Kill or expel? Is it anti-Semitic to post this?

[Idaho]

This was scrawled on the home of a Palestinian family. Am I anti-Semitic for thinking that this is racist ethic cleansing?

[rory_20_uk]

Sorry if I'm rather ignorant. Where was the Palestinian family? Are we talking in Palestine or somewhere else in the world?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd need a translation. Graffiti for sure. Hate speech likely given modern thoughts on certain symbols. But I cannot read it all.

By the way, I prefer my ethics to be dry-cleaned.

[Montmorency]

This was scrawled on the home of a Palestinian family. Am I anti-Semitic for thinking that this is racist ethic cleansing?

"Kill or expel" sounds like a twisted game show.

Bad state of affairs, and this stuff is reflective of the non-apartheid reality for Palestinians IMO. the Israeli right doesn't want to economically subordinate Palestinians, and it doesn't want to coexist beside them as 2nd-class citizens - they want them out, they want them gone. They must be watching Aung San Suu Kyi closely right now. Am I wrong?

Nevertheless, the existence of anti-Semitism is not detracted from by the existence of other prejudices, hatreds, or rivalries. Don't make it a competition.

Sorry if I'm rather ignorant. Where was the Palestinian family? Are we talking in Palestine or somewhere else in the world?

https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tw...97288211525633

It's in the West Bank, parts of which are under threat of annexation should Netanyahu/Likud squeeze through in the upcoming third Israeli election within the space of a year.

The source for the OP content doesn't look very solid, but upon investigation it could fit into a general pattern of West Bank settler violence and rhetoric, so I would take it at face value.


In unrelated news, I just learned:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...manuel-macron/

France is to recognise anti-Zionism, the denial of the state of Israel, as a form of anti-Semitism in response to a surge in acts against Jews not seen “since the Second World War”.

Without looking further into the exact specification applied, I can see how this move could be dangerous.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9248801.html

Boris Johnson will attempt to pass a law banning local councils from joining the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, the UK’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues has announced.

On one hand, BDS are some useless cocks. On the other, if Nazis can Nazi then BDS shouldn't be blocked. Unfortunately, here in the US BDS bans are fairly prevalent and bipartisan.

[Furunculus]

I agree with boris. Foreign policy is not a function of LA's.

[Montmorency]

I agree with boris. Foreign policy is not a function of LA's.

Is all local activity colorable as foreign policy banned already then? Or will it be banned as well now? Are sister/twin cities banned?

Serious questions.

[Furunculus]

there is a meaningful difference between exchanging svhool trips and economic sanctions.

[Montmorency]

there is a meaningful difference between exchanging svhool trips and economic sanctions.

That's true. But localities decide all the time in their operation who they will or won't do business with. Sometimes the reasoning is along political lines (for example, South Africa boycotts, US states and municipalities boycotting other US states or municipalities). I would ask:

1. Why should all this activity be restricted (adjusted for UK)?
2. If it should not all be restricted, what is the line?
3. What's the big picture of legal restraints on localities in the UK right now? The context obviously matters as to this particular proposed restriction.

Also,

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...manuel-macron/

France is to recognise anti-Zionism, the denial of the state of Israel, as a form of anti-Semitism in response to a surge in acts against Jews not seen “since the Second World War”.

I should have posted a more recent link on the legislative action, which passed the Assembly earlier this month (Senate unclear).

[Pannonian]

My first thought is, what has this to do with us? If this is in Israel/Palestine, as I assume it is, then what does Idaho expect us to do about it? If it's nothing except condemn it, then what good does condemning it do except make him feel better about himself and his righteous fury? If he expects us to do something material, does this mean he supports taking action in foreign affairs where he feels it is right? Did he support Iraq?

[Idaho]

I want to know if I can be critical of this without being anti semitic.

I'll use this thread to post up other examples that concern me, so I can check if I am being anti semitic, or if it's ok to criticise.
https://imemc.org/article/israels-ha...-palestinians/

Is that article anti semitic? If so, I'll just ignore it.

[Pannonian]

I want to know if I can be critical of this without being anti semitic.

I'll use this thread to post up other examples that concern me, so I can check if I am being anti semitic, or if it's ok to criticise.
https://imemc.org/article/israels-ha...-palestinians/

Is that article anti semitic? If so, I'll just ignore it.

What do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? How will that help? Take concrete action against Israel? Do you support concrete action in other foreign affairs cases too?

[rory_20_uk]

That's true. But localities decide all the time in their operation who they will or won't do business with. Sometimes the reasoning is along political lines (for example, South Africa boycotts, US states and municipalities boycotting other US states or municipalities). I would ask:

1. Why should all this activity be restricted (adjusted for UK)?
2. If it should not all be restricted, what is the line?
3. What's the big picture of legal restraints on localities in the UK right now? The context obviously matters as to this particular proposed restriction.

