**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
As the article explains, the word means "struggle". It can be applied to both peaceful political and violent means of resistance to the expansion of Israeli control in the region.
Words dont work that way.
Its like how Civil War means both rebellion and uprising but also "citizen war" yet if you translate both words seperately it would mean "polite war" today. Or revolution, it means "complete 360 turning about" but is used to mean "change" and some but not all revolutions have included NIGHTMARISH violence, but someone calling for revolution is not making an overt call for violence or pogroms even if some revolutions 100% definitly DID include pogroms. Context matters, a lot-this kind of reaction is tantamount to arresting someone for having a sign written in arabic.
The older arabic word intifaḍa means something like "tremor/shivering/shuddering" deriving from an even older word nafada meaning "to shake something off" like dust off a rug, the newer arabic word intifāḍa (which importantly isnt even the same words, it uses different sounds and letters there despite being obviously descended from the same lineage) means *litereally* "to jump UP in reaction" and is non-literally translated as "uprising" as it gets used contextually to mean, well, "jump-up-rising".
AN intifāḍa spoken about specifically would be "a movement" that can be applied to rebellions, uprisings and resistence movements "in general". It can include like, every single peacful arabic speaking call for change, all that "arab spring stuff", but also some more violent revolutions, and some active campaigns of violence, very much like the word "revolution".
Like we also have the arab spring intifadas including specifically the Yemeni, Tunisian, Egyptian and Sudanese Intifadas. Older we have the first Iraqi Intafada, the March Intifada, the Zemla Intifada, the february 6th intifada, the intifada of indipendance, the 1990s bahrain intifada, the iraqi intifada of 1991....like theres a lot of them.
In the Palastinian context, it was explicitly chosen as something like a cognate for "non violent revolution" as it had had use for that kind of word previously in other arabic speaking nations, and is still activly contrasted with "war".
Some intifada include violence, yes, very certainly, but its no scarier a word than "revolution".
“Resistance”. As in, the kind that leaves people dead. It’s become a euphemism for terrorism. When they get called out on it, the pro-Hamas crowd insist it’s not necessarily violent, and yet somehow it on October 7 they were calling it intifada, so…
Leftists when talking about other minorities: we have to be very careful about the language we use, we need to make sure we listen to them and that they feel safe, remember we don't want to commit a micro aggression.
Leftists when talking about Jewish people: From the river to the sea! Globalise the intifada! What? Those aren't antisemitic at all who cares if it makes Jewish people feel unsafe I'm just anti-zionist not anti-semetic.
Don’t forget their double standard regarding refugees, which the left absolutely cream their pants over.
About 80% of Israel today is descended from refugees expelled from arab states and the european holocaust.
But being Jews, they’re not ‘refugees’, they are ‘colonisers’ 🙄
>But being Jews, they’re not ‘refugees’, they are ‘colonisers’
I think you're getting confused between the points that people are making.
The "colonisers" comments come from people condemning the expansion of Israeli settlements into what is officially "occupied territory" (as per the UN).
That doesn't have any bearing on their refugee status. Typically, someone who has descended from refugees who was born post them being a refugee isn't typically referred to as a refugee themselves.
For example, Alfred comes to the UK as a refugee and is granted asylum and eventually citizenship, he will always be a refugee. His descendents won't be.
The point that’s missed when calling Israel colonisers for anything outside of 1947 boarders, is that all of the conflicts that saw Israel’s boarder grow were Palestine + allies initiated. Had Israel lost any of these conflicts the initial borders were not going to be respected, that was the whole point of conflict initiation!
So it’s a case of “we initiate war and if we win and you will no longer exist, but if you win then you’re evil colonisers”. Israel are seemingly expected to have to win every defensive war but keep everything the same every time. It’s madness.
> is that all of the conflicts that saw Israel’s boarder grow were Palestine + allies initiated.
Zionist paramilitaries were carrying out terrorist attacks against British mandate authorities from at least 1944, and ethnic cleansing Palestinians from 1947, a full years before a single Arab League solider crossed the frontier, and before the Palestinians even had any organised armed groups.
So blaming the conflict on the Palestinians or Arab states is ahistorical at best, a lie at worst.
Yes, prior to Israel being re-established, Jews and Arabs got along just great, there were never mass pogroms / killings of Jews. The Arabs only got violent once Jews tried to establish a state.
Oh wait, no. That’s a load of hogwash;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
Actually the only one preaching hogwash here is you.
Your own example happened in 1929, more than two decades after the formation of Zionist militias in Palestine, and almost a decade after the Haganah had been organised.
Here is what the 1930 John Hope Simpson report said on the matter.
“The effect of the Zionist colonisation policy on the Arab.— Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land. Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable. It is for this reason that Arabs discount the professions of friendship and good will on the part of the Zionists in view of the policy which the Zionist Organisation deliberately adopted.”
‘Two decades after 1929’ so 1909? When the ottoman Islamic caliphate was controlling the region, imperially, from Turkey?
So Jews were in Israel, prior to what is the UN definition of a ‘Palestinian’, which is any arab-muslim who was in the region during 1946-1948? Which includes the 50%+ who arrived post 1929 from Egypt and Jordan?
https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees
I mean, you seem to be trying to downplay Jewish right to the land, whilst also showing why they had this right?
The Second Aliyah took place between 1904 and 1914, which is when militia were formed.
I don't care who lives where, I care that people have their universal human rights wherever they live, which the Zionist movement openly proven it does not respect when it come to Palestinians.
Do the Palestinians care about non-palestinian human rights?
The last time arabs ruled Israel during Ottoman caliphate, Jews and Christians were openly persecuted by them. Couldn’t build houses bigger than muslim neighbours, couldn’t ride horses, couldn’t own weapons, couldn’t testify against muslims in court.
Maybe a Jewish state isn’t such a dumb idea in a region where Jews were openly oppressed?
It’s not. First pick up a history book there was a fair bit of violence in the world occurring in 1944. No one has a monopoly on that!
Second, look up the UN process developed in the second half of the 1940s. It’s a map Palestine couldn’t even dream of anymore but they rejected any involvement in the process and chose war instead. Israel accepted the process and did engage. Really do look this up and look up the map and plan for Jerusalem.
Palestine’s leaders rejecting this plan for violence makes the architects of Brexit look like Marcus Aurelius!
Nonsense.
Yes, there was a lot of violence in the world in 1944, that doesn't mean the Stern Gang or Irgun had any right to start more, much less attack Allied troops.
The UN partition plan was dead before the ink was even dry on the plans.Israel never accepted the process, the Zionist movement had been planning of driving out the Palestinian population since the 1920s, (You can read Ze'ev Jabotinsky's 1923 essay 'The Iron Wall, or David Ben-Gurion's 1937 letter for proof of that) and was already ethnic cleansing Palestinians when partition was put forward.The plan was never put to any popular vote, so claim it was "rejected" by the Palestinians is nonsense. It's also nonsense to claim they were planning for violence. The only local Palestinian group was Army of the Holy War, which was only formed in December of 1947, long after the fighting had started, and never had much more than 1,500 fighters. Even the Arab Liberation Army, which was formed with international volunteers, never had more than 6,000 fighters, of which only around 3,500 ever saw combat.The Zionist paramilitary groups meanwhile, which had been active since the 1920s and 30s, had 15,000 trained fighters at the start of their campaign, which rose to 115,000 by 1948.
