Is this anti-semitism?

OTM

Looking at the word Zionist here seems fine to me?

Jewish-Americans occupy Congress to demand an immediate ceasefire and a free Palestine. Because Jews have always been part of an anti Zionist movement and US support for Israel is not about protecting Jews. #Gaza #Genocide #Ceasefire #FreePalestine pic.twitter.com/GNJdxJztq6

— Noura Erakat (@4noura) October 18, 2023

I think the discussion here is using it as a pejorative, as if it's something to be ashamed of and everyone should understand this.

Agree there are contexts where it is drier and genuinely useful.

Maybe it's an impossible distinction to articulate at any level of generality.

I think the idealistic notion of zionism and the practical project of building a zionist nation-state are two different things and, sticking to the philosophical and idealogical meanings and not religious ones, you end up with the same semantic arguments that exist when people identify as communists versus the practical existence of formerly communist states

There is the question of whether a practical zionist state that does not have the same issues as Israel could exist. The ambiguity in calling something "zionist" just makes it not a very useful descriptor. Unless you think the idealized zionism will always end up like the current Israeli government, which is where some people may be coming from, but I don't think having that as your base assumption is useful in communicating with others.

long story short I just never say zionist and if someone says they're a zionist I wait for clarification

And here, this thread addresses the notion of Israel as a place of safety for Jewish people

As a Jewish person in the US I've marched alongside Palestinians against the Zionist occupation of Palestine countless times and I have never felt threatened, or heard anything that suggested Jewish people in general were considered enemies.

— Tovarisch (@nwbtcw) October 12, 2023

xps

(xps) Three of the leaders of British political parties at the moment are knights of the realm. Ludicrous.

― The First Time Ever I Saw Gervais (Tom D.), Thursday, October 19, 2023 8:43 AM bookmarkflaglink

I see the problem. "Sir" doesn't narrow it down.

I’ve got Sir Kier and Sir Ed - who is the third?

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.

Tovarisch
@nwbtcw

That doesn't sound like an FSB plant at all.

The Federation of Small Businesses always up to no good.

That doesn't sound like an FSB plant at all.

― peace, man, Thursday, 19 October 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Instead of conspiracies about that poster, what are your objections to that thread?

And to Felicity/others who were troubled by this - idk if you care at this point or it matters (as we'll have different readings on the Z word) but as it makes you stressed out I won't say it on the Israel thread anymore.

you can find "someone" on twitter who says literally anything.

Oh it matters, and thanks. Also I never thought you specifically meant it in a hateful way.

[the setting: FSB cyberheadquarters, embedded in a vast artificial cavern deep beneath lenin's tomb]

FSB AGENT 1: ha! ha! stupid americans cannot crack my secret code of username. to ash heap will go their posts! capitalism will fall to fakeness of news and we, tovarischi of FSB, will rule! [notices FSB AGENT 2 peering anxiously at green CRT monitor with hammer+sickle power button] vat is wrong, comrade darlink?

FSB AGENT 2: IS PEACE, MAN!!!!

I recognize that simply banning "the Z-word" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's a pretty complex issue.

mh was right. i meant using it as a pejorative. the word can mean different things in different contexts, it doesn't mean someone supports israeli policy

https://www.nydailynews.com/2023/10/18/woman-punched-in-unprovoked-antisemitic-attack-in-midtown-manhattan-subway-station/

gonna say this one is anti-semitism

https://ibb.co/kGMf9JK

https://ibb.co/kGMf9JK

broken links.

I'd say this is antisemitism: https://www.mediaite.com/online/uc-davis-professor-under-fire-over-posts-threatening-zionist-journalists-and-their-families/

This is the kind of shit that should get attention, vs this dumb UPenn blowup. A professor publicly stating that journalists and their kids should be killed because they are Zionist? what the fuck, lady.

Yeah. And a tenure track prof, not just some random instructor.

Also pertinent to antisemitic usage of “Zionist” discussion.

Absolutely psychotic.

It’s like a strawman came to life

That's just demented enough for me to think she's a project veritas plant

I have to admit when I clicked the link I was surprised it wasn’t about Joshua Clover

so far this story is mostly floating around right-wing circles which is disappointing, frankly, because this shit should be repudiated by everyone.

