I'm mulling over this article. The authors are the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (Rebecca Vilkomerson), the Past Board Chair of the Inter-Faith Peace Builders (Ilise Benshushan Cohen), and a writer/poet/activist of Puerto Rican/Ukrainian Jewish descent (Aurora Levins Morales) who is well known in Latina feminism circles. It has a take on the wording of the section of the manifesto referencing Israel/Palestine that may be worth discussing: www.thenation.com/article/american-jews-should-support-the-movement-for-black-lives-platform/
(But as someone who is neither Jewish nor a POC, I hope that I'm not stepping on toes or incorrect in my interpretation of this.
ETA: I also am of the opinion - as a white, non-Jewish majority - that apartheid and genocide are loaded words that shouldn't be used in the context in the manifesto. Other words could have been chosen that are less triggering to their Jewish brethren and supporters.)
Based on what I have read, the British basically were promising Palestine to both sides during WWI. They used the promise of a Arabic state to help get Muslim groups throughout the Middle East to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. Then once the Ottoman Empire was defeated they made their choice.
I'm mulling over this article. The authors are the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (Rebecca Vilkomerson), the Past Board Chair of the Inter-Faith Peace Builders (Ilise Benshushan Cohen), and a writer/poet/activist of Puerto Rican/Ukrainian Jewish descent (Aurora Levins Morales) who is well known in Latina feminism circles. It has a take on the wording of the section of the manifesto referencing Israel/Palestine that may be worth discussing: www.thenation.com/article/american-jews-should-support-the-movement-for-black-lives-platform/
(But as someone who is neither Jewish nor a POC, I hope that I'm not stepping on toes or incorrect in my interpretation of this.)
"Instead, the focus became how hurt some Jews felt by the language used by black leaders to express solidarity with Palestinians, who are facing forms of structural oppression that they recognize as familiar."
Based on what I have read, the British basically were promising Palestine to both sides during WWI. They used the promise of a Arabic state to help get Muslim groups throughout the Middle East to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. Then once the Ottoman Empire was defeated they made their choice.
You're right. Like I said, my history may be colored by the education I received. I was honestly never even taught about the Hussein Correspondence and have only learned about it recently. I started with the Balfour Declaration in my little history because it was the British choice that kicked off the current conflict.
I recently watched this documentary on PBS www.pbs.org/show/1913-seeds-conflict/ It was incredibly enlightening. I think you can only watch the whole thing if you have PBS Passport (so if you donate some money to PBS) but it's honestly worth it, and I'm willing to share my login if people don't want to donate (but really, support public television, lol).
even if BLM and movement for black lives are the same - and this is in fact their position:
"The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people. The US requires Israel to use 75 percent of all the military aid it receives to buy US-made arms. Consequently, every year billions of dollars are funneled from US taxpayers to hundreds of arms corporations, who then wage lobbying campaigns pushing for even more foreign military aid. The results of this policy are twofold: it not only diverts much needed funding from domestic education and social programs, but it makes US citizens complicit in the abuses committed by the Israeli government. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
How is this "calling for the elimination" of Jewish people and a reason to boycott BLM? Some people here are saying they don't want to be seen as synonymous with Israel, as American Jews they would like to be separated from the terrible actions of the Israeli government towards Palestine and they do not condone these actions. Is the word apartheid (And the word genocide of course - both very loaded words) in the paragraph above the only part that is troublesome, or is it the general dissent towards Israel and it's behavior towards Palestinians? I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that it was a widely held belief that Israel commits awful human rights violations against Palestinians and that our providing arms to Israel does make us complicit in this.
If the words genocide and apartheid were removed/rephrased but the general position remained the same, would the BLM position be accepted more readily?
Is the information on the movement for black lives site factually incorrect?
Like many people I haven't stepped in I have just been reading because I really don't know a ton about this issue/conflict and I feel not educated enough to weigh in on such a heated topic. However, I do want to give my friend fryjack2 a hug and say thank you for weighing in as the other side of this is clearly heavily underrepresented here and I really appreciate hearing your viewpoint. I acknowledge it must have been very difficult for you to participate in this discussion.