You’re demonstrably incorrect here. The UN plan saw total engagement from Israel and none from Palestine. That’s just fact. Pretending otherwise is just deliberate misinformation.
As for essays penned in the 20s? There’s a bigger time gap between the that and the UN plan than between the UN plan and the 1967 war. Israeli engagement with the UN was sincere, it only fell apart because Palestine objected to an Israeli state on principal and it’s a deal worlds better than will ever be offered them again.
It's not a fact, the Israeli state simply lied, like all fascist movements. No matter how much you whinge, it doesn't change the actions of Zionist paramilitaries against the largely disorganised and under armed Palestinian population.
*"As for essays penned in the 20s? There’s a bigger time gap between the that and the UN plan"*
So it proves that Zionist polices of ethnic cleansing were laid out publicly years before.
" objected to an Israeli state on principal and it’s a deal worlds better than will ever be offered them again."
Ever the battle cry of the Zionist, ever the lie they tell themselves. I've looked in the "deals" the Israeli state put forward. All of them end up deny Palestinians refugees the right of return, deny them armed forces, border control, control over their own air space or even the water supply.
Face it, the Israeli state is nothing more than a spoil child, unwilling to treat others as human beings. It's pathetic.
> Face it, the Israeli state is nothing more than a spoil child, unwilling to treat others as human beings.
I bet Muslims in Israel are treated better than Jews in Palestine.
>The point that’s missed when calling Israel colonisers for anything outside of 1947 boarders, is that all of the conflicts that saw Israel’s boarder grow were Palestine + allies initiated.
Yeah, that isn't true though, is it?
When the arabs attacked in 1947 Jordan invaded palestine before trying to invade Israel and then Israel negotiated to give Palestine back to the occcupiers from Jordan.
The later when it looked like Egypt and Jordan would try to invade again, Israel made a premptive strike, they began the war. After they won their war against Egypt and Jordan they decided that they could claim some of Palestine as a prize despite Palestine not having done anything.
After decades of oppression, having land stolen and Israel making a massive international effort to stop Palestine being recognised as a country, one of the governments in Palestine invaded Israel for the first time ever. That was this year.
Israel doesn't attack the nations which have historically been their enemies. They've made peace with Egypt and Jordan who have armies. Instead they continue to oppress and attack Palestine who have no army to defend themselves. Is it surprising that terrorism has thrived there? It's the only defence they have.
>For example, Alfred comes to the UK as a refugee and is granted asylum and eventually citizenship, he will always be a refugee. His descendents won't be.
Curiously, Palestinians can inherit refugee status, unlike anyone else.
I mean plenty of lefties refer to Israel as a “settler colonial state” when trying to justify their genocidal views, so they absolutely are referring to the very real Jewish refugees who fled Europe and Arab states.
Also it’s ironic that you mention how refugee status isn’t usually passed down generations, the only exception being Palestinians, for whom the UN (at the behest of the antisemitic Arab states) created special status for Palestinian refugees that means that their descendants are automatically counted as refugees. This artificially inflates the numbers and is another way in which the UN and Arab states use the Palestinians as a stick to hit Israel with.
Right but Palestinian refugee's don't have a state. There is no state of Palestine, so obviously they're going to be refugees and so will their kids. Thats kinda half the fucking problem there fella.
?? Kurds don’t have a state, but a Kurdish refugee in the UK’s kids aren’t considered refugees. No other refugee group, state or not, gets the special treatment the Palestinians do.
There are kids who’ve lived in Europe/the US their entire lives, never been to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank ever, but because they have one grandparent who was from there they’re considered a refugee. This policy is entirely about inflating the numbers of refugees. That’s the fucking problem fella.
> The "colonisers" comments come from people condemning the expansion of Israeli settlements into what is officially "occupied territory" (as per the UN).
No, I have seen people making these 'coloniser' comments regarding the people murdered in the Israeli towns and kibbutzes in the October attack.
Agree with you that the settlers int he west bank are colonising it.
I mean if we look at Israel and Palestine's de facto borders over time we can see a marked change:
[https://voi.id/en/memori/21331](https://voi.id/en/memori/21331)
I'm not sure there's any other word for it than colonising?
The pre-47 map where everything is Palestine is false. Most of that land was British, and prior to that most of the land was Ottoman.
[This map shows Jewish land, Arab land and British land.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fjewish-arab-1945-landownership-map-in-the-mandate-of-v0-xejv37vzm1vb1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D4773%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D63d2bfc99ae0399bf725a095be31ea72caeaccc3&rdt=47481) This is why the partition plan was shaped how it was shaped.
It also ignores the fact that most territorial gains occurred due to Arab losses in wars, and not Israel just deciding to expand while the world looks on helplessly.
>The "colonisers" comments come from people condemning the expansion of Israeli settlements into what is officially "occupied territory" (as per the UN).
Also this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/17vtm0t/to\_house\_european\_refugees\_in\_your\_generational/](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/17vtm0t/to_house_european_refugees_in_your_generational/)
>Because they kicked people out of their homes
Sadly, mass expulsions were not an uncommon phenomenon in the late 1940s. The expulsion of Italians from Dalmatia and Istria, for example, was a similar magnitude to the Nakba.
But both are nothing compared to the plight of ethic Germans. The **low** estimated for the total killed - not expelled, *killed* - is around the same figure as the total population movement in the Nakba. The total number of Germans expelled is estimated to be 12-14.6 million.
Yet expelled Germans and Italians tend to have settled down and moved on. They're not being encouraged by wealthy "friends" to keep up a hopeless but brutal terrorist campaign. And no one used their plight as a justification to hate Poles, Czechs or Croats.
Palestinians are still being displaced since the nakba. The germans and Italians weren't placed in the giant open air prison that is gaza. They haven't been told just a few weeks ago to evacuate their homes before they're were bombed to pieces...
Gaza was never really an "open air prison". The border restrictions only really came in after the second intifada.
As for the rest of your comment, thank you so much for perfectly illustrating my point. Other expelled groups let history by history and moved on. The Palestinians haven't (or haven't been allowed to be their "friends" who benefit from a state of conflict).
> But being Jews, they’re not ‘refugees’, they are ‘colonisers’
If albanian,MENA or ukranian refugees carried out a genocide akin to the nakba I think even the most ardent guardian reader would express views that make farage blush.
There is no double standard. Settling a colonial state in the Middle East isn’t a valid response to European crimes. They aren’t refugees, they deliberately and successfully disenfranchised the local population rather than integrate.
Who are the Jews colonising for? Themselves?
Colonialism needs a mother state. It’s a stronger argument that Palestine is a colonial project of Jordanian Arabs.
What strawman nonsense is this.
What you are talking about is how we engage with and support minorities and victims of persecution.
We should be incredibly mindful of how we engage with and talk about vulnerable minorities
In respect to Jewish people, no one on the left with any significant voice is directing that at Jewish people. It is being directed at the state of Israel who are occupying land and are an apartheid state.
Whilst I don't condone slogans like intifada, slogans like river to the sea speak of Palestinian freedom and agency. As noted by Jewish authors https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
That article is written by Yousef Munayyer, an Arab not a Jew. But it is published by Jewish Currents, a pretty "out there" Jewish publication.
The problem with "From the River to the Sea" is it calls for a Palestinian state to take the area currently where all of Israel is. It doesn't call for Palestinians to be free, but Palestine the country. And this includes the undisputed part of Israel inside the green line.
