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/
It's the latter and is what BLM is fighting for. But if we can't get past "Israel is an apartheid state." Without people thinking I'm calling for it's destruction, I just don't know.
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.
I just read the article (even though OH MY GOD I need to work) and I don't agree with everything in it, it's a viewpoint I rarely hear and this point about "making Jewish support [for BLM] conditional on silence about Palestine" really hit me.
As did this statement from the Jews of Color Caucus: "Recent statements…condemning the BLM Platform also send the message that the lives of Black Jews (along with Black gentiles) directly affected by US police brutality are less important than protecting Israel from scrutiny. We reject this message and call on these groups to commit themselves to honor the leadership of Jews of Color, including those critical of Israel."
I can't tell you the shame and horror I'm currently feeling, because I KNOW there are Jews of color. There is a famous black synagogue right here in Chicago that I want to take my children to. And yet, here I am, doing exactly what this statement is talking about. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME??
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.
I'm not Jewish, so certainly not an authority on the topic, but repeatedly calling Israel an apartheid state when it does not meet the specific legal definition of apartheid, despite repeated explanations as to why that language is problematic *is* showing open hostility towards Jews, which is the very definition of anti-Semitism.
You can disagree with Israel's actions as a nation without being anti-Semitic.
You cannot call Israel an apartheid state without being anti-Semitic.
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.
I never thought about that in that manner. I think the whole "Anti-American, Anti-gay, anti-black" I read as "against" not annihilate.
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/
It's the latter and is what BLM is fighting for. But if we can't get past "Israel is an apartheid state." Without people thinking I'm calling for it's destruction, I just don't know.
Thanks for the link!
I do not mean this in a snarky way at all, but have you reread the thread this morning now that you aren't drinking? People explained many times why that particular word is an issue. You can discuss the problems that exist in Israel. No one in this thread is saying they aren't major issues.
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/
It's the latter and is what BLM is fighting for. But if we can't get past "Israel is an apartheid state." Without people thinking I'm calling for it's destruction, I just don't know.
Thanks for the link!
That's precisely why words matter, and why the Jewish community should have been involved in discussion regarding the Israeli state and its foundation and the need for its continued existence. Again, oppressors can also be the oppressed - and as such, in danger for their very existence as well. Apartheid and Genocide have meaning, and to the American Jews (and Jews all around the world) to call the nation that is their ideal and their heritage an apartheid state (when it has not been declared so) gives rise to its enemy nations to call for its destruction. And for the BLM to support the Palestinians (and therefore the Palestinian solution) by using those words, the very existence of the Israeli state is called into question and its safety put at risk.
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.
I just read the article (even though OH MY GOD I need to work) and I don't agree with everything in it, it's a viewpoint I rarely hear and this point about "making Jewish support [for BLM] conditional on silence about Palestine" really hit me.
As did this statement from the Jews of Color Caucus: "Recent statements…condemning the BLM Platform also send the message that the lives of Black Jews (along with Black gentiles) directly affected by US police brutality are less important than protecting Israel from scrutiny. We reject this message and call on these groups to commit themselves to honor the leadership of Jews of Color, including those critical of Israel."
I can't tell you the shame and horror I'm currently feeling, because I KNOW there are Jews of color. There is a famous black synagogue right here in Chicago that I want to take my children to. And yet, here I am, doing exactly what this statement is talking about. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME??
Nothing. But if you need an answer, inherited trauma.
"You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."
Jews in All Hues is another incredible, and incredibly important, organization. If there's a chapter near you, I can't recommend their programs highly enough.
I just read the article (even though OH MY GOD I need to work) and I don't agree with everything in it, it's a viewpoint I rarely hear and this point about "making Jewish support [for BLM] conditional on silence about Palestine" really hit me.
As did this statement from the Jews of Color Caucus: "Recent statements…condemning the BLM Platform also send the message that the lives of Black Jews (along with Black gentiles) directly affected by US police brutality are less important than protecting Israel from scrutiny. We reject this message and call on these groups to commit themselves to honor the leadership of Jews of Color, including those critical of Israel."
I can't tell you the shame and horror I'm currently feeling, because I KNOW there are Jews of color. There is a famous black synagogue right here in Chicago that I want to take my children to. And yet, here I am, doing exactly what this statement is talking about. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME??
Nothing. But if you need an answer, inherited trauma.
"You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."
Jews in All Hues is another incredible, and incredibly important, organization. If there's a chapter near you, I can't recommend their programs highly enough.
