The amazing thing is that there are articles making the rounds of Macklemore dressing up as an extremely offensive Jewish stereotype. (He’s since apologised for it; make of that what you will. Maybe he deserves forgiveness, maybe he doesn’t; I don’t know or care enough about the guy to try to find an answer.)
…But in spite of the photos of Macklemore in the Judenhass equivalent of blackface, what actually upset people was calling for the end to genocide in Gaza? That's what he gets cancelled for?
Huh.
Yeah, it sure as fuck isn’t really about antisemitism when they ignore evidence of actual antisemitism and insist that he must be cancelled for speaking against genocide.
Yeah that one killed me too, they had no issues with Macklemore until he said Free Palestine. There was nothing about his 2014 incident until after he was already cancelled.
What’s hilarious is Pink used his 2014 incident as an excuse for her “feeling scared” after being called out on her initial response to his recent activism. Indeed, the whole righteous indignation of her / Kraft is performative and simply a shield of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
I mean, it was a big deal in Jewish communities. I stopped listening to his music and don’t know many Jews who listen to him or have a high opinion of him.
And that's fine, his caracature was pretty racist and should be condemned. Robert Kraft and other Zionists not saying a word about it while he was on tour until he said Free Palestine screams of them looking for a better reason to cancel Macklemore than him being anti-genocide.
He hasn’t been relevant til he started pandering to Palestine supporters for support. There is a zero percent chance he didn’t know what he was doing with the jew face
Uhh Jews have been rolling their eyes at him since his dumb free Palestine song was released. Whatever it's called. He just now has a stage where he's spreading his propaganda to people who aren't there to see him, since he's just an opener. If he goes on his own tour he can say whatever he wants since people are there to see him.
He (and the rest of you) can keep saying this isn't about Jews, but the Israeli government, yet antisemitic crimes are rising worldwide. You're doing nothing but spreading more Jewish hate.
It always seemed to me that the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is itself an antisemitic act, burdening all Jews with collective guilt for whatever wrongs the government of that country may commit.
Yes. The fact that the same trope is now being used as a sort of rhetorical armour to make all Jews worldwide into human shields for the war criminals currently running Israel, who are themselves Jewish, is honestly mildly shocking even from a bunch of thugs and murderers. Netanyahu is, among other things, fanning the flames of antisemitism to a degree that no Hamas terrorist can match.
You don't give a single fuck about Palestinians because there are no free Palestinians under Hamas rule. Not a single mention about Hamas from you, just get rid of Israel! Once the big bad jews are gone the Palestinians will finally be free! Except for the women who will have no rights, except for gay people who will be killed, etc.
It's a nothing slogan when you say it out loud because it doesn't mean anything on its own. When you actually explain what Free Palestine means, you're showing that you're not at all about freeing palestinians, you just want Israel to not exist, and what do you think will happen to Jews when Israel can't protect them?
Hamas is in Gaza. And Israel supported them heavily in the 70s and 80s as a counter to the Fatah. And let me remind you that the Fatah is secular, works together with Israel now and wants peace.
And they run the Westbank. But without the Hamas they would also still run Gaza.
Furthermore, not every Palestinian is Hamas. They just want peace. And not some Israeli terrorists that steal their cattle, their olive trees, burn their houses and cars and beat them to death.
If we were treating the Jewish people the way that Israel is treating Palestine would you think that as being antisemitic? If we starved the Jewish people and kept them in an open air prison? Oh wait we already had that fucking chapter of history. Defending Israel is defending the conditions that the holocaust put your people through. An inability to understand the correlation can only come from chosen ignorance.
66% of the European Jewish population were killed during the Holocaust.
3% of Gaza's population died during this so called genocide. And this number includes natural deaths, militants, and deaths caused by Hamas. Wow I can't believe Israel is doing the same thing that was done to them!!
I can't believe your argument is that Israel hasn't killed enough people yet for it to be a genocide. How high does the percentage need to rise for you to admit what is happening? 3% (some estimates say up to 6%) is staggering.