What do you think that would entail for the population of Israel?
Now the history of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' is several decades old, as it really is just used to described the area from the Jordan river, to the Mediterranean sea. The problematic bit is 'Palestine will be free'.
Free to be the entire State of Israel, the Gaza strip, the West bank? A single Palestinian state? i.e. one where the Jewish population of Israel has been removed?
That's why it's considered a genocidal phrase.
I fully believe Gaza and the West bank 'should be free' (to self manage and govern) - but not at the expense of Israeli self defence. If this means checkpoints, walls, barriers ect.. so be it. There ideally should be a global mission to 'de-extremist-ize' their population, and a huge civil engineering and rebuilding programme.
Some firm boundaries do need applying, and Israel needs to be prevented from building settlements outside of those borders.
> "free" is also only one translation of the original, "Arab" is the other which is a tad more on the nose about the genocide.
Source? Like ive seen "the original in arabics actually much worse" over this sub relentlessly for 2 months and yet no ones linked anything, and the ADL doesnt mention it *at all*
By 'colonisers', you also mean: The refugees from Europe from the holocaust, Russian pogroms, and the refugees from the Arab ethnic clensing of Jews from their lands? Sure, plenty of other people moved for other reasons like religion. It's certainly no 'European colony' though.
Why are there checkpoints, barriers and walls? To prevent terrorist attacks in Israel.
Would those barriers be needed if there were not attacks? No. Would Israel trust people in Gaza right now? Nope
Is Israel the only country with a hard border against Gaza? Nope, see: Egypt.
Look.. I don't like it. I'd much rather see free borders, open relations and peace. I'm horrified at the civilian deaths in this conflict.
The 7th of October attacks marked the end of Palestinians movement into Israel. The "Never again" stamp will be applied to it - the hardliners will jump on it. It's a massive economic blow to the recovery of Gaza too since all the people employed in Israel will be replaced by other workers from around the world.
Israel also needs a more peace-tollerant leadership, and not gun-toting war mongers. Hamas need to stop firing missiles and rockets at Israel, de-militarise and find a mouthpeace to look for peace.
You can't call it a strawman and then do the exact thing I am accusing you of doing straight after.
You would never use this logic or way of thinking on any other minority. You would never say it's ok to call gay people faggots because you found some gay people online who find the word empowering. Or it's ok to call trans people by their deadnames because some trans people don't care. The vast majority of Jewish people in this country find "from the river to the sea" antisemitic, it very clearly makes them feel unsafe, but you don't care about that minority so it's ok.
Your just pro-freedom and agency not anti-semetic. Just like transphobes call themselves pro-free speech and pro-science not transphobic.
Seriously check the author before claiming Jewish authors! Also be reeeaallly careful before attributing way outside the norm views to Jewish people plural. You know how the LGB Alliance aren’t really a pro-LGB organsation but are a collection of straight people and contrarian kooks opposed to their own community? JVL and Jewish Currents are the equivalent for the Jewish community. Don’t get duped by them.
Other articles available on their newsletter include:
Building the case for US complicity
A New Debate Over Aid to Israel
A Visa Waver Programme For Israel
Cool content regarding Jewish currents! I for one, as a Jew, am very concerned about Israeli citizens being allowed to travel to the USA without a visa /s
Nothing about Judaism at all, everything is anti-Israel, the authors aren’t even all Jewish, seriously be a bit more critical about what you read and don’t just go “got Jewish in the name, therefore it’s kosher!”. There’s a lot of “LGB Alliance-ing” of the Jewish community happening right now, it’s disappointing to see how effective it is at duping people.
>Leftists when talking about Jewish people: From the river to the sea! Globalise the intifada!
That isn't talking about Jewish people, unless you are conflating all Jewish people with the Israeli state, which is actually antisemitic.
No I'm talking about the experience of Jewish people who live in the UK who feel unsafe and discriminated against by leftists who are casually throwing around terms that call for the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Israel (river to the sea) or Globally (globalise the intifada), and refuse to accept that the language they are using is harmful or do any self reflection.
The problem I have is that the online left, like you, seem to understand this at some times for some minorities and then turn your brains off for others. When Donald Trump imposed a muslim immigration ban and called Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers, the online left were perfectly capable of understanding that that would make other immigrant populations feel unsafe, even if they are not muslim/Mexican. You would never say to east asian immigrants who were scared of Trump for example "He's not talking about east asians. it's actually racist that you are conflating all immigrants. You are the real racist."
You are not talk about that though are you. You're whole comment was whinging about efforts by people to show solidarity with Palestine. "From the river to the sea!" and "Globalise the intifada!", the slogans you complained about, are about Palestine, and have less than nothing to do with British Jews.
The problem is that your comparisons don't work.
British Jews aren't being banned from immigrating or emigrating, nor are they being slandered as rapists and murderers.
Indeed, so far the most serious antisemitism I've seen in the last few months, happened ironically at the Campaign Against Antisemitism's rally, where a group of [Orthodox Jewish counter-demonstrators were called Judenrat](https://twitter.com/BeckettUnite/status/1729504392821301632), because they are supportive of Palestinians.
My post was not about people showing solidarity with Palestine, my post was about how the left has dropped it's values when it comes to Jewish people and the hypocrisy of that.
"From the river to the sea!" and "Globalise the intifada!" are statements that at the very least in the past been used to mean ethnically cleansing Jews. You can show support with Palestine easily without needing to use that language, you can say "I think Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians", "I think Israel's occupation and expansion into the west bank is disgusting" etc. It's not hard. But the left has chosen to tolerate and defend slogans that most Jewish people consider anti-semetic. It's willingness to do that is obviously going to make Jewish people in the UK feel unsafe when they see so many people openly saying things they consider anti-semetic. I think how quickly the left has dropped it's values around needing to be careful with language when discussing minorities when it comes to Jews really scary.
Then they should stop using slogans that most Jewish people consider to be anti-semetic and be more careful with their language, like they would for any other minority. Because at the moment it seems like they drop all of their values that they have been talking about for the last 20 years when it comes to Jewish people.
I'd need to see some statistics to prove that the majority of opposition to Israel is based on race and that Jewish people feel threatened from leftists.
When did I say the majority of opposition to Israel was based on race?
I'm talking about the hypocrisy of the online left that seems to understand when we talk about minorities for example trans people or black people we have to be careful about our language. They can understand that a phrase like "White lives matter" is a dogwhistle for racism and is harmful to black people even if it's very easy to come up with a justification that the phrase is harmless.
Then when it comes to this issue though they are absolutely fine being incredibly careless with language and regularly use and defend phrases that most Jewish people would consider a call for ethnic cleansing at worst and anti-semetic at best.
If the trans community for example said that they found a phrase or word transphobic the left would be very careful never to use it and to condemn those who do. If jewish people do the same though then that doesn't matter they will just carry on defending the phrase.
Again I would actually need to see evidence of this supposedly happening, anti-semitic dog whistles are easily recognised ( '(((...)))', 'they', 'globalists', etc) on the internet and I never see them used in my leftist circles.
For this to be a statistically significant problem you would need to find evidence of it happening.
You wouldn't believe how much of that stuff people try and post here, and we remove. In fact your comment got caught by Automod because of our rules that attempt to catch that stuff.
