The part of the Zionists rhetoric I've seen online especially here on tumblr that really... not so much confuses or disturbs me because every part of supporting racism and genocide is disturbing, but the part that makes me nauseous in a very specific way, is how many of these people claim to be leftists. Not the Israeli government or the majority of Zionists obviously, they're proud racist right wingers. But here on tumblr you have people who believe in feminism and queer rights and would agree easily enough with surface level takes on how racism in America is bad. And when it comes to conservatives and red fascists they can easily tell when a right wing racist or homophobe is arguing in bad faith, they can make long posts explaining the harm behind terf rhetoric and how it differs from the actual fight for women's liberation. They can look at the Russia and Ukraine conflict and use critical thinking to call out bad actors with ease.
But then with Israel and Palestine they just... Flip. All the bad faith arguments they criticised before is now their modus operandi. They ignore the ongoing genocide and the Palestinians talking about it and focus on the oppressors, only reblogging the same one or two Palestinian voices once every now and then that say everything they want to hear and nothing more.
I think the most striking example is that "antisemitism bingo" someone made where the ongoing genocide was something to be laughed at and the blog made fun of Palestinian civilians being tortured. And yet when a blocklist went around of people who interacted with that ghoulish blog, clearly explaining why we should avoid them, (Hijt:The racism and dehumanisation of Palestinians) these "leftist zionists" immediately were like "Oh its a block list of Jewish blogs! It's only blocking us because we're Jewish!"
Like it's the most bad faith easily disproven illogical argument that every random 4chan troll can make. It's not my actions it's because I'm white! It's not my homophobic remarks it's because I'm straight!
I still struggle to understand how they're able to flip so easily from intelligent historical and societal discussions of oppression and intersectionality to denial of the Nakba, denial of the apartheid and racism that has ruled the Israeli state since its conception, denial of the Israeli terrorism and colonisation ongoing in the West Bank that Palestinians have been speaking up about for years (The save Sheikh Jarrah campaign and the murder of peaceful Palestinian activists predates October 7th by quite a bit and yet received far, far less coverage by western media) and denial of everything the government and soldiers and many citizens are currently doing to murder as many Palestinians as possible. How do you go from pointing out cult tactics to a Maga style tribalism enthusiast just because it's Palestinians being oppressed and not another group?
The only reason I can think of is that unlike say, white people or straight people, zionists DO have an understandable, real fear that they can use to promote their racist cult. Antisemitism exists worldwide and is a problem in every single country. Unlike ridiculous concepts like "white genocide" or misandry, there is grounded, factual and understandable reasons for Jewish people to want a community where they can feel safe. And anyone who truly cares about equality for all must be committed to stamping out and dismantling antisemitism in every country and neighbourhood, because Zionists sure as hell aren't. The more antisemitism exists the greater their fuel for justifying and promoting Israel as the One True answer to it all.
But the solution of Israel involved ethnic cleansing in order to built their majority Jewish state, and relies on racism and genocide to maintain it. Just like any other coloniser state, it's not sustainabile and is constantly spiralling towards fascism. (America currently contending for loudest spiral) And that is obvious to anyone who reads up on the history or just like. Talks to Palestinians for five seconds. Israel exists due to racism and dehumanisation of Palestinians, and anyone who considers that an acceptable sacrifice is blatantly morally bankrupt. But the tribalism is simply too strong for that sort of logic and understanding, and whatever reasons they may have for falling into Zionism, it's still unacceptable. If you're still on here talking about "demonising Israel and exaggerating genocide (for the woke agenda, is what they're two steps away from saying) then I have no sympathy or time for you. One day you will be forced to reckon with your cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance, and the self righteous racist narrative you cling to will no longer be enough to protect you from judgement. Normal people with their morals screwed on right don't support fascism and racism. Leftists sure as hell shouldn't support facism and racism. (And yes this goes for those who defend Russian and Chinese imperialism too.)
You talk about feeling isolated, about having no one but fellow zionists to rely on. No one else will accept how complicated the situation is, you say over the sound of ten thousand murdered children killed and celebrated by the fascists you're carrying water for. Everyone else is just too antisemitic! You say as the Israeli government and military celebrates Hannukah by bombing Palestinians and joking that they're lighting one of the candles.
