-6

The motivation to this question is a news about Protesters Take On Settlements In ‘Biggest Ever Jewish-Led Protest’ Of AIPAC. A comment here, says:

"Group of foolish people ... Most of them don't even know the history of Israel and were mostly Muslim Jews ...".

I dont know who the Protesters are. Before this, I've also seen muslim Protesters that Protest against Iran, Arabs that Protest against Saudi, and so on.
This is like one say "real madrid fans were among barcelona fans and did that .

How can one realize a protest from a fake protest when one is not at the place?

Federico
  • 6,726
  • 4
  • 36
  • 58
user 1
  • 6,410
  • 28
  • 58

1 Answers1

7

First of, even if the protesters were largely non-Jewish (or Muslim Jews), it would not be a fake protest. It's still a real protest, which may have misrepresented itself or which has been misrepresented.

To find out what happens at events that you are not yourself present, you would generally use credible news reports, preferably from more than one organization, and possibly from organizations with different political leanings.

In this case, the JTA, Haaretz, Times Of Israel, and the Jerusalem Post are all reporting that the protest was coordinated by IfNotNow, which is described - and describes itself - as Jewish.

You can also check what political opponents write about the protest or the organization (note that the opponent should not be an anonymous commenter, but at an established organization). In this case, the right-wing FrontPageMag alleges not that the group is not really Jewish, but that it is connected to J Street.

tim
  • 37,031
  • 15
  • 102
  • 133
  • 1- *credible* news reports? isnt this a joke? 2- about "even if the protesters were largely non-Jewish (or Muslim Jews), it would not be a fake protest" I name it fake protest. u name it a protest which has been misrepresented; not important. 3- the last paragraph is helpful for me. – user 1 Mar 29 '17 at 12:52
  • 1
    @DavidBlomstrom Why not? They are legitimate newspapers (ok, maybe with the exception of the Times). You should really expand on your comment. – tim Mar 29 '17 at 13:16