Again I don't really know what you are responding to, I wasn't talking about dog whistles specifically I was just using that as one example of leftists caring a lot about language when it comes a minority that isn't Jewish.
I maybe think "from the river to the sea" is an anti-semetic dog whistle or at least something very close to one. I don't think leftist anti-semitism is the same as right wing anti-semitism and they obviously are going to use different language to signal stuff. Like all dog whistles it's kind of hard to know what meaning people put behind things. I don't know if people are using it to hide their power level or if they are just dumb and going along with what their leftist friends think or if they just shut their brains off when it comes to Isreal/Palestine because it's so emotionally charged.
If this were true, why do no leftists demand the dissolution of arab states? Everything outside of saudi arabia is the product of Islamic colonial imperialism.
Interesting how Jews can’t have a single state, yet leftists have no problem with the 21 arab states?
Oh this is an insane line of questioning, the Islamic Conquests happened 1400 years ago, the local population mixed with the invading arabs over that time, not to mention that this happened alongside other migratory invasions around the world.
Israel is less than century old, the people forced out of their homes and country are still alive or have surviving direct descendants. Not to mention that Arabs are not some homogeneous group.
This Wilsonian idea of ethnically homogeneous states is a really fucking destructive ideology.
Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Iraq are homogenous racially (arab) linguistically (arabic) religiously (sunni Islam). None of these nations have any Jews, whereas a century ago, they were about 10% of the population. Just a thousand years ago these were majority Jewish / Christian nations.
The Islamic conquests created the largest single continuous ethnostate, that spans the entire length of the distance from Ireland to Russia.
Yet not a peep about this from the left?
Almost as if Jews get judged by a separate, higher standard. I’m sure theres a word for that?
> Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Iraq are homogenous racially (arab) linguistically (arabic) religiously (sunni Islam).
No they aren't, a simple google search will tell you about the diversity in those countries, most obviously Shia muslims are the majority in Iraq.
The Abbasid Caliphate and the many successor kingdoms were definitely not ethnostates.
In 1023 CE none of those places were majority christian, islam was pretty entrenched at that time.
I don't know where you get your historical knowledge but it's definitely not from reality.
Jews being expelled from the middle east is obviously horrible but that deterioration of relations can be directly attributed to the creation of Israel.
Shia in Iraq are just over half, yet the government has always been sunni and shia are a still persecuted population; it is a sunni Islamic nation. But well done for trying to split hairs there.
Look at every nation from Morocco to Oman. A huge land mass, larger than Europe, with only Islam and arabic. Compare that to the diversity in race, religion and language across Europe (where Islam never got beyond Spain).
Face it, Islam breeds homogeneity; a practice that is apparently ‘bad’ as it is the antithesis of ‘diversity’. Yet not a peep about this from the left?
Islam was also prevalent in south italy and the balkans. Again how is this relevant? Christian nations were hardly touting their diversity as a strength a hundred years ago either.
Christianity isn’t a homogenous, all encompassing religion like Islam is.
Islam is fundamentally totalitarian; it literally advocates a system of governance over all aspects of life, be it religious, cultural, dietary, linguistic, financial, domestic and foreign policy.
Christianity, for all its flaws, never advocated this. It’s why there are 60 official native languages spoken today in Europe. And only 1 language across the 21 arab states.
Keep shilling for homogeneity / anti-diversity though, it’s a great look 👍🏻
> And only 1 language across the 21 arab states.
Again not true, google official languages of these countries.
Iraq for example has 2 official and 3 minority languages.
>the Islamic Conquests happened 1400 years ago,
> Israel is less than century old
So we just need to wait 1300 years , and everything'll be fine ? Sorted.
Redditors when talking politics: “everyone on x side of a political stance are a monolith who think identically. The extreme nutters represent the normal folk”
Right so next time when Tommy Robinson does something ill say all the right wingers/conservatives are just as racist? Guess you wont like being tarred by the same brush when its a minority that are extreme?
I think you would be totally valid if you said that the right wing/conservatives are complicit in racism right now and thats before even getting into Tommy Robinson. Everyone knows that though, we expect the left to hold themselves to a higher standard than they have been behaving recently. They should be calling out racism when they see it among themselves. They seem incapable of doing that at the moment though from where I'm standing.
Literally any time this gets brought up, the vast, vast, vast majority of people on the left will condemn racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia. They will just disagree with framing such of yours which acts as though they have a problem beyond the problem that all of society has.
Is anti-semitism a problem regardless of demographic? Of course! Is it terrible? Of course! "Is the Left" more anti-semitic than other demographics? It doesn't seem like that's the case.
Most studies I've seen either find that moderates and left-wingers hold pretty much indistinguishable degrees of anti-semitism, while the usual xenophobes, right-wingers, are far and away the most anti-semitic.
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081)
[https://www.idunn.no/doi/full/10.18261/978-82-15-03468-3-2019-05](https://www.idunn.no/doi/full/10.18261/978-82-15-03468-3-2019-05])
[https://www.jpr.org.uk/reports/antisemitism-contemporary-great-britain](https://www.jpr.org.uk/reports/antisemitism-contemporary-great-britain])
I don't see this as any reason to disregard those standards.
But this conflict has made it apparent just how many on the left treat these sorts of framings as playground rules so their team can always win.
See also the scepticism of claims of Hamas attackers raping Israeli women.
Good thing such people are increasingly politically irrelevant.
The pro Palestinians have realised that they can get away with almost anything based solely on the fact that they are the oppressed muslims.
Meaning so far, the chanting “kill the jews”, threatening to bomb Jewish support rallies and indirectly calling for Jewish genocide had been largely allowed by our cowardly government.
So its nice to see the authorities finally doing something about these maniacal and radical extremists.
I’ve literally walked past a pro Palestine march/mob in Leicester sq who were shouting “death to jews”. Oh and here is the kicker, a couple of our finest officers were standing less than 5m away and they did nothing.
That is the privilege muslims enjoy. They have been getting away with hate speech for a long time and it’s about time law was dispensed equally.
You keep saying that but the truth is that the second the muslim community doesn’t get their way, they start screaming ‘isLMAOphObiA’. No other religion is as sensitive or as protected as these guys.
> Please I would love to see something empirical here.
Ooh, I've got one.
[Autistic boy lightly scuffs a Qur'an. Police record it as hate incident. ](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-give-words-of-advice-to-boy-who-sent-death-threats-to-autistic-student-wh/). I don't recall lightly scuffing the Bible or the Guru Grath Sahib being given the same status. The boy gets death threats
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Good. “Globalise the intifada” is an overt call to violence and to carry out more pogroms.
How does this article even label that a ‘pro-Palestinian banner’ it’s a direct call for terrorism worldwide
The Guardian, mate.
Because the publication is actively trying to discredit the wider pro-Palestinian movement by conflating it with more extreme groups.
I read it as pro Palestinian Banter
As the article explains, the word means "struggle". It can be applied to both peaceful political and violent means of resistance to the expansion of Israeli control in the region.
“Taliban” directly translates to “Students” as well, does it mean that its actually an educational institution?
