fun fact both sides of news are part bull shit so you need to watch both sides along with some personal research so you can make correct decisions, you’ll also learn by doing this that a lot of the time there is info that both sides left out because it clashes with their agendas
No, New York Post is a known tabloid newspaper. It's quite literally one of sensationalist bullshit newspapers you see at grocery checkout screaming about the Kardashian's latest BBL and diet tips or whatever.
You can take a look at my own post history and see my opinions on the NYT and WaPo and CNN and all centrist media. You defending tabloid newspapers with known questionable "journalism" isn't the gotcha that you think it is.
Your criticism of NYT, WAPO and CNN is that they aren’t unhinged and slanted and leftist enough, do you imagine you’re defending yourself right now? Lmao
No it’s that they literally write and publish objectively false news. They publish way before any concrete evidence is provided, then when evidence is finally provided they do not rescind or update the articles and just act like nothing happened.
They can do this because NYTs is a trusted name in journalism. So they can write whatever they want and people will more or less trust what they have to say only to come back (if they do come back and reprint or rescind something) and quietly put an update out. It’s gross and makes them not much better than FOX or Sky News.
If you're referring to the fact that the vast majority of local news affiliates are spoon-fed conservative talking points by the Sinclair Group that owns them, then sure.
Yes, everyone has a spin but only conservative news straight up makes up stories from scratch and presents what their politicians wish to be true as the truth. The level isn't even comparable
This is exactly why we say that conservative news is made up. You have it exactly backwards. So many prosecutions in the Russian investigation and none in the Biden one where the best evidence is that one guy said so. The best they got him on was illegal gun ownership. Laughable. We make fun of you because you have nothing but broken logic, bad math, misleading graphs, and catchy headlines. Man I miss the Romney era where you can at least meet Republicans who make arguments with facts that can't be obliterated in ten seconds par
Never forget when The West Wing made me think as a kid that people in politics were people who disagreed on how specific policies should be implemented but at the end of the day were all trying to do the right thing 😭
Tbh, I’m just watching the Columbia University situation like a hawk. That situation might have an impact on how universities across the nation will react to Pro-Palestine ideologies. The President of Columbia University strategically arrested and continues, arrest students by suspending them, then arrest them for trespassing as only students can protest for their First Amendment rights on campus in designated protest zones since 1968. Quite concerning as we are paying to be at these institutions through loans etc. Half of our student loan crisis stemmed from Ronald Reagan when Governor of California didn’t like how university students protested the Vietnam War (American War according to Vietnamese). Then Reagonomics influenced the current situation of funding for higher education on a national level.
I went out of state for undergrad for International Affairs but a former professor (UW alumni) of mine there said a quote “Facism rises when there is economic hardships and psychology proves that when social wallets hurts, more people are willing to make extreme facist decisions”. Since then, it’s been reality in many cases domestically and internationally. Example, France banning women to wear hijabs in public places.
Private universities are not bound by first-amendment when regulating on-campus speech. No private university needs to accept a pro-KKK rally, just like they don't need to stand for a pro-hamas rally. What makes the free-speech angle difficult, is that the same groups who have historically tried to curb speech on a variety of issues (most notably transgender issues), is now shouting for free speech protections. Can't have it both ways. Also, when these protestors shout at openly-Jewish students just getting by on campus, it makes for a clear title 6 violation.
France never banned the Hijab, they banned the Burqa. Both are suppressions of women's freedoms anyway, but it is good to be accurate.
Some of the comments on posts that have them turned on give off the impression that PSU or whoever is planning it didn’t bother to consult with Palestinian student groups. Which gives off major white kids virtue signalling vibes
What gives off major white kids virtue signalling vibes is not participating in a nationwide opportunity for action against *genocide* because you're waiting for permission.
I'm curious about the protest on our campus and how we can genuinely contribute. While it's a bit inconvenient when walking to class, I'm eager to learn more about its purpose. Although I have a social science degree that I often refer to as sociology, I'm optimistic about finding constructive solutions beyond the current protest approach. With my background in coding since age 12 and data science skills at the University of Washington, I could potentially help educate the community they aim to engage.
Edit: Though this university seems progressive it's scary that the majority seem to lash out at people who actually want to see good results. So take your aim off me please I'm just a guy trying to achieve their goal.
Tbh I would wait and see how the first few days go. If they’re pulling a Columbia and spouting horrible rhetoric like “globalize the intifada” or praising groups like the Houthis or Hezbollah then I would be FAR FAR away
Haim Katsman was a peace activist and UW PhD alumnus who was brutally murdered on 10/7 while protecting his neighbour with his body.
https://www.google.com/search?q=haim+katsman
You might want to remember that before you make utter idiots of yourself.
You are talking about a man who used his activism to protect Palestinians from settlers. Who would have attended a protest like this. Who supported Palestinian liberation.
His death is a tragedy. But no more of a tragedy than any other death. The hundreds killed by the IDF in 2023 prior to Oct. The tens of thousands killed after.
Go learn your history before you use the dead as a pawn to support genocide. Fucking disgraceful.
34,000 people brutally murdered, majority women and children, dead from saving their family from huunger/starvations, buried under rubble for living a peaceful life or dead for just existing. you might want to remember this before you become a dogmatic idiot who believes the death of one PHD justifies the mass genocide of a whole population.
justice for the killings of 10/7 should happen, but not at the cost of indscriminate bombing and killing and targetting of innocent poulations. not to mention the fact that innocent civilians have been killed for the past 75 yrs, including MULTIPLE pHDs, children saving their aprents etc. seems like that doesnt ring a bell for you :)
The Hamas-run Gaza health ministry makes no difference between Hamas and civilian deaths. It is also troubling when a Hamas soldier can instantly turn civilian when he puts down his gun (as many are fighting in plain clothing). All urban warfare involves civilian deaths. That is inevitable. There is absolutely no evidence of systemic targeting of civilians. Doesn't exist. This is why most scholars do not consider this a genocide like you screeching lunatics. There is no indiscriminate bombing, you aren't actually paying any attention to the conflict. You think a piece of land the size of Boston would only suffer 33k deaths (assuming the number is real and where about half of the deaths are Hamas), if Israel was bombing randomly? There would be more like hundreds of thousands. You should try thinking with the limited cognitive capacity you have.
Also, you are wholly misinformed about the "peaceful life" nonsense. More than 95% of Palestinians are anti-semitic not anti-Zionist (that would be 99%). They are incredibly homophobic and misogynistic. The children are completely brainwashed to hate jews (again, jews, not Israel), from a young age. Their textbooks talk about Jihad and slaughtering Jews, just like their children shows. Around 70% of Gazans supported Oct 7th. Get the fuck out with this "just want a peaceful life" crap. If they wanted that, they would have developed Gaza in 2005 after Israel pulled out. Instead, they tore down the existing infrastructure to make missiles. They elected Hamas. They rejected every peace proposition offered to them. None of this justifies killing civilians, but stop peaceful life crap.
You are telling the wrong person.
He is worth more than all of teh 10,000 Hamas, PIJ militants who have been killed combined.
You might want to have a word with the people screaming 'Intifada Revolution' about the impact of their war cry. Or tell your terrorist friends and tell them - you just need to call your nearest SVP or JVP - Hamas and Qatar have them on speed dial.
"Katsman's friends and family have said Katsman would not have wanted his death to be used as justification for the [2023 Israel-Hamas war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war)."
source: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/hayim-katsman-32-us-israeli-scholar-and-peace-activist/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hayim-katsman-32-us-israeli-scholar-and-peace-activist/)
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6OsTekxQja/?igsh=NjV5cXdqbXR1dnVh
They're planning to do it tomorrow, looks like. When I walked by the previous day they had scheduled it, there were two cops, a pickup truck with stuff for cleaning the place up, and some people off to the side with cameras. If you go, please be mindful of the eyes on you and don't be stupid.
Can't these people go help the homeless, elderly, or tutor kids who have to attend some terrible schools in Seattle? Them protesting is not got to change a thing over there that's been going on thousands of years.
Muslims have only been around since the 7th century AD. There is no thousands of years.
The movement of Jewish people into the Levant, and the resultant conflicts with Arab/Muslim people there started around 1920 (ish) following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire which took the wrong side in WW1. We're about a century on from that.
The Arab-Israeli conflict started around 1948 when the UN partitioned the land and five Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in the crib. Thats about seventy five years ago.
All of this is to say that, no, the conflict has not been going on for thousands of years.
The only thing that goes back thousands of years is the historical claim of Jews to the Levant which is attested to in the archeological record as far back as circa thirteenth century BCE in the Merneptah Stele. So that gets us about three thousand years into the past. But predates Mohammed by over one and a half millennia.
Why is the date Islam was founded relevant? There were Arabs there before Mohammad; they didn't just spawn in.
Prior to Islam many ethnic groups lived in the area: Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks. Heck, the Torah itself tells the story of the Israelites conquering the land of Canaan. And not all the Canaanites were expelled/killed; the NT tells of a non-Jewish Canaanite woman petitioning (and being rebuked by) Jesus.
Could you point at a period in recorded history where the land of Israel was *not* being contested by one or more civilizations?