I genuinely can't tell if these people are aware they're full of shit or just so scared that they've dived deep into cult mentality with zero critical thought allowed. But either way, there should be no more space for them in our community than a nazi, a homophobe or a Trump supporter. They may have parroted similar ideals of equality and justice for long enough, but when push came to shove and the issues began to hit too close to home, they decided that supporting facism is how they want to cope. So be it. Palestine will be free with or without them and I will mourn the intelligent principled people they could have been, but at the end of the day you have to draw the line somewhere. And supporting genocide is generally a solid line to go with.
15 notes
·
View notes
anytime I talk about my parents I recognize that I give people whiplash because it's like
'my mama taught me that everyone is a knife, you just have to know how to handle them and respect that we can all hurt each other. Stop holding people by the blade and blaming them for the blood.'
'my mama taught me that everyone has a use, so it's important not to get spiteful or hateful toward folks- even when they wrong you. You never know whose door you might need to knock on in the future.'
and
'my daddy taught me about gas station flirting, which is when you flirt inside a gas station because you see this person 4-5 times a week for 5 minutes tops each time and so it's /safe/ and it doesn't mean anything. It's just making someone feel good about themselves for a moment before they go on with their day.'
'My daddy very proudly told me one time that he'd been learning spanish and then very excitedly told me that 'rojo' means 'Marlboro' in Spanish.'
and anyone who has heard me talk before just gets to hold any of that wisdom in their head right beside 'my mama teaches disabled kids' and 'my daddy was a drug dealer and ran a gambling den out of his gas station.'
3 notes
·
View notes
just venting
i mean whats the end goal for any of them
the politicians, the rich
to start a world war? to cause an uprising? an economic collapse? an unlivable planet? chaos?
bc thats whats going to happen
everything is being stretched so fucking thin that they will have nothing left for themsleves, they will have destroyed everything and then what??
wait until the last possible minute to either die from natural causes, vices, or kill yourself??
like what is the end goal? world domination? (im talking about the rich and politicians in general)
bc if its power that only goes so far. same with money.
even if you enslaved the whole world it wouldnt last. it cant it just is literally impossible
this kind of shit is finite, being a terrible person has a limit
they want to feel so powerful but is there an end?
but i guess they literally are just riding the wave until they die.
i just cant wrap my head around it
and its so fucking hard to give up. i want to give up so bad and just stop caring and just focus on whatever i want and get in that shitty richy politician mindset
because i dont believe in accountability after death, but i cant.
even with the anger and wanting these people dead and this strong beyond words feeling of hate for them i still cant fathom and understand the hate they have for everyone who isnt them or like them
if they all dropped dead im celebrating
but if i had a choice between them changing all of a sudden and them dropping dead id choose change
how does someone become like them how does that hate and anger grow so much that it practically oozes out their pores
i cant help but not give up and i cant help but have hope
their ways are not sustainable and everything is already breaking and i hope it breaks soon like full on. whatever that means
3 notes
·
View notes
The Biden administration signaled on December 12 that it is willing to make disastrous—and permanent—changes to asylum and immigration policy to obtain temporary military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
Top White House officials reportedly met with some of the key Senate negotiators, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), as well as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Unfortunately, media reports indicate the White House is willing to resurrect some Trump-era anti-immigrant policies to cut a deal on Ukraine funding. These include the nationwide expansion of a fast-track deportation process known as “expedited removal,” the expansion of mandatory detention, and the immediate expulsion of migrants at the border under a Title 42-like authority.
...
The implementation of Title 42-like authority at the border would be counterproductive at addressing migration and, instead, will result in many individuals being sent back to persecution in their home countries or forced to wait in Mexico indefinitely. Human rights organizations have tracked thousands of incidents of violence against migrants, including murder, rape, and torture, during the Biden administration’s implementation of Title 42.
Reimposing Title 42 would also fail to seriously address border crossings. Analysis from the American Immigration Council shows that these expulsions do not deter migrants from attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. During the Title 42 policy, roughly one in three people apprehended after crossing the border were on their second or higher failed attempt to cross. This is confirmed by a recent analysis of DHS data from the Cato Institute, which revealed that ending Title 42 significantly reduced repeat crossings and halved so-called “gotaways.” As a result, allowing any DHS secretary to simply shut the border to asylum seekers would lead to tremendous harm to both asylum seekers and to basic principles of border management.