Thank you. It looks like their website is under construction, but I'm on their FB page right now. I'm willing to bet there's a chapter here, and I'm definitely going to get involved.
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???
Anti-Israel is such a loaded term. The intention was always to have two states. You can be in favor of self-rule for the Palestinians and not be anti-Israel (i.e. a two-state solution) ... or you can be in favor of self-rule for the Palestinians and still be anti-Israel (I think many Arab countries fell into this latter category when they attacked Israel in 1948 ... and again in 1967 ... and again in 1973).
If you're the latter, then yes, that's a pretty anti-Semitic position to take.
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.
I'm not Jewish, so certainly not an authority on the topic, but repeatedly calling Israel an apartheid state when it does not meet the specific legal definition of apartheid, despite repeated explanations as to why that language is problematic *is* showing open hostility towards Jews, which is the very definition of anti-Semitism.
You can disagree with Israel's actions as a nation without being anti-Semitic.
You cannot call Israel an apartheid state without being anti-Semitic.
I hesitate to say this, but it might come up:
There are Jews who will use the word "apartheid" to describe Israel, including Israeli Jews and American Jews. JVP, an organization that I've mentioned a few times in this thread, does use this word, or at least has. I want to acknowledge that, because if this goes the way the last thread on this topic did, it will come up as a "see, this Jewish organization uses that word!" (JVP is very intersectional, and fully endorsed the Movement for Black Lives platform.) Anyway, I think it's fine to acknowledge that there are Jews who use that word, including Jews who identify as Zionist.
HOWEVER, it's a divisive word that causes pain. Why insist on using it again and again? It derails entire conversations---AWAY from ending the occupation. I just don't understand the doubling down on it.
I'm not Jewish, so certainly not an authority on the topic, but repeatedly calling Israel an apartheid state when it does not meet the specific legal definition of apartheid, despite repeated explanations as to why that language is problematic *is* showing open hostility towards Jews, which is the very definition of anti-Semitism.
You can disagree with Israel's actions as a nation without being anti-Semitic.
You cannot call Israel an apartheid state without being anti-Semitic.
I hesitate to say this, but it might come up:
There are Jews who will use the word "apartheid" to describe Israel, including Israeli Jews and American Jews. JVP, an organization that I've mentioned a few times in this thread, does use this word, or at least has. I want to acknowledge that, because if this goes the way the last thread on this topic did, it will come up as a "see, this Jewish organization uses that word!" (JVP is very intersectional, and fully endorsed the Movement for Black Lives platform.) Anyway, I think it's fine to acknowledge that there are Jews who use that word, including Jews who identify as Zionist.
HOWEVER, it's a divisive word that causes pain. Why insist on using it again and again? It derails entire conversations---AWAY from ending the occupation. I just don't understand the doubling down on it.
Thank you for pointing this out. I'm against using the word/s for this reason alone. There are other words, and as pointed out, it's a legal term, with defined meaning. -LIKE doesn't mean PER SE, and when it is not per-se, the word should not be used (at least not without the obligatory asterisk). It's "loaded for bear" as the saying goes. They are likely using it for exactly that reason, but it's wrong to do so.
I'm not Jewish, so certainly not an authority on the topic, but repeatedly calling Israel an apartheid state when it does not meet the specific legal definition of apartheid, despite repeated explanations as to why that language is problematic *is* showing open hostility towards Jews, which is the very definition of anti-Semitism.
You can disagree with Israel's actions as a nation without being anti-Semitic.
You cannot call Israel an apartheid state without being anti-Semitic.
I hesitate to say this, but it might come up:
There are Jews who will use the word "apartheid" to describe Israel, including Israeli Jews and American Jews. JVP, an organization that I've mentioned a few times in this thread, does use this word, or at least has. I want to acknowledge that, because if this goes the way the last thread on this topic did, it will come up as a "see, this Jewish organization uses that word!" (JVP is very intersectional, and fully endorsed the Movement for Black Lives platform.) Anyway, I think it's fine to acknowledge that there are Jews who use that word, including Jews who identify as Zionist.
HOWEVER, it's a divisive word that causes pain. Why insist on using it again and again? It derails entire conversations---AWAY from ending the occupation. I just don't understand the doubling down on it.
Thanks for that input! That's an important piece of the puzzle as well.
