Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[Uncle Rico]

Nothing encapsulates the fall from greatness for America's Mayor quite like this except for when he tried getting that woman in bed in the second Borat film. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It must really make you uncomfortable to tell everyone what these words and phrases mean. So, pretend they are largely well-meaning slogans of peace made up by American College students in the last three weeks.

Like this one ... because this is the world-wide accepted definition of this phrase. So chanting this in front of Jews should not bother any of them. They are asking for love and understanding ... right?

https://x.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1720574880557539763?s=20
@RashidaTlaib
From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate. My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.

I agree that your interpretation of "From the River to the Sea" is a fair one. I would not fault anyone who interpreted that phrase as a call for violence against Jewish/Israeli people. However, it is not the only interpretation. Others mean it in a more positive way. Now that does not lessen the impact that it has on others, especially those of Jewish/Israeli descent. That's why we should always be careful of the language we use because our intent does not lessen our impact on others.

I'll give you an example that may hit home for you. For years, your moniker on this site was "Heisenberg". From interacting with you, I know that you chose the moniker in reference to the show "Breaking Bad", a harmless intent. An equally valid interpretation of you choosing that moniker could be that you were honoring Werner Heisenberg (which is what Walter Whyte was doing), a man who literally worked on making weapons on mass destruction for the Nazi party during WWII. While I know your intent was not antisemitic, it could be a reasonable interpretation by someone else.

None of this is to defend the use of that phrase. If anyone in my sphere of influence were to use that phrase I would call them out for it and remind them about the impact those words can have on those of Jewish/Israeli descent. But I think it is important to understand why some (not all, there are certainly plenty of people who use that phrase for your exact interpretation) say it so we can have a more effective dialogue going forward.

[Heisenberg]

I agree that your interpretation of "From the River to the Sea" is a fair one. I would not fault anyone who interpreted that phrase as a call for violence against Jewish/Israeli people. However, it is not the only interpretation. Others mean it in a more positive way. Now that does not lessen the impact that it has on others, especially those of Jewish/Israeli descent. That's why we should always be careful of the language we use because our intent does not lessen our impact on others.

I'll give you an example that may hit home for you. For years, your moniker on this site was "Heisenberg". From interacting with you, I know that you chose the moniker in reference to the show "Breaking Bad", a harmless intent. An equally valid interpretation of you choosing that moniker could be that you were honoring Werner Heisenberg (which is what Walter Whyte was doing), a man who literally worked on making weapons on mass destruction for the Nazi party during WWII. While I know your intent was not antisemitic, it could be a reasonable interpretation by someone else.

None of this is to defend the use of that phrase. If anyone in my sphere of influence were to use that phrase I would call them out for it and remind them about the impact those words can have on those of Jewish/Israeli descent. But I think it is important to understand why some (not all, there are certainly plenty of people who use that phrase for your exact interpretation) say it so we can have a more effective dialogue going forward.

On November 7, anyone protesting using the terms "free Palestine" or "No Apartheid" (and "River to Sea") should know by now that these are calls for the genocide of the Jewish race. And once that is understood, these definitions need to be accepted and dissembled, like a poster here was implying.

So when 100 Madison students are carrying these signs outside last night of the hall of arguably the most influential Jewish commentator in the country is speaking, they have to understand they are acting exactly like the Nazis they abhor and accuse others of being.

----

Heisenberg was famous for his Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1927. It was this uncertainty principle that Walter White was referencing when he chose the Moniker Heisenberg, which was done before the creation of the Nazi party (1932).

Are all Heisenberg references assumed to be for his work done with the Nazi Atomic program? What if they are from his career in the 1920s, before the creation of the Nazi party in 1932? Is the use of Heisenberg still antisemitic? Should the Nobel Committee rescind his 1927 award? Are they antisemitic for not stripping him?

Analogy - Should the NFL strip OJ Simpson of all his awards for what he did later in life?

Sultan means "Leader of Muslims." And given his constant moral equivalence (which many Jewish leaders equate to antisemitism) under this moniker, is it equally as antisemitic as Heisenberg is? Or more so?

