#say it with me: being anti-israel does not equal being antisemitic but thinking israel = jewish people does

[rabbitrah]

One of the frustrating things about many political leaders and Jewish organizations pushing this line of thinking that "anti-Zionism = antisemitism," is that many people will believe "Zionism=Judaism" and then make the leap that "more religious = more Zionist." I hadn't realized the extent of this until a family member, who is anti-zionist, said something that made it clear that he thinks that religious fervor/devotion/orthodoxy is the cause of Zionism and the genocide of the Palestinian people. THIS IS DANGEROUS FOR MANY REASONS.

First of all, it's incorrect. Haredim, or strictly orthodox Jews are MUCH LESS LIKELY to be Zionists. No group is a monolith and there are different groups with different stances, but the most outwardly devout religious communities in Israel are not Zionist, and instead are mostly non-Zionists (neutral, pragmatic), with a smaller minority being anti-Zionist (believe that the state of Israel should not exist).

With few exceptions, HAREDI MEN IN ISRAEL DO NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY. The majority of them never serve in the IDF and unlike other young people in Israel, their right as conscientious objectors is actually protected by law.

I know this is a very small and complicated part of a very large and complicated issue, but this is a clear example of how Judaism does not equal Zionism, especially at the more orthodox end of the spectrum.

We're stuck in this quagmire where

Jewish Zionists suggest that Judaism and Zionism are the same.

Non-jews who are also Zionists believe it

Non-jews who are anti-Zionists believe it

The desired result by Zionists is that anti-Zionism will be considered hate-speech and written into law.

The unintended result is an increase in legitimate antisemitism. Add to this the fact that Orthodox Jews who live outside Israel are more likely to be targets of antisemitism because they are more visibly Jewish, and I want to cry out to God at the unfairness of it all.

I probably didn't do this topic justice and I know there are many people who could say it better than me, but I haven't seen it said at all. I see people saying "anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism" but I didn't see the added explanation that orthodoxy is inversely correlated with Zionism, which I think is really important point.

#txt

[meyhew]

Very typical that you'd block me without saying anything or giving a good argument. But either way, I stand by what I said. Both things can be true that you can support the Palestinians without being antisemitic and support the Jewish/Israeli without being anti Palestine. And that's what the majority of these celebrities that you're so desperately trying to get cancelled are doing. I don't even know why you care so much what celebrities are saying or not saying, because like I said before, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. And the fact that you're okay with an entire race and a specific group suffering just because it's not your people being affected and because of corrupt politics says a lot more about you than it does about the people you're trying to get cancelled. But oh well, that's on you. I'm gonna keep enjoying my favorite celebrities and all the movies and TV shows they're in, because life's just too precious to cancel everyone over every little thing and to pass up watching good content just it features a celebrate that did something I didn't approve of. You're the one in the wrong, not anyone else.

i don’t care about what a celebrity says. it doesn’t change my mind, specifically, about a given situation. but a primary role of the celebrity for decades has been to influence public opinion. why else is israel offering to pay internet celebrities thousands of dollars a post if they say they’re standing with israel? why is israel offering to pay FOLLOWERS of those people if they go on livestreams and flood the comments with israeli flags? why else do businesses in half the US states have a loyalty clause to israel? celebrities are not just making art. regardless of what they say, whether they say anything at all, they are informing public opinion. this is not a new phenomenon and this is not me trying to cancel someone. if genocide is a “little thing” you can overlook because u want to watch a movie then by all means that’s a You problem. if i can withhold my dollar from going to someone who either only publicly supports israel for their own financial gain (which is beyond shameful) or actually genuinely believes israel is fighting the good fight (which is bigoted and also stupid), then i’m going to keep my fucking money. if i can convince even one other person to do the same, then i’m fucking going to do that. 

and tell me how. How can you be in support of palestine without opposing israel. israel≠jewish as many people have explained many times so i’m not getting into that bullshit with you. my hatred for israel has nothing to do with my feelings for jewish people as a whole, thousands of whom have flooded the streets to fight for palestinians. hundreds of whom stormed the US congress to fight for palestinians. if you want to think israel=judaism that’s again a You problem, i’m not falling for that. palestinians themselves are semites so we will not be going over an antisemitism lesson again. 

but tell me HOW you propose to give palestinians their dignity and their freedom without dismantling the israeli apartheid. you cannot complacently be in the middle of this when one side is carrying out actual genocide and the other side is asking to be allowed to live in their own fucking homes. israel is bombing mosques and churches and hospitals, where it knows thousands are sheltering and which is criminal to do even if there are no civilians inside, and you want to support israel equally? fuck you. withholding food and water and electricity and medical supplies, so that literal fucking children are being operated on in the dark without anesthesia and thousands are developing sepsis because they cannot be treated properly and women are taking pills to stop their periods because they have no access to menstrual products or clean water, which will inevitably lead to fertility problems (if they even survive that long), and 50,000 pregnant women are due to give birth very soon but have no means to do so safely and i could keep going because the horrors are endless. so how the fuck do you expect me to sympathize with the other side when it refuses to accept the hostages it claims to be committing all these atrocities for and when those same hostages debunk everything israeli media and western media (they're one and the same) have been trying to get people to believe and when it kills its own people as collateral damage because the intent is to annihilate palestinians at all cost. tell me. how do reconcile all of this in your shriveled heart and be on both sides of the issue. you cannot support both sides equally.

"You're the one in the wrong, not anyone else." say that individually to the 300,000 people in london and the 15,000 in sydney and 30,000 in chicago and 10,000 in brooklyn and 25,000 in los angeles and 7,000 in düsseldorf and 15,000 in paris and thousands upon thousands in other cities all across the globe who came out to stand with palestinians. tell every single one of us that we are wrong and you, a faceless motherfucker on tumblr dot com with an empty blog, are right. bitch.

#palestine #gaza #israel #tagging that wacko only bc tumblr is suppressing the palestine tag. as predicted #anonymous #answered

[archaeocommunologist]

I don't know what it is with Jewish Zionists (both overt and crypto). They really must think we're all stupid.

You see it with principaliteas, who made a flounce post a few weeks ago, complaining about the old canards of leftist antisemitism and those horrible anti-Zionists conflating Israel with Judaism (as if Zionists themselves are not the biggest perpetrators of this conflation, but that's another story!). She says all she's ever fought for is peace and equality, and that she's pro-Palestine, and what does she get in return? Nothing but violence and hatred from anti-Zionists, who of course don't actually care about Palestine and are just looking for an excuse to hate Jews (lol). She's so nice! She's pro-Palestine! She loves peace and puppies and sunshine!

But if you look in the notes of her post, what do you find? Overt Zionists. And they're fawning over her, saying how right she is and how awful those antisemites are and how they only hate her because she's a "threat to their narrative" and is "so clearly a humanitarian."

Does this clash at all with her self-conception, do you think? She loves to lecture the anti-Zionist movement about how important it is to weed out antisemitism, but does she give a fuck about the violent Zionist settler pukes stroking her ego? It doesn't seem like she does. And she's far from being the only "pro-Palestine Jew" who nonetheless seems to (mysteriously) have more sympathy for Jewish supremacist genocidaires than she does for anti-Zionists.

I honestly believe it's because they think we're all stupid. They think we can't understand the nuance of the topic. Sure, to a goy like me it may seem like principaliteas attracts violent settlers who support the IDF and buy into ludicrous Israeli propaganda whole-heartedly, but that's because I'm stupid and simply can't understand.

Contemptible! Contemptible.

#principaliteas #leftist antisemitism #Free Palestine #Death to Israel #i/p conflict

[hero-israel]

In defense of anti-Israel people, it doesn't seem the fairest to consider any of their political art to be antisemitic for showing the Star of David in a negative light (such as censoring, breaking, being stabbed, etc) when that *is* the only symbol for the State (save for stripes, which I've seen represented too but less). How else are they supposed to criticize it visually? You can only use Netanyahu as a strawman so many times. The institutional and historical issues are more extensive than him or anyone like him. The recent branding with the Star of David of a Palestinian by an Israeli cop (assuming that's true, which looks like it as far as I can tell) shows the symbol can be used for evil. We should maybe make some exceptions to what we might otherwise consider antisemitic. I'm reminded of a graphic novel I read called "Dictatorship: It's Easier Than You Think", which mostly sarcastically criticized and compared various historical regimes. I felt it was a little too biased in a lot of ways, but it made one point I find relevant here. It said that populist ideologies create symbols that represent large swathes of marginalized people so if you criticize that ideology you can be framed for being prejudiced. It talked about how the communist/Soviet symbol was hammer and sickle, representing workers, so if you opposed communism/Soviet Union/etc., they could just say you were classist. (I personally have more sympathy for communism/Soviet Union so I somewhat disagree but I believe you said you're more anti-communist than I am so this might be more agreeable to you). To pull this back to my main point, maybe it isn't fair to have a historically violent nation be able to always have the ability to attribute criticism of it to one of the world's oldest bigotries? Don't get me wrong, I am a Zionist and I do think there's value in Israel asserting itself as Jewish and representing Jews. Enough Jews get associated with Israel by antisemites when they have no affiliation with it or even oppose it, so there's not much real value in trying to separate. And I do believe criticism of Israel and Zionism crosses over into antisemitism more than critics would like to admit. But I'm just making a point about iconography here. I half-wish that Israel went with one of the earlier flag designs of the Menorah or Lion so iconography could be more clear-cut. But maybe it shouldn't be.