Keep trying to compare this to the holocaust and then ask yourself if the same thing is happening to Palestinians. If you think 3% is staggering, wait till you figure out how much 66% is.
The Holocaust is not the only example of a genocide. Refusing to see how terrible something is until it reaches the levels of the Holocaust is ignorant. Just because the Nazis build the most efficient death machine doesn't mean other death machines aren't terrible.
80% of the casualties in Gaza are civilians, 30% are children.
No, but murdering people abd stealing their homes is! There have been over 200 murders in the WB, the settlers are acting like the KKK! They are killing people and stealing their homes and land. That looks like Mississippi burning to me! I'm black, I know what Jim Crow looks like!
That would be the fault of people like you. Continuing to equate Zionism / Israeli government with Jewish people in general is why people who really only hate Zionism / Israeli government not extend that hate to Jewish people in general.
Yeah bro it's totally my fault that Israel is doing something, so now antisemitic crimes are up globally, even though nobody is equating Zionism with the Jewish people!
Those pictures and the apology were also from 12 years ago.
This wasn’t some new thing that just showed up, people just went digging because they didn’t give a shit when it happened. Only now so they can pretend to be outraged and offended is it an issue.
They would not acknowledge that because they do not want to separate those two things and treat them individually. If they stay glued together, then anyone against one of them is certainly accusable of the other thing. Which is very convenient for whoever is deciding what the talking points are.
I posted this elsewhere in the thread, repeating it for you- The difference is that only one of those was inside a venue during a paid performance - which exposes the venue and the organizers to liability. These are people with no moral or ethical standards whatsoever, but they *do* care about their bottom line.
Speaking as a Jew, I can say confidently that conservative Christians and Trump are purposefully watering down the word to align with Israel at the behest of Bibi.
While there has been a surge in actual antisemitism across the U.S. and world, non-Jews are taking it less seriously because they just now see it at as “oh, Israel.”
I personally think it’s purposefully meant to harm us in the diaspora into moving to Israel and its expansionist state. It’s disgusting.
Yeah, it sure as fuck isn’t really about antisemitism when they ignore evidence of actual antisemitism and insist that he must be cancelled for speaking against genocide.
Also note that fucking Heil Hitler Kanye West is performing at stadiums that Macklemore is banned at, which further points towards a lack of caring about actual antisemitism by those in charge.
Having said that, as dumb as banning Macklemore for his statements are, it's also very telling of much of the online "I'm antizionist not antisemitic" will literally find a hundred different ways to excuse almost any level of antisemitism as long as as you say free palestine as well. I will not be surprised by the end of the year, we see leftists embrace full on holocaust deniers like Candace Owens.
So I don't care about Ed sheeran. I literally couldn't name one of his songs. But... Everything I've read so far is that this was a management issue vs an owner issue. Basically Kraft said that he was banned from his stadiums, which in essence means the tour is over. So management kicked macklamore.
Now. Could Ed have said something to stop this? Probably not. These owners of these venues are totally insane. Same way live nation venues lock down everything. They hold the keys.
With that being said. He obviously should've issued a statement earlier and now he's fucked.
Well, the oligarchs owning the stadia are certainly the chief bad guys—they’re the ones demanding Macklemore be cancelled (not because of his history of antisemitism but) stated opposition to the Gazan genocide. Sheeran just sounds spineless.
I looked up krafts statement and he said it was due to a history of hate speech and his actions. So he didn't specify what was offensive. Of course he didn't, because that would mean actually taking a position himself. The pr company that wrote his response did so intentionally, so he can also skate by without ever needing to actually possibly take a position on anythjng. It's slimy, and fucked up, and I also wouldn't doubt if he intentionally tried to shift blame onto Ed, because that's how these businesses operate. Easier to pin it on the artist and he takes the fallout as opposed to the business and his future enterprises.
And that's working pretty well. All the focus is on Ed
A) he didn't really apologise for it. He apologised for how it came across.
B) They were upset back then. It was just less topical and so didn't get the same traction. Is it our fault that it's taken less seriously than blackface? Jews don't make up enough of the population to 'cancel' someone, so who are you talking about when you say they?