[The Sultan]

On November 7, anyone protesting using the terms "free Palestine" or "No Apartheid" (and "River to Sea") should know by now that these are calls for the genocide of the Jewish race. And once that is understood, these definitions need to be accepted and dissembled, like a poster here was implying.

So when 100 Madison students are carrying these signs outside last night of the hall of arguably the most influential Jewish commentator in the country is speaking, they have to understand they are acting exactly like the Nazis they abhor and accuse others of being.

My lord. That is absolute nonsense.

[Hards Alumni]

On November 7, anyone protesting using the terms "free Palestine" or "No Apartheid" (and "River to Sea") should know by now that these are calls for the genocide of the Jewish race. And once that is understood, these definitions need to be accepted and dissembled, like a poster here was implying.

So when 100 Madison students are carrying these signs outside last night of the hall of arguably the most influential Jewish commentator in the country is speaking, they have to understand they are acting exactly like the Nazis they abhor and accuse others of being.

----

Heisenberg was famous for his Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1927. It was this uncertainty principle that Walter White was referencing when he chose the Moniker Heisenberg, which was done before the creation of the Nazi party (1932).

Are all Heisenberg references assumed to be for his work, don't the Nazi Atomic program? What is they are from his work in the 1920s, before the creation of the Nazi party in 1932? Is the use of Heisenberg still antisemitic? Should the Novel Committee rescind his 1927 award? Are they antisemitic for not stripping him?

Should the NFL strip OJ Simpson of all his awards for what he did later in life?

Sultan means "Leader of Muslims." And given his constant moral equivalence (which many Jewish leaders equate to antisemitism) using this moniker, is it equally as antisemitic as Heisenberg is? Or more so?

Just to check here, why do you have a problem with Muslims?  What about them disgusts you?  Why do you think they should be treated like dogs and eradicated from the planet?

[Heisenberg]

My lord. That is absolute nonsense.

Explain

[Heisenberg]

Just to check here, why do you have a problem with Muslims?  What about them disgusts you?  Why do you think they should be treated like dogs and eradicated from the planet?

Show me where I said this?

[Heisenberg]

A sign from this past weekend's rally in DC

----

Is it protected under the First Amendment or a call to violence?

What if this same sign had the rainbow flag and/or the BLM black square on it?



ADDED LATER

How about this one? Same rally?

[jesmu84]

"free Palestine" =\= Jewish genocide

[Hards Alumni]

Show me where I said this?

Here, let me move onto another unrelated topic that is a rehashing of an older argument that has been resolved without addressing your question.

Don't you think it is awful that thousands of children are dying daily in the Gaza Strip?  What do you think of the recent bombings of refugee camps?  What do you think of the further destruction of Universities, Hospitals, and Schools by IDF air forces?  Why do you condone this?  Is it okay (as we've seen) for IDF soldiers in tanks to be targeting civilian vehicles that are clearly fleeing the war zone?  Why do you condone the destruction of all infrastructure in the Gaza Strip?  Isn't this something that can be one day referred to the ICC for war crimes?  Why won't Israel open any crossings to provide aid for the Palestinian citizens they've rounded up in the South, and why does the IDF repeatedly bomb those locations that Israel specified as 'safe zones'.  Why do you approve (implicitly) of Israel's killing of UN staff and international journalists?  We all know you are a fervent "Muslim hater" (since you haven't denied it!), so why do you think it is okay for Israel's PM Bibi Netanyahu to say they will occupy the Gaza Strip after the war?  I was lead to believe that this was just about destroying Hamas, not occupying the Gaza Strip.  How do you justify this?  What is your opinion of the continued killing of non-combatant Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank?  Surely, these murders should be punished by the Israeli government and the citizens who carried out these murders will be arrested.  Why don't you condemn these unlawful murders?

Maybe you get my point now.

[Heisenberg]

"free Palestine" =\= Jewish genocide

Because you don't want to be?

Where it came from ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Palestine_Movement
The Free Palestine Movement is a Palestinian Syrian armed movement and community organization that is led by the businessman Yasser Qashlaq and supports the Ba'athist government of Syria. The organization opposes the existence of Israel, and was mostly known for political activism and social services in favor of Palestinians in Syria and the Gaza Strip before 2012.