Also,

I should have posted a more recent link on the legislative action, which passed the Assembly earlier this month (Senate unclear).

And how much should the local people suffer because their elected officials have decided to purchase materials / services from more ethically "good" places where it costs more?

And of course is "good" buying local, human rights, emissions, preserving the habitat or a mix of all? Is it better to purchase trainers from Bangladesh (for example) made by children or should be boycott the goods so they go out of business or earn less since they have to resell to a middle man?

And if the West decides to stop working with those trying to improve, is the West in any way responsible that others provide the funding with even less interest in the things the West wishes to improve?

Of course I, along with most people, take the Tim Approach:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I want to know if I can be critical of this without being anti semitic.

I'll use this thread to post up other examples that concern me, so I can check if I am being anti semitic, or if it's ok to criticise.
https://imemc.org/article/israels-ha...-palestinians/

Is that article anti semitic? If so, I'll just ignore it.

I'll try to give you a serious answer. It's OK to criticise Isreal, it's not OK to link Israel to Nazi Germany or, really Apartheid South Africa (also antisemitic, just less-so) because that implies that "The Jews are just as bad" and hence somehow "deserved" what happened to them historically.

Browsing the Heart of Iron IV Forums today I saw someone asking why the Jewish conspiracy that dragged Italy and Germany into WWII wasn't modeled.

[Montmorency]

What do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? How will that help? Take concrete action against Israel? Do you support concrete action in other foreign affairs cases too?

Since no one is pointing it out... No one supports all existing foreign policy. Everyone supports some existing foreign policy. Yes, you have to pick and choose.

As for what Idaho expects the UK to do about it, that's a valid question for him. I don't know the UK's exact relationship with Israel, but imagine that they would have to take some action collectively with other European countries. (Naturally under Johnson there is little prospect of that...)

The USA is the country with the closest relationship to Israel, so we have the greatest responsibility. We could do a lot if we wanted to. We could apply diplomatic pressure in the UN, encourage a coalition of countries to unify against Israel so long as their government pursues specific policies (e.g. settlement and annexation), pull the strings of our extensive military and state aid to Israel, our military and intelligence cooperation...

None of that involves sanctions.

And how much should the local people suffer because their elected officials have decided to purchase materials / services from more ethically "good" places where it costs more?

And of course is "good" buying local, human rights, emissions, preserving the habitat or a mix of all? Is it better to purchase trainers from Bangladesh (for example) made by children or should be boycott the goods so they go out of business or earn less since they have to resell to a middle man?

And if the West decides to stop working with those trying to improve, is the West in any way responsible that others provide the funding with even less interest in the things the West wishes to improve?

The question of whether participating in a boycott, or in a certain way, is good on the merits is to my mind wholly dissociated with the question of whether the central government should outlaw any discretion.

Does the central government mandate localities always accept the cheapest contracts available?

In the UK today, would it be unlawful for a council to participate in a boycott of Chinese companies associated with the repression in Xinjiang? If it is not unlawful for a council to do that, will it become unlawful alongside Johnson's proposal to outlaw BDS-related activity?

The point I'm making is that there's facially nothing Parliament should be interfering with here, and that it is probably doing so in an unprincipled manner anyway.

Of course I, along with most people, take the Tim Approach:

Philanthropy is morality-laundering, but there's no mistaking the commitment of muscular redistributive policy. Just ask the rich themselves which they'll tolerate.

[Pannonian]

Since no one is pointing it out... No one supports all existing foreign policy. Everyone supports some existing foreign policy. Yes, you have to pick and choose.

As for what Idaho expects the UK to do about it, that's a valid question for him. I don't know the UK's exact relationship with Israel, but imagine that they would have to take some action collectively with other European countries. (Naturally under Johnson there is little prospect of that...)

The USA is the country with the closest relationship to Israel, so we have the greatest responsibility. We could do a lot if we wanted to. We could apply diplomatic pressure in the UN, encourage a coalition of countries to unify against Israel so long as their government pursues specific policies (e.g. settlement and annexation), pull the strings of our extensive military and state aid to Israel, our military and intelligence cooperation...

None of that involves sanctions.

