the "mostly peaceful" protests their older siblings participated in a few years ago?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Foreigners don't have a right to come here, and we can exclude them for pretty much any reason we choose, including demographic concerns.  

What is the non-racist explanation for what this means? What are your "demographic concerns"?

Not every society around the world is amenable to living in a republican form of government with democratic features.  Some societies are less amenable to this than others.  This is a fact.

I could care less about the skin color or race of anyone, period.  I care somewhat more about religious beliefs, but many religions whose beliefs I do not share have adherents whose belief systems do not conflict with liberal democracy, individual liberties, and a secular government.  There are, however, many groups in the world who are not amenable to these concepts, and not amenable to assimilating into American life.  And there are some nations whose entire populations hate America for different reasons.

The bottom line is this:  If we do not care to vet people on the basis of their suitability to assimilate into the kind of Republic with democratic features that we have, we will end up with a populace that would seek to vote out democracy, and install a tribalist regime.  An election does not make a democracy; after all, Iran and Lebanon have elections, but they are hardly democracies.  

I would also mention that it was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) that explicitly promised that the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act would not significantly affect the demography of America.  That, of course, has not proven true, but the race and color of immigrants ought not matter.  What people idd not imagine in 1965 was that we would, as a nation, be indifferent to an immigrant's unwillingness to assimilate, lack of enthusiasm for democracy and American institutions, and maintenance of preexisting national and tribal loyalties.  I consider the growing tribalism in America to be the biggest threat to democracy and freedom over time.  Immigration is only a part of that, but it's a part where we ought to deal with that before we become a nation that could not unite even superficially for a truly existential crisis like World War III.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Will these kids face any penalties or we can’t do that anymore?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

did these children learn how to "protest" from the "mostly peaceful" protests their older siblings participated in a few years ago?

Honestly has more in common with the Evergreen riots of 2017, where a campus Red Cadre put a hit out on the head of Professor Bret Weinstein.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Foreigners don't have a right to come here, and we can exclude them for pretty much any reason we choose, including demographic concerns.  

What is the non-racist explanation for what this means? What are your "demographic concerns"?

Not every society around the world is amenable to living in a republican form of government with democratic features.  Some societies are less amenable to this than others.  This is a fact.

I could care less about the skin color or race of anyone, period.  I care somewhat more about religious beliefs, but many religions whose beliefs I do not share have adherents whose belief systems do not conflict with liberal democracy, individual liberties, and a secular government.  There are, however, many groups in the world who are not amenable to these concepts, and not amenable to assimilating into American life.  And there are some nations whose entire populations hate America for different reasons.

The bottom line is this:  If we do not care to vet people on the basis of their suitability to assimilate into the kind of Republic with democratic features that we have, we will end up with a populace that would seek to vote out democracy, and install a tribalist regime.  An election does not make a democracy; after all, Iran and Lebanon have elections, but they are hardly democracies.  

I would also mention that it was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) that explicitly promised that the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act would not significantly affect the demography of America.  That, of course, has not proven true, but the race and color of immigrants ought not matter.  What people idd not imagine in 1965 was that we would, as a nation, be indifferent to an immigrant's unwillingness to assimilate, lack of enthusiasm for democracy and American institutions, and maintenance of preexisting national and tribal loyalties.  I consider the growing tribalism in America to be the biggest threat to democracy and freedom over time.  Immigration is only a part of that, but it's a part where we ought to deal with that before we become a nation that could not unite even superficially for a truly existential crisis like World War III.

Your name-calling is ridiculous.

We took folks from "Operation Paperclip" because they had something we need, which was scientific expertise.  We did not take Nazi collaborators in, and we (rightfully) expelled them when we found that they had lied.

We took in the most diverse group of immigrants to date the World had ever seen between 1940-1924.  They were groups diverse in language and culture, but they were willing to be assimilated into American life and American institutions.  By 1950, the job of assimilating all of these people was complete.

We insisted, however, that these folks become Americans, particularly in understanding and subscribing to our form of government and our individual liberties.  We demanded that ethnic and tribal loyalties be severed; that, henceforth, the new citizens have only one national loyalty - to the United States of America.

Immigration to America ought to be a benefit to American citizens.  If it's not a benefit to American citizens, we should close our borders.  This is a prerogative for other nations, and it is a prerogative we should not give up.  We are our own gatekeepers, and we ought to be.

[It’s so Joever]

Foreigners don't have a right to come here, and we can exclude them for pretty much any reason we choose, including demographic concerns.  

What is the non-racist explanation for what this means? What are your "demographic concerns"?

Not every society around the world is amenable to living in a republican form of government with democratic features.  Some societies are less amenable to this than others.  This is a fact.