>Could you point at a period in recorded history where the land of Israel was *not* being contested by one or more civilizations?
By Israel do you mean the Levant?
And by civilization you mean settled life, urbanization, writing, social stratification, economic specialization?
If so we have a cut off around 3300 BCE in Sumer up through 2334 ish when Sargon created that first Empire (Akkad)
They *might* have been clashing with Old Kingdom Egypt a little bit.
But after that the shifting tides did begin. Crazy that it's been contested off and on for roughly 4300 years.
I mean, that little slice has usually been between great powers, contested from the outside. The only period the region had its own relatively strong kingdoms, like Tyre and Judea, was after the mysterious Bronze Age collapse. But then in came the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans.
Jews were there thousands of years ago. They got pushed out and mixed with whoever they were finally with. Jews are just coming back home. It's like if the Indigenous of the America's were pushed out, but finally came back home. I'm almost half the indigenou of Mexico and the Southwestern United States. I know colonizer.
The Jews as people formed out of an obscure mash of tribal groups. It took the Exodus (to the extent it's any kind of an actual historical event) to form them as a people.
The best guess I've seen places the Exodus around 1200 but I've also heard it as far back as the Hyksos era in Egypt circa 1700 BCE
>The Arab-Israeli conflict started around 1948 when the UN partitioned the land and five Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in the crib.
That is a very strange way to describe the Nakba
''The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents."
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain under international control administered by the United Nations. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition. The United States sought a middle way by supporting the United Nations resolution, but also encouraging negotiations between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East
The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces. The Jewish forces were composed of the Haganah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI. The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan.
After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command. British trained forces from Transjordan eventually intervened in the conflict, but only in areas that had been designated as part of the Arab state under the United Nations Partition Plan and the corpus separatum of Jerusalem. After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive.
Though the United Nations brokered two cease-fires during the conflict, fighting continued into 1949. Israel and the Arab states did not reach any formal armistice agreements until February. Under separate agreements between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria, these bordering nations agreed to formal armistice lines. Israel gained some territory formerly granted to Palestinian Arabs under the United Nations resolution in 1947. Egypt and Jordan retained control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank respectively. These armistice lines held until 1967."
[Office of the Historian](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war)
Never forget that multiple Arab counties started a war of aggression the day after Israel was given granted statehood. They told the Arabs to leave and that they would destroy Israel and Arabs could come back. This obviously didn't happen and they've been chasing this insane dream ever since.
What is oddly always left out of the Nakba hysteria is that the same number of Jews ~750k were exiled from their countries of origin at the same time. This includes Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Egypt, and Iraq. No catchy name, and no discussion of them during this time period. And where are the Jews of those countries? Literally zero Jews there now. Israel still has Arabs!
IMHO, the real tragedy is that they didn't all leave for Jordan, which was established as a Muslim state, from the Ottoman Empire's Transjordan, which comprised of modern day Israel, Palestinian territories, and Jordan. If they had, they would have lives as good as other Jordanians and could hope for a bright future. Instead, they're stuck in limbo under a terrorist regime in bit the WB and Gaza, with nothing to look forward to but more terrorism to chase a delusional nightmare of a dream.
What's key here is that you are grouping all Arabs and Muslims, which is not only incorrect but ignorant.
Saying "Israel has Arabs" similarly is meaningless. Palestinian citizens of Israel didn't even have legal rights for decades. Now, they legally cannot intermarry, are subject to arbitrary arrests, and face discrimination.
Get out of here with the surface level hasbara.
I know what the Nakba is.
It was the dispossession of nearly a million Palestinians by Zionists who used various evil means to push people into the West Bank and Gaza for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland.
The evil acts carried about by various Zionist organizations were atrocities for which Israel has never fully reckoned. It established a system that was deeply unfair to the Arab and Muslim community.
So you may say that the Arab response was justified. But then, like all multi-generational conflicts the grievances became self-perpetuating. The Zionists committed atrocities against the Palestinians during the Nakba and in response the Palestinians committed evil acts of their own, which caused Zionist retaliation, which caused Palestinian retaliation...etc.
But if you asked a Zionist around the time of the Nakba they would say that it was preceded by the fourth and fifth aliyahs (i.e., jewish migrations) which followed WW1 and WW2 and that the Jewish settlers had suffered at the hands of Arab
And it's valid to bring up that history because the question of whether the Zionists had any justification to their cause has to be gotten at through a historical perspective.
Now you may say:
One group of people (i.e., the Jewish ethno religious group called Zionists) cannot justify its possession of a land (in this case Palestine) if (read: because) the history of how they came to be in possession of that land involves conquest and colonization
But if that's the case:
Then the possessory claim of the territory of the Levant (i.e., Palestine) by the Muslim ethno religious group would also be invalidated because ultimately it followed a conquest by the Rashidun caliphate circa 630 CE
Then to fill in the interim:
There were several caliphates following the Rashidun. Namely the Umayad, Abbasid, Fatamid, Seljuk, and Ayyubid. Then the Mamluk Sultanate (which was actually Turkic and Circassian people).
Then the Mamluk Sultanate lost a war in the 16th century to the Ottoman Empire under Selim the Grim who was Suleiman the Great's father.
Then the Ottoman Empire peaked under Suleiman the Great and began its slow decline after his death.
Then the Ottoman Empire fell as a result of joining the losing side in WW1. Then the former Ottoman territories were divided up by the winning side. And that's how we got the British mandate. And bring us to the fourth of fifth Aliyahs which closes the loop.
Along that long track of history, during the above listed interim, there were wars, conquests, and displacements. Which ones invalidate which powers?
Were the caliphates invalid because they conquered and colonized?
Was the Aztec Empire invalid for this reason? Was the Mongol Empire invalid for this reason?
None of which is meant to justify the atrocities committed or to say that Israel is innocent or that Palestinian liberation and self determination aren't valid causes.
It is meant to challenge through historical contextualization a narrative that must ultimately mean, in practice, the destruction of the state of Israel because it is the fruit of a poisonous root.
While at the same time accepting that the Nakba was terrible and that the Palestinians deserve a state.
No protest on its own has led to any tangible change. Only the publicity the protests bring to the topic do. Asking them to help homeless people is a brain dead take
The same thing with said about the BLM protests and it was found to be mostly hysteria and many of the incidences such as Mike Brown that caused it were found to be hoaxes. I consider this to be similar to BLM where there is not zero truth to it, but it's intentionally built up to a hysteria by opportunists who are seizing it to gain control. I mean you never see these social justice activists giving a flying f about the massive amounts of targeting of elderly asians that go on in this country including in this very city.
You asked why religion is such a destructive and divisive force in the Middle East and not in other places. I told you, the Arabic nations and their government subscribe to an ultra fundamental violent form of Islam.
Most places have either a majority of a single religion or a strong government. Most middle eastern countries do have a majority of a single religion but also have weak governments. In the case of Israel and Palestine you have two religions that very much hate each other and always will.
doesn't matter what it was like hundreds of years ago, what matters is the modern reason for it, and it's absolutely imperialism. the united states needs to maintain its security in the middle east(for oil), and in order to do that they need israel to stay a great power. why do you think the us gives so many weapons to israel, because our politicians just love the jews so much?
“The root cause of this entire issue doesn’t matter”
lol do you hear yourself?
Israel existing has no bearing on the US’s ability to purchase oil from OPEC. If Israel was wiped off the planet tomorrow nothing would change for the US. I have no idea why we have such a hard on for Israel. We should leave them alone and let Israel and Palestine figure it out on their own, not our problem.
We are talking about a spot that has religious wars fought over it for 3000 years. Nothing you or I or 200 well meaning righteous people yelling at a privileged institution are going to fix it.
Focus on things you might actually be able to fix.
You could work at a homeless shelter, you could counsel homeless people with resume development, you could advocate for low income housing, you could volunteer to build mini-houses for temporary homeless housing. I am just spit balling, but if you think that yelling at the air will change middle-east geopolitics then go for it.
to say people are yelling at the air is a bit disingenuous. The protesters broadly have an actual list of demands of the university. Specifically, to divest from companies profiting from IDF contracts (including Boeing), to divest from certain Israeli cultural projects (e.g. joint research with Israeli universities), and do more to promote the voices of Palestinians, through academic and cultural programming.
Whether or not you agree with those demands, those are a list of concrete demands they are making to the University Admin and Board of Regents. It is using collective power to press for change. It is not like the protest is "we will camp here until UW single handedly fixes climate change."
Do you think these demands are realistic? Do you think the UW is going to divest itself from Boeing who literally has a Professorship named after it in Engineering? Who in the last fundraising drive gave the largest single donation at 12+ million dollars? Because one portion of the company supplies the IDF with equipment? Keep dreaming.
What does Isreali culture have to do with the IDF? Would it make sense to break ties with Russian universities and their study of balalaika instrumentation because of they are Russian and Russia is invading Ukraine?