Dramatically expanding mandatory immigrant detention
The White House has also reportedly agreed in principle to language that would strip authority from DHS to release migrants who cross the border and are taken into custody. While many of those individuals are currently eligible for release, language currently in H.R. 2, a Republican-supported bill that passed along party lines in the House earlier this year, would bar DHS from releasing any migrant—regardless of whether they are families or children.
The expansion of detention raises serious human rights concerns and would represent a complete break from the promises President Biden made as a candidate and while in office. Within the confines of the already expansive immigrant detention landscape, there are numerous complaints of negligent medical care, unsafe conditions, unfair and discriminatory treatment of detained migrants, and excessive use of force. Barring the release of migrants seeking protection to deter migration would only increase these abuses.
In addition, the United States simply does not have, and has never had, sufficient detention capacity to detain all migrants crossing the border, so releases would have to continue anyway. But by barring DHS from releasing migrants, Congress would also likely force the administration to restart family detention centers, leading to children suffer in detention centers for months or longer
Heightening the Standard for an Initial Asylum Screening
Negotiators are contemplating heightening the standard used for initial asylum screenings at the border. Currently, migrants must show that there is a “significant possibility” that they are eligible for asylum or similar protections, including under the Convention Against Torture. The standard was established in 1996 as a safeguard to prevent the U.S. government from breaking its international humanitarian agreements by erroneously deporting someone back to danger. If the migrant fails to show a significant possibility, they can be swiftly deported through the expedited removal process.
As we’ve seen under the Biden administration, making the standard more difficult will have not have a significant impact on newly arriving migrants. Since May, the Biden administration has been implementing a heightened standard in this initial screening process under its Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule. Despite this, border apprehensions have risen significantly since this rule went into effect, which suggests that it has not been a deterrent.
Migrants often don’t know the nuances of immigration policy and arrive at our border simply hoping to find safety. This means that raising the standard will only result in the deportation of migrants who may have viable asylum claims but can’t immediately prove their case to an asylum officer at the border.
Third Country Transit Asylum Ban
Though the specifics are not yet known, an asylum ban for people who travel through a third country before arriving to the United States can have devasting consequences for U.S. foreign policy and for immigrants arriving in this country on visas. For example, under a bill passed along party-lines in June, an untold number of individuals could lose access to asylum for simply having an international layover on a flight to the United States. This means that even an Afghan national evacuated from Kabul via a U.S. military base in Germany could not apply for asylum for failing to apply in Germany first. A Ukrainian national whose flight stopped in London before arriving to the United States would be similarly barred.
Such a proposal ignores that many people may pass through a country where applying for asylum is impracticable or which is not safe for them, and they would be barred from asylum as a result. In addition, this proposal will not have any impact on reducing migration. Under the Biden administration’s asylum restriction, roughly 90% of migrants who cross the border between ports of entry are already banned from seeking asylum. Imposing a statutory transit ban would most heavily impact individuals who enter legally through ports of entry or who fly into the country on visas.
Expansion of Fast-Track Deportations Nationwide
On December 8, news broke that the White House would be willing to support a nationwide expansion of “expedited removal,” a fast-tracked deportation process.
Currently, expedited removal is applied to noncitizens who present themselves at a port of entry without proper entry documents, or who enter without permission within the last 14 days and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This process severely limits due process by allowing low-level immigration officials (not judges) to immediately order deportations without the right to an attorney.
A nationwide expansion, like previously occurred under the Trump administration, could mean that immigrant parents, children, and spouses of U.S. citizens living in the United States for years could be swept up for swift removal with little legal recourse. Due to the expedited nature of this process, migrants with pending applications for relief could be removed and Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities could be unfairly targeted. This would also require significantly more resources for immigration enforcement, as interior enforcement of expected removal would involve significant operational complexities.
Crucially, expanding expedited removal to the interior would not reduce border crossings, as the policy is already in effect at the border. It would, however, provide a powerful tool for a future administration that aimed to carry out mass deportations of recently arrived migrants.
What’s Next?
It’s still unclear whether any of these concessions can make it through both chambers of Congress. The House GOP has indicated that they want significantly broader changes to asylum and border policy, and hardline GOP senators have reportedly said that even these policies are “not nearly enough.” With the clock ticking on holiday recess, the chance that Congress can hammer out a deal and make it law by the end of December is increasingly slim.
However, in the past few days, the Senate negotiations have moved us closer to potentially seeing these Trump-era like policies becoming law. We need real policy solutions that don’t throw the immigrant community under the bus
3 notes
·
View notes