I could care less about the skin color or race of anyone, period.  I care somewhat more about religious beliefs, but many religions whose beliefs I do not share have adherents whose belief systems do not conflict with liberal democracy, individual liberties, and a secular government.  There are, however, many groups in the world who are not amenable to these concepts, and not amenable to assimilating into American life.  And there are some nations whose entire populations hate America for different reasons.

The bottom line is this:  If we do not care to vet people on the basis of their suitability to assimilate into the kind of Republic with democratic features that we have, we will end up with a populace that would seek to vote out democracy, and install a tribalist regime.  An election does not make a democracy; after all, Iran and Lebanon have elections, but they are hardly democracies.  

I would also mention that it was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) that explicitly promised that the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act would not significantly affect the demography of America.  That, of course, has not proven true, but the race and color of immigrants ought not matter.  What people idd not imagine in 1965 was that we would, as a nation, be indifferent to an immigrant's unwillingness to assimilate, lack of enthusiasm for democracy and American institutions, and maintenance of preexisting national and tribal loyalties.  I consider the growing tribalism in America to be the biggest threat to democracy and freedom over time.  Immigration is only a part of that, but it's a part where we ought to deal with that before we become a nation that could not unite even superficially for a truly existential crisis like World War III.

Immediately after WW2, Germany was a country which had ravaged liberal democracies across Europe, systemically genocided millions of minorities, and was known for having a long existing militant culture. Don’t even talk about “culture” when your own dumb*ss argument could have been used in this case.
We get it, you are a vile racist with contempt for a good chunk of god’s children.

Your name-calling is ridiculous.

We took folks from "Operation Paperclip" because they had something we need, which was scientific expertise.  We did not take Nazi collaborators in, and we (rightfully) expelled them when we found that they had lied.

We took in the most diverse group of immigrants to date the World had ever seen between 1940-1924.  They were groups diverse in language and culture, but they were willing to be assimilated into American life and American institutions.  By 1950, the job of assimilating all of these people was complete.

We insisted, however, that these folks become Americans, particularly in understanding and subscribing to our form of government and our individual liberties.  We demanded that ethnic and tribal loyalties be severed; that, henceforth, the new citizens have only one national loyalty - to the United States of America.

Immigration to America ought to be a benefit to American citizens.  If it's not a benefit to American citizens, we should close our borders.  This is a prerogative for other nations, and it is a prerogative we should not give up.  We are our own gatekeepers, and we ought to be.

Okay now you are going on this vague talking point tirade that doesn’t address the fact you literally have nothing to source your “demographic concern” claim and were rightfully called out on it. We all want a beneficial immigration system, and that’s why it is important people like you remain shaking their fists at the clouds while we bring in talent to benefit our country.

Also the same s**t happened with the “model assimilators” you talk about. Italian immigrants fought heavily for Italian interests as did Germans, Irish, etc. Heck they even formed mafias that make todays gangs look like little kids who would go around terrorizing the public and outright subverting democracy in many cases. (Oh and they did commit a few terrorist attacks) We had people like Fuzzy call for their removal as well, and then guess what? They assimilated like anyone with a brain could predict. Same story here.

[RilakkuMAGA]

Ah surely the NY Post and all the people calling on mass deportations for nonwhites can be trusted to give a fair and accurate account of what the nonwhite youth they clearly hate are doing.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

95%.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I am scared for the future of the country. It would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but ever since the Trump years it seems like the default position of some on the left is to harass those who disagree with whatever the "trendy position of the day" is. It's very hypocritical considering that most of these people are the ones that talk about how democracy must be preserved. Actions speak louder than words.

[It’s so Joever]

I am scared for the future of the country. It would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but ever since the Trump years it seems like the default position of some on the left is to harass those who disagree with whatever the "trendy position of the day" is. It's very hypocritical considering that most of these people are the ones that talk about how democracy must be preserved. Actions speak louder than words.

With any luck, the idiot kids here will be disciplined properly. This is out of line for a scholarly environment.

[Alben Barkley]

I am scared for the future of the country. It would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but ever since the Trump years it seems like the default position of some on the left is to harass those who disagree with whatever the "trendy position of the day" is. It's very hypocritical considering that most of these people are the ones that talk about how democracy must be preserved. Actions speak louder than words.

If you want to be scared even more, read this article:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/free-speech-is-in-trouble

[RilakkuMAGA]

I am scared for the future of the country. It would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but ever since the Trump years it seems like the default position of some on the left is to harass those who disagree with whatever the "trendy position of the day" is. It's very hypocritical considering that most of these people are the ones that talk about how democracy must be preserved. Actions speak louder than words.

If you want to be scared even more, read this article:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/free-speech-is-in-trouble

I can't garner any fear or outrage when every centrist liberal boomer, when not crying over cancel culture, wants to impoverish anyone who utters anything even vaguely sympathetic to Palestine.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Foreigners don't have a right to come here, and we can exclude them for pretty much any reason we choose, including demographic concerns.  