OP here: I apologize for the "post and run" nature of my original involvement. As with many discussions on CEP, I tend to read the threads and read up on the topics and links to try to educate myself where people are coming from and has already been mentioned, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is complex and even trying to research details and understand it leads to more confusion since there are many non-neutral sources of information out there
I do want to clarify again that I wasn't posting those articles in support of them but rather, as someone mentioned, in the vein of "hey, this is stuff I'm hearing and I don't know much about this topic". I will say I knew they were "Anti-Israel" (to use a still muddy term) but was ignorant of the Anti-Semitism in the articles and for that I apologize as well.
Again, this really is such a difficult and nuanced topic for an outsider to understand. It's good to get clarity on some things: for one, hopecounts breaking it down in "israel for dummies" terms of "Israel exists so that that Jews worldwide always have a place to go in case of another persecution/extermination campaign" which I never quite understood it that way. And to get clarity that one can be for the existence of Israel but not for their policies and that doesn't necessarily make you an anti-semite or even "Anti-Israel". Again it's difficult for someone not involved in the situation to understand the nature of heated and inflammatory comments such as about BDS, an organization that I'd never heard of, and the idea of Israel as an apartheid state, a concept that I didn't realize was floating around.
For the moment I don't have a lot to add other than trying to learn from the various posters here but I'm horrified that there has been some anti-semitic views here (including what I may have inadvertantly contributed to) and I'm disappointed in how this thread went, since that was not my intention.
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/
It's the latter and is what BLM is fighting for. But if we can't get past "Israel is an apartheid state." Without people thinking I'm calling for it's destruction, I just don't know.
Thanks for the link!
Listen, I know others have responded to you kindly, but you need to stop calling Israel an apartheid state. Jews have explained why, a Palestinian has explained why, as well as others. In this context, it is a loaded term (as has been explained many times) and at this point, I cannot think of another reason outside of anti-Semitic ones for why you've continued to use this phrase today (and not only once).
the best place to start is Wikipedia as mentioned. Then read up on the expulsions of Jews from France, Spain, and England. Then read up on the Pogroms in Russia. Then read up on The Dreyfus Affair The voyage of the St. Louis Read up on Blue Laws and why Jewish summer retreats (Kellerman's in Dirty Dancing is a great fictional example of a Jewish resort) existed Read up on Jewish right of return to Israel
The reality is you can't see the Israel/Palestine issue clearly if you don't get WHY it's so important to the Jewish people. It's a touchy subject for Jews because they have always been at risk of being scapegoated, attacked and kicked out of any country they live in. They need Israel to have a safe harbor the next time that happens. Given the current environment that might be sooner the later so yes when the right of existence for Israel is challenged they get touchy.
So.... I removed the tag, but can we address this in a specific way? As in, similar to the racialist understanding threads we have bookmarked in the pinned Recommendation thread, can we start a thread on this with specific recommendations on reading, documentaries, etc. for both sides of the conflict?
Can I just say one thing about the apartheid thing that's been bugging me? I understand the sentiment of not using the term apartheid in the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations but help me understand where people keep talking about the "legal definition of apartheid" being strictly about keeping a group out of govement. Maybe my brain is full and I haven't been able to absorb that in my reading but the Wikipedia article on the Crime of Apartheid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid) lists different definitions from the ICC and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
PLEASE understand I'm NOT saying that I support views of Israel as an apartheid state, I'm just saying that the definition of apartheid is more fluid than what some have been describing as "legal definition". I'm happy to be educated more about it.
Can I just say one thing about the apartheid thing that's been bugging me? I understand the sentiment of not using the term apartheid in the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations but help me understand where people keep talking about the "legal definition of apartheid" being strictly about keeping a group out of govement. Maybe my brain is full and I haven't been able to absorb that in my reading but the Wikipedia article on the Crime of Apartheid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid) lists different definitions from the ICC and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
PLEASE understand I'm NOT saying that I support views of Israel as an apartheid state, I'm just saying that the definition of apartheid is more fluid than what some have been describing as "legal definition". I'm happy to be educated more about it.
I don't understand what you mean by this. The legal definition of apartheid doesn't strictly mean "keeping a group out of government" and I don't think anyone said that it did.
Can I just say one thing about the apartheid thing that's been bugging me? I understand the sentiment of not using the term apartheid in the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations but help me understand where people keep talking about the "legal definition of apartheid" being strictly about keeping a group out of govement. Maybe my brain is full and I haven't been able to absorb that in my reading but the Wikipedia article on the Crime of Apartheid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid) lists different definitions from the ICC and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
PLEASE understand I'm NOT saying that I support views of Israel as an apartheid state, I'm just saying that the definition of apartheid is more fluid than what some have been describing as "legal definition". I'm happy to be educated more about it.