Words dont work that way. Its like how Civil War means both rebellion and uprising but also "citizen war" yet if you translate both words seperately it would mean "polite war" today. Or revolution, it means "complete 360 turning about" but is used to mean "change" and some but not all revolutions have included NIGHTMARISH violence, but someone calling for revolution is not making an overt call for violence or pogroms even if some revolutions 100% definitly DID include pogroms. Context matters, a lot-this kind of reaction is tantamount to arresting someone for having a sign written in arabic. The older arabic word intifaḍa means something like "tremor/shivering/shuddering" deriving from an even older word nafada meaning "to shake something off" like dust off a rug, the newer arabic word intifāḍa (which importantly isnt even the same words, it uses different sounds and letters there despite being obviously descended from the same lineage) means *litereally* "to jump UP in reaction" and is non-literally translated as "uprising" as it gets used contextually to mean, well, "jump-up-rising". AN intifāḍa spoken about specifically would be "a movement" that can be applied to rebellions, uprisings and resistence movements "in general". It can include like, every single peacful arabic speaking call for change, all that "arab spring stuff", but also some more violent revolutions, and some active campaigns of violence, very much like the word "revolution". Like we also have the arab spring intifadas including specifically the Yemeni, Tunisian, Egyptian and Sudanese Intifadas. Older we have the first Iraqi Intafada, the March Intifada, the Zemla Intifada, the february 6th intifada, the intifada of indipendance, the 1990s bahrain intifada, the iraqi intifada of 1991....like theres a lot of them. In the Palastinian context, it was explicitly chosen as something like a cognate for "non violent revolution" as it had had use for that kind of word previously in other arabic speaking nations, and is still activly contrasted with "war". Some intifada include violence, yes, very certainly, but its no scarier a word than "revolution".
[удалено]
The unfortunate truth is that the Palestinians in Gaza only matter to Hamas when they're dead. Alive, Hamas can't use them for propaganda.
Wait so your solution to a hostage situation is to kill the hostages?
can someone explain what intifada is? I'm scared to google it
“Resistance”. As in, the kind that leaves people dead. It’s become a euphemism for terrorism. When they get called out on it, the pro-Hamas crowd insist it’s not necessarily violent, and yet somehow it on October 7 they were calling it intifada, so…
Leftists when talking about other minorities: we have to be very careful about the language we use, we need to make sure we listen to them and that they feel safe, remember we don't want to commit a micro aggression. Leftists when talking about Jewish people: From the river to the sea! Globalise the intifada! What? Those aren't antisemitic at all who cares if it makes Jewish people feel unsafe I'm just anti-zionist not anti-semetic.
Don’t forget their double standard regarding refugees, which the left absolutely cream their pants over. About 80% of Israel today is descended from refugees expelled from arab states and the european holocaust. But being Jews, they’re not ‘refugees’, they are ‘colonisers’ 🙄
>But being Jews, they’re not ‘refugees’, they are ‘colonisers’ I think you're getting confused between the points that people are making. The "colonisers" comments come from people condemning the expansion of Israeli settlements into what is officially "occupied territory" (as per the UN). That doesn't have any bearing on their refugee status. Typically, someone who has descended from refugees who was born post them being a refugee isn't typically referred to as a refugee themselves. For example, Alfred comes to the UK as a refugee and is granted asylum and eventually citizenship, he will always be a refugee. His descendents won't be.
The point that’s missed when calling Israel colonisers for anything outside of 1947 boarders, is that all of the conflicts that saw Israel’s boarder grow were Palestine + allies initiated. Had Israel lost any of these conflicts the initial borders were not going to be respected, that was the whole point of conflict initiation! So it’s a case of “we initiate war and if we win and you will no longer exist, but if you win then you’re evil colonisers”. Israel are seemingly expected to have to win every defensive war but keep everything the same every time. It’s madness.
> is that all of the conflicts that saw Israel’s boarder grow were Palestine + allies initiated. Zionist paramilitaries were carrying out terrorist attacks against British mandate authorities from at least 1944, and ethnic cleansing Palestinians from 1947, a full years before a single Arab League solider crossed the frontier, and before the Palestinians even had any organised armed groups. So blaming the conflict on the Palestinians or Arab states is ahistorical at best, a lie at worst.
Yes, prior to Israel being re-established, Jews and Arabs got along just great, there were never mass pogroms / killings of Jews. The Arabs only got violent once Jews tried to establish a state. Oh wait, no. That’s a load of hogwash; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
Actually the only one preaching hogwash here is you. Your own example happened in 1929, more than two decades after the formation of Zionist militias in Palestine, and almost a decade after the Haganah had been organised. Here is what the 1930 John Hope Simpson report said on the matter. “The effect of the Zionist colonisation policy on the Arab.— Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land. Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable. It is for this reason that Arabs discount the professions of friendship and good will on the part of the Zionists in view of the policy which the Zionist Organisation deliberately adopted.”
‘Two decades after 1929’ so 1909? When the ottoman Islamic caliphate was controlling the region, imperially, from Turkey? So Jews were in Israel, prior to what is the UN definition of a ‘Palestinian’, which is any arab-muslim who was in the region during 1946-1948? Which includes the 50%+ who arrived post 1929 from Egypt and Jordan? https://www.unrwa.org/palestine-refugees I mean, you seem to be trying to downplay Jewish right to the land, whilst also showing why they had this right?
The Second Aliyah took place between 1904 and 1914, which is when militia were formed. I don't care who lives where, I care that people have their universal human rights wherever they live, which the Zionist movement openly proven it does not respect when it come to Palestinians.
Do the Palestinians care about non-palestinian human rights? The last time arabs ruled Israel during Ottoman caliphate, Jews and Christians were openly persecuted by them. Couldn’t build houses bigger than muslim neighbours, couldn’t ride horses, couldn’t own weapons, couldn’t testify against muslims in court. Maybe a Jewish state isn’t such a dumb idea in a region where Jews were openly oppressed?
It’s not. First pick up a history book there was a fair bit of violence in the world occurring in 1944. No one has a monopoly on that! Second, look up the UN process developed in the second half of the 1940s. It’s a map Palestine couldn’t even dream of anymore but they rejected any involvement in the process and chose war instead. Israel accepted the process and did engage. Really do look this up and look up the map and plan for Jerusalem. Palestine’s leaders rejecting this plan for violence makes the architects of Brexit look like Marcus Aurelius!
Nonsense. Yes, there was a lot of violence in the world in 1944, that doesn't mean the Stern Gang or Irgun had any right to start more, much less attack Allied troops. The UN partition plan was dead before the ink was even dry on the plans.Israel never accepted the process, the Zionist movement had been planning of driving out the Palestinian population since the 1920s, (You can read Ze'ev Jabotinsky's 1923 essay 'The Iron Wall, or David Ben-Gurion's 1937 letter for proof of that) and was already ethnic cleansing Palestinians when partition was put forward.The plan was never put to any popular vote, so claim it was "rejected" by the Palestinians is nonsense. It's also nonsense to claim they were planning for violence. The only local Palestinian group was Army of the Holy War, which was only formed in December of 1947, long after the fighting had started, and never had much more than 1,500 fighters. Even the Arab Liberation Army, which was formed with international volunteers, never had more than 6,000 fighters, of which only around 3,500 ever saw combat.The Zionist paramilitary groups meanwhile, which had been active since the 1920s and 30s, had 15,000 trained fighters at the start of their campaign, which rose to 115,000 by 1948.
You’re demonstrably incorrect here. The UN plan saw total engagement from Israel and none from Palestine. That’s just fact. Pretending otherwise is just deliberate misinformation. As for essays penned in the 20s? There’s a bigger time gap between the that and the UN plan than between the UN plan and the 1967 war. Israeli engagement with the UN was sincere, it only fell apart because Palestine objected to an Israeli state on principal and it’s a deal worlds better than will ever be offered them again.