What it means

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/savage-nihilism-free-palestine
"Free Palestine"—the slogan, the fantasy, and the policy—has always consciously implied the mass murder of Jews in their towns, streets, shops, and living rooms. Few are willing to say so openly, but in many intellectual, professional, and popular circles in the Middle East and the West, the idea of Palestinian national liberation has long been framed in terms that condone or necessitate the indiscriminate killing of Jews. For more unambiguous actors such as Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, freeing Palestine simply means the total eradication of Israel without qualification. This is not a polemical point, but a basic reality and fact of our lives that demands scrutiny.

[Hards Alumni]

Because you don't want to be?

Where it came from ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Palestine_Movement
The Free Palestine Movement is a Palestinian Syrian armed movement and community organization that is led by the businessman Yasser Qashlaq and supports the Ba'athist government of Syria. The organization opposes the existence of Israel, and was mostly known for political activism and social services in favor of Palestinians in Syria and the Gaza Strip before 2012.

What it means

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/savage-nihilism-free-palestine
"Free Palestine"—the slogan, the fantasy, and the policy—has always consciously implied the mass murder of Jews in their towns, streets, shops, and living rooms. Few are willing to say so openly, but in many intellectual, professional, and popular circles in the Middle East and the West, the idea of Palestinian national liberation has long been framed in terms that condone or necessitate the indiscriminate killing of Jews. For more unambiguous actors such as Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, freeing Palestine simply means the total eradication of Israel without qualification. This is not a polemical point, but a basic reality and fact of our lives that demands scrutiny.

Would you be opposed if the signs said, "Freedom for Palestinians!"?

[Pakuni]

Because you don't want to be?

Where it came from ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Palestine_Movement
The Free Palestine Movement is a Palestinian Syrian armed movement and community organization that is led by the businessman Yasser Qashlaq and supports the Ba'athist government of Syria. The organization opposes the existence of Israel, and was mostly known for political activism and social services in favor of Palestinians in Syria and the Gaza Strip before 2012.

The phrase "free Palestine" and the Free Palestine Movement are not the same thing.
Once again, you're being intentionally deceitful.

[The Sultan]

Explain

One can be supportive of a Palestinian state without having someone claim they supporting genocide.  One can criticize Israel's policy regarding the settlements in the West Bank and how it has walled off Gaza without having someone claim they are supporting genocide.

Hell, one could state that Israel shouldn't exist as a country without someone claiming they are supporting genocide.

Criticism of Israel as a state are not inherently antisemitic.  Neither is support for Palestine and Palestinians.

[Heisenberg]

The phrase "free Palestine" and the Free Palestine Movement are not the same thing.
Once again, you're being intentionally deceitful.

You intentionally cut off the second part. I assume this was on purpose.

----

What it means

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/savage-nihilism-free-palestine
"Free Palestine"—the slogan, the fantasy, and the policy—has always consciously implied the mass murder of Jews in their towns, streets, shops, and living rooms. Few are willing to say so openly, but in many intellectual, professional, and popular circles in the Middle East and the West, the idea of Palestinian national liberation has long been framed in terms that condone or necessitate the indiscriminate killing of Jews. For more unambiguous actors such as Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, freeing Palestine simply means the total eradication of Israel without qualification. This is not a polemical point, but a basic reality and fact of our lives that demands scrutiny.

----

It is not for you to define these words. Just like it is not for you to decide what an ethnic slur is. We are told what words are ethnic slurs, and then we avoid using them.

One can be supportive of a Palestinian state without having someone claim they supporting genocide.  One can criticize Israel's policy regarding the settlements in the West Bank and how it has walled off Gaza without having someone claim they are supporting genocide.

Hell, one could state that Israel shouldn't exist as a country without someone claiming they are supporting genocide.

Criticism of Israel as a state are not inherently antisemitic.  Neither is support for Palestine and Palestinians.