I don't understand what you mean by this. The legal definition of apartheid doesn't strictly mean "keeping a group out of government" and I don't think anyone said that it did.
Yes actually someone did say that, about 2 days ago, they said (paraphrasing) they read Wikipedia and the definition was that the oppressed group was kept out of government so by definition Israel couldn't be an apartheid society since Palestinians held positions in Israeli government. I tried to search for it but I don't see it so it may have been deleted and I can't remember who posted it now. And people keep talking about the "legal definition of apartheid" and I'm not clear on if they're referring to that post on the thread or what.
I said the first point in a multi point definition (the one from Wikipedia) is the exclusion of minorities from government participation. I am not a lawyer or a human rights watch expert by any means, so I can't say which definition is right or wrong or accepted legally. I can only say that I trust that Wikipedia's definition is accurate and inclusive of the main points that would be common across more than one context. If government participation is the first point, that means something to me- it's important to understanding the word's meaning.
I know that Black South Africans had no government participation or even a chance to run for office. So in Israel, where the minority group has significant government representation that condition of the definition isn't being met and therefore I would say it's not an accurate term. That doesn't excuse or justify anything. It's just yet another request to use specific descriptive language vs inflammatory blanket statements that add nothing to the conversation.
thank you for clarifying, I misread your orginal post and obviously I did a poor job of searching
Post by imobviouslystaying on Jun 26, 2017 19:22:31 GMT -5
I typed a whole lot and then my shitty internet ate the post so that was fun. Let's try this again.
To start, I want to define the terms I use in the hopes that it will lessen any misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. I don't expect that to ward off disagreement. It's possible and even likely that people will understand exactly what I'm saying and still disagree. So that's that.
"Israel" will mean Israel proper not counting the territories they occupy. "Palestinian territories" will mean territories such as the West Bank, Gaza, etc where Israel maintains some sort of disputed presence to include the settlements they've built there. "Residents and citizens" will mean those who live in Israel as defined above while "Palestinians" will mean those who live in the Palestinian territories also as defined above.
Apartheid was a system of codified governance under which all of those living in those borders found themselves classified under four racial groups. There were actual tests to determine this, mostly based on judging how your genetics played out. It didn't matter where you were born, who your parents/grandparents were, etc, you could be classified and even reclassified into whatever criteria an official deemed you part of. In my family's case, as diverse looking as we are, it is likely my daughter would be classified white, my eldest son black and my youngest son could probably pass a test deeming him coloured and then dropped back into black should his hair texture change like his brother's did. Over the course of their history, officials would move into certain areas, declare them for a certain classification (usually white) and remove everyone outside of that classification into the "proper" area.
By this definition, Israel is not an apartheid state. My understanding is that if you are a resident or citizen of Israel, your circumstances, access to services, housing/employment/education opportunities are similar regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. Of course there is discrimination and bigotry much I assume how America guarantees equal access in law but not necessarily in practice. The primary difference I've heard is that Muslim Israelis (not the proper term I'm sure but I cannot find another that doesn't open up confusion) are not subject to mandatory military service though they are permitted to volunteer.
The situation is the Palestinian territories is markedly different. The Palestinians live under an Israeli controlled occupation that employs gross human rights violations. The Palestinians do not have meaningful political representation. They are routinely and systematically denied all the rights and freedoms that should be provided by a government. There is limited freedom of movement and the government is not providing access to minimum standards in water, utilities, education, employment opportunities, etc. The situation there is untenable and I judge Israel harshly for those conditions.
fryjack2 took my earlier comments to be a dismissal of what her family faces every single day, of a denial of their limitations, of their lack of self determination, of their heartache, of their oppression. And I took her comments to be a conflation of the circumstances under which the Palestinians suffer and the treatment of Muslim and other Israeli minorities within Israel. I don't expect her to read this and have a kumbaya moment. I just wanted to clarify what I meant initially.
I just want to say how much I appreciate all of the Jewish women (and those who aren't, but also helped advocate) in here who explained their positions and gave information about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's somewhat shameful that I didn't understand it better before, but I learned a lot from this thread and feel like I have a decent grasp now on the conflict and what it means to various groups. So, thank you to all of you.
I also want to say that I have learned a lot here and questioned some of my assumptions and biases.
My perception of the conflict was shaped by growing up with family members who were very pro-Israel, right or wrong, and by the death of a classmate in a bus bombing in Gaza.
I have grown much less comfortable with the actions of the Israeli government over the years but this thread helped me look at a few different things with a new lens.