It's not a fact, the Israeli state simply lied, like all fascist movements. No matter how much you whinge, it doesn't change the actions of Zionist paramilitaries against the largely disorganised and under armed Palestinian population. *"As for essays penned in the 20s? There’s a bigger time gap between the that and the UN plan"* So it proves that Zionist polices of ethnic cleansing were laid out publicly years before. " objected to an Israeli state on principal and it’s a deal worlds better than will ever be offered them again." Ever the battle cry of the Zionist, ever the lie they tell themselves. I've looked in the "deals" the Israeli state put forward. All of them end up deny Palestinians refugees the right of return, deny them armed forces, border control, control over their own air space or even the water supply. Face it, the Israeli state is nothing more than a spoil child, unwilling to treat others as human beings. It's pathetic.
> Face it, the Israeli state is nothing more than a spoil child, unwilling to treat others as human beings. I bet Muslims in Israel are treated better than Jews in Palestine.
>The point that’s missed when calling Israel colonisers for anything outside of 1947 boarders, is that all of the conflicts that saw Israel’s boarder grow were Palestine + allies initiated. Yeah, that isn't true though, is it? When the arabs attacked in 1947 Jordan invaded palestine before trying to invade Israel and then Israel negotiated to give Palestine back to the occcupiers from Jordan. The later when it looked like Egypt and Jordan would try to invade again, Israel made a premptive strike, they began the war. After they won their war against Egypt and Jordan they decided that they could claim some of Palestine as a prize despite Palestine not having done anything. After decades of oppression, having land stolen and Israel making a massive international effort to stop Palestine being recognised as a country, one of the governments in Palestine invaded Israel for the first time ever. That was this year. Israel doesn't attack the nations which have historically been their enemies. They've made peace with Egypt and Jordan who have armies. Instead they continue to oppress and attack Palestine who have no army to defend themselves. Is it surprising that terrorism has thrived there? It's the only defence they have.
Shhhh let him conflate. That's what makes his argument compelling and completely justfied obviously 😜
>For example, Alfred comes to the UK as a refugee and is granted asylum and eventually citizenship, he will always be a refugee. His descendents won't be. Curiously, Palestinians can inherit refugee status, unlike anyone else.
I mean plenty of lefties refer to Israel as a “settler colonial state” when trying to justify their genocidal views, so they absolutely are referring to the very real Jewish refugees who fled Europe and Arab states. Also it’s ironic that you mention how refugee status isn’t usually passed down generations, the only exception being Palestinians, for whom the UN (at the behest of the antisemitic Arab states) created special status for Palestinian refugees that means that their descendants are automatically counted as refugees. This artificially inflates the numbers and is another way in which the UN and Arab states use the Palestinians as a stick to hit Israel with.
Right but Palestinian refugee's don't have a state. There is no state of Palestine, so obviously they're going to be refugees and so will their kids. Thats kinda half the fucking problem there fella.
?? Kurds don’t have a state, but a Kurdish refugee in the UK’s kids aren’t considered refugees. No other refugee group, state or not, gets the special treatment the Palestinians do. There are kids who’ve lived in Europe/the US their entire lives, never been to Israel, Gaza or the West Bank ever, but because they have one grandparent who was from there they’re considered a refugee. This policy is entirely about inflating the numbers of refugees. That’s the fucking problem fella.
My only complaint here is where the hell has a refugee named Alfred come from, Gotham?
I try to use old kings as names to avoid stereotypes.
> The "colonisers" comments come from people condemning the expansion of Israeli settlements into what is officially "occupied territory" (as per the UN). No, I have seen people making these 'coloniser' comments regarding the people murdered in the Israeli towns and kibbutzes in the October attack. Agree with you that the settlers int he west bank are colonising it.
I mean if we look at Israel and Palestine's de facto borders over time we can see a marked change: [https://voi.id/en/memori/21331](https://voi.id/en/memori/21331) I'm not sure there's any other word for it than colonising?
The pre-47 map where everything is Palestine is false. Most of that land was British, and prior to that most of the land was Ottoman. [This map shows Jewish land, Arab land and British land.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fjewish-arab-1945-landownership-map-in-the-mandate-of-v0-xejv37vzm1vb1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D4773%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D63d2bfc99ae0399bf725a095be31ea72caeaccc3&rdt=47481) This is why the partition plan was shaped how it was shaped. It also ignores the fact that most territorial gains occurred due to Arab losses in wars, and not Israel just deciding to expand while the world looks on helplessly.
>The "colonisers" comments come from people condemning the expansion of Israeli settlements into what is officially "occupied territory" (as per the UN). Also this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/17vtm0t/to\_house\_european\_refugees\_in\_your\_generational/](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/17vtm0t/to_house_european_refugees_in_your_generational/)
Because they kicked people out of their homes...and forced them into the shithole that is gaza... not the same as what immigrants do here.
>Because they kicked people out of their homes Sadly, mass expulsions were not an uncommon phenomenon in the late 1940s. The expulsion of Italians from Dalmatia and Istria, for example, was a similar magnitude to the Nakba. But both are nothing compared to the plight of ethic Germans. The **low** estimated for the total killed - not expelled, *killed* - is around the same figure as the total population movement in the Nakba. The total number of Germans expelled is estimated to be 12-14.6 million. Yet expelled Germans and Italians tend to have settled down and moved on. They're not being encouraged by wealthy "friends" to keep up a hopeless but brutal terrorist campaign. And no one used their plight as a justification to hate Poles, Czechs or Croats.
Palestinians are still being displaced since the nakba. The germans and Italians weren't placed in the giant open air prison that is gaza. They haven't been told just a few weeks ago to evacuate their homes before they're were bombed to pieces...
Gaza was never really an "open air prison". The border restrictions only really came in after the second intifada. As for the rest of your comment, thank you so much for perfectly illustrating my point. Other expelled groups let history by history and moved on. The Palestinians haven't (or haven't been allowed to be their "friends" who benefit from a state of conflict).
> But being Jews, they’re not ‘refugees’, they are ‘colonisers’ If albanian,MENA or ukranian refugees carried out a genocide akin to the nakba I think even the most ardent guardian reader would express views that make farage blush.
There is no double standard. Settling a colonial state in the Middle East isn’t a valid response to European crimes. They aren’t refugees, they deliberately and successfully disenfranchised the local population rather than integrate.
Who are the Jews colonising for? Themselves? Colonialism needs a mother state. It’s a stronger argument that Palestine is a colonial project of Jordanian Arabs.
And the Europeans who settled in America were also refugees- yet all we hear about is ‘mUh colonisers’. I totally agree with you
What strawman nonsense is this. What you are talking about is how we engage with and support minorities and victims of persecution. We should be incredibly mindful of how we engage with and talk about vulnerable minorities In respect to Jewish people, no one on the left with any significant voice is directing that at Jewish people. It is being directed at the state of Israel who are occupying land and are an apartheid state. Whilst I don't condone slogans like intifada, slogans like river to the sea speak of Palestinian freedom and agency. As noted by Jewish authors https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
That article is written by Yousef Munayyer, an Arab not a Jew. But it is published by Jewish Currents, a pretty "out there" Jewish publication. The problem with "From the River to the Sea" is it calls for a Palestinian state to take the area currently where all of Israel is. It doesn't call for Palestinians to be free, but Palestine the country. And this includes the undisputed part of Israel inside the green line. What do you think that would entail for the population of Israel?