C) you're basically saying 'ah the Jews didn't get pissed off enough at the antisemite back then, so therefore it's wrong for them to get pissed off today - urmm didn't you just admit you didn't know or care enough?
Seems like you're just whinging about other people whinging.
…I really have no idea what you are reading into my comment. What on Earth does all this about protests (or lack thereof, or wrongly purported lack thereof) in 2014 have to do with anything?
The oligarchs who own the stadia put pressure on Sheeran to cancel Macklemore, and the reason given is the offence they took at his stated opposition to genocide.
This is in stark contrast to the fact that they did not say “Isn’t he the guy who made all those Jews furious with his offensive getup a decade ago? Can’t have him on the tour.” Nope; instead, they went with “Can’t have people on stage decrying genocide in Gaza”.
This strongly suggests that their reason for booting Macklemore was not his antisemitism, since they didn’t bother bringing it up.
I have no idea where, in that argument, you find yourself provoked into bizarre tirades about how I’m supposedly saying
you're basically saying 'ah the Jews didn't get pissed off enough at the antisemite back then
No; I didn’t say a thing about “the Jews” doing or not doing anything. You just made that up, for some reason.
…Or are you assuming that the oligarchs behind this are “the Jews”, and that criticism of one group is equivalent to criticism of the other? If so, that’s, ah, rather antisemitic of you, don’t you think?
Well you're just not defining they.... But now it means the oligarchs?
I suppose I should have spelled it out, but read the context. I was talking about the reasons for cancelling him. Who cancelled him?
So let's say Macklemore was caught in blackface. How would you react to him lecturing people on race relations a few years later?
I would expect that if that happened, people would cite the blackface incident as the reason to cancel his lectures, rather than some reason unrelated to racism.
As I said, they could have cancelled him on the grounds of the antisemitism incident. That would be perfectly defensible (if honest, anyway). The issue is that they didn't.
suppose I should have spelled it out, but read the context. I was talking about the reasons for cancelling him. Who cancelled him?
So normal people shouldn't be cancelling him because a billionaire stands with them at that issue huh? Where does this double standard dissappear on not being alligned with shitty people considering Hamas also shares your opinion on Israel? Suddenly becomes okay to align with shitty people ? Lmao
would expect that if that happened, people would cite the blackface incident as the reason to cancel his lectures, rather than some reason unrelated to racism.
What are these "people" you are talking about? Talking about humans like a singular entity and choosing only perspectives that support you lmao.
As I said, they could have cancelled him on the grounds of the antisemitism incident. That would be perfectly defensible (if honest, anyway). The issue is that they didn't.
How do YOU know they didn't? Maybe its because he fell out of popularity after his singular hit and his attempt to popularity again , people are bringing up the said incident again? Also why do you keep ignoring his lame attempt at 'apology' where he didnt even properly acknowledge what he did wrong?
It's not a single entity cancelling people out mug, basically, people thinking Jew hate is okay is what didn't cancel him. There's only 15m Jews in the world.
Your argument is 'well he didn't get cancelled for antisemitism because not enough people had a problem with it, therefore it's okay for him to continue going on being antisemitic'. It's such embarrassing logic.
Antisemitism literally means hatred of Jews. The word was specifically coined to sound more sophisticated. However the term may be etymologically rooted in real language families and mythical genealogies, that's all just linguistic trivia and no more determinative of meaning than any other etymology.
Long before it was used by linguists, the root word came from the Bible. In the Book of Genesis, Shem is one of the three sons of Noah. Historically, early scholars used the term "Semite" in a genealogical sense to mean anyone traditionally believed to be a descendant of Shem. According to biblical texts, this included many distinct peoples of the ancient Near East, such as the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, Aramaeans, and Canaanites
Originally, "Semitic" was strictly a linguistic term used to describe a broad family of languages from the Middle East and North Africa. It was never intended to define a specific ethnic identity, biological race, or religious
minority.