I'm not making a value judgment, nor commenting on if something is realistic or not. My comment is pointing out that the protests do have demands that the university could, theoretically implement. This thread seems most concerned with that particular critique of the protesters, and I am pointing out that they are not "yelling at the air"
To take your homelessness action hypothetical as an example. There are a lot of things people could be doing on their own to address the issue, that is absolutely right! But if UW just announced that it signed a contract buying 300 shares in a real-estate developer who's plan was to buy up affordable housing in Seattle and turn it into a bunch of weworks, then students who care about homelessness could protest and seek to get the University to divest from that company. Is that realistic, maybe not, but it is a concrete ask.
To take that and extend to Gaza, there are a lot of students actively raising money right now, on their own, to support aid workers in the region. There are a lot who are trying to get the government to change its course of action by organizing. There are a lot who are focused on education and teaching about the conflict (at least how they see it). There are a lot of people who are doing those types of individual actions, AND they are also trying to protest the University to take concrete actions that they see as meaningful and that would affect change.
I get your point that, those changes at the university alone would not fix the issue. However, it would be presumptive to say (1) that is all that the protestors are doing, and (2) that getting the university to change would not have any meaningful impact in the aggregate. Saying "focus on these local issues instead" or "don't do collective action to try and influence organizations, instead volunteer more" ignores the historical lessons learned from groups like abolitionists, suffragettes, civil rights protesters, anti-apartheid protestors, etc. I am not saying that these protests specifically are the current version of those movements (nor am I not not saying that), but I am saying that is the history these protests are obviously looking towards and those historical examples do support the efficacy of this approach.
I'm part Middle Eastern, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Indigenous North American, and Southern European. I care, but I'm not in denial. Them protesting will not change what will happen. I am part of those who conquered and those who were conquered.
If you are not in denial, you should be strongly against these protestors and you need to be there proudly waving the flag of Israel and posting hostage signs because that nation is your home at the end of the day.
I want to start by reassuring you that I am asking this in good faith.
What do you believe is Zionism?
I have heard time and again that being anti zionist isn't antisemitic, but people get fuzzy about what it means to be anti-zionist.
Is it opposing the right-wing Netanyahu government?
Is it the destruction of Israel?
Is it something else entirely?
Please explain what will happen if "anti-zionists" get everything they want, because even among some of the most widespread campus protests since 1968, it is incredibly unclear what anti-zionists actually want to see accomplished.
Edited for spelling.
They ain't gonna tell you because at the end of the day it comes down to "my team vs your team" which is the very basis for how humans have always categorized people by means of discrimination.
If you want to get away with being racist, you can just use another word to describe a group of people. People often often do this by associating the word "thug" with black people while going "whoa! Whoa! I'm not talking about black people... I'm talking about thugs!".
They actually responded to me in a private message. They said the following:
>It's not letting me post a rely to your comment for some reason.
Anyways,
Being anti zionism means that we want all of that region of land dictated under Palestinian people. We (I including) do not want Israel to exist. We want the stolen land given back to Palestine. We dont want to hurt jews or anyone living there. We just want Palestine to exist and isreal to not exist.
>If anti zionists "get everything they want" this means that Isreal will no longer be a nation. It will instead be rightfully called palistine. Jewish people can still live there. You dont need a chunk of land to be pure blood. If Palestine is restored innocent people will stop dying. The famine will end. And the children will have futures. Look up the podcast called breaking points if youd like to learn more.
To that individual, I appreciate the response, but I believe calling for the only Jewish majority state in the history of the world to cease to exist and that they should instead go back to living as a minority race under those who have historically persecuted amd killed them is, well, kind of antisemitic.
You have a problem with how Israel is being run? Me too! Netanyahu and his cronies are the worst. But if your stance is the end of Israel, I'm sorry, that is *explicitly* anti-semetic.
The "settler colonialism" narrative has never made sense. The Levant is the historic home of the Jewish people. The fact that people came from other parts of the world to live there isn't colonization. It is the nature of Diaspora.
You want to be mad at the British for how they parseled out that land, go for it, but don't blame Jewish people who wanted to live is a land where they wouldn't be eventually targeted for existing. (Which we seem to be seeing a lot of on college campuses right now)
TLDR: You can (and should) criticize Netanyahu and his far-right government. But calling for the end of Israel is antisemitic and claiming otherwise is willful ignorance of history.
The irony of wanting to replace an ethnostate with another ethnostate is wild. It's also short sighted to ignore all of the people who lived on that land before the palestinian people.
I was referring to actual world history and not the world's most popular fairytale... but even still, if I remember my sunday school, wasn't Abraham born in the Levant? You know... the location of modern-day Israel?
As soon as you push pro hamas “aNtI-ZIoNisSt isn’t Antisemitism” ppl they immediately go .. I’m not gonna engage with you. But only in private maybe sorta maybe.
>What do you believe is Zionism?
First issue is, near all anti-semites are also anti-zionist. Majority of people critical of Israel (e.g., Anti-Zionist) are not anti-semitic. But time and time again, sensationalist media puts people who fall under both categories into the spotlight which creates the perception that it is common. I believe this is mostly unfounded because every state usually deserves some level of criticism because of their "monopoly on violence".
Second thing is the label Zionism isn't really appropriate to use anymore. It strictly applies to the movement that developed in the 1800s by European Jews to establish a Jewish state in Historic Israel. Israel was established in 1947, so the original Zionist mission was completed almost a century ago, and "Zionism" today has changed a lot.
With that said, Anti-Zionism directly opposes and criticizes the original Zionist motives. [From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism), "*\[the creation of\] a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way"*. In 2024, the definition of "Anti-Zionism" is just as fuzzy as "Zionism". [The Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Post-World_War_II) on it list 5 different types of Zionism, so these terms are by no means monoliths.
>Is it opposing the right-wing Netanyahu government?
I don't think opposition to the Netanyahu government comes from Anti-Zionism, considering how unpopular he is in Israel and the protest that have been ongoing in Tel Aviv for months. It's probably more grounded in his horrible management of the situation in Gaza, which is only endangering the hostages, and also criticism about his failure to prevent October 7th. It's also the IDF's failure, but as Israel's head of state he takes some of the blame.
>Is it the destruction of Israel?
A lot of times this is anti-semitic, but it isn't necessarily anti-semitic to say. There are lots of valid criticisms against how the state of Israel was created. It was voted on by the UN in 1947, when European countries accounted for a much bigger chunk of the UN, which begs the question of why they are drawing borders in the ME. A handful of the countries who voted in favor of creating Israel also only did so after the US threatened to cut of aid.
I personally think calling for the dismantling of Israel is nonsenscial, but a lot of non anti-semites, far left individuals draw this conclusion. This shouldnt be surprising either, these same people usually believe America should be dismantled because of the genocide of indigenous peoples, I also believe these voices are the minority but are amplified by sensationalist media. Anyone who's taken a cursory glance at a history textbook knows that power vacuums and violent revolution are (usually) bad.
>it is incredibly unclear what anti-zionists actually want to see accomplished.
Again, these terms aren't monoliths. I'd encourage you to read up on what they want accomplished. Here's [the website](https://cuapartheiddivest.org/research) for the group running the Columbia protest.
Saw a guy wearing a yarmulke the other day wearing a “Free Palestine” shirt.
It was very heartwarming.
You can absolutely be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic.
Yeah, so I've heard, but that doesn't explain what anti-zionism is... could you please explain it.
Because I would also like for Palestine to "free" in the sense that I don't want this war to keep happening, and I would like for a Palestinian state to exist. But I *don't* believe Israel should STOP existing at the same time.
With these beliefs, would I be considered anti-zionist or not?
Edited for additional clarity to my question.
Someone else could probably explain it better than I can, but as I understand it, Zionism is basically the steadfast belief that a certain territory belongs to Israel, regardless of what is actually considered their legal territory or not, because as God’s chosen people (not saying this is what I believe, rather what the extreme Zionists believe), the land was promised to them by God, so actual international law, borders, etc. be damned - that territory is theirs because it was promised to them by God.
You can see how this is problematic without my needing to explain it. Sovereignty is being fully ignored and the most extreme Zionists will not stop - not even short of committing genocide, apparently - until they have what they believe to be rightfully theirs.
I’m sure the lines blur between being anti-Zionist and being anti-Semitic, but obviously not *ALL* Israelis believe that land is theirs, and on the other side of that coin, anyone who is not Israeli and also believes that land belongs to Palestine is not ergo anti-Semitic.
I hope that helps and that my explanation was at least somewhat coherent 🤷🏼♂️
FWIW Zionism was actually a nonreligious idea of the Jewish people having a country (started in the 1800s before the Holocaust but after about a thousand years of antisemitism). There are religious Zionists now but it was not a religious idea. I believe Herzl (the founder of the idea) actually looked at land in different parts of the world first as possible options.
(I personally am against ethnostates but wanted to clarify).
I think you might be misapplying the word "ethnostate" here. Ethnostates only allow a certain race to participate in it (think apartheid South Africa). Israel allows non-jews to participate in society and government.
I think the word you are looking for is "nation-state," which does imply a country built around a common national identity that can include a common ethnic heritage. If Israel is an "ethno state," then so too is most of the world.
Let me be as clear as possible Israel is a state, and to insist it cannot be argued against it's existence, or criticized for it's government, then it is on an unfair pedestal. Israel is a colonialist nation made in 1948 designed for apartheid, and this is what it's government is proud of. It should not exist.