Multilateralism isn't the argument I hear from the Far Left though. The Far Left has historically taken the base point that the west, in particular western Europe and America, are evil imperialists, and all foreign actions taken by these countries are wrong and imperialist in nature. This is coupled with the corollary base point that oppositional powers like the USSR and latterly the post-colonial countries are anti-imperialist and to be supported. Orwell looks at this in his essays, although Israel didn't exist back then of course (although the logic from then is still pursued now).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Multilateralism isn't the argument I hear from the Far Left though. The Far Left has historically taken the base point that the west, in particular western Europe and America, are evil imperialists, and all foreign actions taken by these countries are wrong and imperialist in nature. This is coupled with the corollary base point that oppositional powers like the USSR and latterly the post-colonial countries are anti-imperialist and to be supported. Orwell looks at this in his essays, although Israel didn't exist back then of course (although the logic from then is still pursued now).

This is true, and those arguments have even been applied to Northern Ireland, let's not even start on the disastrous results of decolonisation in Hong Kong.

[Idaho]

I'll try to give you a serious answer. It's OK to criticise Isreal, it's not OK to link Israel to Nazi Germany or, really Apartheid South Africa (also antisemitic, just less-so) because that implies that "The Jews are just as bad" and hence somehow "deserved" what happened to them historically.

I can understand why comparisons to nazi Germany are pointlessly antagonist, inaccurate and counter productive - but South Africa apartheid seems reasonable. There is a caste system in greater Israel. With the Arab Israelis being akin to Cape coloureds. Some of the rights of white people, but significantly lower status. While the indigenous blacks had few rights and could be made homeless or imprisoned with few controls or chances to appeal.

Browsing the Heart of Iron IV Forums today I saw someone asking why the Jewish conspiracy that dragged Italy and Germany into WWII wasn't modeled.

The bulk of anti-Semitism is from right wing loons. That's why the tactic of labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and of claiming that it's the left that Jews have the most to fear from is totally wrong headed.

[Greyblades]

The bulk of anti-Semitism is from right wing loons. That's why the tactic of labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and of claiming that it's the left that Jews have the most to fear from is totally wrong headed.

An assessment that becomes dubious when you compare the social acceptability of the side's antisemite extremes.

Karl "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money" Marx being inside the overton window while Adolf Hitler is not has a way of heightening the former's impact over the latter's.

Not to mention the communist favouring disparity in numbers.

[Pannonian]

I can understand why comparisons to nazi Germany are pointlessly antagonist, inaccurate and counter productive - but South Africa apartheid seems reasonable. There is a caste system in greater Israel. With the Arab Israelis being akin to Cape coloureds. Some of the rights of white people, but significantly lower status. While the indigenous blacks had few rights and could be made homeless or imprisoned with few controls or chances to appeal.


The bulk of anti-Semitism is from right wing loons. That's why the tactic of labeling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and of claiming that it's the left that Jews have the most to fear from is totally wrong headed.

But what do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? What good does that do but make you feel better about being morally superior?

[Montmorency]

I can understand why comparisons to nazi Germany are pointlessly antagonist, inaccurate and counter productive - but South Africa apartheid seems reasonable. There is a caste system in greater Israel. With the Arab Israelis being akin to Cape coloureds. Some of the rights of white people, but significantly lower status. While the indigenous blacks had few rights and could be made homeless or imprisoned with few controls or chances to appeal.

I don't know much about the lived experience of Israeli Arabs. To be clear, are you using the term "apartheid" with reference to their situation alone, to the exclusion of Palestinians? I could see that. Because all my knowledge indicates the Israeli right want Palestinian apartheid like the Burmese Buddhists want Rohingya apartheid.

But what do you expect us to do about it? Condemn it? What good does that do but make you feel better about being morally superior?

I looked up what Labour's agenda on Israel was. Reaffirm opposition to arms sales to Israel, boycott goods from Israeli settlements, support a Palestinian right of return, and reject trade agreements that fail to recognize the rights of Palestinians. While much of this is symbolic, I struggle to see why any of it should be exceedingly controversial other than maybe the right of return.

You talk too much in the frame of 'someone said something,' but without elucidating what that something is, why it is said, or the basis for it. Find a position you like and state it, or one you don't like and attack it. There's more to discuss than in rhetorically remarking on unspecified disagreements.

Like, for example:

Multilateralism isn't the argument I hear from the Far Left though. The Far Left has historically taken the base point that the west, in particular western Europe and America, are evil imperialists, and all foreign actions taken by these countries are wrong and imperialist in nature. This is coupled with the corollary base point that oppositional powers like the USSR and latterly the post-colonial countries are anti-imperialist and to be supported.

What is there to take away from this? There is an anti-imperial Left (who and why) and some of them (who and why) excuse the imperialism of non-Western countries to the extent those countries are antagonistic toward the West, and Orwell said something about it. Left unsaid is who or what you think is right, why you think so, and what you would like to see in Israel policy (especially relative to current events, including changes in US policy under Trump).


