And that is why Vice is a trash publication. Here is the correct text:
„Alle potenziellen Zuwendungsempfängerinnen und –empfänger bekennen sich damit zu einer vielfältigen Gesellschaft und gegen jede Form von Antisemitismus gemäß der Antisemitismus-Definition der International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) und ihrer Erweiterung durch die Bundesregierung. Sie verpflichten sich dazu, alles Notwendige zu veranlassen, um sicherzustellen, dass die gewährten Fördergelder keinen Vereinigungen zugutekommen, die als terroristisch und/oder extremistisch eingestuft werden.“
“All potential grant recipients are thus committed to a diverse society and against all forms of antisemitism in accordance with the definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and its extension by the German government. They undertake to take all necessary steps to ensure that the funding granted does not benefit associations that are classified as terrorist and/or extremist.”
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews that can be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Anti-Semitism is directed in word or deed against Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property as well as against Jewish community institutions or religious institutions. In addition, the state of Israel, which is understood as a Jewish collective, can also be the target of such attacks.”
There’s nothing in there about “criticising the countries occupation of Palestinian lands”. You just can’t fucking mask your antisemitism by raging against Israel.
That is some valuable context, thank you. Definitely seems like skewed reporting from Vice. The definition as you posted it definitely seems better than what Vice reported, though its last sentence is so vague that it could easily be used to silence criticism, whether it was meant to do that or not.
aka a definition being used currently to silence free speech. If you’re using it to silence critisism of israel you are weaponizing it against one of the original drafter’s intentions.
So why not consider silence yourself? I’ve had quite enough of this ridiculous tantrum you call a point
Jewish Voice for Peace is guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. We unequivocally oppose Zionism because it is counter to those ideals.
(…)
Palestinian dispossession and occupation are by design. Zionism has meant profound trauma for generations, systematically separating Palestinians from their homes, land, and each other. Zionism, in practice, has resulted in massacres of Palestinian people, ancient villages and olive groves destroyed, families who live just a mile away from each other separated by checkpoints and walls, and children holding onto the keys of the homes from which their grandparents were forcibly exiled.
(…)
Keep saying this. Every time you do Israel loses more public support.
The shield has been used up and is no longer valid. The general public no longer accepts you zealots calling every criticism of Israel antisemitism.
So fuck you and fuck Israel. Yes Israel has a right to exist, but they do not have a right to illegally steal land. Palestine has a right to exist also.
No they didn’t. Even the christian crusaders, who where happy to commit pogroms against jews in Europe as a sort of “motivational entertainment” had to note the peaceful coexistence of jews, christians and muslims under islamic rule.
The Palestinians of today are the descendants of the biblical abrahamic tribes. White european, often secular, jews, who now control Israel are killing the people whose lineage is closer to David and Abraham, than theirs could ever be.
The main reason the jews under the Ottoman empire started the Yishuv and congregated in Palestine hoping to get their own country was that they were seriously discriminated against under islamic rule. They had to pay more taxes, were restricted in what clothing they could wear, were not allowed to build or maintain houses of worship, ride horses, carry weapons, … and were generally valued as less than muslims wrt legal rulings. This wasn’t enforced everywhere throughout the entire history of the empire, but I don’t think anyone would be happy in that situation.
Currently, less than half the Israelis are descendent from ‘white European’ immigrants
Historian Martin Gilbert writes that it was in the 19th century that the position of Jews worsened in Muslim countries.[38] According to Mark Cohen in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, most scholars conclude that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it “Islamized”)
1865, when the equality of all subjects of the Ottoman Empire was proclaimed, Ahmed Cevdet Pasha, a high-ranking official observed, “whereas in former times, in the Ottoman State, the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks, then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: ‘The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam.’”
That seems to me, as a result of the general nationalism that emerged and specifically the long lasting antisemitic tradition of the Christians to take influence with the decline of the Ottoman empire.