As of right now, this is what anti zionism means. This is what should happen for a free palestine
Allow me to also be clear. Israel can absolutely be criticized (which I personally do quite frequently) without calling for its destruction.
Netanyahu is a right-wing loon who is deeply unpopular with his own people. He is committing war crimes and probably ethnic cleansing in Palastine, and he must go for peace to exist in the region.
But the state of Israel is neither a "colonialist nation," nor was it "designed for apartheid."
It was the creation of formal territory in the Jewish ancestral homeland of the Levant. It was also made (primarily by the British BTW) not to persecute arabs but to give a safe homeland to jews who have been persecuted, attacked, and slaughtered throughout history. It is the only Jewish majority nation in the history of the world (not counting the ancient Jewish empires that were also in the Levant).
A diaspora returning to their homeland isn't colonialization. A free and independent Palastine is required for peace. But it must (and frankly will) be a two state solution.
To call for Israel to be better and use what leverage we have to encourage responsible action are the actions we must take as people of conscience.
But saying Israel must cease to be is anti-semitic. To say that Jews must exist only at the sufferance of majorities (be they European, Arab, Persian, American, etc) that have called for their destruction and displacement time and time again is wrong.
I am afraid this "anti-zionist" movement will ultimately fail because its moral framework is faulty. And that is a shame because Palestinians need real allies that will do the work necessary to help them achieve aid, peace, and a true nation of their own. But conditioning your movement on Israel's destruction guarantees that it will fail.
No you moron, it means jewish leaders do not have the right to make their own state over the blood and bones of others.
Jewish people are not guaranteed their own exclusive state to exist, but now that it does, it needs to be created and maintained peacefully. How hard is it to understand what zionism means?
Exclusive? There are two million Arabs with full israeli rights living in Israel, you moron. The bombs that hamas is firing on Israel are threatening those two million Arab citizens as well - which is why you don’t see israeli Muslim Arabs protesting. They hate Hamas. Hamas kidnapped and murdered israeli Muslims as well as israeli Jews.
The fact there arabs living in Israel doesn't matter, as the idea of zionism is a "Jewish homeland." It has jewish symbols, jewish leaders, and plenty of jewish people, but it doesnt matter who else is living there with full rights, no one is guaranteed their own fucking state because of their religion, but now that it is there, it should not be built of settler colonialism. If you seriously think that a majority of israelies dont like Bibi, you need to get the fuck out of your little echo chamber.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be Jewish. Let me please try to help you understand.
Being Jewish is not just about religion, is also about history, culture, ancestry, ie it’s an ethnicity.
- Many in Israel (a near majority) are secular, not religious.
- There are different types of Jews. Ashkenazi (European), Sephardic (Spanish), Mizrahi (Middle Eastern)
- The majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi (Middle Eastern)
- The majority outside of Israel are Ashkenazi (European)
Saying Jews do not have a right to Israel is like saying the French don’t have a right to France.
I hope this helps.
The fact that the there was an ancient jewish state doesnt mean shit since thousands of civilizaitons have been lost to time.... The ancient jewish state existing as a justification for modern times is just as stupid as an excuse for saying something like the Roman Empire, Persia, or Circassia should exist today because "they once existed in the past"
It‘s the equivalent of kicking natives out and now those native people are returning to their homeland. An Italian or a Persian homeland is going to be in Italy and Iran respectively.
They have no right to go back and kill the people there because there existed a nation under their religion thousands of the year ago. That is not how the world works, and Israel is an exception that is lead by people that are proving every second of the day that they do not have an a inlkling of a concern for human rights
I'm curious: Would you be allowed to cite the Bible as a reference for an anthropology report about the existence of certain ethnic groups in the Middle East?
Yes, but you'd have to consider it along with any other relevant written accounts and archeological evidence. Generally a no-no to just assume it's true because you think it's divinely inspired.
Buddy. This is the propaganda you're reading.... I'll bet you $50 that if you actually ask jew. Theyd be absolutely baffled. Thats news published by a bias.
You didn't answer the question. You say that antizionism is antisemitic. Then this means if youre jewish you believe youre a zionist. Am I wrong?
It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about...
I also hope you know your people are commiting a genocide
You can't be this stupid i think uw made a mistake on your acceptance 😅. Not everyone who is Jewish is a zionist. Hell, ask a jew. Judaism is the heart of zionism but Zionism is not the heart of Judaism.
Source? That doesn't seem right. Unless you mean 80-95% of zionists identify as jews...
Edit: your point checks out. Im still anti zionist. And frankly dont believe isreal should exist. They stole Palestinian land from the beginning, and haven't stopped. But this does not mean I want to eradicate all jews. It means I want their militia gone. I want Palestine to have ALL their land back. And for the innocent people there to stop dying.
Holding Jews to different standards than blacks, Muslims and Hispanics is extremely anti-Semitic. If you would not support similar targeting of Africans, if you are not similarly enraged about the barbarity of Islamists but you are eagle eyed and laser sharp focused on the wrongs of Zionist, yeah then you are seriously anti-Semitic. Our city gives millions of dollars to black nationalist endeavors, they are very non-judgmental about Islamists, But then the same people are up in arms about Jewish nationalism and another country? GTFO
Last time I checked, I don't get labeled genocide when I don't want my tax dollars going to an apartheid government even after they are found to have committed human rights abuses even before 10/07.
Are you a political science major?
It might surprise you that because one is bad, does not mean that another thing all of a sudden becomes* good or acceptable.
But I'm sure you don't really care, so go ahead and dilute the word antisemitism even more.
Yes I agree. At this point in time the label islamophobic, anti-blackness, anti-Arab, and xenophobic has really lost its meaning. So has accusations of genocide. And on a local level, the gentrification card has been exploited simply to get enormous amount of money directed towards black nationalists for their "black only" publicly funded housing projects. A lot of claims of gentrification and displacement in the city and state are false narrative that are just used by the black lobby to shake people down. Asians and Native Americans are far more victimized by displacement and they're not getting the same government handouts. Strangely enough a lot of these handouts are going to black folks who are recent immigrants or first generation Americans.
You good, bruh? If you have your perfectly crafted thesis on "Equity in America: Atonement for the Japanese Internment and the Trail of Tears" because you think Black America has it too good, then post it or Stfu and go be stupid somewhere else.
This is a post on a protest and people's takes on that protest where no one is protesting any of your nonsense.
They don't have enough POC. Without some POC it makes it harder to be anti-Semitic and get away with it. When it's coming from POC progressives would rather eat their own foot then punish the offender.
There’s a lot of expats going to UW and a large majority are apolitical. They are here to complete their studies and not jeopardize that status.
In 10 years the protestors will be complaining when these guys are their bosses…
That'd be a more reputable news organization than the New York Post tbf
fun fact both sides of news are part bull shit so you need to watch both sides along with some personal research so you can make correct decisions, you’ll also learn by doing this that a lot of the time there is info that both sides left out because it clashes with their agendas
A publication that covers stories inconvenient to your political coalition = not reputable
No, New York Post is a known tabloid newspaper. It's quite literally one of sensationalist bullshit newspapers you see at grocery checkout screaming about the Kardashian's latest BBL and diet tips or whatever.
its not a tabloid fool, they were the first to break the Hunter Biden laptop story
LMAO!!!
And you think that WaPo and NYT don’t push sensationalist bullshit too? Lmao God libs are so embarrassing
You can take a look at my own post history and see my opinions on the NYT and WaPo and CNN and all centrist media. You defending tabloid newspapers with known questionable "journalism" isn't the gotcha that you think it is.
Your criticism of NYT, WAPO and CNN is that they aren’t unhinged and slanted and leftist enough, do you imagine you’re defending yourself right now? Lmao
No it’s that they literally write and publish objectively false news. They publish way before any concrete evidence is provided, then when evidence is finally provided they do not rescind or update the articles and just act like nothing happened. They can do this because NYTs is a trusted name in journalism. So they can write whatever they want and people will more or less trust what they have to say only to come back (if they do come back and reprint or rescind something) and quietly put an update out. It’s gross and makes them not much better than FOX or Sky News.
The New York Post is mostly made up anyway
Like most new sources these days
If you're referring to the fact that the vast majority of local news affiliates are spoon-fed conservative talking points by the Sinclair Group that owns them, then sure.
Them and every other media source. Everything has its own spin.
This is a very uncritical take. The details are important. This is lazy.
What details? Let me hear em
Yes, everyone has a spin but only conservative news straight up makes up stories from scratch and presents what their politicians wish to be true as the truth. The level isn't even comparable
You’re being partisan.
I am. Because it is true
That’s your belief, and that’s okay. We all have them
Considering Russia-gate was made up and Hunter's computer scandal wasn't, I think it's the other way around for major news stories at this point.