UC Davis has issued a statement which is probably as forthcoming as it can be, legally :

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/statement-chancellor-may-comments-attributed-faculty-member

That’s good. It would be pretty insane if that wasn’t cause for immediate action. Legitimately psychotic behavior.

Q: is there a difference between what that prof said and just saying that the people killed in Israel weren’t civilians because they are “settlers”? I guess the difference is that it isn’t an open call for violence, but it seems pretty open ended in terms of who is a justified target of violence.

I don't like or agree with the view that no Israeli are truly civilians but it's a big leap to endorse publishing "Zionist journalists" home addresses

There's a big difference between callously dismissing the deaths of people who are already dead and outright advocating the murder of people who are still alive.

voting-age Israelis bear some measure of culpability for their democratically elected government's actions, which obv doesn't make them justified targets. but parties that are calling for an end to occupation get miniscule support from Jewish Israelis.

the word "settler" is also taking a beating these days, I get the sense many people ranting on social media don't understand its very specific meaning in the Israeli context.

what does that first sentence mean?

i understand all of the words in it but after that im utterly lost

the word "settler" is also taking a beating these days, I get the sense many people ranting on social media don't understand its very specific meaning in the Israeli context.
——

I don’t think the Yale prof I was thinking of didn’t understand the context. There is definitely a popular view that all Israelis are settlers. Some don’t understand the context but others do. And I think some deliberately blur it.

Sort of like “occupation”

Settler Colonialism is a hip term these days

This may be covered in the hidden bit above (not opening this gigantic thread to find out) but on that Know Your Enemy episode with the Jewish Currents crew they talked about how the ADL adopting its position that "anti-Zionism is antisemitism" was a significant change and departure from past decades.

Among other things, it seems to me (a goy) like a deliberate sidelining of secular Jews.

what does that first sentence mean?

just that Israelis have the power to end the occupation

This seems antisemitic, also a good example of "Zionist" used as a pejorative which I'd be inclined to classify as antisemitic rather than as an expression of a principled stance in favor of a secular democratic one-state solution

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/10/19/23924737/illinois-comptrollers-office-attorney-fired-over-anti-semitic-comments-on-instagram

yeesh

Definitely antisemitism. It's tricky because you can use it factually and nonprejudicially. But also can use it for racism.

Given 3-4 centuries of solid Protestant heritage (my grandparents were Mennonite, Anglican, Presbyterian and Southern Baptist, god knows when we even had a Catholic in the direct line), I feel like I don't get to say 'Zionist' unless I'm talking about Theodor Herzl specifically or something. It's hard to think of a scenario where I wouldn't be able to find less charged language no matter how critical of Israel I was aiming to be.

One person's scum is another person's cream I guess

I appreciate that..

just that Israelis have the power to end the occupation

― symsymsym, Friday, 20 October 2023 04:02 (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

ive been reading the conversations across both threads and appreciating most perspectives but i dont think the sentiment im picking up from the original post and the terse response (both of which are open somewhat to a lot of interpretation so possibly this is on me) are at all good ones.

do palestinians "have the power" to sway hamas? that's a line we're hearing to justify the ongoing collective punishment.

was every US citizen of voting age culpable in this way for the iraqi war and fallout? every uk citizen?

Plus I'm not sure any Israeli government in the last 30 years has ever had a majority, they all appear to be tortuous coalitions of sometimes very disparate parties.

I recognize that simply banning "the Z-word" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's a pretty complex issue.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 19 October 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Yes, it's absolutely useful and at the front and centre, but I recognise that enough has been said (by me for sure), for now.

XP it’s worth remembering that leading up to this, Israelis had been in the streets for almost a full year protesting the Netanyahu government, and while I think the disparate views among the protesters would not necessarily match those of the Free Palestine movement 1:1, many of them support an end to settlements in the West Bank, opposed curtailment of minority rights and free speech, opposed theocratic moves by the government, and were even refusing to do reserve duty over this. Very few of them would likely be in favor of an immediate move to a binational state but many would say Israel has gone too far in its treatment of Palestinians.