- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
A McCarthy like witch hunt is taking place in the US. With people being bullied, threatened and punished for expressing support for Palestinians.
I’m Jewish clergy, which makes it even harder for me to express my thoughts on Israel and it’s government. I worked for a proudly stated Zionist congregation, and I know without a doubt that if I had been honest with my thoughts on the Israeli government, I’d have been fired on the spot.
I’m Jewish clergy, which makes it even harder for me to express my thoughts on Israel and it’s government
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
That sucks. Y’all anti Zionist Jewish folks seem to be getting hit rough on both ends of this and it ain’t right.
It’s very sad that someone with such an ironclad defense against charges of antisemitism is afraid to speak out. Not that I blame you a bit for keeping quiet—I keep my criticism very muted IRL and I have a lot less blowback to worry about.
I remember how people reacted to Bernie Sanders speaking in defense of Palestine. A lot of people want to act like Israel and the Jewish people of the world are one and the same and like they obviously aren’t.
I think there’s a pretty key difference between expressing sympathy and support for Palestinians, which I’ve seen plenty of from all kinds of people - including most recently literally Obama - and looking at the murder of over a thousand civilians and saying “this is fine and justified”.
I’ve seen little to no criticism of people who have merely expressed simple support and sympathy, and much more criticism of people doing apologia for the intentional murder of children. If that were to change, I would be greatly concerned, but that’s not really what I’ve been seeing.
Speaking at a UN general debate on the Middle East in New York, Guterres created fury when he said: “It is important to … recognise the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.”
He also said no injustice to the Palestinians could justify the appalling attacks by Hamas
Israel’s response is deny visas to UN reps. You’ve had your head in the sand
Yep, I saw that, and Israel is being stupidly hard-headed, which is hardly unusual. I’m by no means saying that they’re perfect at all, and I’d actually agree that the contextual resentment and anger that Palestinians have towards Israel is justified, even if the terrorism is not.
He also said no injustice to the Palestinians could justify the appalling attacks by Hamas
I would agree with that, and I think most people would. Again, I’m by no means saying that the IDF is remotely perfect or that they’re not being too harsh in their response, but there’s a meaningful difference between collateral damage in an extremely dense urban environment and storming a village to shoot every civilian you can find, up to and including children. That is something that I would say can never be justified, ever.
Again, this is not to say that the IDF shouldn’t be criticized for the severity of its retaliation, just to be explicitly clear.
Oh no, is free speech suddenly important because now you’re on the receiving end of corporate shut downs? Oh boohoo.
You made your bed, sleep in it.
Please just go back to reddit you sad little man. Or better yet, go outside for once.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Workman told The Intercept that the intention was an intra-community message that spoke to Israel’s 75-year violent regime over Palestine and expressed support for Palestinians’ basic human rights.
Workman was ousted as student body president; had a job offer rescinded by a firm they previously interned at, Winston & Strawn; and received a litany of threats online.
“This is an unprecedented moment of anxiety and fear for everyone speaking out publicly in support of Palestinians, who are compelled to do so to stop an unfolding genocide in Gaza,” Palestine Legal Director Dima Khalidi told The Intercept.
Last week, at least four websites circulated the personal information of Harvard students affiliated with groups that signed the statement, including their full names, past jobs, and hometowns.
Beyond their own consequences, Workman told The Intercept, “I am concerned that this backlash against me and other people who have spoken out as well will have this chilling effect that allows for this unbalanced and dangerous media narrative to continue in which violence against Palestinian civilians is normalized.”
“What I wrote was inspired by, and in line with, what many Jewish peace activists and Israelis,” they said, “including the editorial board of Israel’s largest newspaper, have voiced over the past week in response to the violence.”
The original article contains 1,288 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It is a more complex topic than these students understand. Whether elected or not, the government of your region represents you. You can either choose to go along with there agenda, oust them, or leave. If you stay, you are subject to their whims. The whole, “you took my land” point holds no water in global politics. Just like mergers and acquisitions in business, countries change hands. The rules change. No one possesses the Earth or a specific plot of land in any sense beyond what can be inferred through the social contract of your government. There government collapsed. A new one formed with new rules. This is the way of the world. Your deed is only as good as the authority of the land deems it.
Building upon social contracts, and continuing to work off many concepts from Locke’s Treatises of Government; something these students should have read, someone who declares war can be met with the same. This is the breakdown of civil discourse. In the case of Gaza, the government chose that path at the detriment to their citizens. War is by its nature an indiscriminate mess. We should all strive for peaceful discourse. The issue here is that one side has been teaching their young to hate the other for allowing liberalism and egalitarianism into their communities. They are rigid and believe in a system where women and gender fluid are inferior. They have been unwilling to come to the table and Hamas’ constitution basically calls for the eradication of the Jewish race.
In conclusion, being pro-Palestinian and properly calling out that there is no excuse for terrorism is somewhat acceptable, which is not what these students did. Being against Palestine because a territory with several million people should simply assimilate into the larger country surrounding them is in fact the logical best choice. They don’t have to give up their culture, except for the parts that call for war against others for being different. They live in segregated apartheid because they chose to cut themselves off from Israel. Deals have been offered to assimilate them into society have happened for years. They live as a failed region, propped up by charity. Their experiment in micronation didn’t work. Not Israel’s fault. It would have helped their cause if they could control the militants firing rockets at a sovereign nation, but alas it was their own government all along.
And you’re not even joking, are you?
What part of my statements do you refute and why?
You sound young and naive, and completely lacking any practical experience with humans.
If we go at this from a debate of who was there first, I have a nice copypasta for that. Am I naive or practical. You can’t just throw political theory out the door. We aren’t savages. Well at least some of us.
My god, this whole account is nothing but blsting shilling for Israel. I sincerely hope you’re getting paid for this, because if you aren’t… my god.
Once again, what part of what I said do you refute and why. I’m willing to have a spirited debate.
I’m not falling for your sealioning and wasting time trying to argue against you, especially when there isn’t definitive objective evidence I can present to you to diffinitively show you why existing in a society does nit mean you implicitly support the government because of “social contracts” so I’m just going to block you.
I’ll take that as a win. Come back when you want to have an actual conversation and I can also present a detailed account of who was there first, if we want to do the whole colonialism versus indigenous peoples debate.
Don’t worry,
lemmygradLemmyworld is a tankie instance without reasoning. Just don’t argue with them, use a app to block their entire instance at best
