3 ms·

Zionists benefit from antisemitism. It furthers the idea that Jews are only safe in Israel. It’s part of the reason they call everything antisemitism, it scares

Zionists benefit from antisemitism. It furthers the idea that Jews are only safe in Israel. It’s part of the reason they call everything antisemitism, it scares the diaspora and justifies the existence of Israel.

weatherlite 3y ago
[flagged]
tptacek 3y ago
They also call a lot of things antisemitic because they are antisemitic. The notion that Israel is an ethnically Euro-American colony is antisemitic (and racist), erasing the MENA origins of a plurality of its citizens. The notion that Jewish Americans are untrustworthy interlocutors because they have duel loyalties is antisemitic. Calls to "decolonize" Israel and to "globalize the Intifadah" are straightforward appeals to ethnic violence on civilians, just as "Palestinians had a right to self-defense against colonizers" is a straightforward excusal of an atrocity. This stuff is all over the place. Just today, the Harvard Faculty SJP chapter posted an old racist SNCC poster depicting a hand with a Star of David puppeteering two Black men. Nobody can deny that the concept of "antisemitism" is weaponized against critics of Israel. But at the same time, nobody can deny that many critics of Israel, or out ignorance or animus, weaponize antisemitism against Israel.
- Qem 3y ago
  On this conflation, I think the best discussion I read up to now was this: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shadow-of-the-holocaust https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shad...
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Like every other Masha Gessen piece, this is an engrossing read, and the Jerusalem Declaration is helpful: what I mean to say is that it's easy to come up with examples of Palestinian advocacy that are, according not just to the IHDRA definition but the Jerusalem Declaration, antisemitic.
- dtornabene 3y ago
  many many people can and do and correctly deny that "many critics of Israel" "weaponize antisemitism against Israel". Lots of weasel words on that post! Which just so happen to themselves de-legitimize very necessary criticism of both Zionism writ large and Israel itself! And calls to "globalize the Intifadah" are overwhelming about a popular revolution you know nothing about but love to post about with some very racist certainty. The intifadah was a popular revolution that caught much of the self anointed Palestinian leadership by surprise, and has been consistently criticized for selling it (the popular organizing committees) out for Oslo. This isn't particularly hidden and isn't some kind of wild take but in fact quite well understood outside of a media landscape that endlessly portrays all attempts at Palestinian self-determination as necessarily violent. I suggest maybe taking a step back from these threads, you are very clearly speaking about a thing you don't understand while and ongoing campaign of mass murder is being conducted and you are defending the murdering. That isn't a value statement, whatever downvoters may feel, its a fact.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Well, they have a losing argument, because it's easy to present clear evidence of antisemitism delivered by Palestinian advocates (just like it's easy to present Kahanist rhetoric from Israeli advocates). I gave an undeniable specific example from Harvard's faculty SJP. There is stuff being said that is indefensible, and angrily denying it isn't going to get you anywhere; it just discredits your cause.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dtornabene 3y ago
      I would suggest maybe not lecturing others on how to "help the cause" from a ycombinator thread in which you described the Intifada, a popular uprising that was nonviolent for years, including tax resistance and boycotts, as a dyed-in-the-wool-this-is-what-it-is "call to murder civilians". I think you either don't care or don't realize how much you don't know and are absolutely trotting out wide generalizations yourself that are the mirror image of antisemitism, directed at Palestinians. The Kahanist comparison is also an incredibly poor one given that a literal Kahanist (Ben-Gvir), who is on video waving the stolen hood ornament of Rabin's car, saying "we can get to Rabin", is now the minister in charge of national security and has handed out thousands of rifles to settlers, independent of the militia he was given by Netanyahu to not bring down the far right coalition. Seems a bit more important to me than clucking about a harvard faculty advisor to a student group, and especially wrapping that in "well it only hurts your side" message board rhetoric! Israeli soldiers fired on crowds queuing for food from aid trucks yesterday, again. Every single hospital in Gaza has been bombed with some utterly destroyed. You are welcome to snipe in these threads as much as you want but this is a thing you are pretty clearly out of your depth on and should devote some time, which I know you are able to do, to following up. That is simply the most charitable way I can put it.
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  For context, here is the newsletter that Harvard image was from: https://www.crmvet.org/docs/sv/6707_sncc_news-r.pdf https://www.crmvet.org/docs/sv/6707_sncc_news-r.pdf (page 4) Seems to me, given the text, that the image was depicting the hand as Israel. Poor choice imo but doesn’t reek of overt antisemitism.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    You're now at the point of sticking up for something even SJP has disavowed. And this isn't like my best example, it's just one fresh in my mind because it happened 2 days ago. Further, the idea that any symbol of Judaism is properly understood as support for Israel is itself prima facie antisemitic!
    - enterprise_cog 3y ago
      Posting context isn’t “sticking up” for it, unless you decide to interpret it less than charitably. The Star of David is on Israel’s flag and the official adopted symbol of Zionism.. The entire article was about Israel and Zionists. That you claim it is antisemitic is just another example of what I mentioned.