So now barcelonagirl is trying to make me out to be a racist because I didn't realize that there was a difference between two groups that both use the same hashtags and fight for the same thing; especially when BLM is a new movement/ organization that I think we would all agree is not specifically defined like the NAACP or the ADL? Especially since I specifically said that I am supportive of black freedom, rights, and justice multiple times in this thread? I just won't donate or march with specific groups that call for my destruction through the destruction of Israel.
I only brought it up because she inferred that I actively oppress black and brown people, and peddled lies about the Israeli government specifically to inflame racial tensions in this thread in order to justify her bigotry.
But she can tell me to "own what I am", call me Becky as an insult, and tell me that I am a white person with all the power who is an active oppressor, and y'all don't condemn her.
I have suffered significantly because I am a Jew. My family has been murdered by anti-Semites for generations. I have been assaulted and spit on, yelled at in the street, kept out of organizations and jobs, and been treated like a second class citizen my entire life. I am white; I was born to a white family and adopted, and even though I am not racially Jewish I am still subjected to these injustices. My Ashlenazi parents, Hispanic brother, and Mizrahi cousins have it much worse than I do.
This stopped being a political discussion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict when the OP inadvertently posted anti-Semitic articles that were masquerading as pro-Palestinian viewpoints. I don't expect everyone to recognize that, but I do expect that my viewpoint as the person being insulted and maligned in those articles to be viewed as valid. That did not happen by specific posters, the lack was not called out, and that is shameful on a board that rountinely demands that behavior on the behalf of every other marginalized group..
I agree. We should equally support and defend everyone in situations like this. It feels like the original discussion was derailed which only served to cause confusion and frustration
Post by hopecounts on Jun 26, 2017 10:47:52 GMT -5
laurack Did you read my post about the diplomatic and legal impact of using those terms? That's the issue, once a state is declared an Apartheid state it is a rogue nation and other nations have the diplomatic freedom to attack/blockade/etc it Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that would not be upset to see it disappear ands be replaced with a single Palestinian state. Given the history of attacks on Israel by its neighbors I don't feel confident they wouldn't use such an excuse to attack again in an effort to end Israel. Maybe they are much more settled into it then it generally seems but that's not a risk I am comfortable with given the history.
I mean the Camp David Accords were in the late 70s so not a lot of time since semi-peace was in place between Israel and Egypt
And the Holocaust shows what happens when the Jewish people don't have a safe and strong Israel to freely run to when they are next attacked.
I'm mulling over this article. The authors are the Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (Rebecca Vilkomerson), the Past Board Chair of the Inter-Faith Peace Builders (Ilise Benshushan Cohen), and a writer/poet/activist of Puerto Rican/Ukrainian Jewish descent (Aurora Levins Morales) who is well known in Latina feminism circles. It has a take on the wording of the section of the manifesto referencing Israel/Palestine that may be worth discussing: www.thenation.com/article/american-jews-should-support-the-movement-for-black-lives-platform/
(But as someone who is neither Jewish nor a POC, I hope that I'm not stepping on toes or incorrect in my interpretation of this.
ETA: I also am of the opinion - as a white, non-Jewish majority - that apartheid and genocide are loaded words that shouldn't be used in the context in the manifesto. Other words could have been chosen that are less triggering to their Jewish brethren and supporters.)
Thanks for posting this. It resonated with me last year, and it still does. I'm a member of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), though very tangentially involved, and I feel like I should note that JVP is far left of the mainstream American Jewish community on these issues and in its approach.
even if BLM and movement for black lives are the same - and this is in fact their position:
"The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people. The US requires Israel to use 75 percent of all the military aid it receives to buy US-made arms. Consequently, every year billions of dollars are funneled from US taxpayers to hundreds of arms corporations, who then wage lobbying campaigns pushing for even more foreign military aid. The results of this policy are twofold: it not only diverts much needed funding from domestic education and social programs, but it makes US citizens complicit in the abuses committed by the Israeli government. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
How is this "calling for the elimination" of Jewish people and a reason to boycott BLM? Some people here are saying they don't want to be seen as synonymous with Israel, as American Jews they would like to be separated from the terrible actions of the Israeli government towards Palestine and they do not condone these actions. Is the word apartheid (And the word genocide of course - both very loaded words) in the paragraph above the only part that is troublesome, or is it the general dissent towards Israel and it's behavior towards Palestinians? I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that it was a widely held belief that Israel commits awful human rights violations against Palestinians and that our providing arms to Israel does make us complicit in this.