A few thoughts on this:

The menorah would be functionally identical to the Magen David in terms of potentially causing confusion / inspiring hate from critique. The lion just isn't as good, though YMMV

It isn't hard for cartoonists to caricature political leaders like Netanyahu, it is in fact their job, if you can call it that.

if someone can draw a Magen David, they can draw it in blue and put in the stripes to remove all doubt that they mean the modern political entity and not the human ethnic group / religion

I don't recall seeing as much specifically blood- and killing-oriented imagery around Muslim crescents. The flag of Pakistan has the crescent on it, people making a cartoon criticizing Pakistan would hopefully not leap to showing the crescent as a knife beheading someone

All things are not equal and the political artists just have to cope with that and work a little harder. It does make a difference that Jews are a persecuted, frequently-genocided group controlling such a tiny land area. If the hammer-and-sickle was only used as the flag symbol of North Korea, which was the only Korean country, and most ethnic Koreans lived there after having been wiped out everywhere else, maybe people would have to be more careful with how they negatively portrayed that symbol.

to reiterate point 1 - it is good that artists and activists should be expected to work hard to avoid bigotry in their critiques

#zionism #anti-zionism #israel #judaism #antisemitism #jumblr

[hartro-owns-my-heart-ro]

just to let you know, not trying to attack you or anything, spacelazarwolf is a zionist and has been repeatedly trying to shift the focus away from palestinians & blocked me over a post saying that if you are pro-israel or neutral don't interact so that is not necessarily the best place to support palestinians from

i appreciate you sharing this! with any ask like this, i understand you’re coming in good faith but want to deconstruct it and have a further discussion before i commit to the opinion change asked of me. these are my thoughts from my current research, though cause ive followed him for a while im not immune to bias.

he’s a zionist: broad and unhelpful accusation. in this post he’s stated his opinions on zionism and israel’s government, which definitely doesn’t seem like support.

he’s trying to shift focus from palestinians: he still posts a lot of palestinian support and does irl palestinian support too. be careful that you’re not viewing posts about judaism/antisemitism as an inherent detraction from palestine-posting more than any other topic of post is.

he blocked you after your post against ppl who are pro/neutral on israel: i cant confirm this as you haven’t shared the post (you’re not obligated to, it just means i can’t address it)

ok the rest is points i started thinking about while researching so debate is very welcome and appreciated: firstly whether an israel should exist in any capacity is a separate matter to the occupation and genocide of palestine (which obviously needs to stop and palestinians should have freedom and equality). i have fuckshit surface knowledge about both groups’ history in the region and how to do peaceful long term geopolitics, but a lot of people and groups who know more than me are advocating for both states to exist equally so i don’t want to outright reject the idea with my current level of knowledge. basically i don’t know enough to have opinions on what should happen to israel after a permanent ceasefire but it’s probably not as simple as israel ceasing to be and all becoming palestine (or whatever you would mean by anti-israel, that’s the thing about these labels they don’t communicate clear political beliefs). (also below is a group i saw whose plan for peace includes an israel alongside palestine, if you want to understand that proposal)

again i do not have all the facts and am open to being challenged on any of this, especially the last part as my understanding of the conflict’s history is still developing. this is just from my current research. my making this into a discussion isn’t meant to imply you’re acting in bad faith or necessarily wrong, just trying to be thorough in the validity of the accusations and remembering it’s possible either of us don’t know enough to be ‘pro/neutral/anti-israel’ beyond calling for palestinian equality and safety.

#ask to tag #anon if you did want to share the post/discuss further privately my DMs should be open #sorry if this is difficult to parse i can elaborate on anything

[narrie]

Centrists are Zionists be fr. If you’re not for Palestine, you’re aiding zionisism and genocide. I love your blog but sometimes I wonder how you can even like Harry given that he represents pretty much everything you rightfully don’t like.

see, i think u gotta be more careful with not making distinctions bc that's similar to the rhetoric ppl use to equal anti-israel = antisemitic and other bs. i think centrism in this case is cowardly and a cop-out without doubt, as well as willfully closing ur eyes to the very clear situation at hand - but some ppl also are more centrist with their positioning bc they have a job to lose for example. in terms of celebs i think 98% of statements and engagements were centrist tbh, as i said it's mostly about PR for these ppl, but then hozier got jumped for being centrist which i didn't get at all. i thought his statement was very pro-palestine, he shared resources, and it's not even the first time he's stood up for palestine either so idk what some ppl are expecting tbh, this is the best u'll get apart from kehlani. florence, who this message was originally about, did share a "violence from both sides is wrong" typa thing at first too but then she signed the artists for ceasefire letter and shared more pro-palestine stuff.

i don't think harry represents everything i don't like but i'm def a more critical fan of him than others bc of my own moral code etc. i know as a woc my views won't always line up with a rich white man - at the same time i also don't look up to celebrities as moral pillars or political figures tho. obvs i wouldn't support someone who's some far-right idiot or whatever but i also don't expect harry to have the exact same values as me and i'm also not like "oh harry posted about supporting koala babies, i'll do that now", like it's insane to me how there was a statistic that [insert percentage here] of young ppl registered to vote bc tswift posted about it, like i don't need a celeb to tell me that, u know what i mean? i think the stan war that some ppl made out of the israel/palestine situation the past few weeks has actually been very crude. for me personally it's more about how these celebs are using their platform rather than my fave singer posting 3 sentences about how killing children isn't right and that's enough activism for the year lol i don't need the validation that i'm "stanning the right person" but it is good for the movement when someone who has millions and millions of ppl following them, some who do look up to them and value their opinion (see: swifties who signed up for voting), bring awareness to the humanitarian emergency and repost important info/voices. especially in this case hollywood voices matter bc it does bother israel a lot, part of their pr has always been to include celebs to spread their propaganda (see: hailee steinfeld taking pictures with the idf). anyway atp i don't expect harry to say anything, at best it would be a very centrist take as well which it pretty much always is when harry dares to say smth (vote with kindness) and it is disappointing bc he has such a die hard fanbase, but i was more worried that he'd say smth very dumb tbh bc so many ppl around him are so openly pro-israel. his activism has always been lackluster at best and again, i'm personally not expecting him to be the spokesperson for every issue in the world or try look for that from him, but idt anyone can be apolitical in this climate and especially not when u built ur whole brand on kindness.

#ask #idk if any of this makes sense i'm very eh eh about the role of celebs in this discourse #which is why it took me so long to reply to this like i don't spend my energy on if xyz has said smth about this situation yet u know?

[haleviyah]

PoC was such a wasted concept of a movie. I mean the atmosphere, the costumes, the acting were so good, a cut above the rest of Christan medias, WHY it had to be gratuitous violent and (knowingly or not) antisemitic? The Jesus portrayed by Caviezel is my favourite but it would have been ten thousand better if Gibson didn't focused only on the Passion.

I will refute that.

For 2002-2004 Hollywood, the film was impressive. Mind you this film was written and finished before the Writer's Guild Strike of 2003! So it dodged a bullet to a degree, because think about it: If the film was written AFTER that strike (let's say 2008 or 2010), Gibson and the writers wouldn't have as much freedom with the script as they did between 1999-2002. Despite its religious hiccups and habits the film exposed the audience to Aramaic despite being broken and slow as according to some communities in the Middle East who have seen the film. Let's face it, Aramaic wouldn't have been introduced to Catholic communities in Latin and South America had it not been for Gibson's stubbornness.

As someone with rich Mexican and Roman Catholic heritage the film was a reminder to us on Pope John Paul II's plea to respect and honour the Jews. Remember, Latin America is staunchly sensitive to the Hebrews and we still have a generation that lived through both an anti-semitic pope and then suddenly transition to a pro-semitic pope whilst witnessing the birth of the State of Israel in 1948. Most of that generation believed apocalypse was upon them after hearing the news and prayed for penance. We literally thought we were screwed...

Now to answer your question: There is a saying in warfare

"You cannot pick your armies."

This aspect applies for major passion projects, and you have to work with what you have whilst divorcing slothful habits of being a begging chooser. Yes, Gibson is a piece of work but just because we so happen to disagree does not make me obligated to hate him as a person. I mean, who else can you think of that can rock the boat just as efficiently as the Aussie SOB can?

Franklin Graham? The dude failed witnessing to Japan.

Kirk Cameron? Too picky for his own good on his worst days, and has worse "anti-semetic" films under his belt ('Left Behind' Series).

Kendrick Brothers? Every other film is an unnecessary emotional parade.

Roma Downey? Too damn soft and probably has a man-made spine forged from "angel dust".

The reason why the film 'Passion of the Christ' had to be rough and gritty is to show people the precariousness of life - your decisions have consequences. Hell, my series "Rose of Sharon" is gruesome for the same reasons! Get mad at me too if you don't like gore because it's going to be in there (LMAO).

Regardless of the zeitgeist you are born into, your choices do have consequences, every action equals to an equal and opposite reaction and it's up you to either run from it or learn from it.

But when I take a step back and breathe from all this, the appendix of this is I'd rather stop answering questions about others' projects. I'm too tired to rant over something that cannot be changed. Begging for such is just as futile and counterproductive as constantly mourning over a family member resting.

I'd rather move forward.

I'd rather answer questions that focus on "Rose of Sharon" and where that is going to go. I mean we have so much planned the series that has yet to be shared. The series is more than rebellion against religion, it's a series that focuses on growth, coming out of your comfort zone, healing, and most of all knowing and accepting who you ought to be rather than caving into what others want you to be. And we do need a message like that these days where peer pressure is seen as "G-d's will". The series is a unique hybrid that has only peaked its dorsal fin, but I want to share more when it's time!

I want people to have fun with "Rose of Sharon", and also to walk away with something relatable at least.

Joshua (Yehoshua) is in no way trying to trump the "Yeshua" from PoC, nor belittle "Jesus" from "The Bible Series", nor replace "The Prince of Peace" commission my Akiane despite his design being made to defy or play around with such ideas. He's an individual that is living and breathing in a way that astoundingly leaves people guessing where he is going to go for once. He's unpredictable in a healthy way for once since this series launched in 2016. And I believe Josh and the entire project of RoS would work best when not being compared so much to other projects so early in development. I mean, such a habit nearly killed the project in the begging and I respectively would rather not repeat that mistake in 2023 or beyond.

#q n a #question and answer #christian #catholic #media #film #passion of the christ #rose of sharon

[damianogender]

these people are unarmed and defenseless. these people are PRAYING. the last ten days of Ramadan, especially tonight, is the holiest time of the entire year for Muslims.

this is not the first time israel committed a horrible attack like this and it won't be the last. for example, as we speak, people are being forced out of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah.

please don't let yourself get desensitized to what's happening in Palestine and speak up about this issue whenever you can

#i am so ANGRY and upset these people are PRAYING!!!!!!!! what kind of fucking monster do you have to be to attack them #in masjid al aqsa too like?? what israel is doing is BEYOND human rights violations and the media wont talk about it i dont know what to say #say it with me: being anti-israel does not equal being antisemitic but thinking israel = jewish people does #free palestine 🇵🇸 #free palestine #from the river to the sea #sheikh jarrah #save sheikh jarrah #palestine #jerusalem

[nickyhemmick]

A Very Stressed American Jew here again,

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to respond to my ask and yes, I’m someone who loves hearing as many perspectives as possible so I’d love some sources from you. I also very much appreciate the fact you are being very careful to only reblog posts that are anti Israel, not antisemetic (which is frankly a breath of fresh air, the internet has been a bit exhaustingly full of both antisemitic & Islamaphobic content these past feel days as I bet you’ve seen)

I’ve also been to Israel on a Birthright trip. We met people who ( both Palestinian and Israeli) on various sides of the conflict and learned a ton about it, from both perspectives which I was lucky to have the opportunity to do. We even went a little into the Gaza Strip to talk to these people running a pro Palestine peace movement and it was so important to me hearing those stories.

