The Palestine protesters have created a dream Palestine that is almost entirely disconnected from the real place, in which all of their fantasies of a perfect society are realized.
Most weebs don't actually want to live in Japan. They want to live in a local subculture of their own creation, whose values are based on gentleness and romance -- the ideals that attracted them to Japanese fantasies and made those fantasies resonate.
Similarly, most Palestine protesters would never live in the actual Palestine, no matter how "free". They want to live in a subculture of their own creation, whose values are based on revolution and resistance -- the ideals that attracted them to the Palestinian cause.
Their half-implicit fantasy of Palestine is not of a reactionary populace locked in a grubby zero-sum ethnic battle with its neighbor. It's of a permanent protest encampment that is forever resisting and rebelling against injustice. That's the place they want to live.
This is why they see Palestine as an omnicause -- a neverending resistance movement against capitalism, the West, climate change, homophobia, transphobia, etc. If your fantasy is of permanent struggle, you never want to run out of things to struggle against.
Fukuyama was right, of course. There are some people who want to struggle -- not to overcome things, but because the feeling of struggle itself is a lifestyle and a way of building community and identity. And they will build that community by struggling against whatever ya got.
I think for most of these folks, it's less about the desire to fight the power, and more about the desire to A) feel like a person who fights the power, and B) build community with other similar people. Identity and community are deep-seated, universal human needs.
And I think this is important. Online life devoured many subcultures and killed a lot of in-person interaction, and young people want that back.
Comparisons between the Cultural Revolution and the Woke Era get laughed at. The Woke Era didn't use violence, of course. But the *motivation* of people wanting to overturn social hierarchies, especially students wanting to overturn academic hierarchies, is recognizably similar.
In 2010s America, there was a widespread desire to overturn local social hierarchies -- the classroom authority of teachers and professors, the cultural power of entertainment stars, the authority of nonprofit execs and heads of civic organizations.
In 1960s China, overturning local hierarchies happened via physical mob violence. In 2010, it happened through online mobs destroying people's reputations on social media. Obviously, the second is far preferable to the first. This is why economic development is good!
1. They engender material equality more efficiently than any other economic intervention, and
2. They create an equality of respect, through the habit of mutual use.
Although rich people may pay more for a train or a park, when they ride the train or walk in the park, they are equal in social status to everyone else on the train or in the park.
This creates a feeling of equality throughout society.
1/Here's a thread in which the Economist's Mike Bird tries to rebut my recent post about decoupling. I think this thread is useful for understanding why the doubters are making the mistakes that they're making.
The reason Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza is bad isn't because civilian casualties are never acceptable when fighting against evil, but because bombing Gaza seems like it will not actually do much to eliminate Hamas, and will simply kill civilians for no purpose.
"The Allies leveled German cities, Hamas are as bad as Nazis, thus it's OK to level Gaza" ignores the fact that even if strategic bombing had been as effective as people thought (note: it wasn't), leveling Gaza will not produce a WW2-like outcome.
"The ends don't justify the means" should apply to the actual outcome, not just the goal you have in your head.
If the outcome is "everyone just keeps on hating each other and fighting forever", then no, the ends do not justify the means.