Meanwhile there are extensive links between zionism and anti-semitism, where secular zionists often worked together with anti-semitists to push for the zionist project as a mean to remove jews from western countries.
Cherrypicking aside, the worsening situation coinciding with the crumbling of the Ottoman empire further supports my point. Larger nationalists groups were going to carve up the territories for themselfves and the jews were so dispersed that they would remain small minorities everywhere. But facing nationalists and religious extremists while losing the ‘umbrella’ of the Ottomans (which was already discriminatory at best).
You cite the reforms under the tanzimat period but very conveniently forget what followed: a return to a monarchist caliphate with a sultan that abandoned the millet system for the ideal of a united people under islam.
It is not my intend to cherrypick. The notion of “islamic rule” by itself could create the idea that islam is monocausal in this, because western history education generally lacks in covering the Ottoman empire, or anything that isn’t eurocentric. In school i learned almost nothing about the Ottoman empire, the Mauretanian empire, Persia, China or other important empires in global history aside from the notion of “In those years they lead conquest into Europe and in those years they were kicked out again. And in these other years Europeans were there and colonized.”
Meanwhile the ruling class in Israel is predominantly of european descent. So the fair idea of the Mizrahi and Sephardi to have a state with a strong enough jewish population to enjoy and protect equal rights for them was still taken over and led to their discrimination by the later european settlers, who enjoyed stronger support from the european countries and US.
Bro you come with David and Abraham when in reality it’s about the right for Israel to exist. And that right is granted. There is no legitimate discussion about it everyone thinking Israel shouldn’t exists is antisemitic and a idiot.
This place of land has been inhabited for almost the entire human history and pre-history. It had many rulers. Now its Israel and thats it.
You claimed that the land was stolen from the jewish people who were there first, which is the main historical argument, as to why israel has a right to exist, despite the basis for that being the mass displacement and killing of the Palestinians during the Nakba and the subsequent occupation.
But the land was never “stolen” from the jewish people. Most of the Palestinians simply becamse christians and muslims over time. The whole “the state has a right to exist”, which is very different from “the people have a right to exist”, is a western construct, to justify pushing the jews, who survived the holocaust to Israel and to channel the western countries “redemption” from commiting, being complicit in, or being inactive about the holocaust.
In international law there is no concept of a states “right to exist”. People have a right to exist and they have the right to sovereignity, for which a state is a way to express it. But it is not bound to this state of Israel in this constitution and with this government and with this genocide against the Palestinians.
This right to sovereignity is equally maintained in a two state solution, or a one state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians have equal political participation and equal rights as citizens. That was even one of the main ideas of the early zionists. But the later radicalization of zionism after Israel was founded, led them to believe, they could take it all. And that is why they reduced Gaza to rubbles. That is why they tried to displace the people into Egypt. That is why they talk about deporting or murdering all the Palestinians in the Israeli government. And that is why they need to be criticized and they need to be stopped.
This is also what progressive jews demand. And these progressive jews are equally affected by being excluded from public discourse in Germany, being excluded from cultural events and being denied formerly sheduled awards, and being taken into police custody for demonstrating and denied their right to demonstrations. So in alledgedly fighting against antisemitism, Germany commits antisemitism on a huge scale.
You’re welcome. It should be added that there is a right of a state to defend itself from military agression. So of course Israel does have the right to defend itself from Hamas or other attacks on its people. This is relevant in the scope of conflicting rights, as Hamas has no right to attack civillians.
So this is not what the “state x has a right to exist” argument is about. It is used and needed to justify the continued denial of the rights of the Palestinians.
It remains an argument of might makes right. Imagine the US would say that the native Americans wanting their land back would be an attack on the US right to existence.
Arguing what was left of Palestine before the Six Days War has the right to exist without occupation, homes and crops seized and burnt, being bombed relentlessly, being kidnapped, held and tortured is in no way arguing Israel has no right to exist.
Stop justifying genocide. This is a repetitively grossly disproportionate retaliation, gaslighting to hide genocide. Period. Hasbara/IDF are fascist apologists, full stop. “Never again” applies to all or none.