I never said they were on equal footing militarily, they definitely are not, Israel definitely has that advantage. But you are incorrect about Israel always being the aggressor since 1948,they’ve defended themselves about as often as they’ve attacked. Isreal is a small country comparatively to the ones surrounding it, so it makes sense it defends itself heavily in case of an attack.

I 100% agree that there are too many people who are compliant with the mistreatment of many Palestinians! I’m not anti #freepalestine at all! I get why that is a thing. But I also stand with Israel( but that does not mean I condone every action they take. ) Overall I think the situation is extremely complicated and some sort of compromise should be reached.

It’s just been very frustrating to see so many people reblog things on a situation just bashing Israel because so many others are doing it. Especially when then don’t know what they are talking about or using big buzz words that they don’t know what they mean, or spreading misinformation. It’s been on both sides and has been very very draining. I just want peace and some sort of solution. It makes me extremely happy you know what you are talking about and can debate politely yet happily about it. The internet has been so ‘ either agree with me 100% or you a bad person’ about this so it’s refreshing to see you are not like that.

I’ve done a lot of research into it from as many perspectives as I can get my hands on.

Some extremest Israelis are hurting Palestinians

Some extremest Palestinians are hurting Israelis

Both sides are throwing rockets at each other and it’s terrifying.

Both sides claim the other side is brainwashed

There is so much biased propaganda out there on both ends it’s hard to know what is truly happening.

I know people living in Israel who have sent me videos they’ve taken of rockets flying over there heads and I’m so scared for them. I’m so scared for all the innocent people caught in the crossfire on both sides.

Thank you for a more nuanced response and I’d love some of your sources,

A Very Stressed American Jew

Hi anon, 

I wasn’t going to respond to this until after my math final tomorrow but I’ve spent the past two days thinking of your ask and the things I wish to articulate in my answer. 

I am going to start here: how can you say you support Israel but say you are also pro-free Palestine (as in, you said you are not anti free Palestine). In my opinion, these two ideas cannot coexist. Simply because, the entire establishment of Israel has been on violent, racist, colonial grounds. 

(Super long post under here guys)

You said you don’t support all Israel’s actions, and definitely, just because you support something doesn’t mean you can’t criticize it. However, in my opinion, if you do not support Israel’s actions against Palestinians there’s not much left to support? I admit this is a very biased view as I am Palestinian, but many things that people support about Israel have existed before its creation: as in, these are things and qualities that have existed in Judaism and are not due to “Israeli culture.” There is no Israeli culture. There’s Jewish culture--100%. But there is no Israeli culture, because Israel does not only steal Palestinian land, but Palestinian culture, too. Such as claiming Levant food is Israeli; hummus, ful, falafel, shawarma. I mentioned food from this article I know is culturally and traditionally of the Levant, and has been for centuries, it is not something that has come to culinary creation in the past 73 years. 

I do not think this is a complicated issue. I said that in the previous ask and I’ll say that again. Saying it is a complicated issue is trivializing the deaths of innocent Palestinians, the violent dispossession our ancestors endured, and the apartheid they live under. I hope if anything comes from this discussion it is you removing the “it’s a complicated issue” phrase from your vernacular. 

This is not complicated. A journalist reporting the death of martyrs only to discover that of them include two of his brothers is not complicated. The asymmetry of Israel vs Palestinian armed forces is not complicated, nor is the asymmetry in Israeli vs Palestinian suffering (which I will get to later). It is not complicated.  Destroying the graves of martyred Palestinians (or just in general, the graves of the dead) is not complicated. Little children being pulled from the rubble, children being forced to comfort one another as they are covered in the ashes of their decimated homes, attacking unarmed citizens in peaceful demonstrations (you can find videos before this attack where they were playing with kites and balloons), destroying an international media office and refusing to allow journalists to retrieve the work they are spending every waking hour documenting but claiming it was because it was a hide out for a “Hamas base,” fathers who are trying to cheer their frightened children up only to end up dead the next day, while many Israeli have the privilege and the option to go to hotel-like bomb shelters is not complicated. 

This brings me to my next point: the suffering of Palestinians cannot be compared to the inconvenience of Israeli’s. On one side, you have children who are happy to have saved their fish in the face of their homes and lives being decimated behind them to Israeli’s in Tel Aviv having to cut their beach day short to get to bomb shelters. You have mothers and fathers ready to set their lives down for their children to save them from bombs to Israeli’s enjoying their brunch only after making sure there are bomb shelters there. You have Palestinian children being murdered to blocking out the sound of sirens in the safety of your bomb shelters. (The first picture of the Palestinian child is not from footage of the recent problems). You have the baby lone survivor of a whole family recovered from rubble. His whole family, gone, before he ever had the chance to realize that he even exists, while Israeli’s decide to flee out of the country,(Translate the caption from Twitter, it checks out), or have to leave the shower due to sirens. Who is really suffering? 

I won’t sit here and pretend like the thought of rockets flying over my head, no matter which side I am on, is not terrifying. It is. It’s scary to just think about. But Israeli’s have protection beyond Palestinian’s, they have sirens to warn them (Israel does not always warn Palestinian building members that it is about to be bombed), they have the Iron Dome, they have simply the threat of nuclear power (which I am not saying Israel would use, but the simple fact they have it would make me feel a lot better if I were an Israeli citizen) and they have bomb shelters. What do Palestinians have? Hamas? That smuggles its weapons through the ocean? That only ever reacts to the action Israel instigates? And yet Gazans are branded terrorists and that it is their fault that they “elected” a terrorist organization that only was ever created due to no protection from any armed country? (There are so many links I want to add in this paragraph but it is simply impossible for me to add everything I want, a lot of what I’m referring to can either be found through a Google search, or you can stalk my Twitter account, all that I am posting now is about Palestine, and will include sources of things I cannot add in just this one post.) 

Look, I see myself in the genocide happening in Palestine right now. I see myself in this ten year-old girl. In this three year old girl. I see me and my family in videos of cars being attacked in Ramallah and Sheikh Jarrah (I cannot find the Ramallah video, should be somewhere on my Twitter), I see my father in the countless videos of fathers crying out for their children, of kissing the corpse of their loved ones (again, translate the Tweet, the man holding the body is saying “just one kiss”). I see my grandfather in videos like this (old footage). I see my younger brother, I see my grandmother, my mother, my aunts and uncles and cousins. I see myself and my life and my family were my father not lucky enough to get a scholarship to the UK and out of Palestine, were my maternal grandfather not been lucky enough to make it to a refugee camp and build a life in Jordan. I have an unbelievable amount of privilege to be born into the life I was born in to, in terms of I do not have the threat of bombs and violent dispossession around me, and I do not even live in the US. I have privilege and sheer luck that my parents were able to go to the US so that me and my brothers can be born, because now I have both the protection of the most powerful country in the world while at the same time being part of a people to have suffered so generously the past seventy-three years. 

On the other hand, you saying that Israel has “defended themselves about as often as they’ve attacked. Israel is a small country comparatively to the ones surrounding it, so it makes sense it defends itself heavily in case of an attack,” I offer you this question: why are they using military grade guns and stun grenades in mosques to “defend” themselves from rocks? And before you mention that Hamas hit Tel Aviv, I remind you that Hamas did that due to the violence in the Al-Aqsa mosque square and the attempted ethnic cleansing in Sheikh Jarrah. The violence didn’t begin with us; the violence was brought out of Palestinians in resistance to the generations of oppression we have endured and the attack on Palestinian Muslims during the holiest night of Ramadan. Hamas has since asked for a ceasefire multiple times and Israel is refusing. New reports say there is a possibility of a ceasefire in the coming days, but Israel could have decided this a long time ago and spared many lives. (Remember, no matter what resistance we make, Israel is the one in power).

Israel has been the aggressor since 1948. Just read up about the Nakba! 700k Palestinian families were dispossessed violently. The only reason Israel was established at all was because it simply declared it was now a country and the US and many other countries recognized it as such. (Of course, there are many other historical details here, like the British Mandate of Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, the Oslo Accords and many others. I am aware of them but these are for a different post all together). My paternal grandfather was a little younger than me when Israel as a state was created. The hostility that followed was due to this independent declaration being listened to over Palestinian voices. 

Here is a very, very simplified analogy, one that can also answer some people’s questions as to why Palestinians (not Arabs, we are Palestinian before we are Arab) did not like what happened in 1948 and why they refused a two-state solution (that Israel was never going to go through with anyway). (I am also aware other Arab nations got involved, and that is perhaps what you mean when you said they had to defend themselves, but my response to that would still be we didn't start it, that we only responded to it).

Let’s say you are a farmer. You have many fields of trees, ones you have taken shelter under from the sun since you were a child, or hid behind when you wanted to avoid your parents when you misbehaved. You have seen your trees grow from a seed, to a sprout, to a flower, to a large, beautiful tree with fruits the size of a fist. You pluck the fruits from one tree, and make a jam from it. I don’t know how to make jam but I know it takes a lot of energy. So, you make this jam and from it, produce a lovely, mouth-watering pie. Once it has cooled from the oven, you take it with you outside your balcony just so that you can admire the years, months, weeks and hours this one pie has taken to be created. Suddenly, a stranger walks past and yells to you, “That pie looks delicious, I want it!” And you, shocked at their boldness but ready to share, say, “I will give you a bite.” But the stranger says, “No! I do not want a bite or a slice or whatever you want to offer me, I want the pie!” And they grab it from you. You and the stranger start screaming at one another about who the pie is for, who is allowed to decide what happens to it, and who you can share it with. Then, another stranger comes by and says, “Why all the problems? Let’s cut the pie in half and the both of you can share it!” But why should you, who has spent years cultivating the fruit and grain inside this pie, share it? Why should you give up half of the 100% that you already owned? Of what you already had? So you disagree, and now a crowd has formed around you. “What’s the problem?” someone in the crowd calls. “They don’t want to share their pie!” another voice says. Then you become branded a selfish, mean bastard. Again, this is a super simplified analogy, so don’t take it too seriously, but I am trying to show you why Israel is the aggressor.

In addition, I do not know too much about the Birthright program, just that American Jewish people are sent to Israel, all expenses paid. I tried my best to find the Twitter thread but I read it so long ago, about an American Jewish person who went on their trip and they talked about the propaganda that they were exposed to on that trip. I can’t say for sure that it is true, because I haven’t been on it and never will, but that is the first thing I thought of when you mentioned your Birthright trip. Either way, I think it is still great you went and saw the country. However, I must ask you this: are the people you met ones you, yourself, sought out, or ones you were organized to meet?