Edit: BTW, on why I say specifically boycotting settlement manufactures is both symbolic and should be uncontroversial:

Goods produced in Israeli settlements are able to stay competitive on the global market, in part because of massive state subsidies they receive from the Israeli government. Farmers and producers are given state assistance, while companies that set up in the territories receive tax breaks and direct government subsidies. An Israeli government fund has also been established to help companies pay customs penalties.[178]
[...]
According to Israeli government estimates, $230 million worth of settler goods including fruit, vegetables, cosmetics, textiles and toys are exported to the EU each year, accounting for approximately 2% of all Israeli exports to Europe

[Pannonian]

I don't know much about the lived experience of Israeli Arabs. To be clear, are you using the term "apartheid" with reference to their situation alone, to the exclusion of Palestinians? I could see that. Because all my knowledge indicates the Israeli right want Palestinian apartheid like the Burmese Buddhists want Rohingya apartheid.



I looked up what Labour's agenda on Israel was. Reaffirm opposition to arms sales to Israel, boycott goods from Israeli settlements, support a Palestinian right of return, and reject trade agreements that fail to recognize the rights of Palestinians. While much of this is symbolic, I struggle to see why any of it should be exceedingly controversial other than maybe the right of return.

You talk too much in the frame of 'someone said something,' but without elucidating what that something is, why it is said, or the basis for it. Find a position you like and state it, or one you don't like and attack it. There's more to discuss than in rhetorically remarking on unspecified disagreements.

Like, for example:



What is there to take away from this? There is an anti-imperial Left (who and why) and some of them (who and why) excuse the imperialism of non-Western countries to the extent those countries are antagonistic toward the West, and Orwell said something about it. Left unsaid is who or what you think is right, why you think so, and what you would like to see in Israel policy (especially relative to current events, including changes in US policy under Trump).


Edit: BTW, on why I say specifically boycotting settlement manufactures is both symbolic and should be uncontroversial:

The legacy of the Labour government has been destroyed by the Left, especially the Far Left, because of Iraq, on the grounds that it was an evil imperialist adventure. The same kind of argument that Orwell examined in his essay on Englishness. Because of this, we have Tory governments, and we have Brexit, because the Left wants the polar opposite of Blair. I do not accept the imperialist argument, but I've said before, that if intervening abroad is wrongly imposing ourselves on others, then maybe we shouldn't impose ourselves on others, and we should leave others to themselves. Foreign affairs isolationism, which would prevent further Iraqs. In this case, and in similar cases, it would mean not passing judgement on Israel, or other countries' affairs that do not affect us. After all, it was passing judgement on Iraq that produced our invasion, right?

So if Iraq was such a bad thing as the Left, particularly the faction that Idaho supports, says it is, why is Idaho so keen to pass judgement on Israel? I won't allege anti-semitism, as I think the roots of the argument aren't based on that. I think the roots are based on the anti-west tradition that I cited above. I'm not going to argue its uselessness as I think it's self-evident, but I will ask what Idaho expects us to do, and expect consistency. I don't claim to be morally right on everything, as I am not omniscient and more importantly I'm not omnipotent. But I strive for consistency, especially in practice.

[Idaho]

...particularly the faction that Idaho supports

Can you please stop doing this. It's immensely annoying. My views and beliefs are my own. I may sometimes agree with words said by Marx, Hitler, trump or Donald duck. That does not make me a part of their "faction".

[Idaho]

Why am I so keen to pass judgement? That seems a very strange question.

I hate injustice. A great wrong has been done to millions of people and the world is bored of the topic. The Palestinians have been pushed around and abused for so long that most see it as a state of nature. Any attempt to show support is called anti semitic. Their society, economy and politics has been systematically destroyed. All the while most people would rather they just disappeared.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YM1GK

[Pannonian]

Why am I so keen to pass judgement? That seems a very strange question.

I hate injustice. A great wrong has been done to millions of people and the world is bored of the topic. The Palestinians have been pushed around and abused for so long that most see it as a state of nature. Any attempt to show support is called anti semitic. Their society, economy and politics has been systematically destroyed. All the while most people would rather they just disappeared.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YM1GK

What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds? Did you think something should have been done? If so, what?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds?

I was disgusted and horrified.

Did you think something should have been done? If so, what?

We should not have stopped after 100 hours. We should have concluded that regime then and there and established a Kurdistan. Would've pissed off quite a few people though. Of course, the USA does that anyway.

[Pannonian]

I was disgusted and horrified. We should not have stopped after 100 hours. We should have concluded that regime then and there and established a Kurdistan. Would've pissed off quite a few people though. Of course, the USA does that anyway.