weatherlite 3y ago

[flagged]

tptacek 3y ago

They also call a lot of things antisemitic because they are antisemitic. The notion that Israel is an ethnically Euro-American colony is antisemitic (and racist), erasing the MENA origins of a plurality of its citizens. The notion that Jewish Americans are untrustworthy interlocutors because they have duel loyalties is antisemitic. Calls to "decolonize" Israel and to "globalize the Intifadah" are straightforward appeals to ethnic violence on civilians, just as "Palestinians had a right to self-defense against colonizers" is a straightforward excusal of an atrocity. This stuff is all over the place. Just today, the Harvard Faculty SJP chapter posted an old racist SNCC poster depicting a hand with a Star of David puppeteering two Black men. Nobody can deny that the concept of "antisemitism" is weaponized against critics of Israel. But at the same time, nobody can deny that many critics of Israel, or out ignorance or animus, weaponize antisemitism against Israel.

Qem 3y ago
On this conflation, I think the best discussion I read up to now was this: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shadow-of-the-holocaust https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shad...
- tptacek 3y ago
  Like every other Masha Gessen piece, this is an engrossing read, and the Jerusalem Declaration is helpful: what I mean to say is that it's easy to come up with examples of Palestinian advocacy that are, according not just to the IHDRA definition but the Jerusalem Declaration, antisemitic.
dtornabene 3y ago
many many people can and do and correctly deny that "many critics of Israel" "weaponize antisemitism against Israel". Lots of weasel words on that post! Which just so happen to themselves de-legitimize very necessary criticism of both Zionism writ large and Israel itself! And calls to "globalize the Intifadah" are overwhelming about a popular revolution you know nothing about but love to post about with some very racist certainty. The intifadah was a popular revolution that caught much of the self anointed Palestinian leadership by surprise, and has been consistently criticized for selling it (the popular organizing committees) out for Oslo. This isn't particularly hidden and isn't some kind of wild take but in fact quite well understood outside of a media landscape that endlessly portrays all attempts at Palestinian self-determination as necessarily violent. I suggest maybe taking a step back from these threads, you are very clearly speaking about a thing you don't understand while and ongoing campaign of mass murder is being conducted and you are defending the murdering. That isn't a value statement, whatever downvoters may feel, its a fact.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Well, they have a losing argument, because it's easy to present clear evidence of antisemitism delivered by Palestinian advocates (just like it's easy to present Kahanist rhetoric from Israeli advocates). I gave an undeniable specific example from Harvard's faculty SJP. There is stuff being said that is indefensible, and angrily denying it isn't going to get you anywhere; it just discredits your cause.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dtornabene 3y ago
    I would suggest maybe not lecturing others on how to "help the cause" from a ycombinator thread in which you described the Intifada, a popular uprising that was nonviolent for years, including tax resistance and boycotts, as a dyed-in-the-wool-this-is-what-it-is "call to murder civilians". I think you either don't care or don't realize how much you don't know and are absolutely trotting out wide generalizations yourself that are the mirror image of antisemitism, directed at Palestinians. The Kahanist comparison is also an incredibly poor one given that a literal Kahanist (Ben-Gvir), who is on video waving the stolen hood ornament of Rabin's car, saying "we can get to Rabin", is now the minister in charge of national security and has handed out thousands of rifles to settlers, independent of the militia he was given by Netanyahu to not bring down the far right coalition. Seems a bit more important to me than clucking about a harvard faculty advisor to a student group, and especially wrapping that in "well it only hurts your side" message board rhetoric! Israeli soldiers fired on crowds queuing for food from aid trucks yesterday, again. Every single hospital in Gaza has been bombed with some utterly destroyed. You are welcome to snipe in these threads as much as you want but this is a thing you are pretty clearly out of your depth on and should devote some time, which I know you are able to do, to following up. That is simply the most charitable way I can put it.
enterprise_cog 3y ago
For context, here is the newsletter that Harvard image was from: https://www.crmvet.org/docs/sv/6707_sncc_news-r.pdf https://www.crmvet.org/docs/sv/6707_sncc_news-r.pdf (page 4) Seems to me, given the text, that the image was depicting the hand as Israel. Poor choice imo but doesn’t reek of overt antisemitism.
- tptacek 3y ago
  You're now at the point of sticking up for something even SJP has disavowed. And this isn't like my best example, it's just one fresh in my mind because it happened 2 days ago. Further, the idea that any symbol of Judaism is properly understood as support for Israel is itself prima facie antisemitic!
  - enterprise_cog 3y ago
    Posting context isn’t “sticking up” for it, unless you decide to interpret it less than charitably. The Star of David is on Israel’s flag and the official adopted symbol of Zionism.. The entire article was about Israel and Zionists. That you claim it is antisemitic is just another example of what I mentioned.