Now, I haven’t been to Gaza, so I don’t know what you really saw or didn’t, but did you speak to Palestinians who lost their homes to airstrikes? Did you speak to siblings, parents or children of loved ones who had been lost beneath the rubble of buildings and towers? Outside of Gaza, did you speak to Palestinians that live in poor quarters? Ones who have been victims of an IDF soldier shooting them, or who have family members who have died from such attacks? Did they take you guys to Ramallah, to Nablus, to Beit-Imreen, to Jenin, to small villages in the West Bank, far away from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? Did you speak to people there? Ask them their stories? Because if you did I have a very hard time believing you still think Israel is “defending” itself.

I’ve been to Jerusalem, many times, even Tel Aviv and Jaffa and Haifa. All the times I visited Dome of the Rock there were IDF soldiers with huge guns strapped to their person, standing menacingly outside the courtyard. For what? Genuinely, genuinely for what? It is nothing but an intimidation tactic. The same way we are not allowed in through the airport. If you could see the struggle some Palestinians actually go through just to get into Palestine, through the land border, you would be disgusted. I love Palestine, it is my ancestry land, it is my culture and tradition. But I always hated going to visit because I knew the way to getting there would be hell.

My father worked in Tel Aviv through the first Intifada. My maternal grandfather was forced out of his home in the Nakba and was forced to leave behind his belongings and the orange trees that have been in his family for generations. Hell, the town they lived in was destroyed! It doesn’t exist anymore except in the memories of my aunts and uncles, who never even saw it, but just heard of it from their father!

I’m not saying there aren’t Palestinians who are racist and anti-Semitic (though, tbh, I will direct you here for that) and who support Hamas in killing Israeli’s, but talking about how there are many “extremist” Palestinians who are hurting Israeli’s and in the next line say there are extremist Israeli’s who are hurting Palestinians is not correct. There are extremist Israeli’s killing, lynching, stealing the houses of Palestinians, and there are Palestinians who are fed up and fighting back. (I am not talking about Hamas vs the IDF here, I am talking about the citizens). I have not seen one reported death of an Israeli due to Palestinian violence (if you have, from a trusted source, send it to me), but I have seen countless of the other way around. I have seen images of charred little bodies, of a baby being dug out of the rubble, of a child’s body that had been so mutilated that you can literally see the insides of their body coming out. (I don’t know if it’s on my Twitter, I didn’t want to save that shit). If this was my country I would be absolutely ashamed of myself and my people and what they are doing in the name of my protection. So you have to forgive me, and forgive other Palestinians, who don’t give a fuck about Israeli’s having anxiety over rockets flying over their heads when we see these images. Where is the protection of our kids? Why does no one seem to mention them except when mentioning the poor, innocent ones in Israel? At least more than the majority of them have their parents to comfort and rock them. At least many of them will probably be saved of ever having to be beneath the rubble of a destroyed building, or digging in it, to hope to find the parts of their parents or siblings just so that they can bury them. Just the links from the start of my answer is enough to support what I am saying.

I have soooo much more I can say, like how Israel uses religion to distort the image of what’s going on (tbh, just check my Twitter for that: language is EVERYTHING), but you didn’t mention religion in any of this and so I won’t either. The only reason I decided to respond to you in such length was because you have been one of the few respectful anons in my inbox in the past few years of me being on here talking about Israel, so I appreciate that from you. 

As promised, some more sources: decolonizepalestine is a good place to start if you haven’t used it already, it has reading materials, myth busting, and more. Here is a map list of destroyed localities from pre-1948 until 2017, run by two anti-Zionist Israelis. Here and here are the articles I promised of a former IDF soldier-turned Palestinian activist, I read these two last year in June and remember coming out much more informed than before I read them. I suggest looking into the writer and his organization, which, if I remember correctly, collects accounts from previous IDF soldiers. I would suggest not to follow Israel and the IDF accounts on any platform, or any Israel times newspaper, simply because they will not tell you the truth. In fairness, you do not have to follow any Palestinian Authority accounts (which I am not even sure there are), but to follow on-ground Palestinians like Mohammed El-Kurd, who has been speaking out since he was 12 (he is now 22) and he is part of the families in Sheikh Jarrah. I have noticed that this and this account have been translating Arabic headlines and tweets for non-Arabic speakers, I have just started following this person but their bio says they are a Palestinian Jewish person so I am interested in their view of things. You can also follow Israeli’s on-ground and see their perspective on things, but I would also advise to compare the Palestinian and Israeli side of things from the people, and critically analyze the language used in each case. Also, this article references Jewish scholars opposed to the occupation (I have not looked into them myself but I plan to after my exams), and Norman Finklestein is another great Jewish scholar to look into if you haven’t. Twitter is better than Instagram and Facebook, so I would stick to getting live-info from there, Twitter does not censor Palestinian content as much as Insta and Facebook so you’re more likely to see things there.

I will end this by saying I personally do not see any other option for peace than to give Palestinians our land back. Whether we may be Muslim, Jewish or Christian, it has always been and will always be our land. I only hope to see it free in my lifetime. 

Free Palestine. 

#palestine #israel #west bank #tala gets asks #anon #whew this ask took me like 2-3 hours to respond to #pls read it even if ure not the anon #lots of good links and info #palestine tag #anon there are more reading lists in my #to read #and palestine tag tags #check my likes on twitter too if u decide btw not just what i retweet #like also: imagine palestinians around palestine and the world who are simply waiting to hear if their relatives are dead or alive or #have been striked from a rocket. like i can see my father worried abt his friend in gaza rn like any day #now he can just never hear back from him and have to guess hes dead somewhere beneath the rubble #and israelis are anxious at the rocket sounds? good for them but again that shows the asymmetry in #palestinian vs israeli suffering #and by ‘good for them’ i mean good that thats what theyre worried abt compared to palestinians #my aunt is in sheikh jarrah #my cousin lives right by the al aqsa square #again theres so much more i couldve mentioned and talked abt but theres just so much #theres so many LAYERS i wld say but not that its complicated #and definitely theres more i need to learn and read and watch dont get me wrong! i am not a fountain of knowledge by all means!!!!

[eretzyisrael]

Two Principles

All of my writing is informed by two principles. The first, both logically and rhetorically, is that there is no moral principle more important than the value of preserving the Jewish people. This is axiomatic for me: if we don’t agree on this, then there is no point to continue the discussion.

This means that preserving the Jewish people is more important to me than anything else, including democracy or even considerations of human rights. Not that I think that there is a conflict between the continued existence of this people and the legitimate rights of others; I do not. But if, in any particular case, I have to choose between Jewish survival and the good of others, I will choose Jewish survival.

Some say that this disqualifies me as an “objective” observer of events. Actually, it makes me like everyone else. We all have loyalties that override universal obligations to humanity. Who would sacrifice their immediate family in order to protect the rights of others?

The second principle is the necessity of a Jewish state. If the Jewish state were to disappear, so – in short order – would the Jewish people. Unlike the first principle, this is an empirical one. The early Zionists who called for a Jewish state did so to a great degree because the history of the treatment of the Jews in the Christian and Muslim worlds impelled them to the conclusion that a sovereign state was necessary to ensure the continuance of their people despite persecution and assimilation. Subsequent events – the Holocaust among them – provided evidence that they were correct.

So what are the consequences of these principles?

Here is an example: Hezbollah has 130,000 rockets aimed at Israel. If they were to be launched, they would kill thousands in Israel and imperil the continued existence of the state. Therefore I believe that a preemptive attack on the launchers, even if it would kill numerous innocent Lebanese civilians, is morally justified (whether such an action is a good idea from a military or political standpoint is another issue, which I am not discussing at this point).

Another example: the geographic characteristics of the State of Israel require that she maintain control of the high ground of Judea and Samaria and the western ridge of the Jordan Valley in order to have defensible borders. Therefore, regardless of political considerations, these areas cannot be transferred to Arab sovereignty. If you believe that Israel’s holding on to these territories poses a demographic threat to her Jewish majority, then you must find the solution in reducing their Arab population rather than in Israeli withdrawal.

I do not believe that the Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians” have a valid legal claim on the area called Eretz Yisrael. But even if I did, I would be opposed to them realizing it, because it is in direct opposition to the continued existence of the Jewish state. In other words, I am not impartial on this question. I do not give equal weight to Jewish and Arab aspirations in our little land.

That’s enough for many people to declare me a “racist” whose opinions are worthless. But there is no human being who does not privilege some group over others, even if it’s just their immediate family. The ideal of valuing all human beings equally always breaks down at some point. This is unsurprising. We are not abstract entities, we are animals, and like all living creatures we function according to evolutionary rules established by forces far more powerful than our reason (incidentally, this isn’t an anti-religious statement: halacha was developed with this in mind). Family feeling, tribalism, and peoplehood are not things that can be erased.

Here is the reality: it is not Jewish paranoia to think that much of the world opposes Jewish self-determination, and sometimes the existence of Jews themselves. It is not paranoid to notice that Jews living in the diaspora are facing more antisemitism and anti-Jewish discrimination and even violence from day to day. And neither is it paranoid to think that the Palestinian Arabs would kill, enslave, or expel all the Jews from the land if they had the ability to do so. Indeed, they’ll gladly tell you so.

I am not going to argue for the value of the existence of the Jewish people. And we don’t need to convince anybody. What matters, as Ben Gurion said, is not what the nations think, but what the Jews do.

Abu Yehuda

#Israel #JewHatred #Zionism #TheJewishPeople

[jewish-privilege]

Brenda Brown-Grooms: We are still working together to keep the American Dream alive

I was at the sunrise service at First Baptist Church on Main at 6 a.m. on August 12, with Cornell West, Tracy Blackmon, Osagyefo Sekou and various groups soon to be deployed to our respective stations (mine to First United Methodist Church, a designated safe space, prayer fortress, first aid station, food and water replenishing). We prayed, sang, read Scripture, counseled with those coming in for respite. We were tear gassed (it wafted up from the park across the sidewalk), were locked down more times than I can now remember, and watched Heather Heyer being killled and others injured in real time, via livestream, while hearing a helicopter hovering over our heads.

A little more than a month before the July 2017 gathering of the KKK in Emancipation Park (in protest of the city's approved plan to remove the statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee) we all got word of this coming August gathering. Concerned citizens, rightly discerning this to be, above all, an issue of morality and not just policy, called on their faith leaders to lead Charlottesville's response. Indeed, they were crystal clear: if you don't lead, we won't follow.

