In April 1967, editors at the NYT decided to lecture Martin luther King on his anti-war stance.

It begins by lecturing King that his condemnation of U.S. militarism is far too simplistic: “the moral issues in Vietnam are less clear cut than he suggests.” It accuses him of “slandering” the U.S. by comparing it to evil regimes. And it warns him that anti-war activism could destroy the civil rights movement, because he is guilty of overstating American culpability and downplaying those of its enemies:

MLK and the anti-war protestors were on the right side of history, but being wrong has never stopped the pro-war crowd. Long after the end of the Vietnam War they continued to try to rewrite history. Instead of the anti-war protests being led and organized by the Vietnam veterans, they tried to portray the peace movement as being anti-veteran.

Even during the most fervent days of anti-war protest, it seemed that it was not the soldiers whom protesters were maligning. It was the leaders of government, and the top generals—at least, that is how it seemed in memory. One of the most popular chants during the anti-war marches was, "Stop the war in Vietnam, bring the boys home." You heard that at every peace rally in America. "Bring the boys home." That was the message. Also, when one thought realistically about the image of what was supposed to have happened, it seemed questionable. So-called "hippies," no matter what else one may have felt about them, were not the most macho people in the world. Picture a burly member of the Green Berets, in full uniform, walking through an airport. Now think of a "hippie" crossing his path. Would the hippie have the nerve to spit on the soldier? And if the hippie did, would the soldier—fresh from facing enemy troops in the jungles of Vietnam—just stand there and take it?

This is all before my time, but I was an active part of the anti-war movement in 2002-2003 and the NYT continued to lead the smearing.

A June 12 op-ed in the New York Times made a bold accusation: anti-war activists have targeted funerals of Iraq War soldiers with noisy protests. But evidence to back up that charge is nonexistent.

The author of the piece, writer Karen Spears Zacharias, recounted an interview with a war widow who said that “antiwar protesters… lined the streets across from the service… carried signs and… shouted as her husband’s flag-draped coffin was carried past.” Zacharias expanded on this claim when she wrote of the “hundreds of anti-war protestors who appear at military hospitals and funerals.”

What can we learn from all of this? That the anti-war protestors were on the right side of history and right side of justice, but the other side will never give up on trying to roll back history. Right now that fight is being played out on U.S. campuses.

Supporters of Israel’s war, including the Israeli government itself, have hysterically labeled the protests — overwhelmingly comprised of students sitting in place and talking, sometimes dancing, often featuring large numbers of Jewish students — “terrorism,” “pogroms,” “riots,” and “mobs” seeking to destroy the country and that have led Jews to flee its borders.
One particularly histrionic war supporter has claimed in the Times of Israel that what’s happening on campuses “is 1938,” meaning Kristallnacht, when Nazis rampaged through Jewish neighborhoods lynching people and destroying homes, places of worship, and businesses.

This is all a joke, of course. There has been no violence, except that committed by the police that were called in to crush non-violent protests.
That the pro-Israel has gone to these extreme steps only shows that they have lost the debate, this includes both parties. The fact that the media flat out refuses to even mention the demands of the protestors, which is divestment by the universities, is evidence that they have nothing left. That's why they have turned to violence.