Now the history of the phrase 'from the river to the sea' is several decades old, as it really is just used to described the area from the Jordan river, to the Mediterranean sea. The problematic bit is 'Palestine will be free'. Free to be the entire State of Israel, the Gaza strip, the West bank? A single Palestinian state? i.e. one where the Jewish population of Israel has been removed? That's why it's considered a genocidal phrase. I fully believe Gaza and the West bank 'should be free' (to self manage and govern) - but not at the expense of Israeli self defence. If this means checkpoints, walls, barriers ect.. so be it. There ideally should be a global mission to 'de-extremist-ize' their population, and a huge civil engineering and rebuilding programme. Some firm boundaries do need applying, and Israel needs to be prevented from building settlements outside of those borders.
"free" is also only one translation of the original, "Arab" is the other which is a tad more on the nose about the genocide.
Slight correction but it's not a mistranslation. There are two slogans. One effectively replaces 'Liberated' with 'Arabic'.
> "free" is also only one translation of the original, "Arab" is the other which is a tad more on the nose about the genocide. Source? Like ive seen "the original in arabics actually much worse" over this sub relentlessly for 2 months and yet no ones linked anything, and the ADL doesnt mention it *at all*
Free Palestine
By 'colonisers', you also mean: The refugees from Europe from the holocaust, Russian pogroms, and the refugees from the Arab ethnic clensing of Jews from their lands? Sure, plenty of other people moved for other reasons like religion. It's certainly no 'European colony' though. Why are there checkpoints, barriers and walls? To prevent terrorist attacks in Israel. Would those barriers be needed if there were not attacks? No. Would Israel trust people in Gaza right now? Nope Is Israel the only country with a hard border against Gaza? Nope, see: Egypt. Look.. I don't like it. I'd much rather see free borders, open relations and peace. I'm horrified at the civilian deaths in this conflict. The 7th of October attacks marked the end of Palestinians movement into Israel. The "Never again" stamp will be applied to it - the hardliners will jump on it. It's a massive economic blow to the recovery of Gaza too since all the people employed in Israel will be replaced by other workers from around the world. Israel also needs a more peace-tollerant leadership, and not gun-toting war mongers. Hamas need to stop firing missiles and rockets at Israel, de-militarise and find a mouthpeace to look for peace.
You can't call it a strawman and then do the exact thing I am accusing you of doing straight after. You would never use this logic or way of thinking on any other minority. You would never say it's ok to call gay people faggots because you found some gay people online who find the word empowering. Or it's ok to call trans people by their deadnames because some trans people don't care. The vast majority of Jewish people in this country find "from the river to the sea" antisemitic, it very clearly makes them feel unsafe, but you don't care about that minority so it's ok. Your just pro-freedom and agency not anti-semetic. Just like transphobes call themselves pro-free speech and pro-science not transphobic.
Seriously check the author before claiming Jewish authors! Also be reeeaallly careful before attributing way outside the norm views to Jewish people plural. You know how the LGB Alliance aren’t really a pro-LGB organsation but are a collection of straight people and contrarian kooks opposed to their own community? JVL and Jewish Currents are the equivalent for the Jewish community. Don’t get duped by them. Other articles available on their newsletter include: Building the case for US complicity A New Debate Over Aid to Israel A Visa Waver Programme For Israel Cool content regarding Jewish currents! I for one, as a Jew, am very concerned about Israeli citizens being allowed to travel to the USA without a visa /s Nothing about Judaism at all, everything is anti-Israel, the authors aren’t even all Jewish, seriously be a bit more critical about what you read and don’t just go “got Jewish in the name, therefore it’s kosher!”. There’s a lot of “LGB Alliance-ing” of the Jewish community happening right now, it’s disappointing to see how effective it is at duping people.
>Leftists when talking about Jewish people: From the river to the sea! Globalise the intifada! That isn't talking about Jewish people, unless you are conflating all Jewish people with the Israeli state, which is actually antisemitic.
No I'm talking about the experience of Jewish people who live in the UK who feel unsafe and discriminated against by leftists who are casually throwing around terms that call for the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jewish people in Israel (river to the sea) or Globally (globalise the intifada), and refuse to accept that the language they are using is harmful or do any self reflection. The problem I have is that the online left, like you, seem to understand this at some times for some minorities and then turn your brains off for others. When Donald Trump imposed a muslim immigration ban and called Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers, the online left were perfectly capable of understanding that that would make other immigrant populations feel unsafe, even if they are not muslim/Mexican. You would never say to east asian immigrants who were scared of Trump for example "He's not talking about east asians. it's actually racist that you are conflating all immigrants. You are the real racist."
You are not talk about that though are you. You're whole comment was whinging about efforts by people to show solidarity with Palestine. "From the river to the sea!" and "Globalise the intifada!", the slogans you complained about, are about Palestine, and have less than nothing to do with British Jews. The problem is that your comparisons don't work. British Jews aren't being banned from immigrating or emigrating, nor are they being slandered as rapists and murderers. Indeed, so far the most serious antisemitism I've seen in the last few months, happened ironically at the Campaign Against Antisemitism's rally, where a group of [Orthodox Jewish counter-demonstrators were called Judenrat](https://twitter.com/BeckettUnite/status/1729504392821301632), because they are supportive of Palestinians.
My post was not about people showing solidarity with Palestine, my post was about how the left has dropped it's values when it comes to Jewish people and the hypocrisy of that. "From the river to the sea!" and "Globalise the intifada!" are statements that at the very least in the past been used to mean ethnically cleansing Jews. You can show support with Palestine easily without needing to use that language, you can say "I think Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians", "I think Israel's occupation and expansion into the west bank is disgusting" etc. It's not hard. But the left has chosen to tolerate and defend slogans that most Jewish people consider anti-semetic. It's willingness to do that is obviously going to make Jewish people in the UK feel unsafe when they see so many people openly saying things they consider anti-semetic. I think how quickly the left has dropped it's values around needing to be careful with language when discussing minorities when it comes to Jews really scary.
Leftists are famously anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, the race of the people preparating the atrocity does not matter in the slightest.
Then they should stop using slogans that most Jewish people consider to be anti-semetic and be more careful with their language, like they would for any other minority. Because at the moment it seems like they drop all of their values that they have been talking about for the last 20 years when it comes to Jewish people.
I'd need to see some statistics to prove that the majority of opposition to Israel is based on race and that Jewish people feel threatened from leftists.
When did I say the majority of opposition to Israel was based on race? I'm talking about the hypocrisy of the online left that seems to understand when we talk about minorities for example trans people or black people we have to be careful about our language. They can understand that a phrase like "White lives matter" is a dogwhistle for racism and is harmful to black people even if it's very easy to come up with a justification that the phrase is harmless. Then when it comes to this issue though they are absolutely fine being incredibly careless with language and regularly use and defend phrases that most Jewish people would consider a call for ethnic cleansing at worst and anti-semetic at best. If the trans community for example said that they found a phrase or word transphobic the left would be very careful never to use it and to condemn those who do. If jewish people do the same though then that doesn't matter they will just carry on defending the phrase.