In 1879, a German anti-Jewish journalist named Wilhelm Marr wanted a scientific-sounding word to describe his hatred of Jewish people. He coined the term "Antisemitismus" (antisemitism). Marr chose this word specifically to make his hatred sound like an advanced, academic, and racial critique rather than old-fashioned religious prejudice
Because of the widespread adoption of the word "antisemitism" to mean anti-Jewish hatred, the root word "Semitic" became inextricably linked to Jews in popular vernacular.
Hence, Palestinians are semitic, Modern Israeli Jews are NOT.
Yeah the vernacular is outdated, but when they coin a phrase from a guy who coined a phrase for the sake of playing victim for the billionth time in 2000 years, I'll make the exception.
You acknowledge that the word antisemitism is, as I already said, based on real linguistics and mythical genealogies, not ethnicity.
You also acknowledge that, as I already said, it was itself specifically invented to refer to the hatred of Jews.
However, you insist that (a) even though it was invented specifically to refer to Jews, it actually has to do with Palestinians, because (b) they belong to a fictional people group which Jews do not, since (c) Jews have only been around for a few hundred years in Europe, yet (d) have been using the peculiar etymology of the word as a rhetorical shield for millennia, since long before they even existed?
I think you’ve got some problems in point (3), starting with the fact that it’s all nonsense.
Even if Jews had no Middle Eastern ancestry, the word antisemitism still means what it was coined to do and has meant ever since then: the hatred of Jews. Your pseudohistory is simply irrelevant.
I assume this is just stuff you parrot from your party’s propaganda rags? Stormfront or something?
I got a reddit removed comment (undone on appeal at least) for saying that. Also that when you behave like that I just automatically assume you have visited a certain island and Israel has the receipts.
There’s also this weird thing where it’s treated as a special kind of racism, separate and more grave than anti-asian, anti-hispanic or anti-black racism. Or maybe this is just what the internet does
You honestly are surprised that anti-semitism is considered a special kind of racism in Western civilization? Are you surprised that racism against black people is considered a special kind of racism in America?
Lol that's not the point. The word anti-semitism may have originated in German from a man who hated Jews, but it's a misnomer because many different ethnic groups apart from Jews are Semitic.
Overall group: People from North and South America.
Specific group: People from the United States of America.
The word "America" is directly used in the name USA, so it makes sense for the word "American" to only refer to people from the USA in certain contexts.
On the other hand:
Overall group: Semitic people (those who speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, etc.).
Specific group: Jewish people.
The word "Semite" is not directly used in any term for Jewish people, so it does NOT make sense for the word "Semitic" to only refer to Jewish people.
I never said that the common definition isn't anti-Jewish sentiment. The point is that it's a misnomer, period.
Interestingly, while the German language doesn't really use hyphens for compound words (which is why the German who came up with "antisemitismus" didn't use a hyphen), it originally had a hyphen when translated to English.
Over time, some Jews have argued that the hyphen should be dropped because "anti-semitism" gives a reasonable reader the impression that it refers to sentiment against Semitic people, even though Semites are a loose grouping and not a unified ethnicity.
Instead of correcting the misnomer and creating a new word, they decided to form "antisemitism" and perpetuate the false idea that "Semitic" is a special word ONLY for Jews.
It's helpful to not forget context. The point of the person you originally replied to is that Palestinians are Semitic and the word antisemitism doesn't make sense. They know what the dictionary definition of the word is and how it's commonly used; they didn't need you to spell it out.
You're absolutely right about the origins of the word. But also, who gives af about the origin? Words change all the time. The intentions of random Germans 150 years ago at the height of european orientalism, a time when the only "semites" relevant to europeans would be the jews who lived in europe, have zero value whatsoever as to whether or not the word is the best word for the job today.
Just like people are drifting away from terms like "middle east", the world today is under no obligation to continue to use antiquated eurocentric terminology. And particularly other semitic people are under no obligation to continue to categorize themselves using the terms dictated to them by their colonial overlords of the past. As if it's not inherently antisemetic to use the word antisemetic to refer to hatred of a verrrrry tiny sliver of semites, while explicitly excluding the remaining 99% from consideration.