What is the non-racist explanation for what this means? What are your "demographic concerns"?

Not every society around the world is amenable to living in a republican form of government with democratic features.  Some societies are less amenable to this than others.  This is a fact.

I could care less about the skin color or race of anyone, period.  I care somewhat more about religious beliefs, but many religions whose beliefs I do not share have adherents whose belief systems do not conflict with liberal democracy, individual liberties, and a secular government.  There are, however, many groups in the world who are not amenable to these concepts, and not amenable to assimilating into American life.  And there are some nations whose entire populations hate America for different reasons.

The bottom line is this:  If we do not care to vet people on the basis of their suitability to assimilate into the kind of Republic with democratic features that we have, we will end up with a populace that would seek to vote out democracy, and install a tribalist regime.  An election does not make a democracy; after all, Iran and Lebanon have elections, but they are hardly democracies.  

I would also mention that it was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) that explicitly promised that the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act would not significantly affect the demography of America.  That, of course, has not proven true, but the race and color of immigrants ought not matter.  What people idd not imagine in 1965 was that we would, as a nation, be indifferent to an immigrant's unwillingness to assimilate, lack of enthusiasm for democracy and American institutions, and maintenance of preexisting national and tribal loyalties.  I consider the growing tribalism in America to be the biggest threat to democracy and freedom over time.  Immigration is only a part of that, but it's a part where we ought to deal with that before we become a nation that could not unite even superficially for a truly existential crisis like World War III.

Immediately after WW2, Germany was a country which had ravaged liberal democracies across Europe, systemically genocided millions of minorities, and was known for having a long existing militant culture. Don’t even talk about “culture” when your own dumb*ss argument could have been used in this case.
We get it, you are a vile racist with contempt for a good chunk of god’s children.

Your name-calling is ridiculous.

We took folks from "Operation Paperclip" because they had something we need, which was scientific expertise.  We did not take Nazi collaborators in, and we (rightfully) expelled them when we found that they had lied.

We took in the most diverse group of immigrants to date the World had ever seen between 1940-1924.  They were groups diverse in language and culture, but they were willing to be assimilated into American life and American institutions.  By 1950, the job of assimilating all of these people was complete.

We insisted, however, that these folks become Americans, particularly in understanding and subscribing to our form of government and our individual liberties.  We demanded that ethnic and tribal loyalties be severed; that, henceforth, the new citizens have only one national loyalty - to the United States of America.

Immigration to America ought to be a benefit to American citizens.  If it's not a benefit to American citizens, we should close our borders.  This is a prerogative for other nations, and it is a prerogative we should not give up.  We are our own gatekeepers, and we ought to be.

Okay now you are going on this vague talking point tirade that doesn’t address the fact you literally have nothing to source your “demographic concern” claim and were rightfully called out on it. We all want a beneficial immigration system, and that’s why it is important people like you remain shaking their fists at the clouds while we bring in talent to benefit our country.

Also the same s**t happened with the “model assimilators” you talk about. Italian immigrants fought heavily for Italian interests as did Germans, Irish, etc. Heck they even formed mafias that make todays gangs look like little kids who would go around terrorizing the public and outright subverting democracy in many cases. (Oh and they did commit a few terrorist attacks) We had people like Fuzzy call for their removal as well, and then guess what? They assimilated like anyone with a brain could predict. Same story here.

These groups assimilated well because our government expected them to.  We don't do that now, and you're kidding yourself if you think that is the case.  That's especially true of the crowd that is crashing our borders and entering illegally nowadays, and in record numbers.

And, no, non-citizens who commit crimes in America should not be allowed to stay.  They should be removed.  Lots of Mafia members were deported back to Italy after their convictions.  Alvin Karpis was deported to Canada after completing his sentence.  The majority of those Italian immigrants were proud to be Americans, and they fought Fascism in WWII, as did German-Americans, regardless of their pre-war politics.  Again:  This is because we required them to assimilate. 

I know it's almost a ridiculous idea here, but we are not a "Nation of Immigrants"; we are a Nation of CITIZENS, and we ought to remain that way.  The events that form basis of this thread clearly show a critical breakdown in that concept.  CITIZENSHIP is something that bestows both rights and responsibilities that non-citizens do not share in.  That, too, is a concept that seems to have broken down.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

“The teacher was seen holding a sign of Israel, like supporting it,” a senior told The Post this week.

“A bunch of kids decided to make a group chat, expose her, talk about it, and then talk about starting a riot.”

The children are the problem.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Does anyone have any actual sources for this "riot" beyond a foreign oligarch-owned propaganda rag?