Sure, it was, at least according to the article. Emphasis mine:
And that is why Vice is a trash publication. Here is the correct text:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/chialo-erlass-gegen-antisemitismus-berlins-kultureinrichtungen-bekommen-neue-forderrichtlinien-11006422.html
And what is in the IHRA-definition?
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/aussenpolitik/kultur-und-gesellschaft/-/216610
There’s nothing in there about “criticising the countries occupation of Palestinian lands”. You just can’t fucking mask your antisemitism by raging against Israel.
That is some valuable context, thank you. Definitely seems like skewed reporting from Vice. The definition as you posted it definitely seems better than what Vice reported, though its last sentence is so vague that it could easily be used to silence criticism, whether it was meant to do that or not.
You can. because you referenced the IHRA “definition” of antisemitism adopted by themselves, the IHRA, in 2016
Aka
their own definition, criticized specifically for conflating antizionism with antisemitism
aka
the “definition” that led to 200 scholars making a new definition debunking it
aka a definition being used currently to silence free speech. If you’re using it to silence critisism of israel you are weaponizing it against one of the original drafter’s intentions.
So why not consider silence yourself? I’ve had quite enough of this ridiculous tantrum you call a point
That makes me even more confused. Are those artists now going to be allowed to play and spread antisemitism (as defined above)?
Yes “Palestinia” has claimed to own the entire land Israel. So in short, Antisemitism.
Wanting foreign invaders out of the land they stole almost a century ago is not antisemetic.
Criticizing zionism and israeli settler colonialism is not antisemetic either.
It is.
According to zionists and their allies, only.
Take a look at what Jewish Voice for Peace have to say:
The ADL classifies JVP as an antisemitic hate group! 😂
That would mean criticizing Lebensraum is anti german racism.
“They just want their historical homeland!”
“Why won’t those poles just stop attacking germany if they want peace so badly‽”
Keep saying this. Every time you do Israel loses more public support.
The shield has been used up and is no longer valid. The general public no longer accepts you zealots calling every criticism of Israel antisemitism.
So fuck you and fuck Israel. Yes Israel has a right to exist, but they do not have a right to illegally steal land. Palestine has a right to exist also.
It is, its idiotic and they stole the land as well.
This is the same argument Russia has for Ukraine btw.
No they didn’t. Even the christian crusaders, who where happy to commit pogroms against jews in Europe as a sort of “motivational entertainment” had to note the peaceful coexistence of jews, christians and muslims under islamic rule.
The Palestinians of today are the descendants of the biblical abrahamic tribes. White european, often secular, jews, who now control Israel are killing the people whose lineage is closer to David and Abraham, than theirs could ever be.
The main reason the jews under the Ottoman empire started the Yishuv and congregated in Palestine hoping to get their own country was that they were seriously discriminated against under islamic rule. They had to pay more taxes, were restricted in what clothing they could wear, were not allowed to build or maintain houses of worship, ride horses, carry weapons, … and were generally valued as less than muslims wrt legal rulings. This wasn’t enforced everywhere throughout the entire history of the empire, but I don’t think anyone would be happy in that situation.
Currently, less than half the Israelis are descendent from ‘white European’ immigrants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire
That seems to me, as a result of the general nationalism that emerged and specifically the long lasting antisemitic tradition of the Christians to take influence with the decline of the Ottoman empire.
Meanwhile there are extensive links between zionism and anti-semitism, where secular zionists often worked together with anti-semitists to push for the zionist project as a mean to remove jews from western countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_antisemitism
Cherrypicking aside, the worsening situation coinciding with the crumbling of the Ottoman empire further supports my point. Larger nationalists groups were going to carve up the territories for themselfves and the jews were so dispersed that they would remain small minorities everywhere. But facing nationalists and religious extremists while losing the ‘umbrella’ of the Ottomans (which was already discriminatory at best).