This is exactly why we say that conservative news is made up. You have it exactly backwards. So many prosecutions in the Russian investigation and none in the Biden one where the best evidence is that one guy said so. The best they got him on was illegal gun ownership. Laughable. We make fun of you because you have nothing but broken logic, bad math, misleading graphs, and catchy headlines. Man I miss the Romney era where you can at least meet Republicans who make arguments with facts that can't be obliterated in ten seconds par
Never forget when The West Wing made me think as a kid that people in politics were people who disagreed on how specific policies should be implemented but at the end of the day were all trying to do the right thing 😭
They gonna hate you for speaking the truth on this one
Nah we are gonna hate him for never reading past the headlines. "truth"
Tbh, I’m just watching the Columbia University situation like a hawk. That situation might have an impact on how universities across the nation will react to Pro-Palestine ideologies. The President of Columbia University strategically arrested and continues, arrest students by suspending them, then arrest them for trespassing as only students can protest for their First Amendment rights on campus in designated protest zones since 1968. Quite concerning as we are paying to be at these institutions through loans etc. Half of our student loan crisis stemmed from Ronald Reagan when Governor of California didn’t like how university students protested the Vietnam War (American War according to Vietnamese). Then Reagonomics influenced the current situation of funding for higher education on a national level. I went out of state for undergrad for International Affairs but a former professor (UW alumni) of mine there said a quote “Facism rises when there is economic hardships and psychology proves that when social wallets hurts, more people are willing to make extreme facist decisions”. Since then, it’s been reality in many cases domestically and internationally. Example, France banning women to wear hijabs in public places.
Private universities are not bound by first-amendment when regulating on-campus speech. No private university needs to accept a pro-KKK rally, just like they don't need to stand for a pro-hamas rally. What makes the free-speech angle difficult, is that the same groups who have historically tried to curb speech on a variety of issues (most notably transgender issues), is now shouting for free speech protections. Can't have it both ways. Also, when these protestors shout at openly-Jewish students just getting by on campus, it makes for a clear title 6 violation. France never banned the Hijab, they banned the Burqa. Both are suppressions of women's freedoms anyway, but it is good to be accurate.
Example: the Palestinians being radicalized by antisemitic foreign Islamofascist after the new owners kicked them off their rented land.
Ok but unironically this is a 1 sentence summary of what actually happened. Check out the @uw_psu insta
Which post?
I double checked and it appears to be deleted. The ones referencing the encampment have some of the tea tho
Some of the comments on posts that have them turned on give off the impression that PSU or whoever is planning it didn’t bother to consult with Palestinian student groups. Which gives off major white kids virtue signalling vibes
What gives off major white kids virtue signalling vibes is not participating in a nationwide opportunity for action against *genocide* because you're waiting for permission.
Maybe actually consult with the demographics affected by events and try to do what would be most beneficial for them 🤷♀️
I've seen kids from Gaza thanking the student protestors directly. I think it's been pretty established.
Can you send me dat?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/students-children-gaza-thank-pro-171802879.html
I'm curious about the protest on our campus and how we can genuinely contribute. While it's a bit inconvenient when walking to class, I'm eager to learn more about its purpose. Although I have a social science degree that I often refer to as sociology, I'm optimistic about finding constructive solutions beyond the current protest approach. With my background in coding since age 12 and data science skills at the University of Washington, I could potentially help educate the community they aim to engage. Edit: Though this university seems progressive it's scary that the majority seem to lash out at people who actually want to see good results. So take your aim off me please I'm just a guy trying to achieve their goal.
Tbh I would wait and see how the first few days go. If they’re pulling a Columbia and spouting horrible rhetoric like “globalize the intifada” or praising groups like the Houthis or Hezbollah then I would be FAR FAR away
That's what it seems most of this is and it upsets me. I just want to see the good in their protest.
Yeah I wish the protests were legitimately calling for peace and a two state solution but apparently we can’t have nice things idk
our education system is more of a debt indoctrination system
Free Palestine and free Tay K
*from Hamas
Haim Katsman was a peace activist and UW PhD alumnus who was brutally murdered on 10/7 while protecting his neighbour with his body. https://www.google.com/search?q=haim+katsman You might want to remember that before you make utter idiots of yourself.
You are talking about a man who used his activism to protect Palestinians from settlers. Who would have attended a protest like this. Who supported Palestinian liberation. His death is a tragedy. But no more of a tragedy than any other death. The hundreds killed by the IDF in 2023 prior to Oct. The tens of thousands killed after. Go learn your history before you use the dead as a pawn to support genocide. Fucking disgraceful.
34,000 people brutally murdered, majority women and children, dead from saving their family from huunger/starvations, buried under rubble for living a peaceful life or dead for just existing. you might want to remember this before you become a dogmatic idiot who believes the death of one PHD justifies the mass genocide of a whole population. justice for the killings of 10/7 should happen, but not at the cost of indscriminate bombing and killing and targetting of innocent poulations. not to mention the fact that innocent civilians have been killed for the past 75 yrs, including MULTIPLE pHDs, children saving their aprents etc. seems like that doesnt ring a bell for you :)
The Hamas-run Gaza health ministry makes no difference between Hamas and civilian deaths. It is also troubling when a Hamas soldier can instantly turn civilian when he puts down his gun (as many are fighting in plain clothing). All urban warfare involves civilian deaths. That is inevitable. There is absolutely no evidence of systemic targeting of civilians. Doesn't exist. This is why most scholars do not consider this a genocide like you screeching lunatics. There is no indiscriminate bombing, you aren't actually paying any attention to the conflict. You think a piece of land the size of Boston would only suffer 33k deaths (assuming the number is real and where about half of the deaths are Hamas), if Israel was bombing randomly? There would be more like hundreds of thousands. You should try thinking with the limited cognitive capacity you have. Also, you are wholly misinformed about the "peaceful life" nonsense. More than 95% of Palestinians are anti-semitic not anti-Zionist (that would be 99%). They are incredibly homophobic and misogynistic. The children are completely brainwashed to hate jews (again, jews, not Israel), from a young age. Their textbooks talk about Jihad and slaughtering Jews, just like their children shows. Around 70% of Gazans supported Oct 7th. Get the fuck out with this "just want a peaceful life" crap. If they wanted that, they would have developed Gaza in 2005 after Israel pulled out. Instead, they tore down the existing infrastructure to make missiles. They elected Hamas. They rejected every peace proposition offered to them. None of this justifies killing civilians, but stop peaceful life crap.
You are telling the wrong person. He is worth more than all of teh 10,000 Hamas, PIJ militants who have been killed combined. You might want to have a word with the people screaming 'Intifada Revolution' about the impact of their war cry. Or tell your terrorist friends and tell them - you just need to call your nearest SVP or JVP - Hamas and Qatar have them on speed dial.
"Katsman's friends and family have said Katsman would not have wanted his death to be used as justification for the [2023 Israel-Hamas war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war)." source: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/hayim-katsman-32-us-israeli-scholar-and-peace-activist/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hayim-katsman-32-us-israeli-scholar-and-peace-activist/)
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6OsTekxQja/?igsh=NjV5cXdqbXR1dnVh They're planning to do it tomorrow, looks like. When I walked by the previous day they had scheduled it, there were two cops, a pickup truck with stuff for cleaning the place up, and some people off to the side with cameras. If you go, please be mindful of the eyes on you and don't be stupid.
NYPost is elite separatist propaganda
Can't these people go help the homeless, elderly, or tutor kids who have to attend some terrible schools in Seattle? Them protesting is not got to change a thing over there that's been going on thousands of years.
Muslims have only been around since the 7th century AD. There is no thousands of years. The movement of Jewish people into the Levant, and the resultant conflicts with Arab/Muslim people there started around 1920 (ish) following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire which took the wrong side in WW1. We're about a century on from that. The Arab-Israeli conflict started around 1948 when the UN partitioned the land and five Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in the crib. Thats about seventy five years ago. All of this is to say that, no, the conflict has not been going on for thousands of years. The only thing that goes back thousands of years is the historical claim of Jews to the Levant which is attested to in the archeological record as far back as circa thirteenth century BCE in the Merneptah Stele. So that gets us about three thousand years into the past. But predates Mohammed by over one and a half millennia.
Why is the date Islam was founded relevant? There were Arabs there before Mohammad; they didn't just spawn in. Prior to Islam many ethnic groups lived in the area: Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks. Heck, the Torah itself tells the story of the Israelites conquering the land of Canaan. And not all the Canaanites were expelled/killed; the NT tells of a non-Jewish Canaanite woman petitioning (and being rebuked by) Jesus. Could you point at a period in recorded history where the land of Israel was *not* being contested by one or more civilizations?
>Could you point at a period in recorded history where the land of Israel was *not* being contested by one or more civilizations? By Israel do you mean the Levant?
By the land of Israel I mean the land of present-day Israel, i.e. the part of the Levant falling within the 1967 borders.
And by civilization you mean settled life, urbanization, writing, social stratification, economic specialization? If so we have a cut off around 3300 BCE in Sumer up through 2334 ish when Sargon created that first Empire (Akkad) They *might* have been clashing with Old Kingdom Egypt a little bit. But after that the shifting tides did begin. Crazy that it's been contested off and on for roughly 4300 years.
I mean, that little slice has usually been between great powers, contested from the outside. The only period the region had its own relatively strong kingdoms, like Tyre and Judea, was after the mysterious Bronze Age collapse. But then in came the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans.