If the words genocide and apartheid were removed/rephrased but the general position remained the same, would the BLM position be accepted more readily?
Is the information on the movement for black lives site factually incorrect?
Like many people I haven't stepped in I have just been reading because I really don't know a ton about this issue/conflict and I feel not educated enough to weigh in on such a heated topic. However, I do want to give my friend fryjack2 a hug and say thank you for weighing in as the other side of this is clearly heavily underrepresented here and I really appreciate hearing your viewpoint. I acknowledge it must have been very difficult for you to participate in this discussion.
This doesn't answer your question, but I think there's a big difference between individual Jewish Americans expressing anger/frustration/outrage/anxiety/fear/whatever at the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians and Jewish leaders/Jewish organizations doing so.
even if BLM and movement for black lives are the same - and this is in fact their position:
"The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people. The US requires Israel to use 75 percent of all the military aid it receives to buy US-made arms. Consequently, every year billions of dollars are funneled from US taxpayers to hundreds of arms corporations, who then wage lobbying campaigns pushing for even more foreign military aid. The results of this policy are twofold: it not only diverts much needed funding from domestic education and social programs, but it makes US citizens complicit in the abuses committed by the Israeli government. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
How is this "calling for the elimination" of Jewish people and a reason to boycott BLM? Some people here are saying they don't want to be seen as synonymous with Israel, as American Jews they would like to be separated from the terrible actions of the Israeli government towards Palestine and they do not condone these actions. Is the word apartheid (And the word genocide of course - both very loaded words) in the paragraph above the only part that is troublesome, or is it the general dissent towards Israel and it's behavior towards Palestinians? I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that it was a widely held belief that Israel commits awful human rights violations against Palestinians and that our providing arms to Israel does make us complicit in this.
If the words genocide and apartheid were removed/rephrased but the general position remained the same, would the BLM position be accepted more readily?
Is the information on the movement for black lives site factually incorrect?
Like many people I haven't stepped in I have just been reading because I really don't know a ton about this issue/conflict and I feel not educated enough to weigh in on such a heated topic. However, I do want to give my friend fryjack2 a hug and say thank you for weighing in as the other side of this is clearly heavily underrepresented here and I really appreciate hearing your viewpoint. I acknowledge it must have been very difficult for you to participate in this discussion.
I know the thread is really long but there were some very good points made upthread about why specific terms and labels take on a different impact for the security of Israel.
laurack Did you read my post about the diplomatic and legal impact of using those terms? That's the issue, once a state is declared an Apartheid state it is a rogue nation and other nations have the diplomatic freedom to attack/blockade/etc it Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that would not be upset to see it disappear ands be replaced with a single Palestinian state. Given the history of attacks on Israel by its neighbors I don't feel confident they wouldn't use such an excuse to attack again in an effort to end Israel. Maybe they are much more settled into it then it generally seems but that's not a risk I am comfortable with given the history.
I mean the Camp David Accords were in the late 70s so not a lot of time since semi-peace was in place between Israel and Egypt
And the Holocaust shows what happens when the Jewish people don't have a safe and strong Israel to freely run to when they are next attacked.
Thank you- these are excellent points. I apologize if my questions were offensive, like I said I do want to understand both sides and it can be very difficult as it is so emotional and both sides are victims of oppression.
I also want to apologize to my friend rjamz - I should have jumped in sooner to defend her and the other Jewish ladies here instead of just reading and not knowing what to say, therefore saying nothing at all.
laurack Did you read my post about the diplomatic and legal impact of using those terms? That's the issue, once a state is declared an Apartheid state it is a rogue nation and other nations have the diplomatic freedom to attack/blockade/etc it Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that would not be upset to see it disappear ands be replaced with a single Palestinian state. Given the history of attacks on Israel by its neighbors I don't feel confident they wouldn't use such an excuse to attack again in an effort to end Israel. Maybe they are much more settled into it then it generally seems but that's not a risk I am comfortable with given the history.
I mean the Camp David Accords were in the late 70s so not a lot of time since semi-peace was in place between Israel and Egypt
And the Holocaust shows what happens when the Jewish people don't have a safe and strong Israel to freely run to when they are next attacked.