Imagine doing that with literally any other word and fighting so hard to not change it. Like if "anti-american" refered specifically to hatred of mormons. It's fine to update terminology. The point is communication. If people know what you mean by antisemetic, fine. If it introduces confusion, then there's nothing wrong with replacing it with a more communicative term like Judeophobia, like how we started using Islamophobia.
Either way, this is off topic here. The point is that nothing about the defense of zionism has ever been about combatting antisemetism or whatever we decide to call it. It's no different than all the other examples of settler colonialism that came before it. They might have used christianity to sell manifest destiny, but at the end of the day it was about the ruling class taking control of land and resources for their own benefit.
Sorry, this is ahistoric nonsense. The land was granted to Jews after the Ottoman Empire lost WW1 while being allied with Germany. They were trying to take land from others, conquer other countries, so part of the deal of losing is you lose some land to discourage you from trying that shit again. That's how war works. It wasn't "stolen".
So the land Germany had to give up was 'stolen'? If the EU joined Ukraine in the war, and beat Russia, and they had to give up some of Russia to make sure they didn't try that shit again, that would be 'stolen'?
So if I commit a crime in my house and sell it for bail does that give my great great great great etc… grandchildren the right to come steal the house back because “my grandpa built it”? They left the region for a reason and now thousands of years later they come back and force literal hundreds of Thoisands of people out of their homes because “sky daddy says it’s mine”? Literally nobody wanted to take them in during WW2 so they convinced the Palestinians to let them “cohabitate” but they just took advantage of the people that let them in their own homes and literally waited for them to leave their houses so they could change the locks and kick the Palestinians out of their own houses. The Israelis have had thousands of years to assimilate with the rest of the world and continue to choose to believe they are quite literally better than everyone and take their shit while crying victim instead of make friends. No one feels bad anymore sorry.
Well the reason the Jews left Israel was because they were rebelling against an occupying imperial power (Rome), lost, and then had the entire population forced
into slavery and scattered across Europe as a punishment. The province was renamed from Judea to Palestine, after the Philistines, specifically to spite the then enslaved Jews.
I don't know how you would justify Palestinians struggling for self-determination on the one hand, but then call it a crime when the Jews did it before them.
And whereas many countries did in fact accept Jewish refugees in the lead up to and during WW2, Palestinians were in active revolt against the British administration, in large part because of the rapidly growing Jewish population that had re-established during Ottoman rule and to which European Jews had been migrating to since the late 1800s. While not representing all Palestinians, the religious leader of Muslim Palestinians in Jerusalem (the Mufti) attempted to form an alliance with Hitler and raised a regiment of Palestinians for the Nazi SS.
The reason they left was exile by the many empires that controlled the region over thast 3000 years.
Funny how you say no one wanted Israeli in Europe but dont critsize Eygept for not wanting the Gaza strip due the Palestinian population in the 78 peace talks or Jordan when King Hussain massacared and banished the Palestinians from his Kingdom (google Black September).
You litteraly know nothing about history. And try to get your facts not from tiktok or reddit
Following the same religion as some people who lived in a place 3000+ years ago does not give you any right to the land whatsoever.
Besides the fact that at no point even 3000 years ago was the "promised land" (which is a biblical not historical concept) a homogenous place where everyone was one religion or ethnicity, there's also the fact that people/families/clans/etc whose religious beliefs evolved over the last 3000 years (which is 99.9% of people) have just as much right if not more to live somewhere than people whose families may or may not have lived there at some point, but if they did they emigrated thousands of years ago and decided to come back centuries-later.
Some "Italian-American" whose family left Italy 50 years ago AND CAN PROVE IT has no right to force a modern-day Italian family out of their home to take it over, let alone someone with some dubious claim from thousands of years ago. Someone who converts to norse paganism, or whose family did so at some point over the centuries, has no right to go to iceland or norway and set up a faith-based ethnostate at gunpoint.
All of this is entirely self-evident and not complicated to anyone whose brain isn't completely rotted out by zionism and other forms of racism.
This should be easy and quick common sense. Sad how even this thorough and beautiful explanation will still be misunderstood both stuns and saddens me lmao smh.