We mounted prayer vigils, monitored KKK/alt-right social media, tried to work with various police departments in this area, and quickly discovered that they were not listening to us, which later bespoke their unpreparedness for the situation.

After the July protest, those of us in the faith community realized the enormity of the coming situation and sought to prepare ourselves and our congregations as best we could. Our biggest hindrance was the intransigence of the city government, university administrators, and Charlottesville's elite in convincing themselves that something like what did happen would never happen in beautiful, iconic, happy Charlottesville! THIS ISN'T WHO WE ARE!

However, beautiful Charlottesville has an ugly underbelly. If you have enough money, enough power, the right zip code, preferably no Jewish ancestry, and are not a person of color, you may well be able to position yourself, isolate yourself, so that none of what poor, powerless, native Charlottesvillians of color experience. I am an African American native of Charlottesville and a graduate of the University of Virginia. I remember and have always experienced the ugliness of this beautiful place.

To those who stubbornly thought it "couldn't happen here," I say: Are you insane? Of course this is Charlottesville. What planet do you live on? Yes, some Nazis and KKK and alt-righters came from out of town, but a lot more of them than you think live right here.

On August 11, I participated in a glorious worship service at St. Paul's, across the street from the Rotunda at UVA, where the tiki torch gathering happened and Nazis cried, "Jews will not replace us." I, along with about 500 people, was locked down in the church. I had a premonition that something would happen on Friday. They had to announce their presence some way.

Last summer crystallized for me, yet again, that America has yet to live out her creed (that all people are created equal, endowed by our Creator, with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Everyone ever labeled a "minority" in this country knows America's failure, its original sin. And yet, each generation, we hope and work for the American Dream. The original sin that infects our republic, our religious practices and citizenship in the world is white supremacy. We must admit it. Rout it out. Begin again. We must talk about who benefits and who does not. We must admit that our institutions are shot through with unfairness, injustice and death. We must hear and include the stories that have been and are still being suppressed in order to perpetuate a false, an incomplete narrative--leaving out Native Americans, Asian Americans, South Americans, African Americans, Immigrants, Refugees and those left without homelands and others in any of the myriad ways we humans know to "other."

Since last year's open summer of hate, I have found brothers and sisters of all races, creeds, faith or no faith traditions, who have been willing to sit together, talk together, argue together, cry together, think together, plan together, walk together, to keep the American Dream alive, one more generation. We are working together to raise up another generation to follow us, who will do the same. Shalom.

Brenda Brown-Grooms is a pastor with the New Beginnings Christian Community and part of the Charlottesville Clergy Collective (CCC), a group of clergy and laypeople dedicated to dialogue about the challenge of race relations in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. She is also part of and Congregate Cville, an activist organization which grew out of CCC.

...

Rachel Schmelkin: I learned a lot that day about what it means to truly support and protect each other

On August 12, 2017, I took a few cautious steps out of First United Methodist Church, a designated "safe space" for anti-Nazi demonstrators, to survey the park where Nazis were screaming ugly white supremacist chants. "Jews will not replace us!," still rings in my ear as I recall that dreadful weekend. I'd never seen such hate up close, and for the first time I felt afraid to be a Jew in America.

A few days before the rally, I told my close friends, Reverends Phil and Robert that I was worried that I would be a target, but that it was important to be to be visible and present despite the risks. They promised me that they would watch out for me. They said "We will not let anybody get near you. In fact, we'll stay with you as long as you're out there. We will not leave you alone." I trusted them, and they held to their word.

That day, I continued further out of the door and did my best to project songs of love and peace that might drown out the hate. With my guitar in hand and my brother standing next to me, we sang out "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine!"

I learned a lot that day about what it means to truly support and protect each other, and to have others support and protect me. A black friend confided in me that she's felt unsafe in her body her entire life. As a Jew, I felt that same visceral fear that August day in Charlottesville when neo-Nazis threatened to torch the Jews.

Anti-Semitism animates white supremacist ideology and is tightly integrated with its other racist and xenophobic views. Charlottesville's "summer of hate" taught me that alliances across faiths, across race, across all kinds of differences are the best way to combat racism, anti-Semitism, and all types of bigotry and hate.

Since August 12, courageous citizens of Charlottesville have consistently come together to make Charlottesville a miserable place to be a white supremacist; they're not welcome here.

Rabbi Rachel Schmelkin is with Congregation Beth Israel in Charlottesville.

See the full piece at CNN. 

TW: The top of page has a video that autoplays starting on a graphic image of car attack that killed Heather Heyer, Z’’L may her memory be a blessing, and also includes images and video from the white supremacists marching and chanting anti Black and antisemitic slogans.

#charlottesville #white supremacy #anti black racism #antisemitism #heather heyer #z''l #death

[urfavmurtad]

Hi there! I really like your blog, I'm from a religious family myself and struggling with a lot of similar things. I'm Jewish though, from an Orthodox family, not Muslim. I have always wanted to ask someone this, but I never wanted to offend them, so let me ask you (I hope you will not be offended!), why does it seem like there is so much hatred of Jews in many Muslim countries? It is just because of Israel? Because to me it seems like hatred *of Jews*, not just *of Israel*.

Hello anon, I am glad to hear it. I’ve always lowkey wanted Jewish followers to talk to me but idk how to say that without it being weird??

Antisemitism…. yeah it’s a real thing tbh. And yes it targets Jews, not just Israel. The Jew-hating screeds are all very clearly against the “yahud” (Jews). At least in Arab countries. Though I just looked it up and it seems fairly widespread in Muslim countries in general (this is from here).

I mean… even compared to other non-Muslim groups, there is obviously a big problem here, except in Pakistan where people admirably hate everyone equally.

Israel does have something/a lot to do with it, there’s no doubt about that. Not to justify any antisemitism, but there is a clear association between Israel and Jews, and a clear association between Israel and Muslim oppression. Most of these same people would howl if anyone dared blame their religious group for the actions of one government, of course…. but the roots of it go deeper than that, and are older than most of us want to acknowledge. We pretend it’s not true, but antisemitism did not magically spring up in the 20th century.

The idea that Jews were treated well throughout all of Muslim history is a big lie that we’re indoctrinated into believing. Arab kids everywhere, whether they’re religious or not, are genuinely taught that Jews and other religious minorities were happy under Arab rule, and generally “Muslim rule” in the MENA region, until The Zionists came around. We’re taught from kindergarten that there was no anti-Semitism in Muslim countries before this, that the concept was Western. It is something said so frequently and with such conviction that few people ever think about it.

This is a lie, of course. There were massacres, institutionalized oppression and discrimination, forced conversions, and genocides all throughout MENA history. As in Europe, some eras and places were better than others. Often the situation deteriorated rapidly. The Jews were sometimes targeted for religious reasons, sometimes because they were perceived to be too wealthy or corrupt, sometimes because they were seen as too friendly to outsiders or traitorous. Even in “good” times, daily discrimination and often even humiliation persisted; the “dhimmi laws” were often petty and cruel, from wearing distinctive clothing to having court testimony automatically count less due to your religion. It was not an era of tolerant coexistence, though admittedly Jewish and Christian minorities often traded places as the bottom of the religious ladder (as in under the Ottomans). It’s just that the history is virtually unknown by Arabs themselves. I had no idea about any of this until I was maybe 15, 16 and got curious and looked it up. But many never even think to question it.

When times got really bad, the reasons were usually the same as the reasons for anti-Semitic pogroms in Europe. The Jews were perceived as too wealthy or influential, like in al-Andalus in a lynch mob in 1066 or a near-total extermination in Fez in 1465. They were blamed for war struggles, like a genocide in Yemen in the 17th century. They were caught up in periods of religious vigor like a series of forced conversionsin 19th century Sudan and 12th century Cordoba. Of course, the mass exiles and depopulations of Arab countries in the 20th century after Israel was declared a state was its own unique sort of discrimination. And now most Israeli Jews are descended from the people who were kicked out of those countries… because of Israel. Arabs creating their own damn problems as per usual smh.

Anyway, to relate this back to the topic at hand, the question seems to be more about Islam than Arabs as a group. So the question is, is there antisemitism within the religious texts of Islam that might help give rise to these feelings of hating Jews among Muslims in general (vs just among Arabs). The answer is yes. The Quran itself is antisemitic. Mohammed really goddamn hated the Jewish tribes around him in his Medina days and it shows. The entire fifth surah is one long Borat rant about The Jews. I mean, he didn’t like any non-Muslims, but the Jews really get the shit end of the stick in the Medina suwar. 5:82 literally says that the Jews and polytheists are ones who treat Muslims the worst whereas the Christians (while still doomed to hell!) are not as bad.

It says (multiple times) not to take Jews or Christians as auliya (allies/helpers/friends), it calls Jews greedy and deceitful, it frequently blames Jews for the misdeeds of past generations like killing “the prophets” (which does not include Jesus, incidentally, the Jews only thought they killed him… actually no one really knows wtf prophets he was talking about but that’s a separate story). Their beliefs are mocked repeatedly, often when Mohammed didn’t even get their beliefs correct. He was particularly obsessed with the notion of Allah’s continued punishment of the Jews for the disbelieving actions of Moses’ followers, saying that they had to keep kosher as a “punishment”. Another tale from Moses’ day was the oft-repeated story of how Allah transformed Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes and pigs, a story that kids who attend Islamic schools will hear like 500 times by the time they graduate, as the Quran relates this punishment to Mohammed’s contemporary Jews who rejected his message.

So… it’s bad, is the point. The ahadith are even worse but I don’t want to overwhelm you lmao, you can just sort of… browse through them at your leisure. I’m sure you’ve at least heard this one before. And yes, much of it is repeated as “the truth” even today. Some very well-meaning people will try to fight against this by saying “context!!!” etc, but Mohammed’s rants were against, simply, the Jews, often in a multi-generational, multi-cultural sense. Not… military-age male fighters and evildoers of the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza tribes of the time (both of which were Jewish and met appalling ends; the “Khaybar” dumbass rallying cries you hear sometimes are in reference to a battle against them). So while it’s truly nice that they’re at least trying to stamp out religious-based antisemitism, it’s unclear to me if they have much of a leg to stand on here…

Uh, this is a lot longer than I thought it was gonna be lmao but I hope I answered your question? Please come off anon and talk to me, if you want, bc there’s so much I want to know about a lot of Jewish-related topics and idk where to even begin!

#ask #ex muslim #rant #antisemitism

[vvreference]

Schedule i. On-Topic Discussion

The purpose of this forum is to discuss the following topics without running into the free speech and privacy problems endemic to other social media.