You're reasonably consistent though, so I don't have a problem with you. You feel that certain wrongs should be righted, that it's within your ability to right some wrongs, and also that you get it wrong some of the time, but you also accept responsibility for that and learn from it. I respect that, even where I disagree. It's the far left's insistence on blaming Blair for foreign actions on the grounds of evil imperialism, but who are insisting that we interfere with Israel, whose (the far left's) hypocrisy I dislike. I accept mistakes. I don't accept hypocrisy.

So I keep asking Idaho. If you dislike what Israel is doing on its own turf, what do you propose we do about it? If it's condemnation, what good does it do except make you feel good about your moral superiority? If it's something more material, does it mean you agree with concrete action when you feel you are righting wrongs? What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds? Did you support the Iraq invasion?

[Montmorency]

The legacy of the Labour government has been destroyed by the Left, especially the Far Left, because of Iraq, on the grounds that it was an evil imperialist adventure. The same kind of argument that Orwell examined in his essay on Englishness. Because of this, we have Tory governments, and we have Brexit, because the Left wants the polar opposite of Blair. I do not accept the imperialist argument, but I've said before, that if intervening abroad is wrongly imposing ourselves on others, then maybe we shouldn't impose ourselves on others, and we should leave others to themselves. Foreign affairs isolationism, which would prevent further Iraqs. In this case, and in similar cases, it would mean not passing judgement on Israel, or other countries' affairs that do not affect us. After all, it was passing judgement on Iraq that produced our invasion, right?

So if Iraq was such a bad thing as the Left, particularly the faction that Idaho supports, says it is, why is Idaho so keen to pass judgement on Israel? I won't allege anti-semitism, as I think the roots of the argument aren't based on that. I think the roots are based on the anti-west tradition that I cited above. I'm not going to argue its uselessness as I think it's self-evident, but I will ask what Idaho expects us to do, and expect consistency. I don't claim to be morally right on everything, as I am not omniscient and more importantly I'm not omnipotent. But I strive for consistency, especially in practice.

I don't understand - do you support the Iraq War? Is there not any foreign policy the government ever pursued that you didn't agree with? There are many reasons besides any historical stance against imperialism to deplore the Iraq War and the documented events (i.e. deadly lies) that led to Anglo-American instigation.

There is no dilemma between "the Iraq War was bad" and isolationism. It is even possible to support a hypothetical Iraq intervention that is not a destructive adventure built on lies, while opposing the real one that was. As for the disfavored anti-imperialism it is perfectly consistent to oppose both domestic and foreign imperialisms. It would be inconsistent to criticize one and remain silent on the other.

It's hard to wrap my head around. This is like telling someone that if they don't categorically reject the death penalty, then they must support the extermination of all humans.

[Idaho]

What did you think of what Saddam Hussein did with the Kurds? Did you think something should have been done? If so, what?

Not selling chemical weapons in the first place would be a lynch pin in my strategy.

I have always been supportive of a regime change in Iraq. It's just that I wouldn't support an approach that killed over a million civilians and tried too control the outcome for American oil interests.

[Pannonian]

Not selling chemical weapons in the first place would be a lynch pin in my strategy.

I have always been supportive of a regime change in Iraq. It's just that I wouldn't support an approach that killed over a million civilians and tried too control the outcome for American oil interests.

I'll accept that this is a more nuanced answer than I get from most critics of Iraq who are also Corbyn fans, and not one that I expected. Probably reflective of the better informed forum that the Backroom is, or used to be.

[Pannonian]

I don't understand - do you support the Iraq War? Is there not any foreign policy the government ever pursued that you didn't agree with? There are many reasons besides any historical stance against imperialism to deplore the Iraq War and the documented events (i.e. deadly lies) that led to Anglo-American instigation.

There is no dilemma between "the Iraq War was bad" and isolationism. It is even possible to support a hypothetical Iraq intervention that is not a destructive adventure built on lies, while opposing the real one that was. As for the disfavored anti-imperialism it is perfectly consistent to oppose both domestic and foreign imperialisms. It would be inconsistent to criticize one and remain silent on the other.

It's hard to wrap my head around. This is like telling someone that if they don't categorically reject the death penalty, then they must support the extermination of all humans.

There needn't be a dilemma of the kind I described, with the kind of nuanced answer Idaho gave just now. I respect that. Unfortunately, this isn't representative of the criticisms I encounter of Iraq from the left. Idaho says he supported regime change of some kind, but not one that cost so many casualties; this isn't something you'd catch most left wingers admitting. That he supported regime change of some kind would already put him in an unacceptably pro-imperialist position, to these loons.