I do want to understand both sides and it can be very difficult as it is so emotional and both sides are victims of oppression.
This is a key point of why this is such a hard topic to discuss. Both sides are victims of oppression so as someone said above how do you balance respecting both sides. It's tough and Israeli policies to the Palestinians in the conquered territories are awful but Israel also has a right to exist and addressing those policies without endangering Israel is tough.
It was done to troll written with malintent. Not my finest moment. I do apologize for that.
I know you've apologized but I wanted to say to your face that that was super fucked up.
I truly didn't think it was done intentionally and I will own my own shit that I was scoffing at the offense taken toward Becky. To know that you used it to intentionally hurt Jewish posters makes me feel complicit.
Fuck man. We can't ask others to go hard with us and then do fucked up shit like this. Hell we can't even say we don't expect people to be allies but want people to acknowledge their own racism and then do shit like this.
I'm being hard on you because I'm hard on others when they fuck up and offend WOC.
Yes. I wasn't around after my last comment on like pg 4 or something and I am just getting to the end. While people have accused me of things that are definitely false and I do not agree with, I have never gone out of my way to try to hurt anyone here. Just isn't my style. I saw you liking a lot of my posts barcelonagirl, but I am not down with attacking people because of who they are.
I did think the whole Becky discussion was ridiculous, but that is because I was considering my own world view of the word/song/etc. But that isn't the point. Jewish people said it was offensive and we demand others to accept when POC say something is offensive without question. I should have done the same then.
This stopped being a political discussion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict when the OP inadvertently posted anti-Semitic articles that were masquerading as pro-Palestinian viewpoints. I don't expect everyone to recognize that, but I do expect that my viewpoint as the person being insulted and maligned in those articles to be viewed as valid. That did not happen by specific posters, the lack was not called out, and that is shameful on a board that rountinely demands that behavior on the behalf of every other marginalized group..
I know I'm not able to be objective in this matter, but just to add to this a little (without jumping on the OP who apologized/clarified), it felt like the equivalent of someone coming in here and dropping links from Breitbart as their source. Then when people called out the sources, they were accused of jumping on the OP.
Later on, a poster characterized posters' feelings on Israel (a land established so those posters and their families would always have a safe spot to even exist) as "loyalty to a country." That was very offensive to me.
Then further on, as it got heated as these threads do, barcelonagirl said to calm down because it's just an internet argument. But it isn't "just" an internet argument when your family has personally suffered so much due to views similar to those expressed in the thread. It's not just an internet argument when your mom tells you about being so happy to find 1 living cousin in Israel because she grew up thinking every single aunt/uncle had been killed before having children. It's not just an internet argument when your community center is shut down multiple times for bomb threats.
I'm not saying this to jump on any one poster. I want to say that the escalation of the thread felt very personal because it is a very personal thing.
This stopped being a political discussion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict when the OP inadvertently posted anti-Semitic articles that were masquerading as pro-Palestinian viewpoints. I don't expect everyone to recognize that, but I do expect that my viewpoint as the person being insulted and maligned in those articles to be viewed as valid. That did not happen by specific posters, the lack was not called out, and that is shameful on a board that rountinely demands that behavior on the behalf of every other marginalized group..
I know I'm not able to be objective in this matter, but just to add to this a little (without jumping on the OP who apologized/clarified), it felt like the equivalent of someone coming in here and dropping links from Breitbart as their source. Then when people called out the sources, they were accused of jumping on the OP.
Later on, a poster characterized posters' feelings on Israel (a land established so those posters and their families would always have a safe spot to even exist) as "loyalty to a country." That was very offensive to me.
Then further on, as it got heated as these threads do, barcelonagirl said to calm down because it's just an internet argument. But it isn't "just" an internet argument when your family has personally suffered so much due to views similar to those expressed in the thread. It's not just an internet argument when your mom tells you about being so happy to find 1 living cousin in Israel because she grew up thinking every single aunt/uncle had been killed before having children. It's not just an internet argument when your community center is shut down multiple times for bomb threats.
I'm not saying this to jump on any one poster. I want to say that the escalation of the thread felt very personal because it is a very personal thing.