Those Italian-American families LEFT Italy (your words exactly).
Jews were exiled by Babylonians, Romans, Greeks.
There is a subtle differance between leaving and being exiled.
You throw around the word zionism (surprise suprise). But i said multiple times the Palstians deserve the West Bank and Gaza to call their own and Israeli settlers should get the f out of there, but saying Jews/Israelis don't also have a right to the other parts of the land is bs.
Source? Jewish leaders were killed and/or exiled after they led rebellions against the rulers of that time. Even when some were taken for example to Babylon (they were allowed to go back 50 years later) it wasn't remotely a majority of them. Some of the Jewish population remained in that land throughout history always, to this day there are some Jewish families that literally never left that place since Jesus. But most who left emmigrated for economic reasons, or to simply go to places that were friendlier to them when enemy armies defeated their kingdom, as was completely typical both back then and today. By your logic every single one of us has a right to go colonize Africa since that's where our ancestors are from. Or better yet, Black Americans who were taken to the US against their will have no right to go back to Africa and start kicking African families who didn't get sent into slavery out of their homes.
But even for the sake of argument if your made up version was true, zionist settlers have no ties to the land other than believing in a religion that came from there. The vast majority cannot trace their lineage other than their religion and taking their word for it. So now this claim is transferable to anyone who joins the religion? If I start doing yoga I can't just go back to India and be like trust me bro one of my great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents was Indian so my people are from here, let me in.
But AGAIN for the sake of further argument let's just take the case of a Jewish person who CAN trace their family back without any doubt, to someone who definitely had been exiled from that land 2000 years ago. We're already multiple layers into bullshit fantasy but sure let's pretend. It still wouldn't give them any right to kick other former-Jewish people of the land who had since converted to Christianity, Islam, Druzism, etc from their homes. At best you could argue that they have a right to go back to their ancestral homeland, which they basically did throughout the vast majority of history, all the way up literally to the start of the zionist project Jewish people were living in Palestine, considered themselves Arab/Palestinian just like the Muslim and Christians there, could move there, buy land there, etc. They were not prevented. The only thing that turned it into an issue was the declaration of zionism as an ideology and the corresponding settler colonial ethnostate that was created to go with it.
You throw around the word zionism (surprise suprise)
Uhhh, it's literally the topic of this thread. Is it supposed to be a "gotcha" that I use the word of the topic we're discussing?
but saying Jews/Israelis don't also have a right to the other parts of the land is bs.
They don't have exclusive right to any part of it just like Christians don't and just like Muslims don't, because at no point throughout history has it been segmented like that. All these people were living mixed together the entire time. Jewish people have a right to live there, just like they always have done, just like the rest of the non-Jewish population there. What they don't have is a right to kick others out of their homes for their exclusive use just because someone stopped being Jewish.
I appreciate your long and thought out answer but unfortunately you’ve wasted your time trying to reason with these zio-ethno-nationalists. You can literally show these people videos of children being shot in the face and they either A.) claim it’s fake or B.) acknowledge and justify it. It’s like trying to convince the natzees (idk if that’s censored) that the Jews are actually just super cool nice people by using historical facts. They don’t care about history they care about pushing their worldview of ethnic superiority on the rest of us.🙄
Never claimed those vidoes are fake as oppose to you and other people claiming what Hamas did was fake, even know they filmed themselves during October 7th and posted it on Telegram.
You think you're morally superior and throw a bunch a names at me based on things you read online, yet i am the only one here saying both groups deserve land
It’s not merely following the same religion. It’s being the same ethnicity and culture, and being forced out.
You’re right that the Palestinians have a right to live there, just as Italian Americans have a right to live in America, but so do Jews - just as native Americans, if they were ethnically cleansed for the US rather than “just” the eastern USA, should still have a right to live there.
Since the Palestinians refused to acknowledge that right, the only recourse was a two state solution, which was unfortunately violently rejected by the Palestinians and other Arabs.
It’s being the same ethnicity and culture, and being forced out.