So why is it so hard to accept the definitions of these phrases/words and their implications for the Israelis and all Jews? Why is it so hard to find something else to convey your unhappiness with Israel?  Why constantly use the words of genocide and then dissemble them when you're called on it?

[muwarrior69]

Here, let me move onto another unrelated topic that is a rehashing of an older argument that has been resolved without addressing your question.

Don't you think it is awful that thousands of children are dying daily in the Gaza Strip?  What do you think of the recent bombings of refugee camps?  What do you think of the further destruction of Universities, Hospitals, and Schools by IDF air forces?  Why do you condone this?  Is it okay (as we've seen) for IDF soldiers in tanks to be targeting civilian vehicles that are clearly fleeing the war zone?  Why do you condone the destruction of all infrastructure in the Gaza Strip?  Isn't this something that can be one day referred to the ICC for war crimes?  Why won't Israel open any crossings to provide aid for the Palestinian citizens they've rounded up in the South, and why does the IDF repeatedly bomb those locations that Israel specified as 'safe zones'.  Why do you approve (implicitly) of Israel's killing of UN staff and international journalists?  We all know you are a fervent "Muslim hater" (since you haven't denied it!), so why do you think it is okay for Israel's PM Bibi Netanyahu to say they will occupy the Gaza Strip after the war?  I was lead to believe that this was just about destroying Hamas, not occupying the Gaza Strip.  How do you justify this?  What is your opinion of the continued killing of non-combatant Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank?  Surely, these murders should be punished by the Israeli government and the citizens who carried out these murders will be arrested.  Why don't you condemn these unlawful murders?

Maybe you get my point now.

...and how do you separate Hamas from the Palestinians? Is a Zebra white with black stripes or black with white stripes? Did the allies leave Hospitals, Universities and Schools and POW camps untouched when we bombed Dresden and Berlin not to mention Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

We still have military bases in Germany and Japan. Why should Israel behave any differently from a provoked attack.

[Hards Alumni]

...and how do you separate Hamas from the Palestinians? Is a Zebra white with black stripes or black with white stripes? Did the allies leave Hospitals, Universities and Schools and POW camps untouched when we bombed Dresden and Berlin not to mention Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

We still have military bases in Germany and Japan. Why should Israel behave any differently from a provoked attack.

The Geneva Conventions were after WW2 (1949) so we didn't have to do this all over again.  Time for a history lesson, I think. 

Your solution is to bomb everything and let God sort them out?

[Heisenberg]

Here, let me move onto another unrelated topic that is a rehashing of an older argument that has been resolved without addressing your question.

Don't you think it is awful that thousands of children are dying daily in the Gaza Strip?  What do you think of the recent bombings of refugee camps?  What do you think of the further destruction of Universities, Hospitals, and Schools by IDF air forces?  Why do you condone this?  Is it okay (as we've seen) for IDF soldiers in tanks to be targeting civilian vehicles that are clearly fleeing the war zone?  Why do you condone the destruction of all infrastructure in the Gaza Strip?  Isn't this something that can be one day referred to the ICC for war crimes?  Why won't Israel open any crossings to provide aid for the Palestinian citizens they've rounded up in the South, and why does the IDF repeatedly bomb those locations that Israel specified as 'safe zones'.  Why do you approve (implicitly) of Israel's killing of UN staff and international journalists?  We all know you are a fervent "Muslim hater" (since you haven't denied it!), so why do you think it is okay for Israel's PM Bibi Netanyahu to say they will occupy the Gaza Strip after the war?  I was lead to believe that this was just about destroying Hamas, not occupying the Gaza Strip.  How do you justify this?  What is your opinion of the continued killing of non-combatant Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank?  Surely, these murders should be punished by the Israeli government and the citizens who carried out these murders will be arrested.  Why don't you condemn these unlawful murders?

Maybe you get my point now.

To sum. I believe Israel is right; the Palsentians are wrong. I think the Israelis want peace, and the Palestinians do not.

If Israel puts down its guns, there would be no Israel. If the Palsestains put down their weapons, they have their own state.

I believe the Israelis fight according to international law. I think the Palestinians do not.