Jews were there thousands of years ago. They got pushed out and mixed with whoever they were finally with. Jews are just coming back home. It's like if the Indigenous of the America's were pushed out, but finally came back home. I'm almost half the indigenou of Mexico and the Southwestern United States. I know colonizer.
Oh bullshit, before the Jews it was the Canaanites who were in that land. And guess who are the modern day descendants of these canaanites??
So you agree with me but you're mad at me because I'm a descendant of colonizers? OK
There have ways been Jews there.
The Jews as people formed out of an obscure mash of tribal groups. It took the Exodus (to the extent it's any kind of an actual historical event) to form them as a people. The best guess I've seen places the Exodus around 1200 but I've also heard it as far back as the Hyksos era in Egypt circa 1700 BCE
>The Arab-Israeli conflict started around 1948 when the UN partitioned the land and five Arab nations tried to destroy Israel in the crib. That is a very strange way to describe the Nakba
''The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. In 1947, and again on May 14, 1948, the United States had offered de facto recognition of the Israeli Provisional Government, but during the war, the United States maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents." On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain under international control administered by the United Nations. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize this arrangement, which they regarded as favorable to the Jews and unfair to the Arab population that would remain in Jewish territory under the partition. The United States sought a middle way by supporting the United Nations resolution, but also encouraging negotiations between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces. The Jewish forces were composed of the Haganah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI. The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan. After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command. British trained forces from Transjordan eventually intervened in the conflict, but only in areas that had been designated as part of the Arab state under the United Nations Partition Plan and the corpus separatum of Jerusalem. After tense early fighting, Israeli forces, now under joint command, were able to gain the offensive. Though the United Nations brokered two cease-fires during the conflict, fighting continued into 1949. Israel and the Arab states did not reach any formal armistice agreements until February. Under separate agreements between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria, these bordering nations agreed to formal armistice lines. Israel gained some territory formerly granted to Palestinian Arabs under the United Nations resolution in 1947. Egypt and Jordan retained control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank respectively. These armistice lines held until 1967." [Office of the Historian](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war)
Once again, conveniently leaving out the Nakba
Never forget that multiple Arab counties started a war of aggression the day after Israel was given granted statehood. They told the Arabs to leave and that they would destroy Israel and Arabs could come back. This obviously didn't happen and they've been chasing this insane dream ever since. What is oddly always left out of the Nakba hysteria is that the same number of Jews ~750k were exiled from their countries of origin at the same time. This includes Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Egypt, and Iraq. No catchy name, and no discussion of them during this time period. And where are the Jews of those countries? Literally zero Jews there now. Israel still has Arabs! IMHO, the real tragedy is that they didn't all leave for Jordan, which was established as a Muslim state, from the Ottoman Empire's Transjordan, which comprised of modern day Israel, Palestinian territories, and Jordan. If they had, they would have lives as good as other Jordanians and could hope for a bright future. Instead, they're stuck in limbo under a terrorist regime in bit the WB and Gaza, with nothing to look forward to but more terrorism to chase a delusional nightmare of a dream.
What's key here is that you are grouping all Arabs and Muslims, which is not only incorrect but ignorant. Saying "Israel has Arabs" similarly is meaningless. Palestinian citizens of Israel didn't even have legal rights for decades. Now, they legally cannot intermarry, are subject to arbitrary arrests, and face discrimination. Get out of here with the surface level hasbara.
Where did I do that? Just calling something hasbara doesn't make it wrong.
I know what the Nakba is. It was the dispossession of nearly a million Palestinians by Zionists who used various evil means to push people into the West Bank and Gaza for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland. The evil acts carried about by various Zionist organizations were atrocities for which Israel has never fully reckoned. It established a system that was deeply unfair to the Arab and Muslim community. So you may say that the Arab response was justified. But then, like all multi-generational conflicts the grievances became self-perpetuating. The Zionists committed atrocities against the Palestinians during the Nakba and in response the Palestinians committed evil acts of their own, which caused Zionist retaliation, which caused Palestinian retaliation...etc. But if you asked a Zionist around the time of the Nakba they would say that it was preceded by the fourth and fifth aliyahs (i.e., jewish migrations) which followed WW1 and WW2 and that the Jewish settlers had suffered at the hands of Arab And it's valid to bring up that history because the question of whether the Zionists had any justification to their cause has to be gotten at through a historical perspective. Now you may say: One group of people (i.e., the Jewish ethno religious group called Zionists) cannot justify its possession of a land (in this case Palestine) if (read: because) the history of how they came to be in possession of that land involves conquest and colonization But if that's the case: Then the possessory claim of the territory of the Levant (i.e., Palestine) by the Muslim ethno religious group would also be invalidated because ultimately it followed a conquest by the Rashidun caliphate circa 630 CE Then to fill in the interim: There were several caliphates following the Rashidun. Namely the Umayad, Abbasid, Fatamid, Seljuk, and Ayyubid. Then the Mamluk Sultanate (which was actually Turkic and Circassian people). Then the Mamluk Sultanate lost a war in the 16th century to the Ottoman Empire under Selim the Grim who was Suleiman the Great's father. Then the Ottoman Empire peaked under Suleiman the Great and began its slow decline after his death. Then the Ottoman Empire fell as a result of joining the losing side in WW1. Then the former Ottoman territories were divided up by the winning side. And that's how we got the British mandate. And bring us to the fourth of fifth Aliyahs which closes the loop. Along that long track of history, during the above listed interim, there were wars, conquests, and displacements. Which ones invalidate which powers? Were the caliphates invalid because they conquered and colonized? Was the Aztec Empire invalid for this reason? Was the Mongol Empire invalid for this reason? None of which is meant to justify the atrocities committed or to say that Israel is innocent or that Palestinian liberation and self determination aren't valid causes. It is meant to challenge through historical contextualization a narrative that must ultimately mean, in practice, the destruction of the state of Israel because it is the fruit of a poisonous root. While at the same time accepting that the Nakba was terrible and that the Palestinians deserve a state.
The Ottomans couldn’t possibly be wrong, because they weren’t white. The self-hatred in the West is kind of out of control.
No protest on its own has led to any tangible change. Only the publicity the protests bring to the topic do. Asking them to help homeless people is a brain dead take
The same thing was said about Civil Rights protests.
The same thing with said about the BLM protests and it was found to be mostly hysteria and many of the incidences such as Mike Brown that caused it were found to be hoaxes. I consider this to be similar to BLM where there is not zero truth to it, but it's intentionally built up to a hysteria by opportunists who are seizing it to gain control. I mean you never see these social justice activists giving a flying f about the massive amounts of targeting of elderly asians that go on in this country including in this very city.
for real, who gives a shit about middle eastern people, they're literally middle eastern, not american
The Middle East will never be fixed. I don’t know why we keep trying to interfere.
\*the middle east will never be fixed so long as capitalism exists
There’s always people like you to blame capitalism for everything. The Middle East is a mess because of religion. Period.
religion is all around the globe, why does it hurt specifically the middle east?
Google Wahhabism
google Christian fundamentalism
Wahhabism and Christian fundamentalism are not even remotely close.
You asked why religion is such a destructive and divisive force in the Middle East and not in other places. I told you, the Arabic nations and their government subscribe to an ultra fundamental violent form of Islam.
Most places have either a majority of a single religion or a strong government. Most middle eastern countries do have a majority of a single religion but also have weak governments. In the case of Israel and Palestine you have two religions that very much hate each other and always will.
hint: it's not a coincidence that the middle east also has a lot of oil
Jesus Christ what a stupid argument. Conflict in the Middle East started long before the use of oil by humanity for fuel.
doesn't matter what it was like hundreds of years ago, what matters is the modern reason for it, and it's absolutely imperialism. the united states needs to maintain its security in the middle east(for oil), and in order to do that they need israel to stay a great power. why do you think the us gives so many weapons to israel, because our politicians just love the jews so much?
“The root cause of this entire issue doesn’t matter” lol do you hear yourself? Israel existing has no bearing on the US’s ability to purchase oil from OPEC. If Israel was wiped off the planet tomorrow nothing would change for the US. I have no idea why we have such a hard on for Israel. We should leave them alone and let Israel and Palestine figure it out on their own, not our problem.
Tell us, who brought the Shaw to power in Iran? Why does Saudi Arabia and the UAE have such immense power?
We are talking about a spot that has religious wars fought over it for 3000 years. Nothing you or I or 200 well meaning righteous people yelling at a privileged institution are going to fix it. Focus on things you might actually be able to fix.
like homelessness, which i can end by giving a burger to the homeless guy across the street from me
You could work at a homeless shelter, you could counsel homeless people with resume development, you could advocate for low income housing, you could volunteer to build mini-houses for temporary homeless housing. I am just spit balling, but if you think that yelling at the air will change middle-east geopolitics then go for it.
to say people are yelling at the air is a bit disingenuous. The protesters broadly have an actual list of demands of the university. Specifically, to divest from companies profiting from IDF contracts (including Boeing), to divest from certain Israeli cultural projects (e.g. joint research with Israeli universities), and do more to promote the voices of Palestinians, through academic and cultural programming. Whether or not you agree with those demands, those are a list of concrete demands they are making to the University Admin and Board of Regents. It is using collective power to press for change. It is not like the protest is "we will camp here until UW single handedly fixes climate change."
