Aggressive protest methods may alienate moderates, and make for less effective movements

Daniel Miksha

Over the past year, persistent protests played out on McGill campus in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Though smashed windows, encampments, and sod-pulling make headlines, some of these protest tactics alienate more politically moderate members of the McGill community, resulting in a weaker activist movement overall. 

I suspect a large block of the student body is passive with regards to pro-Palestinian groups on campus not due to a lack of sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians, but because they’re uncomfortable with the way protests in solidarity with Palestine are conducted.

To earn the support of moderates and form a more impactful political force, activists need to explicitly centre the humanitarian destruction wreaked by Israel’s campaign in Gaza, and be wary of using actions and language that can be misinterpreted or make people defensive.

Slogans like ‘Globalize the Intifada’ and ‘All the Zionists are Terrorists’ do not communicate the fact that the IDF killed at least 13,000 Gazan children since Oct. 7 of last year, nor the fact that Gaza has the highest rate of infant malnutrition globally. For many, the messaging associated with campus protests can either be impenetrable or easy to misconstrue. By contrast, messaging that highlights the gravity of the human suffering unfolding in Palestine appeals directly to the conscience.

Furthermore, being a McGill student is a significant part of a diverse set of students’ identities, and activists should capitalize on the fact that our identity as McGillians unites us. Instead of chalking slogans like ‘McKKKill’ on the Roddick Gates, bringing some students’ identities as McGillians inadvertently under threat, activists should use slogans like ‘McGillians united for Palestine’.

If activists want to build the popular support needed to produce tangible change, they need to meet students where they’re at. Potentially divisive slogans need to be swapped for precise messaging, and opaque ideological language needs to give way to simple appeals to humanity. When so many lives are at stake, it’s irresponsible to risk alienating people sympathetic to the cause

Disruption is the essence of effective protest

Yusur Al-Sharqi

The argument that confrontational protest tactics alienate moderates assumes that the approval of the politically passive should dictate activism. But how many of these so-called moderates were engaging with the cause before disruptive protests took centre stage?

Pro-Palestinian activists at McGill and broader Montreal have engaged in peaceful resistance for years, holding demonstrations, raising funds, and organizing educational events. The encampment is a prime example. If peaceful and palatable messaging were enough, the killing of over 30,000 Palestinians—including more than 13,000 children—would have already moved institutions and “moderates” to action. Instead, universities like McGill remain complicit, continuing partnerships with weapons manufacturers and refusing to disclose investments, and “moderate” students continue to disengage.  It seems to me that the discomfort that “moderates”  feel is not a discomfort with protest tactics but an apathy to human suffering—otherwise, they would be at the fundraisers, marches, and book talks.

The debate over protest tactics for Palestine is not new, especially within the Arab community. Many Palestinians themselves reject aggressive demonstrations, often out of fear of reinforcing stereotypes or alienating potential allies. But history—and the present—shows that moderation has rarely been enough to achieve justice. Anti-apartheid activists were criticized for being dangerous. Suffragettes were labelled extremists. Yet in every case, history vindicated those who refused to cater to the sensitivities of the “neutral.”

Realistically, the protestors’ goal is to catch the attention of McGill’s Board of Governors and emphasize the urgency of the issue—not necessarily to persuade the majority of students to support their cause. In fact, numbers don’t seem to be a problem at all: The SSMU Policy Against Genocide secured the support of 71 per cent of student voters and saw the highest voter turnout of any SSMU election in recent history.

Some experts argue that, once initial outrage fades, aggressive protest tactics end up receiving the most attention and subsequently result in action. I don’t condone violence, but I think it’s cowardly to continue prioritizing the protection of buildings over the lives of thousands of people. As The Tribune has written before, “Student protest is meant to disrupt the status quo,” and at some point, demanding attention through disruption is necessary.

McGill’s administration will not change when students politely ask. It will change when its normal functioning is made impossible. Activists do not need to “meet students where they’re at” when where they’re at is a place of inaction.