You cite the reforms under the tanzimat period but very conveniently forget what followed: a return to a monarchist caliphate with a sultan that abandoned the millet system for the ideal of a united people under islam.
It is not my intend to cherrypick. The notion of “islamic rule” by itself could create the idea that islam is monocausal in this, because western history education generally lacks in covering the Ottoman empire, or anything that isn’t eurocentric. In school i learned almost nothing about the Ottoman empire, the Mauretanian empire, Persia, China or other important empires in global history aside from the notion of “In those years they lead conquest into Europe and in those years they were kicked out again. And in these other years Europeans were there and colonized.”
Meanwhile the ruling class in Israel is predominantly of european descent. So the fair idea of the Mizrahi and Sephardi to have a state with a strong enough jewish population to enjoy and protect equal rights for them was still taken over and led to their discrimination by the later european settlers, who enjoyed stronger support from the european countries and US.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Deleting your lemmy account is a very illegal thing to do.
Bro you come with David and Abraham when in reality it’s about the right for Israel to exist. And that right is granted. There is no legitimate discussion about it everyone thinking Israel shouldn’t exists is antisemitic and a idiot.
This place of land has been inhabited for almost the entire human history and pre-history. It had many rulers. Now its Israel and thats it.
You claimed that the land was stolen from the jewish people who were there first, which is the main historical argument, as to why israel has a right to exist, despite the basis for that being the mass displacement and killing of the Palestinians during the Nakba and the subsequent occupation.
But the land was never “stolen” from the jewish people. Most of the Palestinians simply becamse christians and muslims over time. The whole “the state has a right to exist”, which is very different from “the people have a right to exist”, is a western construct, to justify pushing the jews, who survived the holocaust to Israel and to channel the western countries “redemption” from commiting, being complicit in, or being inactive about the holocaust.
In international law there is no concept of a states “right to exist”. People have a right to exist and they have the right to sovereignity, for which a state is a way to express it. But it is not bound to this state of Israel in this constitution and with this government and with this genocide against the Palestinians.
This right to sovereignity is equally maintained in a two state solution, or a one state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians have equal political participation and equal rights as citizens. That was even one of the main ideas of the early zionists. But the later radicalization of zionism after Israel was founded, led them to believe, they could take it all. And that is why they reduced Gaza to rubbles. That is why they tried to displace the people into Egypt. That is why they talk about deporting or murdering all the Palestinians in the Israeli government. And that is why they need to be criticized and they need to be stopped.
This is also what progressive jews demand. And these progressive jews are equally affected by being excluded from public discourse in Germany, being excluded from cultural events and being denied formerly sheduled awards, and being taken into police custody for demonstrating and denied their right to demonstrations. So in alledgedly fighting against antisemitism, Germany commits antisemitism on a huge scale.
Hey thanks for educating me on a nation’s right to exist. I needed that.
You’re welcome. It should be added that there is a right of a state to defend itself from military agression. So of course Israel does have the right to defend itself from Hamas or other attacks on its people. This is relevant in the scope of conflicting rights, as Hamas has no right to attack civillians.
So this is not what the “state x has a right to exist” argument is about. It is used and needed to justify the continued denial of the rights of the Palestinians.
It remains an argument of might makes right. Imagine the US would say that the native Americans wanting their land back would be an attack on the US right to existence.
Arguing what was left of Palestine before the Six Days War has the right to exist without occupation, homes and crops seized and burnt, being bombed relentlessly, being kidnapped, held and tortured is in no way arguing Israel has no right to exist.
And Palestinians exercised that right by doing what? Killing Israeli citizens?
Imagine if Hamas spent aid money on developing Gaza instead.
Stop justifying genocide. This is a repetitively grossly disproportionate retaliation, gaslighting to hide genocide. Period. Hasbara/IDF are fascist apologists, full stop. “Never again” applies to all or none.
They did until Balfour decided to just take land from people already there and arbitrarily draw new lines on a map, probably with a sharpie.