While off-topic bonding is allowed up to a point, the following is a non-exhaustive list of topics that may be discussed here, that are difficult to discuss elsewhere:

The struggle for an independent, Islamic Kashmir

Antifascist struggle in the context of South Asia, which is necessarily anti-Hinduism,

The successful appropriation of subaltern status by Brahmin-Savarnas in international fora, and resultant normalisation of Brahminism as a "religion",

Conversion and related issues,

The shift of the LGBT community, globally and particularly in India, towards the far-right, and an Islamic response thereto,

Critical analysis of various superaltern understandings of Islam, such as salafism, wahhabism, "progressive" liberal Islam, the pasmanda movement, etc, and the merits and demerits of various communal bodies, institutions, and traditions of Muslims, from a position of critical solidarity,

Analysis and incisive criticism of social tradition through the framework of social science, including Ambedkar, those he built on, and those who have built on him.

In general, the aim of this forum is to formulate an Islamic response to Hinduism and the global far right, informed by a social vision of free association without coercive institutions like caste and other forms of patriarchy, and build a plan on how to achieve this vision through social science.

Schedule ii. Articles of Unity

The following Articles of Unity may be regarded as the "party line" of this subreddit, and by posting constitutes adherence to them, if not personal agreement. They may be asked about, and discussed in their details and implications, however they may not be disputed.

Kashmir is not an "integral part of India" and India is a brutal military occupier with settler-colonial aspirations,

Hinduism is not a legitimate religion, but a means of protecting caste and the crimes against women that it entails; as such, it cannot be peacefully coexisted with and Big-H Hinduism must be eliminated from the subcontinent;

An Islamic State must absolutely not be confused for a Muslim majoritarian government, and the history of Muslims ruling as minorities must be appreciated; while statistical majority may be one source of Muslim power, the existence of Muslim power must not assume statistical majority; majoritarianism is to be opposed, and oppression of other groups under any circumstances is not acceptable,

Foreign dictators, like those of Russia, Syria, and their allies and ilk, are to be regarded as enemies, war criminals, and failures of the international system, not as sympathetic allies,

Hindus, particularly savarna Hindus, are an oppressor class, complicit-in-to-guilty-of multiple ongoing slow-burn genocides. As such, you can say anything about them you want, and hate speech against them is not possible.

LGBT Muslims are real and a normal part of society, not a deviation or a recent western import,

While Islam is indisputably founded on principles of social equality, this does not mean that Muslims are not capable of harbouring prejudice on lines of caste, race, sex, etc. Islam is a plan of attack against inequality, not an immediate absolution from it.

Schedule iii. Social Contract and Rules Per Se

I don't expect this to come up much inshala, but refrain from fatwa shopping, and do not give fatwas unless I have given you permission.

Cynicism is the devil. Avoid statements like “it’s pointless” that kill morale. Keep criticism constructive. Don’t be a yum-yucker unless a line of thought or action is actively counterproductive to the aims of the sub.

In general, this subreddit does not subscribe to Brahminical respectability politics, and you're technically *allowed* to accuse others of being racist, stupid, ignorant, etc. However, this is discouraged. This kind of thing should be understood to be of limited impact and not drawn out into further conflict or unnecessary drama. You think I'm an ignoramus, I think you're a jerk, that’s allowed, we're all grownups here.

Lies, defamation, outright personal attacks -- including playing oppression olympics and questioning the sincerity of a convert -- and deliberate misrepresentation of another user's arguments will result in appropriate reprimand. Principle of charity, or "70 excuses", should be applied wherever possible.

The exception to this is when a user is guilty of a serious crime like sexual assault or snitching. In general, victims will be believed.

This subreddit is for theoretical discussion only and absolutely not to be used for planning direct action. This will be strictly enforced. In general, this means anything you could get in trouble with the state for. If you're unsure on what constitutes a direct action, or you think there’s any potential for miscommunication, please ask me and we'll figure it out based on the laws and climate of repression in your locality. I will have an itchy trigger finger on this one, and the onus is on you to communicate.

Schedule iv. Israel and Antisemitism

That our struggle resembles and coincides with the Palestinian struggle is obvious. However, given the history of Muslim-Jewish relations over the 20th century, we need to be careful how we talk about this. Nothing degenerates a conversation faster than antisemitic conspiratorialism. In addition, many of the things that Hindus say about us are -- by their own admission! -- lifted straight from Hitler's playbook. We need to be able to recognise and refute them, not unwittingly play along.

Therefore please observe the following rules when discussing Israel:

For the sake of keeping order, ask yourself: "Does Israel need to be a part of this conversation at all? Is there another example I could use? Am I derailing?" When at all possible, err towards not bringing up Israel until we get our shit together.

There is no "Zionist world order" or anything like that, full stop. Avoid conspiratorialism.

Acknowledge that most if not all countries in the region have similar histories and that virtually all of them pay lip service to Palestinians while also leaving them to rot in refugee camps for decades. In general if a third world dictator tells you he's doing something for the Palestinians, don't believe him. No country with long-term refugee camps is our ally in any way.

Remember that the majority population of Israel is middle eastern, not European, and the Europeans arrived as refugees.

Israelis, particularly those in India, should, by default, be treated as potential allies. Remember that BJP won the elections in HP in 2017 on a platform of stopping the "Israeli mafia", which does not exist, and spent a lot of time circulating antisemitic misinformation. It has spent its tenure decimating the tourist industry in HP just to spite the Israelis who live there.

[dorisphamus]

Abi Wilkinson should be ashamed of her abuse of Danny Finkelstein

Danny Finkelstein – or Baron Finkelstein of Pinner to give him the title he hardly ever uses – has become the latest person to be the object of a twitter hate campaign.

He is, according to Abi Wilkinson, a Corbyn-supporting journalist, “a racist scumbag” who is “chill with ethnic cleansing.”

It may seem surprising that Finkelstein, former member of the SDP and since that party’s demise a leading voice of “moderate” Conservatism, should be so characterised, even by Wilkinson who believes that “incivility isn’t merely justifiable, but actively necessary.”

His columns in The Times are typically reflective, considered and measured. This has not prevented him sometimes receiving the most appalling online abuse, accusing him of defending paedophilia, for example, because he expressed scepticism about groundless allegations levelled at politicians.

Sometimes this abuse has been tinged with anti-semitism, as with this bit of gratuitous Jew-baiting from a paedophile-obsessed troll in Germany calling himself Dame Alun Roberts.

On other occasions the anti-semitism has been painted in primary colours. The grim reality of twitter and conspiracy websites is that racial name-calling is all too common, and not just for Jews.

Of course, just because you have yourself been the victim of racist abuse it does not mean that you can’t also dish it out. Even the fact that Finkelstein’s mother was a holocaust survivor does not mean that he could not himself be a racist scumbag, relaxed about ethnic cleansing, though it would make such a description particularly painful and therefore, if untrue, particularly nasty.

What has Finkelstein done to prompt such abuse?

Was he seen outside the Court of Appeal, joining hands with Katie Hopkins chanting “Tommy Tommy Tommy!” as the great white hope of British fascism was sprung from gaol last week?

No.

Has he been using his Times column to call for the indigenous folk of Europe to unite to drive Islam back beyond the gates of Vienna, to the Bosphorus and beyond?

No, although in recent weeks he has written paragraphs like this about about immigration and the problems of multi-ethnic societies:

“It is therefore right to argue for control and moderation in allowing the migration that creates ethnically diverse societies; essential to recognise that integration is extremely challenging and will require great political effort; vital to see that civic equality will not happen by itself and prejudice will not easily disappear, both needing to be driven by enlightened leaders.”

Control and moderation! Creating diverse societies! Trying to make prejudice disappear! Demanding political effort to achieve civic equality!

What about international affairs?

As, Finkelstein himself has written:

“The allegation of dual loyalty is one of the most common ways I encounter antisemitism, through the suggestion that my political position on an issue is the result of my “zionism”. This, alongside the posting of comments about Israel to almost anything I or other Jews write.”

So I am afraid some – including, I fear, influential members of the Party that Willkinson supports – will ask, or even assume: he is a Jew, surely he has demonstrated racist scumbaggery in his writings about Israel?

“The Palestinians must have a homeland, they have a right to a homeland, in which they can live in prosperity and peace.

As most people agree, this should be broadly consistent with the borders that existed before the 1967 war. And Israel has made the creation of such a state considerably more difficult by its disastrously wrong and ill-considered decision to allow Jewish settlements to be built outside these borders.”

It doesn’t seem entirely beyond the pale of civilised discourse.

The odd thing about the 48 hours of Finkelstein twitter-hatred is that nobody, even amongst the many who have been piling in to support Wilkinson, has been able to point to a single racist opinion, racist argument, or racist statement that he has ever made.

Her attack came shortly after Finkelstein wrote about the anti-semitism controversy that has dogged the Labour Party. He wrote almost despairingly of the anti-semitism that has been on display both in wider society and particularly inside the Labour Party.

“Complacently, I had always assumed that what happened to my parents couldn’t happen to me or my children. There were too many liberal, progressive people who wouldn’t allow it. I no longer believe this with the same confidence. …

“It’s less the antisemitism itself that has induced this fear. It is the denial of it. The reaction I expect on the left to the rise of antisemitism — concern, determination to combat it, sympathy — is not the one I’ve encountered, at least not from supporters of the leadership. Instead there is aggression, anger at the accusation, suggestions that the Jews and zionists are plotting against Jeremy Corbyn.”

It is entirely of a piece with Finkelstein’s writings over many years: a plea for tolerance and understanding and a determination to combat racism. For what it is worth, I should disclose that I have met him on one occasion, and he was as polite and civilised in person as he always is in writing.

During the height of the twitter-storm, the writer Jamie Palmer asked if anyone could provide a link to a racist article written by Danny Finkelstein. None has yet been provided.

Instead Wilkinson explained that Finkelstein was a racist scumbag not because of anything he had written or said, but because he had been on the “Board” of the Gatestone Institute, an American based think-tank which has provided a platform to some brave and respectable people – Gary Kasparov and Elie Wiesel, for example – but also to some arguing for very unpleasant anti-Islamic policies.

For some reason, probably not a good one, the Gatestone Institute’s website no longer reveals who its “Board” members are, or even if it has a Board, or, if it did have one, what it actually did. Instead it now lists a number of what it calls “distinguished senior fellows” rather as though it were an Oxbridge college. Amongst the British “distinguished” fellows are such luminaries as Raheem Kassam, the boastful and absurd former adviser to Nigel Farage, accurately described by Marina Hyde as a “nebbishy shitposter … chiefly known for trailing around after Farage in a coat … with a brown velvet collar” (who doesn’t actually seem to have written anything for the Institute), and Douglas Murray, the journalist and author, who has written copiously for it.