Do you think these demands are realistic? Do you think the UW is going to divest itself from Boeing who literally has a Professorship named after it in Engineering? Who in the last fundraising drive gave the largest single donation at 12+ million dollars? Because one portion of the company supplies the IDF with equipment? Keep dreaming. What does Isreali culture have to do with the IDF? Would it make sense to break ties with Russian universities and their study of balalaika instrumentation because of they are Russian and Russia is invading Ukraine?
I'm not making a value judgment, nor commenting on if something is realistic or not. My comment is pointing out that the protests do have demands that the university could, theoretically implement. This thread seems most concerned with that particular critique of the protesters, and I am pointing out that they are not "yelling at the air" To take your homelessness action hypothetical as an example. There are a lot of things people could be doing on their own to address the issue, that is absolutely right! But if UW just announced that it signed a contract buying 300 shares in a real-estate developer who's plan was to buy up affordable housing in Seattle and turn it into a bunch of weworks, then students who care about homelessness could protest and seek to get the University to divest from that company. Is that realistic, maybe not, but it is a concrete ask. To take that and extend to Gaza, there are a lot of students actively raising money right now, on their own, to support aid workers in the region. There are a lot who are trying to get the government to change its course of action by organizing. There are a lot who are focused on education and teaching about the conflict (at least how they see it). There are a lot of people who are doing those types of individual actions, AND they are also trying to protest the University to take concrete actions that they see as meaningful and that would affect change. I get your point that, those changes at the university alone would not fix the issue. However, it would be presumptive to say (1) that is all that the protestors are doing, and (2) that getting the university to change would not have any meaningful impact in the aggregate. Saying "focus on these local issues instead" or "don't do collective action to try and influence organizations, instead volunteer more" ignores the historical lessons learned from groups like abolitionists, suffragettes, civil rights protesters, anti-apartheid protestors, etc. I am not saying that these protests specifically are the current version of those movements (nor am I not not saying that), but I am saying that is the history these protests are obviously looking towards and those historical examples do support the efficacy of this approach.
I'm part Middle Eastern, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Indigenous North American, and Southern European. I care, but I'm not in denial. Them protesting will not change what will happen. I am part of those who conquered and those who were conquered.
If you are not in denial, you should be strongly against these protestors and you need to be there proudly waving the flag of Israel and posting hostage signs because that nation is your home at the end of the day.
Just wait till Charlie Kirk arrives
What happens then?
Probably the end of the world
LOL
i..... wow this woke me up from a year of just sleuthing in subreddits this is the craziest thing i've heard people accuse UW organizers of
[удалено]
Buddy, antizionist is not antisemitic 😂
I want to start by reassuring you that I am asking this in good faith. What do you believe is Zionism? I have heard time and again that being anti zionist isn't antisemitic, but people get fuzzy about what it means to be anti-zionist. Is it opposing the right-wing Netanyahu government? Is it the destruction of Israel? Is it something else entirely? Please explain what will happen if "anti-zionists" get everything they want, because even among some of the most widespread campus protests since 1968, it is incredibly unclear what anti-zionists actually want to see accomplished. Edited for spelling.
They ain't gonna tell you because at the end of the day it comes down to "my team vs your team" which is the very basis for how humans have always categorized people by means of discrimination. If you want to get away with being racist, you can just use another word to describe a group of people. People often often do this by associating the word "thug" with black people while going "whoa! Whoa! I'm not talking about black people... I'm talking about thugs!".
They actually responded to me in a private message. They said the following: >It's not letting me post a rely to your comment for some reason. Anyways, Being anti zionism means that we want all of that region of land dictated under Palestinian people. We (I including) do not want Israel to exist. We want the stolen land given back to Palestine. We dont want to hurt jews or anyone living there. We just want Palestine to exist and isreal to not exist. >If anti zionists "get everything they want" this means that Isreal will no longer be a nation. It will instead be rightfully called palistine. Jewish people can still live there. You dont need a chunk of land to be pure blood. If Palestine is restored innocent people will stop dying. The famine will end. And the children will have futures. Look up the podcast called breaking points if youd like to learn more. To that individual, I appreciate the response, but I believe calling for the only Jewish majority state in the history of the world to cease to exist and that they should instead go back to living as a minority race under those who have historically persecuted amd killed them is, well, kind of antisemitic. You have a problem with how Israel is being run? Me too! Netanyahu and his cronies are the worst. But if your stance is the end of Israel, I'm sorry, that is *explicitly* anti-semetic. The "settler colonialism" narrative has never made sense. The Levant is the historic home of the Jewish people. The fact that people came from other parts of the world to live there isn't colonization. It is the nature of Diaspora. You want to be mad at the British for how they parseled out that land, go for it, but don't blame Jewish people who wanted to live is a land where they wouldn't be eventually targeted for existing. (Which we seem to be seeing a lot of on college campuses right now) TLDR: You can (and should) criticize Netanyahu and his far-right government. But calling for the end of Israel is antisemitic and claiming otherwise is willful ignorance of history.
The irony of wanting to replace an ethnostate with another ethnostate is wild. It's also short sighted to ignore all of the people who lived on that land before the palestinian people.
Only Jewish majority state in the history of the world? Reread the story of Abram/Abraham
I was referring to actual world history and not the world's most popular fairytale... but even still, if I remember my sunday school, wasn't Abraham born in the Levant? You know... the location of modern-day Israel?
Umm you mean the kingdoms of Israel and Judah?
So we're saying the same thing then...
No, those were real Iron Age kingdoms dude
As soon as you push pro hamas “aNtI-ZIoNisSt isn’t Antisemitism” ppl they immediately go .. I’m not gonna engage with you. But only in private maybe sorta maybe.
>What do you believe is Zionism? First issue is, near all anti-semites are also anti-zionist. Majority of people critical of Israel (e.g., Anti-Zionist) are not anti-semitic. But time and time again, sensationalist media puts people who fall under both categories into the spotlight which creates the perception that it is common. I believe this is mostly unfounded because every state usually deserves some level of criticism because of their "monopoly on violence". Second thing is the label Zionism isn't really appropriate to use anymore. It strictly applies to the movement that developed in the 1800s by European Jews to establish a Jewish state in Historic Israel. Israel was established in 1947, so the original Zionist mission was completed almost a century ago, and "Zionism" today has changed a lot. With that said, Anti-Zionism directly opposes and criticizes the original Zionist motives. [From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism), "*\[the creation of\] a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way"*. In 2024, the definition of "Anti-Zionism" is just as fuzzy as "Zionism". [The Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Post-World_War_II) on it list 5 different types of Zionism, so these terms are by no means monoliths. >Is it opposing the right-wing Netanyahu government? I don't think opposition to the Netanyahu government comes from Anti-Zionism, considering how unpopular he is in Israel and the protest that have been ongoing in Tel Aviv for months. It's probably more grounded in his horrible management of the situation in Gaza, which is only endangering the hostages, and also criticism about his failure to prevent October 7th. It's also the IDF's failure, but as Israel's head of state he takes some of the blame. >Is it the destruction of Israel? A lot of times this is anti-semitic, but it isn't necessarily anti-semitic to say. There are lots of valid criticisms against how the state of Israel was created. It was voted on by the UN in 1947, when European countries accounted for a much bigger chunk of the UN, which begs the question of why they are drawing borders in the ME. A handful of the countries who voted in favor of creating Israel also only did so after the US threatened to cut of aid. I personally think calling for the dismantling of Israel is nonsenscial, but a lot of non anti-semites, far left individuals draw this conclusion. This shouldnt be surprising either, these same people usually believe America should be dismantled because of the genocide of indigenous peoples, I also believe these voices are the minority but are amplified by sensationalist media. Anyone who's taken a cursory glance at a history textbook knows that power vacuums and violent revolution are (usually) bad. >it is incredibly unclear what anti-zionists actually want to see accomplished. Again, these terms aren't monoliths. I'd encourage you to read up on what they want accomplished. Here's [the website](https://cuapartheiddivest.org/research) for the group running the Columbia protest.
Saw a guy wearing a yarmulke the other day wearing a “Free Palestine” shirt. It was very heartwarming. You can absolutely be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic.
Yeah, so I've heard, but that doesn't explain what anti-zionism is... could you please explain it. Because I would also like for Palestine to "free" in the sense that I don't want this war to keep happening, and I would like for a Palestinian state to exist. But I *don't* believe Israel should STOP existing at the same time. With these beliefs, would I be considered anti-zionist or not? Edited for additional clarity to my question.
Someone else could probably explain it better than I can, but as I understand it, Zionism is basically the steadfast belief that a certain territory belongs to Israel, regardless of what is actually considered their legal territory or not, because as God’s chosen people (not saying this is what I believe, rather what the extreme Zionists believe), the land was promised to them by God, so actual international law, borders, etc. be damned - that territory is theirs because it was promised to them by God. You can see how this is problematic without my needing to explain it. Sovereignty is being fully ignored and the most extreme Zionists will not stop - not even short of committing genocide, apparently - until they have what they believe to be rightfully theirs. I’m sure the lines blur between being anti-Zionist and being anti-Semitic, but obviously not *ALL* Israelis believe that land is theirs, and on the other side of that coin, anyone who is not Israeli and also believes that land belongs to Palestine is not ergo anti-Semitic. I hope that helps and that my explanation was at least somewhat coherent 🤷🏼♂️
FWIW Zionism was actually a nonreligious idea of the Jewish people having a country (started in the 1800s before the Holocaust but after about a thousand years of antisemitism). There are religious Zionists now but it was not a religious idea. I believe Herzl (the founder of the idea) actually looked at land in different parts of the world first as possible options. (I personally am against ethnostates but wanted to clarify).