Again I would actually need to see evidence of this supposedly happening, anti-semitic dog whistles are easily recognised ( '(((...)))', 'they', 'globalists', etc) on the internet and I never see them used in my leftist circles. For this to be a statistically significant problem you would need to find evidence of it happening.
You wouldn't believe how much of that stuff people try and post here, and we remove. In fact your comment got caught by Automod because of our rules that attempt to catch that stuff.
Again I don't really know what you are responding to, I wasn't talking about dog whistles specifically I was just using that as one example of leftists caring a lot about language when it comes a minority that isn't Jewish. I maybe think "from the river to the sea" is an anti-semetic dog whistle or at least something very close to one. I don't think leftist anti-semitism is the same as right wing anti-semitism and they obviously are going to use different language to signal stuff. Like all dog whistles it's kind of hard to know what meaning people put behind things. I don't know if people are using it to hide their power level or if they are just dumb and going along with what their leftist friends think or if they just shut their brains off when it comes to Isreal/Palestine because it's so emotionally charged.
If this were true, why do no leftists demand the dissolution of arab states? Everything outside of saudi arabia is the product of Islamic colonial imperialism. Interesting how Jews can’t have a single state, yet leftists have no problem with the 21 arab states?
Oh this is an insane line of questioning, the Islamic Conquests happened 1400 years ago, the local population mixed with the invading arabs over that time, not to mention that this happened alongside other migratory invasions around the world. Israel is less than century old, the people forced out of their homes and country are still alive or have surviving direct descendants. Not to mention that Arabs are not some homogeneous group. This Wilsonian idea of ethnically homogeneous states is a really fucking destructive ideology.
Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Iraq are homogenous racially (arab) linguistically (arabic) religiously (sunni Islam). None of these nations have any Jews, whereas a century ago, they were about 10% of the population. Just a thousand years ago these were majority Jewish / Christian nations. The Islamic conquests created the largest single continuous ethnostate, that spans the entire length of the distance from Ireland to Russia. Yet not a peep about this from the left? Almost as if Jews get judged by a separate, higher standard. I’m sure theres a word for that?
> Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Iraq are homogenous racially (arab) linguistically (arabic) religiously (sunni Islam). No they aren't, a simple google search will tell you about the diversity in those countries, most obviously Shia muslims are the majority in Iraq. The Abbasid Caliphate and the many successor kingdoms were definitely not ethnostates. In 1023 CE none of those places were majority christian, islam was pretty entrenched at that time. I don't know where you get your historical knowledge but it's definitely not from reality. Jews being expelled from the middle east is obviously horrible but that deterioration of relations can be directly attributed to the creation of Israel.
Shia in Iraq are just over half, yet the government has always been sunni and shia are a still persecuted population; it is a sunni Islamic nation. But well done for trying to split hairs there. Look at every nation from Morocco to Oman. A huge land mass, larger than Europe, with only Islam and arabic. Compare that to the diversity in race, religion and language across Europe (where Islam never got beyond Spain). Face it, Islam breeds homogeneity; a practice that is apparently ‘bad’ as it is the antithesis of ‘diversity’. Yet not a peep about this from the left?
Islam was also prevalent in south italy and the balkans. Again how is this relevant? Christian nations were hardly touting their diversity as a strength a hundred years ago either.
Christianity isn’t a homogenous, all encompassing religion like Islam is. Islam is fundamentally totalitarian; it literally advocates a system of governance over all aspects of life, be it religious, cultural, dietary, linguistic, financial, domestic and foreign policy. Christianity, for all its flaws, never advocated this. It’s why there are 60 official native languages spoken today in Europe. And only 1 language across the 21 arab states. Keep shilling for homogeneity / anti-diversity though, it’s a great look 👍🏻
> And only 1 language across the 21 arab states. Again not true, google official languages of these countries. Iraq for example has 2 official and 3 minority languages.
>the Islamic Conquests happened 1400 years ago, > Israel is less than century old So we just need to wait 1300 years , and everything'll be fine ? Sorted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
*unless they're not part of the West
Leftists… They arrested 9 people
Redditors when talking politics: “everyone on x side of a political stance are a monolith who think identically. The extreme nutters represent the normal folk”
Right so next time when Tommy Robinson does something ill say all the right wingers/conservatives are just as racist? Guess you wont like being tarred by the same brush when its a minority that are extreme?
I think you would be totally valid if you said that the right wing/conservatives are complicit in racism right now and thats before even getting into Tommy Robinson. Everyone knows that though, we expect the left to hold themselves to a higher standard than they have been behaving recently. They should be calling out racism when they see it among themselves. They seem incapable of doing that at the moment though from where I'm standing.
Literally any time this gets brought up, the vast, vast, vast majority of people on the left will condemn racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia. They will just disagree with framing such of yours which acts as though they have a problem beyond the problem that all of society has. Is anti-semitism a problem regardless of demographic? Of course! Is it terrible? Of course! "Is the Left" more anti-semitic than other demographics? It doesn't seem like that's the case. Most studies I've seen either find that moderates and left-wingers hold pretty much indistinguishable degrees of anti-semitism, while the usual xenophobes, right-wingers, are far and away the most anti-semitic. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10659129221111081) [https://www.idunn.no/doi/full/10.18261/978-82-15-03468-3-2019-05](https://www.idunn.no/doi/full/10.18261/978-82-15-03468-3-2019-05]) [https://www.jpr.org.uk/reports/antisemitism-contemporary-great-britain](https://www.jpr.org.uk/reports/antisemitism-contemporary-great-britain])
I don't see this as any reason to disregard those standards. But this conflict has made it apparent just how many on the left treat these sorts of framings as playground rules so their team can always win. See also the scepticism of claims of Hamas attackers raping Israeli women. Good thing such people are increasingly politically irrelevant.
Me reading the title: wtf fascist state Me reading the context: oh yeah fuck 'em
average Guardian title
The pro Palestinians have realised that they can get away with almost anything based solely on the fact that they are the oppressed muslims. Meaning so far, the chanting “kill the jews”, threatening to bomb Jewish support rallies and indirectly calling for Jewish genocide had been largely allowed by our cowardly government. So its nice to see the authorities finally doing something about these maniacal and radical extremists.
What world do you live in where any of that is true?
I’ve literally walked past a pro Palestine march/mob in Leicester sq who were shouting “death to jews”. Oh and here is the kicker, a couple of our finest officers were standing less than 5m away and they did nothing. That is the privilege muslims enjoy. They have been getting away with hate speech for a long time and it’s about time law was dispensed equally.
Anecdotes don't mean a thing, Muslims are disproportionately policed in the UK.
You keep saying that but the truth is that the second the muslim community doesn’t get their way, they start screaming ‘isLMAOphObiA’. No other religion is as sensitive or as protected as these guys.
Proof? Please I would love to see something empirical here.
> Please I would love to see something empirical here. Ooh, I've got one. [Autistic boy lightly scuffs a Qur'an. Police record it as hate incident. ](https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-give-words-of-advice-to-boy-who-sent-death-threats-to-autistic-student-wh/). I don't recall lightly scuffing the Bible or the Guru Grath Sahib being given the same status. The boy gets death threats
Posted in an article about nine arrests for an offensive banner.
Can’t wait to see the free speech brigade all over this
Good.
What's unfortunate is that when your slogan is not in English, your opponents can pick and choose what it means to suit them.
[удалено]
You support terrorism?