Kassam: “Distinguished Senior Fellow.”

Finkelstein is no longer listed, in any capacity, although in February of this year he appeared in a Gatestone sponsored conversation at the House of Lords with Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Israeli journalist. All this was entirely above board, with Finkelstein properly disclosing the event in the House of Lords Register of Members’ Interests, one of 15 paid speaking engagements between October 2017 and June 2018 (none of the others were for the Institute).

Gatestone is, Wilkinson says, an “Islamophobic far right institute” which advocates “deporting my husband from Europe.”

Clearly, if that were true then anyone having anything to do with the Institute would not be deserving of much sympathy. However, it isn’t true.

It is in fact very difficult to see precisely what, if anything, the Institute itself advocates, as opposed to the views of the various people to whom it gives a platform. All contributions to its website contain a footnote explaining that the views expressed “do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or of Gatestone Institute,” but as the Institute’s own views are not made known anywhere readily accessible, the views of its contributors are all we have to go on.

To be sure many, perhaps even most, of the articles on its website are broadly hostile to Islam, certainly to Islamism, and some are very unpleasant indeed. The sheer volume of material published on the “Gatestone” website makes it impossible to be sure, but I haven’t been able to find any article which advocates deporting people like Kadhim Shubber, Ms Wilkinson’s Muslim husband, who is a distinguished journalist working for the Financial Times, either from Britain or from America where he currently works.

Mr Shubber himself drew particular attention to one 2017 Gatestone contribution by Giulio Meotti, a journalist who, judging by his Wikipedia entry, seems to be some sort of Italian Johann Hari who has achieved a certain notoriety for being accused of plagiarism. Presumably he singled out the piece because it was one of the worst and it is, certainly, a stonkingly bad piece of journalism. Under the headline “Are Jihadists taking over Europe” Meotti makes the preposterous claim that “Europe could be taken over the same way Islamic State took over much of Iraq.” The article itself veers rather incoherently from justifiable concerns about Islamist terrorism, through tendentious claims about “self-segregated, multicultural enclaves in which extremist Muslims promote Islamic fundamentalism and implement Islamic law,” (I think these are the mythical no-go zones beloved of the far right), and finally into outright dishonesty with a bizarre claim that the head of the Swedish army was referring to Islam when he said “there might be a war within a few years,” when in fact he was clearly referring to a possible war with Russia. It’s writing of a very low order indeed, but it does not actually advocate deportation of Muslims. Nevertheless, I can see that anyone reading it, and stupid enough to take it seriously, might be more easily persuaded that mass deportation of Muslims was a good thing.

So what of Wilkinson’s suggestion that Finkelstein was, “at absolute best chill with calls for ethnic cleansing”?

Probably she has in mind the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has regularly been published by Gatestone. Wilders has described Moroccan criminals as “scum,” he has said he wants to “make the Netherlands ours again,” and in a 2014 speech which led to his prosecution and partial conviction (currently subject to an appeal), he appeared to promise to try ensure that there would be “fewer Moroccans” in The Hague in the future. Whether or not he was actually advocating “ethnic cleansing” of Moroccans (his defence was that he was advocating the deportation of Moroccan dual nationals convicted of criminal offences, and the voluntary repatriation of others) Wilders promotes profoundly unpleasant prejudices.

Or perhaps she was thinking of journalist and best-selling author Douglas Murray, another “senior distinguished fellow” who writes regularly for the Institute, as well as many other publications, including the Spectator where he regularly tops the “most popular” league table published on its website. He is combative, readable, provocative and influential. He has never advocated “ethnic cleansing,” although in a speech in a 2006 speech to the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference (nothing to do with the Gatestone Institute as far as I am aware) he demanded that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.” He expanded on what that meant:

“All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop. In the case of a further genocide such as that in the Balkans, sanctuary would be given on a strictly temporary basis. This should also be enacted retrospectively. Those who are currently in Europe having fled tyrannies should be persuaded back to the countries which they fled from once the tyrannies that were the cause of their flight have been removed. And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin.”

It was not quite advocacy of ethnic cleansing (he did not spell out whether “persuading” innocent Muslim refugees to return was to be by use of the carrot or the stick), and it wasn’t published by the Institute, but it was the promotion of an unpleasant, deliberately discriminatory set of policies, and a dog-whistle to those wishing to deport Muslims.

In fairness, although Murray did not repudiate his speech when asked to do so in 2006, or for some years afterwards, by 2011 he had asked for it to be removed from the internet (which is why it is now only available on the Wayback Machine site) and has explained why:

“I realised some years ago how poorly expressed the speech in question was, had it removed from the website and forbade further requests to publish it because it does not reflect my opinions.”

Quite what Murray now thinks is wrong about the speech, apart from it being “poorly expressed,” is still opaque, but he evidently does not believe in ethnic cleansing, and perhaps not any more in “making conditions for Muslims in Europe harder across the board.” Even so, according to former MP Paul Goodman, now editor of Conservative Home, the Conservative front bench broke off relations with Murray as a direct result of it. Whether Finkelstein, who was at one time a speech-writer for David Cameron, was involved in the issue or aware of it, I have no idea.

Wilkinson’s charge against Finkelstein is that he sat on the Board of the Institute while people like Murray were writing for it. It’s a charge that would presumably apply to anyone sitting on the “board” of The Spectator, where Murray is a regular contributor, or of the BBC which has given Murray considerable air-time over the years (although it did also broadcast a guest calling him a “hate preacher,” something for which it then apologised), or even of The Guardian, which invited Murray to take part in a panel discussion about Donald Trump, an invitation which he declined and then rather haughtily wrote about in the Spectator. Indeed, given that Wilkinson herself regularly writes for the Guardian I wonder how “chill” she is with assisting an organisation that offered Mr Murray a platform. Does that make her a racist scumbag too, if slightly less of one than Finkelstein?

It is bad enough to accuse someone of being a “racist scumbag.” It’s unpleasant, it’s aggressive and it greatly lowers the tone of political debate – how can you expect to debate with someone who describes you as such? – but it is in the end just vulgar abuse. One person’s racist scumbag, I suppose, is another’s campaigner for slightly tougher controls on immigration. “Being chill with calls for with ethnic cleansing,” is far nastier and a great deal more specific.

“Ethnic cleansing,” a phrase originating in the horror of the Yugoslav wars, means forcibly driving out, deporting or killing people on the basis of their race or ethnicity. It is a particularly objectionable insult to hurl at the son of a holocaust survivor. It should not be made unless you are very sure of your ground. It is utterly baseless to make it against Finkelstein.

I don’t want to defend the Gatestone Institute. Much of the material on its website is nonsense, and some of it nasty nonsense. Just conceivably somewhere within the archives of the Gatestone Institute there may be some explicit calls for genocide or ethnic cleansing. It would be the work of years to read the outpourings of all the “distinguished fellows” and “writers” named by the Institute, but nothing that I have seen or that she or Mr Shubber has highlighted justifies Wilkinson’s charge that it “advocates deporting my husband from Europe.”

This brings us to Finkelstein’s own position on the mysterious “Board” of the Institute. It seems to have been no more than a publicity device for the Institute. It never met and apparently had no role in the running of the organisation. As Finkelstein described it:

“They listed me on a board and I didn’t actually know at first. The board never met or was asked to meet or had any role and rather lazily, once I do (sic) know, just left it. More recently I thought, mmm, being listed on a board is rather different to making a speech or two and I don’t want to be responsible for everything they do with no actual control, so I asked to be taken off. That I’m afraid is the unheroic truth.”

He also explained that:

“I do not serve on the board and have never had any role of any kind running Gatestone or supervising it in any way. They listed me on the board, until I asked them to stop.”

He had been asked about his membership of the Board in 2015 by Nafeez Ahmed, and specifically about Murray’s “stated views on Muslims in Europe.” He replied:

“I naturally don’t (and didn’t) say that I didn’t know who it was or what it publishes or who it hosts. Of course I do. Being on the Board doesn’t mean I agree with every article or every speaker, nor does it imply that I don’t. … I find Douglas Murray stimulating an worthwhile and often right, without always agreeing.”

This has been presented by some as evidence that Finkelstein tried to conceal that he was “on the Board” of Gatestone, although clearly he did nothing of the sort. He was open about it in 2015 and he has been open about it in 2018, although – assuming his good faith which I do until the contrary is demonstrated – “being on the Board” did not mean much other than that for a year or two he allowed the Institute to use his name for publicity purposes.

Finkelstein’s politics are quite clearly not those of Murray, still less of Geert Wilders. Nobody has been able to produce a single racist word that he has written. He has described the idea that Muslims should be deported from Europe as “obnoxious and mad,” which of course it is.

In any case, he has accepted that he made a mistake and apologised. In fact he has done so more than once.

“Yes I’m sorry I was on it [the Board] and I apologise for the error. Worst of all it gives the legitimate impression I support ideas I think completely wrong and are rightly thought offensive.”

He should not have allowed himself to be named as a Board member. He should have paid more attention to the garbage the Institute was pumping out, and less to the fact that it had also provided a platform to brave and necessary voices like those of Gary Kasparov, Raif Badawi or the Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

It is very sad that Ms Wilkinson does not yet seem able to accept his apology, and sadder still that she will not herself apologise for traducing a decent man. No wonder political debate these days is so poisonous.