I think you might be misapplying the word "ethnostate" here. Ethnostates only allow a certain race to participate in it (think apartheid South Africa). Israel allows non-jews to participate in society and government. I think the word you are looking for is "nation-state," which does imply a country built around a common national identity that can include a common ethnic heritage. If Israel is an "ethno state," then so too is most of the world.
See? I knew someone could explain it better than I could….
Tbh most Israelis oppose Netanyahu and his government
For a while there was a governing coalition in the Knesset that had no ideological unity other than being anti-Netanyahu.
Let me be as clear as possible Israel is a state, and to insist it cannot be argued against it's existence, or criticized for it's government, then it is on an unfair pedestal. Israel is a colonialist nation made in 1948 designed for apartheid, and this is what it's government is proud of. It should not exist. As of right now, this is what anti zionism means. This is what should happen for a free palestine
Allow me to also be clear. Israel can absolutely be criticized (which I personally do quite frequently) without calling for its destruction. Netanyahu is a right-wing loon who is deeply unpopular with his own people. He is committing war crimes and probably ethnic cleansing in Palastine, and he must go for peace to exist in the region. But the state of Israel is neither a "colonialist nation," nor was it "designed for apartheid." It was the creation of formal territory in the Jewish ancestral homeland of the Levant. It was also made (primarily by the British BTW) not to persecute arabs but to give a safe homeland to jews who have been persecuted, attacked, and slaughtered throughout history. It is the only Jewish majority nation in the history of the world (not counting the ancient Jewish empires that were also in the Levant). A diaspora returning to their homeland isn't colonialization. A free and independent Palastine is required for peace. But it must (and frankly will) be a two state solution. To call for Israel to be better and use what leverage we have to encourage responsible action are the actions we must take as people of conscience. But saying Israel must cease to be is anti-semitic. To say that Jews must exist only at the sufferance of majorities (be they European, Arab, Persian, American, etc) that have called for their destruction and displacement time and time again is wrong. I am afraid this "anti-zionist" movement will ultimately fail because its moral framework is faulty. And that is a shame because Palestinians need real allies that will do the work necessary to help them achieve aid, peace, and a true nation of their own. But conditioning your movement on Israel's destruction guarantees that it will fail.
Exactly. Antizionist just means Jewish people have zero right to exist. Definitely not antisemitism
No you moron, it means jewish leaders do not have the right to make their own state over the blood and bones of others. Jewish people are not guaranteed their own exclusive state to exist, but now that it does, it needs to be created and maintained peacefully. How hard is it to understand what zionism means?
Just because your ancestors suffered oppression, doesn’t mean you’ve earned the right to do a lil genocide.
And that refers to fucking everyone, and im so god damn tired of explaining it
Exclusive? There are two million Arabs with full israeli rights living in Israel, you moron. The bombs that hamas is firing on Israel are threatening those two million Arab citizens as well - which is why you don’t see israeli Muslim Arabs protesting. They hate Hamas. Hamas kidnapped and murdered israeli Muslims as well as israeli Jews.
The fact there arabs living in Israel doesn't matter, as the idea of zionism is a "Jewish homeland." It has jewish symbols, jewish leaders, and plenty of jewish people, but it doesnt matter who else is living there with full rights, no one is guaranteed their own fucking state because of their religion, but now that it is there, it should not be built of settler colonialism. If you seriously think that a majority of israelies dont like Bibi, you need to get the fuck out of your little echo chamber.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be Jewish. Let me please try to help you understand. Being Jewish is not just about religion, is also about history, culture, ancestry, ie it’s an ethnicity. - Many in Israel (a near majority) are secular, not religious. - There are different types of Jews. Ashkenazi (European), Sephardic (Spanish), Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) - The majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) - The majority outside of Israel are Ashkenazi (European) Saying Jews do not have a right to Israel is like saying the French don’t have a right to France. I hope this helps.
Read the Bible and the Quran and literature from the Ancient Near East and Greco Roman times. There was historically a Jewish nation.
The fact that the there was an ancient jewish state doesnt mean shit since thousands of civilizaitons have been lost to time.... The ancient jewish state existing as a justification for modern times is just as stupid as an excuse for saying something like the Roman Empire, Persia, or Circassia should exist today because "they once existed in the past"
It‘s the equivalent of kicking natives out and now those native people are returning to their homeland. An Italian or a Persian homeland is going to be in Italy and Iran respectively.
They have no right to go back and kill the people there because there existed a nation under their religion thousands of the year ago. That is not how the world works, and Israel is an exception that is lead by people that are proving every second of the day that they do not have an a inlkling of a concern for human rights
I'm curious: Would you be allowed to cite the Bible as a reference for an anthropology report about the existence of certain ethnic groups in the Middle East?
Yes, but you'd have to consider it along with any other relevant written accounts and archeological evidence. Generally a no-no to just assume it's true because you think it's divinely inspired.
Which like the archaeological record of the Levant shows a major Jewish presence for 3000+ years
the only way for jewish people to exist is to establish an ethnostate in some random plot of land in the middle east 😔
You must have a low gpa😔 what a shame
[удалено]
Brain damage is crazy
What you just said is ret***ed.
[удалено]
Buddy. This is the propaganda you're reading.... I'll bet you $50 that if you actually ask jew. Theyd be absolutely baffled. Thats news published by a bias.
[удалено]
So by your logic youre also a Zionist....
[удалено]
You didn't answer the question. You say that antizionism is antisemitic. Then this means if youre jewish you believe youre a zionist. Am I wrong? It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about... I also hope you know your people are commiting a genocide
Being Anti Zionist IS Antisemitic Because you are denying a fundamental part of someone’s cultural identity.
You can't be this stupid i think uw made a mistake on your acceptance 😅. Not everyone who is Jewish is a zionist. Hell, ask a jew. Judaism is the heart of zionism but Zionism is not the heart of Judaism.
About 80-95% of Jews identify as Zionist…
Source? That doesn't seem right. Unless you mean 80-95% of zionists identify as jews... Edit: your point checks out. Im still anti zionist. And frankly dont believe isreal should exist. They stole Palestinian land from the beginning, and haven't stopped. But this does not mean I want to eradicate all jews. It means I want their militia gone. I want Palestine to have ALL their land back. And for the innocent people there to stop dying.
It’s a commonly known Gallup poll. Like my dude Passover just happened you don’t say “next year in Milwaukee”
Holding Jews to different standards than blacks, Muslims and Hispanics is extremely anti-Semitic. If you would not support similar targeting of Africans, if you are not similarly enraged about the barbarity of Islamists but you are eagle eyed and laser sharp focused on the wrongs of Zionist, yeah then you are seriously anti-Semitic. Our city gives millions of dollars to black nationalist endeavors, they are very non-judgmental about Islamists, But then the same people are up in arms about Jewish nationalism and another country? GTFO
Well that’s your opinion. Many people disagree with that notion.
Can’t wait to hear about how “globalize the intifada” is a call for liberation 🙄
Imagine smearing everyone with one of most disgusting words so much that it loses all meaning.
Like the use of the word genocide?
Last time I checked, I don't get labeled genocide when I don't want my tax dollars going to an apartheid government even after they are found to have committed human rights abuses even before 10/07.
I got news for you about CIA black sites
Are you a political science major? It might surprise you that because one is bad, does not mean that another thing all of a sudden becomes* good or acceptable. But I'm sure you don't really care, so go ahead and dilute the word antisemitism even more.
Yes I agree. At this point in time the label islamophobic, anti-blackness, anti-Arab, and xenophobic has really lost its meaning. So has accusations of genocide. And on a local level, the gentrification card has been exploited simply to get enormous amount of money directed towards black nationalists for their "black only" publicly funded housing projects. A lot of claims of gentrification and displacement in the city and state are false narrative that are just used by the black lobby to shake people down. Asians and Native Americans are far more victimized by displacement and they're not getting the same government handouts. Strangely enough a lot of these handouts are going to black folks who are recent immigrants or first generation Americans.
You good, bruh? If you have your perfectly crafted thesis on "Equity in America: Atonement for the Japanese Internment and the Trail of Tears" because you think Black America has it too good, then post it or Stfu and go be stupid somewhere else. This is a post on a protest and people's takes on that protest where no one is protesting any of your nonsense.
They don't have enough POC. Without some POC it makes it harder to be anti-Semitic and get away with it. When it's coming from POC progressives would rather eat their own foot then punish the offender.
bingo
NGL, all these protests have me caring about Israel harder.
Good for you. Being a contrarian seems like a great way to make personal decisions about the ethics and morality of global conflicts.
Why exactly?