I know you said you are not calling out any poster, but I was the first one to state that it felt like the OP was being jumped on. Because it is hard to take tone on a message board, I know I personally try to take what people post in the best light. So when the OP posted those articles, I took them not as her personal opinions, but expounding on things that she was hearing IRL. I don't think I was wrong in my interpretation. Maybe I was more sensitive to that because I felt like something similar happened to me, but whatever.
As for the rest, I was not around when it went down and am just getting caught up and yes, it was all seriously fucked up. But I think it was clear that the majority of posters did not agree with that line of thinking. Or at least I hope it is clear now.
Post by barcelonagirl on Jun 26, 2017 11:48:43 GMT -5
It was wrong of me to personally attack the Jewish ladies on this board.
I felt a certain why about my immediate branding as an anti-semite because I reacted in support of that U.N. piece. My being black impacts my view of the world and that's why I brought up BLM. It seems their feeling with respect to Israel's political policies with respect to the Palestinian people is similar. Are they anti-semites too?
It was wrong of me to personally attack the Jewish ladies on this board.
I felt a certain why about my immediate branding as an anti-semite because I reacted in support of that U.N. piece. My being black impacts my view of the world and that's why I brought up BLM. It seems their feeling with respect to Israel's political policies with respect to the Palestinian people is similar. Are they anti-semites too?
Can you expand on this? Because I'm interpreting this in one way and it's possible you don't mean it in the way I'm interpreting it.
It was wrong of me to personally attack the Jewish ladies on this board.
I felt a certain why about my immediate branding as an anti-semite because I reacted in support of that U.N. piece. My being black impacts my view of the world and that's why I brought up BLM. It seems their feeling with respect to Israel's political policies with respect to the Palestinian people is similar. Are they anti-semites too?
Again, as a non-Jewish white person, I would have to say read the responses of the Jewish women on this board who outright stated why they felt hurt and betrayed by the manifesto as supported by the Movement for Black Lives and supported by the BLM. It is anti-Israeii on its face and with the history of the Jews, the foundation of Israel and the Israel/Palestine relations, then yes, that specific wording could be considered anti-Semite. They are using words like "apartheid" and "genocide" against a nation and a people that are surrounded by enemies intent on the destruction of the nation and its members.
Oppressors can be oppressed as well. The wording should be scrutinized and considered carefully from *both* contexts. They should have consulted with Jews, as victims, while considering this particular point. And in not doing so, they are committing anti-Semitic actions in word and deed.
ETA: And imo, in asking this question, where it can be interpreted in this manner, it rather negates the apology to the Jewish women of this board.
It was wrong of me to personally attack the Jewish ladies on this board.
I felt a certain why about my immediate branding as an anti-semite because I reacted in support of that U.N. piece. My being black impacts my view of the world and that's why I brought up BLM. It seems their feeling with respect to Israel's political policies with respect to the Palestinian people is similar. Are they anti-semites too?
Can you expand on this? Because I'm interpreting this in one way and it's possible you don't mean it in the way I'm interpreting it.
Sure. From the BLM statement "Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
This is explains why it appears that I'm doubling down. Is this inaccurate?
Can you expand on this? Because I'm interpreting this in one way and it's possible you don't mean it in the way I'm interpreting it.
Sure. From the BLM statement "Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
This is explains why it appears that I'm doubling down. Is this inaccurate?
Ah, OK. Got it. I think there is some truth to BLM's statement here. Does it paint an accurate picture of what is happening in the occupied territories? I don't know. I know that homes have been bulldozed in the territories. I know that IDF does detain and arrest Palestinians, including youth. I know that Palestinians have to go through many checkpoints on a regular basis.
Sure. From the BLM statement "Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
This is explains why it appears that I'm doubling down. Is this inaccurate?
Ah, OK. Got it. I think there is some truth to BLM's statement here. Does it paint an accurate picture of what is happening in the occupied territories? I don't know. I know that homes have been bulldozed in the territories. I know that IDF does detain and arrest Palestinians, including youth. I know that Palestinians have to go through many checkpoints on a regular basis.
I guess what I'm really struggling with is is it possible to anti-Israel and not anti-semetic???
Sure. From the BLM statement "Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
This is explains why it appears that I'm doubling down. Is this inaccurate?
