Article is very interesting and talks about the mix of goals in regards to the protests, and how speech negatively and positively helps accomplish those goals.
Article is very interesting and talks about the mix of goals in regards to the protests, and how speech negatively and positively helps accomplish those goals.
The existence of Israel as a state has an antisemitic history. Britain, created Israel so Jews would have a place to go. So Britain wouldn’t have to take them. The reaction should not have been let’s create a place where Jews can be expelled to. We should have ensured refugees of all kind had places to go no matter where they came from. We should have made societies that Jews could feel safe in. Instead we created a people without a land.
But doesn’t this article also say that some Jewish people liked the idea of being near “their” holy land? I guess what I’m saying, wasn’t this an option convenient for both sides? Britain doesn’t want a lot/any Jewish people, but also, many Jewish people want to have their own land in current day Israel. Britain’s reasons are antisemitic, but they also didn’t force Jewish people to live in current day Israel. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t contradict what I said. Just because some Jews are willing to take anti-semetically motivated help doesn’t make that help not anti-semetic. The added effect on diaspora Jews is destabilizing as well. Every antisemite can justify abuse by telling people just to go to Israel.
This is a tangent but, a common belief is that Jews needed an ethnically Jewish state in Palestine in order to live there. That is not true. Jewish folks have lived in that area continuously for millennia. In a lot of ways Zionism is a power grab. It’s a way to grab land to get rich in a speculative land market. It’s not dissimilar from how the genocide of indigenous peoples played out in the United States.