Uhh, no that's not what zionism is. No requirement for settlers to have been forced out of Palestine in the past, no requirement to have a specific culture either besides the religion, and no requirement to be specific ethnicity. There are Black Jews, Latino Jews, white European Jews, Arab Jews, and every single one of them has a right to move from anywhere in the world and take a non-Jewish Palestinian family's land and home from them. Obviously tho in practice since zionism is a branch of western colonialism the white Jews are the ones who get to be on the top rung of the ladder.
the Palestinians have a right to live there, just as Italian Americans have a right to live in America
Not quite. Not that Italian Americans don't have a right to live in the US but they are immigrants. Palestinians are an indigenous population in Palestine. Palestinians have a right to live there, just as native Americans have a right to live in America.
Since the Palestinians refused to acknowledge that right, the only recourse was a two state solution, which was unfortunately violently rejected by the Palestinians and other Arabs.
Completely and utterly ahistorical. At no point either today or in the past have Palestinians made a claim that Jews cannot live in Palestine. Only that a Jewish ethnostate shall not exist in Palestine. Before Zionism Jewish Palestinians were just called Palestinian. Just like the Christian and Muslim ones.
"The only recourse blah blah blah" neither you specifically or Europeans broadly have any right to come up with "solutions" for how another people should have their land divided or rules on how they are and aren't allowed to resist their colonizers.
Judaism has very few converts, as unlike Christianity or Islam it’s not a proselytising religion, so while true that’s largely meaningless.
99% of Israel Jews are ethnically Jewish, a people who were pushed out of Palestine.
And they don’t have that right. They do, however, have the right to move to Israel. Can we agree on this: Israel should not be settling the West Bank, but Israel has a right to exist and Jews have a right to live in Israel within the ‘67 borders?
Palestinians are complicated. They are ethnically, culturally, and religiously Arab, following the 7th century conquest and colonisation. However, that’s beside the point; we both agree they have a right to be there.
It’s also unfortunately not true that Palestine has never, and is not, claiming that Jews do not have a right to live in the region. Before the formation of Israel they opposed Jewish return - part of the reason the holocaust was so bad is because the British abided by Arab demands to block it - and this belief that Jews should not be in Palestine continues to this day, as can be seen by Hamas leaders saying things like “You have Jews everywhere and we must attack every Jew on the globe by way of slaughter and killing, if God permits” and “By God we will not leave one Jew in Palestine.”
No we cannot agree that Zionists have a right to colonize Palestine. "Israel" has as much of a right to exist as any other state, which is none. It can either attempt to reform, which Zionists will never allow, or it should be replaced. The other possibility of course being that they continue to successfully colonize Palestine and eventually all of greater Israel as they hope. But no I do not think they have a right to hold onto what has already been colonized but not what they've yet to conquer or some shit.
Not gonna bother responding to this made up brianrot shit tho. You racists are fucking sick in the head.
You’re welcome to fact check everything I said; it is all true.
I did say that Israel doesn’t have a right to colonise the West Bank; the intent was saying that they don’t have the right to colonise Palestine.
All I’m saying is that they have a right to exist within the 67 borders. To deny that - to deny Jewish people the right to reside and have self determination in their homeland - would be racism.
but they’re not happy with the other part. they’re INVADING. they’re taking land that before this war wasn’t there’s. actually none of that land was theirs before the 1940s, but that’s a different discussion. the state of israel that exists today is not the biblical israel.
i’d agree they have a right to defend themselves but what they’re doing atp is inexcusable. i think there’s also an argument to be made over them having a right to the land they have because of the way they were founded. jewish people were pushed out of their home countries due to big world events and growing antisemitism (awful yes i’m not disagreeing), and then britain (with US backing) declared that they’d be taking a piece of palestine to give to the jewish people to found the new state of israel. so the country only exists because of western colonialism. id even argue that that was a strategic move to establish control in that region.
I think there is an argument to be made that your making an imaginary line in History, Jews were exiled from Israel by the different empires over the last 3000 years, that is one reason they were in other countries. But the trend seems to be it is ok when it happened to Jews but not anyone else.