Ah, OK. Got it. I think there is some truth to BLM's statement here. Does it paint an accurate picture of what is happening in the occupied territories? I don't know. I know that homes have been bulldozed in the territories. I know that IDF does detain and arrest Palestinians, including youth. I know that Palestinians have to go through many checkpoints on a regular basis.
But again, the policies of the israeli government are not the policies of american jews, and to blame american jews for those policies is bullshit.
Can you expand on this? Because I'm interpreting this in one way and it's possible you don't mean it in the way I'm interpreting it.
Sure. From the BLM statement "Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall."
This is explains why it appears that I'm doubling down. Is this inaccurate?
You are again negating the thoughts of a significant portion of women on this board whose families and ethnicities and religion have been the cause of genocide for generations. They outright stated their reasons on why the use of words like apartheid and genocide are not valid. Apartheid-LIKE is not apartheid per-se. And the use of the term gives basis for other countries to blockade and invade, which would give rise to neighboring countries to do so with impunity. Israel has NOT been declared an apartheid-state by any country or the UN. The war is not a unilateral genocide of Palestinians (afaik, but I'm not knowledgeable on that score so take it for what it's worth.)
My former daycare provider and her familiy, who was like a second family to me and mine, is Palestinian. My former employer's wife, who was a dear friend, is Israeli. There is too much emotion on both sides to be able to see either clearly. A two-state solution is the best solution for all, imo. And using words like "apartheid" and "genocide" and "decimation" will not further this agenda.
You are supporting a Palestinian solution at the expense of an Israeli and Jewish solution.
ETA: Posted while Barcelonagirl and al320 were discussing.
Ah, OK. Got it. I think there is some truth to BLM's statement here. Does it paint an accurate picture of what is happening in the occupied territories? I don't know. I know that homes have been bulldozed in the territories. I know that IDF does detain and arrest Palestinians, including youth. I know that Palestinians have to go through many checkpoints on a regular basis.
But again, the policies of the israeli government are not the policies of american jews, and to blame american jews for those policies is bullshit.
When? Cause I got called antisemitic because I said Israel is an apartheid state. I place the blame squarely and heavily on Israel's shoulders with a little lean from the U.S. government.
But again, the policies of the israeli government are not the policies of american jews, and to blame american jews for those policies is bullshit.
When? Cause I got called antisemitic because I said Israel is an apartheid state. I place the blame squarely and heavily on Israel's shoulders with a little lean from the U.S. government.
You admitted you personally attacked the jewish ladies on this board. Thats when.
Post by irishbride2 on Jun 26, 2017 12:15:48 GMT -5
I think being anti-Israel and disagreeing with some of their policies are different things. If you believe that Israel shouldn't exist, that is much different than criticizing things they do. And they will receive different reactions.
Ah, OK. Got it. I think there is some truth to BLM's statement here. Does it paint an accurate picture of what is happening in the occupied territories? I don't know. I know that homes have been bulldozed in the territories. I know that IDF does detain and arrest Palestinians, including youth. I know that Palestinians have to go through many checkpoints on a regular basis.
I guess what I'm really struggling with is is it possible to anti-Israel and not anti-semetic???
This depends on whether by "anti-Israel" you mean (poorly worded, but here goes), "I am opposed to the existence of a state established as a safe harbor for the Jewish people" or "I'm opposed to many actions taken by the current Israeli government." If it's the latter, you'll be joined by many American Jews, including me, and many Israelis. An important publisher of studies of the occupation and its impact is actually Israeli: www.btselem.org/
Ah, OK. Got it. I think there is some truth to BLM's statement here. Does it paint an accurate picture of what is happening in the occupied territories? I don't know. I know that homes have been bulldozed in the territories. I know that IDF does detain and arrest Palestinians, including youth. I know that Palestinians have to go through many checkpoints on a regular basis.
I guess what I'm really struggling with is is it possible to anti-Israel and not anti-semetic???
No. But you can be against the Israeli government's policies toward Palestinians. You can be anti-oppression. You can speak out against the settlements and the occupation. However, you can not be full-stop anti-Israel as that implies you are against Israel. You are against the country's establishment and existence and since it's whole reason for being is to create a safe place for the world's Jews to come to, then one who is anti-Israel is effectively anti-Jewish, i.e. anti-Semitic.