The post Abi Wilkinson should be ashamed of her abuse of Danny Finkelstein appeared first on BarristerBlogger.

from All About Law http://barristerblogger.com/2018/08/06/abi-wilkinson-should-be-ashamed-of-her-abuse-of-danny-finkelstein/

[schraubd]

Working Through Two New Polls on Antisemitism and BDS

Two very interesting surveys have just dropped on the subject of BDS and antisemitism in America. The first is the AJC's survey of American Jews on the subject of antisemitism in America. The second, a "Critical Issues" poll out of the University of Maryland, surveys all Americans on various Middle East policy related questions, including BDS. Both have some intriguing findings that are worth discussing. Start with the AJC poll. There's a lot of great stuff to unpack in here on how American Jews assess the lay of the antisemitic land. For one, it finally gives me some data on what American Jews think about BDS. Unlike Americans writ large, who've barely heard of BDS (we'll get into that more in the other poll), Jews have definitely heard about the BDS movement (76% are at least a little familiar with it, and 62% of "somewhat" or "very" familiar). There isn't a direct "do you support BDS" question, but they do ask about BDS and antisemitism. 35% say BDS is "mostly" antisemitic, 47% say it has "some antisemitic supporters", and 14% say it is simply "not antisemitic". Of course, that middle response is vague -- it could mean anything from "BDS is not inherently antisemitic, but it's got a significant antisemitism problem" to "BDS is mostly fine, but sure, obviously it has some antisemitic supporters." Nonetheless, paired with some of the other responses -- such as the 84%(!) who view the statement "Israel has no right to exist" as antisemitic -- I think it is fair to infer that the majority of American Jews are, to say the least, not BDS fans. In terms of broad assessments on antisemitism in America, things don't like great: 88% of Jews say it is a "very" or "somewhat" serious problem and 84% say it has increased in severity over the past five years. The silver lining is that most Jews have not been victimized by either physical or verbal antisemitic attack and most Jews are not avoiding Jewish spaces or advertising their Jewish status out of fear of antisemitic attacks. But perhaps the more interesting data comes in terms of where American Jews think antisemitism is coming from, and who is mostly responsible for it. It's no surprise that most Jews are Democrats, most Jews lean liberal, and most Jews have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump (by a 22/76 margin -- whoof!). It might be a little more surprising -- at least given how the issue has been covered by both the Jewish and non-Jewish press -- how Jews assess the threat of antisemitism and the response to it on an ideological level. Jews strongly disapprove of how Donald Trump is handling the threat of antisemitism in the United States -- literally, 62% "strongly disapprove", the overall approve/disapprove spread is 24/73. In terms of where the threat of antisemitism is strongest in America, the answer is "the extreme right" -- 49% of respondents say it is a "very serious" threat, compared to 15% for "the extreme left" and 27% for "extremism in the name of Islam". Add in the "moderately serious" threat respondents and the extreme right gets 78%, the extreme left 36%, and Islamic extremism 54%. But that's dealing with "extremists". What about mainstream political parties? Here we see something that I think should blow some doors off. Asked to assess the Democratic and Republican parties' responsibility for contemporary antisemitism on a 1 - 10 scale (where 1 is "no responsibility" and 10 is "total" responsibility), Democrats saw 75% of respondents give them a grade of 5 or below (i.e., the bottom half of the scale), versus 22% at 6 or higher (the mode response was a "1" -- no responsibility -- the second most common response was a "2"). For Republicans, by contrast, just 38% of respondents gave them a 5 or below score, while 61% scored them above a 6. Their mode response was an "8", the second most common response a "10". The way it's been covered in the press, one would think that Jews are fearful of left antisemitism and furious at the Democratic Party for not tamping down on it. In reality, the consensus position in the Jewish community is that the most dangerous antisemitism remains far-right antisemitism, and that in terms of political responsibility the Republican Party is a far more dangerous actor than the Democratic Party is. That consensus has the added advantage of reflecting reality -- it's obviously true that right-wing antisemitism (the sort that gets Jews killed) in America is more dangerous than other varieties, and it's obviously true that the GOP has been nothing short of abysmal in policing itself and reining in its antisemitic conspiracy mongers (thinking instead that its Israel policies entitle it to a nice fat "get-out-of-antisemitism-free" card). Now the question is whether Jewish institutions and the Jewish media (or -- dare to dream -- the mainstream media) will follow the lead on this, and start reallocating attention and emphasis accordingly. Now let's move to the Critical Issues poll. It covers a bunch of ground on Mid-East policy, but it is in particular one of the first I've seen to try and gauge American attitudes towards BDS, so let's focus on that. Perhaps the most striking finding is being slightly misreported -- the Jerusalem Post says it found that 48% of Democrats support BDS. But that's not right -- the true number is probably around half that. The survey first asked how much people had heard about BDS -- and for a majority of respondents (including 55% of Democrats), the answer was "nothing". They hadn't heard of BDS at all. The next-most common response was "a little" (29%), while "a good amount" and "a great deal" combined for just 20%. Only those who had heard at least "a little" about BDS were then asked whether they supported it or not. Overall, 26% of respondents supported it ("strongly" or "somewhat"), while 47% opposed it, and 26% were neutral. For Democrats, that split was 48% support (14% "strongly", 34% "somewhat"), 37% neutral, and 15% opposed. So that's where the 48% figure comes from -- but again, it excludes the majority of Democrats who've never heard about BDS at all. Add them in (and assume they'll be at "neither support nor oppose"), and the percentage of Democrats supporting BDS probably falls into the mid-20s. Now obviously, that's itself noteworthy. But it's hard to know what to make of it, especially given that most of those who have heard about BDS still have only heard "a little" about it. That in itself is worth pointing out -- for all the indigestion this issue is causing the Jewish community, it's barely made an imprint on the polity writ large: 80% of all Americans have heard little or nothing about it. It's hardly some sort of generational wave that's caught the attention of the nation. Still, it would have been interesting to know if those who had heard more were more or less likely to support the campaign -- my guess is actually it would yield greater polarization (those who've heard a lot about BDS would be more likely to either strongly support or strongly oppose it). But -- probably because the number of respondents who've heard more than "a little" about BDS is so small -- we don't have data at that level of granularity. In any event: What does seem to be the case is that there is a sizable -- though still minority -- chunk of Democratic voters who (a) haven't heard that much about BDS and (b) say they support it "somewhat" (recall the "somewhats" vastly outstripped the "stronglys"). My suspicion is that this represents a set of voters who (a) are pretty pissed off at Israel and Netanyahu right now, and don't feel particularly inclined to think it is pursuing an end to the occupation in good faith, and (b) view BDS vaguely as a means of exerting pressure on Israel to change course, or if not that, at least signal that they don't endorse its current tack. In practice this probably means only supporting more "moderate" forms of BDS (if you even want to call it that) -- sanctions against settlements yes, full-fledged academic boycotts no -- and as I've written before that is actually a predictable consequence of BDS going "mainstream": it will lose some of its harder edges (much to the consternation of its founding, more radical core). Basically, these are people who are looking for ways to signal "what Israel is doing is not okay", and while I strongly doubt they are ride-or-die on BDS, absent other avenues for expressing that sentiment they'll at least be open to some form of "BDS" -- albeit probably not the more radical iterations of it that, say, characterize the PACBI guidelines. The challenge for pro-Israel Democrats isn't, I think, that the 2020 Democratic electorate is going to demand that the US treat Israel as a pariah state. The challenge is that these voters are looking for ways to vent their frustration at Israel, and are going to want their candidates to speak in terms of sticks as well as carrots with respect to how Israel is engaged with. We're already seeing a bit of that -- and it's frankly a healthy move. The survey asks a few more message-based questions about BDS (again, only to those who've heard at least a "little" about it), leading questions of the "is it antisemitism or is it legitimate" variety. I'm very much not a fan of the wording of those questions, and don't think they tell us much other than effective messaging frames to make people more positively disposed towards BDS (including that "Opposing Israeli policy does not equal anti-Semitism" is the salt of Israel discourse -- there's no recipe that isn't tastier with at least a sprinkle of it, so why not just toss it on everything?). The final question the survey asks on this topic returns back to all respondents (not just those who've heard of BDS) and asks about "laws that penalize people who boycott Israel". One can quibble again about the verbiage here (the laws in question impose no criminal penalties, they just bar government contractors from also boycotting Israel -- but then, wouldn't many naturally view that as "penalty", albeit a non-criminal one?), but the numbers are nonetheless striking: 72% of respondents (including 62% of Republicans) oppose such laws. So that's probably something worth keeping in mind (again, might I recommend replacing those laws with general prohibitions on nationality-based discrimination? I bet that would poll much better). via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/340Hop9

#anti-semitism #boycott #Israel #Jews #polls

[schraubd]

The Rules of Racial Standing Hit Ayanna Pressley

In the wake of the latest Trump racism scandal, which targeted Rep. Ayanna Pressley alongside Reps. Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, and Tlaib, one particularly depressing thing to witness is the simple rote reflexive declaration that they're antisemitic, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and therefore have it coming. To be clear: None of the women deserve to be targeted by racist vitriol. That remains true even granted insensitive things some of these women have said (though even the worst offender -- Rep. Omar with her "hypnotize" quote -- still hasn't done anything approaching singling out prominent women of color and saying they should remove themselves from America). You'd think that go without saying, though it apparently needs to be said and said again to all but four members of the GOP caucus. I suppose also if it went "without saying", we wouldn't have a racist President saying them. Yet there also must be made mention of the particular way this discourse is playing out with respect to Rep. Pressley. Pressley has no history of antisemitism, or anti-Israel advocacy, or anything else. Yet in fulminations about the evils of the "squad", and newly-elected progressive women of color, she's treated as an equally valid target of indiscriminate fulminations about left-wing antisemitism. This is nothing new for Pressley. But, confronted with the evidence that Pressley has never said, done, or implied anything that gives rise to any inference of antisemitic animus whatsoever, those spitting fire at her seem unbowed. They argue that the fact that Pressley is so proximate to Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez means it is incumbent on her to condemn them -- and if she doesn't, she must be endorsing them (it has to be said here that the evidence of antisemitism from AOC is also needle-thin -- from what I can see, it primarily hinges on (a) calling Israel's response to the Gaza protests a "massacre" and (b) a phone call to Jeremy Corbyn). That argument -- that if Pressley is not vocally denouncing alleged antisemitism by other Congresswomen, she must be endorsing the sentiments -- reminded me of one of Derrick Bell's famous "Rules of Racial Standing", which he published in his 1992 book Faces at the Bottom of the Well. The fourth rule ran as follows:

When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community or vocal components thereof deem "outrageous," the latter will actively recruit blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to this call for condemnation will receive superstanding status. Those blacks who refuse to be recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political consequences (118).

I referenced this dynamic a bit in this post, but the point is the manner in which Pressley is being treated -- guilty-until-proven-innocent, on the hook to constantly condemn (to our satisfaction) this or that "outrageous" thing said by her fellow congresswomen, despite no evidence that she shares any such problematic views -- is nothing new. It is a phenomenon of long standing, and it is noticed. And let's be clear: this is how Pressley is being treated. She's young(-ish), Black, progressive, and so therefore just defaulted to be a threat. The absence of evidence doesn't deter this assessment in the slightest -- it just causes a slight fallback: now if she isn't spending her days railing against AOC, that counts as evidence of endorsement. Of course, noticing it does little good. Again, it's not like this phenomenon has gone unremarked upon; it's constantly remarked upon and yet repeats itself over and over again. And so Bell's fifth Rule of Racial Standing tells us that while understanding the rules can give one prophetic power of how racism will operate, "[t]he price of this knowledge is the frustration that follows recognition that no amount of public prophecy, no matter its accuracy, can either repeal the Rules of Racial Standing or prevent their operation" (125). via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2JDnXeB

#Ayanna Pressley #racism