My first comment was based on archeological findings which the oldest structure in Jerusalem was built by the Kingdom of Israel, so i really like how you're saying that doesn't count
i actually never said it was okay, i specifically said it was awful.
imaginary, i don’t think so. i drew my line within the last 150 years, not the last 3000. palestine has been a majority-arab region since the 7th century, then was the ottoman empire until early 1900s. the original country of israel was destroyed bce. it’s kind of ludicrous to march into a land and say you have a right to it because your ancestors from 1000 years ago lived there. “this belonged to my great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather so it’s mine now”. even naming the new country “israel” was a strategic move for religious control, and tbh i feel like that’s subliminally why a lot of people support the war rn.
No one said anything about Jews. You’re conflating. A lot of the Jews from the Israel of old converted to Islam, they are the same people. And some remained Jews or became Christians. Sorry, Europeans don’t deserve the land. They are not indigenous and are taking it by force.
No we are saying people who have CURRENT TIES TO THE LAND have rights to be there. I don't care if they were there a millennia ago. To displace and ethnically cleanse an indigenous (yes Palestinians are some of the indigenous populations)and current population is crazy.
We are horrified when ICE does it to migrants who have come and made lives for themselves and their communities in the short amount of time so why is it fine to displace a population who have clearly been there generations (if not longer)?
That’s like saying all the colonial assholes of the world today, deserve to own the land because they used to own during colonial times. Nobody gives a fuck about Solomon. Nobody considers it the same
Bibi is a vial, power hungery human and i hope he burns in hell.
Also, do the Palestinians have the right to send a suicide bomber into a bus? A Sbarro? A hotel?... The answer to mine and your question is absolutely not.
The oldest structure in Jerusalem is the Siebenberg House. This archaeological site dates back approximately 3,000 years, linking it to the time of King David and the First and Second Temple periods.
So? There are ancient roman remains in Britain today. Should that fact mean that Italians have the right to come and use brutality to remove the British people from those lands and take the lands for their own use? No? So what is the difference to the situation in Palestine?
Antisemitism is the word created for “Jew hatred”, because German antisemites wanted it to sound scientific.
Yes, technically, Palestinians are also Semitic people. But trying to downplay hatred of Jews by twisting the definition of antisemitism to extend beyond Jews is something modern antisemites do.
Fair enough. I try to be more patient as a lot of times it's a simple misunderstanding and there's no ill intent. I may not have come across that way in my first reply, but my reasoning there was that you were downvoted, and people associate downvotes with incorrectness, and I had to give a different reason for them instead.
? i think i've lost the plot, what is it really about? is it, we attack anyone who calls us the bad guys bc it's not a genocide? sorry, i'm an internet old, and autistic; i'm struggling to keep track of all the sides and what they say they're doing and what they're really doing. :(
It's about the pro-Israel people not going after actual antisemitism and instead going after people who are going after Israel for the genocide and calling those people antisemites.
The big example being Kraft not calling his buddies who own other stadiums and having them stop an actual Nazi and Hitler sympathizer in Kanye West from performing.
Macklemore basically dressed up to what is the equivalent of blackface, to a song about being cheap with money, and no one cares. The people who banned Macklemore clearly don't care about actual antisemitism, but on the other hand, unless it's a conservative, no one on the left will hold any level of antisemitism accountable.
People like Anna Kasparian making literal greedy Jew faces, Macklemore doing the Jewish equivelant of blackface, and no one cares, at all.
I imagine people cared when it happened and he apologized for it 12 years ago. Doesn't make it any less of an antisemitic caracature but those who cancelled him didn't complain until he said Free Palestine on stage and it was publicized.
Of course not. The Israelis have so thoroughly co-opted the idea of antisemitism that the world has forgotten that the Palestinians are a Semitic people. I mean, they're the people of Judea who stayed behind after the Jewish diaspora left. They just stopped being Jewish at some point...
10.7k
u/Crazy-Present4764 27d ago
Kanye put out a song called heil Hitler and still sells out stadiums.
Ed will be ok.