I believe Israel fights to protect its women and children; I believe the Palestinians want to martyr their women and children.

[Hards Alumni]

To sum. I believe Israel is right; the Palsentians are wrong. I think the Israelis want peace, and the Palestinians do not.

If Israel had done its guns, there would be no Israel. If the Palsestains put down their weapons, they have their own state.

I believe the Israelis fight according to international law. I think the Palestinians do not.

I believe Israel fights to protect its women and children; I believe the Palestinians want to martyr their women and children.

No, address each point, just like you expect everyone to address all of yours.  Be fair.

[Heisenberg]

The Geneva Conventions were after WW2 (1949) so we didn't have to do this all over again.  Time for a history lesson, I think. 

Your solution is to bomb everything and let God sort them out?

1949 was the 4th Geneva Convention.

The first Geneva Convention outlining the rules of war was August 1864 (second was 1906, third was 1929). The founders of the Red Cross organized it during the American Civil War as a response to the inhuman treatment of civilians and prisoners.

What we did during WW2 was permitted under international rules, including the bombing of Dresden and the Nuclear attacks on Japan. Conversely, what Israel is doing is equally as permitted under international rules.

What Hamas is doing, using human shields, hiding among civilians, and putting military installations under hospitals, is illegal under international rules.

Hamas is breaking international Law. Israel is not. The Allied did not in WW2.

[Heisenberg]

No, address each point, just like you expect everyone to address all of yours.  Be fair.

Most of my points here are not addressed. I never demand anyone to address them like you are of me.

So, I will probably later today or tomorrow, given my time constraints.

[Pakuni]

You intentionally cut off the second part. I assume this was on purpose.

Yeah, I didn't have time.
Now that I have read it, the author (who, we should note is hardly objective here given his employer) makes tons of assertions, but fails to back them up.


For example:
"in many intellectual, professional, and popular circles in the Middle East and the West, the idea of Palestinian national liberation has long been framed in terms that condone or necessitate the indiscriminate killing of Jews. "

OK, who, particularly in the West, has long been saying this? And no, a handful of stupid kids at Harvard or a single professor at Cornell does not count as "many  intellectual, professional, and popular circles."
Examples, please.

But his worst moment, by far, is this:
"when following the news of suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada. Egypt's most prominent religious authorities declared the perpetrators to be martyrs and saints. In a way, it was not unlike the valorization and even canonization of those who destroyed livelihoods, burned property, and targeted police officers during the protests in America in the summer of 2020."

Besides being factually incorrect - nobody canonized those who burned property and destroyed livelihoods - his attempt to draw a parallel between the George Floyd protestors and suicide bombers targeting civilians exposes his disingenuousness and disqualifies him from any serious consideration.

It is not for you to define these words. Just like it is not for you to decide what an ethnic slur is. We are told what words are ethnic slurs, and then we avoid using them.

But it is for you? For the Tablet?
Words have meanings, and the words "free Palestine" simply does  not mean what you claim.
And no. it's not the same as an ethnic slur. That's not how etymology works.

[Hards Alumni]

Most of my points here are not addressed. I never demand anyone to address them like you are of me.

So, I will probably later today or tomorrow, given my time constraints.

Incorrect, and I doubt it.

[Hards Alumni]

1949 was the 4th Geneva Convention.

The first Geneva Convention outlining the rules of war was August 1864 (second was 1906, third was 1929). The founders of the Red Cross organized it during the American Civil War as a response to the inhuman treatment of civilians and prisoners.

What we did during WW2 was permitted under international rules, including the bombing of Dresden and the Nuclear attacks on Japan. Conversely, what Israel is doing is equally as permitted under international rules.

What Hamas is doing, using human shields, hiding among civilians, and putting military installations under hospitals, is illegal under international rules.

Hamas is breaking international Law. Israel is not. The Allied did not in WW2.

Disingenuous and incorrect.  Seemingly, from your deranged point of view, Israel isn't capable of committing war crimes, and if they are, they weren't war crimes to begin with!

[MuggsyB]

In order to "Free Palestine" doesn't "Palestine" actually have to exist?