She stated that the oppressor is defining the language that can be used. American Jews are the ones in here saying that apartheid and genocide are not appropriate terms. We have received no marching orders from the state of Israel and have explained MANY times why that language does not fit (while always having to caveat that we do not agree with all of israel's actions). So yes, she did insinuate if not flat out state that at least the Jews who spoke up here are the oppressor. Conflating American Jews with Israel's actions is definitely anti-semetic.
So you are saying Jewish Americans are controlling the language on this? Does Israel consider itself an Apartheid state? Seriously, now I'm confused.
No, the Israeli government, which for all intents and purposes would represent "Israel" does not consider itself an apartheid state.
Does the Jewish population of Israel consider an apartheid state? I don't know, but according to the link bamboo00 just posted, yes they do (but I question the validity of that poll.)
Does the Arab, Palestinian, and other non-Jewish population of Israel consider it an apartheid state? I don't know that either. Still researching.
Do the Palestinians in the occupied territories (Gaza and the West Bank) consider Israel to be imposing an apartheid state with their occupation? I think it's safe to say that they do.
Post by lovelyshoes on Jun 27, 2017 13:36:37 GMT -5
Also, Israeli citizens differ on many things and they have as much control over their government as we do. Do I want the orange monster who is in the White House? No! But there he is.
I'm saying that on this board, and in this thread, to which she's responding, it is Jewish Americans saying apartheid and genocide are inappropriate terminology (so I guess controlling the language here). I would doubt that Israel considers herself an apartheid state, but again, no one representing Israel is participating in this conversation.
We aren't just talking about this board though. It has been stated several times that "we" can't allow the words apartheid and genocide to be used because it has far reaching consequences for Israel. So lets not pretend we aren't talking about the larger world in our comments.
No one here represents Israel in this conversation but we are talking about issues as they relate to Israel.
There is plenty of fruitful ground here for debate. I take issue with saying she said something that wasn't there.
It's the implication. Much like most of the other racial discussions around here, once you know the tack that a poster is taking, you know where they're going to end up. Pretty much most of what s/he's already posted has followed that same path.
Nobody is policing shit here. It's a message board - people post whatever the fuck they want and other people are free to disagree with that and call it out as being antisemitic if that's what they see. Acting like we're being censored because our jewish posters are vocal about their views is some bullshit.
There actually is such a thing as tone policing. Notice how even the question of an investigation is called anti-Semitic by the party in support of the oppression state. Allowing the oppressor to define the language stifles conversation and actions towards justice. Israel wants to get away with human rights abuses because other oppressive states can. Just think about that.
I'm attempting to tag you into the original comment. If you notice, she used the term "oppressor to define the language" in response to push back on the "tone policing" that was done in other threads. To me, it's incredibly clear who she was calling the oppressor in this context. @tooshort
Interesting. The article says that the opinion firm, Dialog, interviewed 503 Israeli Jews out of 6,000,000 in Israel to answer these questions. Is this a typical representative percentage (.0083%) to base a general national opinion?
The margin of error is less than 5%. I would be very interested if you have polling to show different attitudes. A poll by Brookings of 1,010 people in Israel in 2011 showed that 7% of Jewish Israeli respondents believed it was an apartheid relationship but 52% said legal equity but institutional and societal discrimination. Those views were 36% and 57%, respectively for Arab Israeli respondents. Obviously, institutional discrimination is happening but it may be broadly defined in the other survey.
It's the implication. Much like most of the other racial discussions around here, once you know the tack that a poster is taking, you know where they're going to end up. Pretty much most of what s/he's already posted has followed that same path.
I know what you are saying. I took issue with that comment because I basically asked the same question and I'm not trying to be hostile or anti-Semitic. I'm truly trying to wrap my head around this.
I have not seen you ask or make any insinuation remotely similar to her.
Interesting. The article says that the opinion firm, Dialog, interviewed 503 Israeli Jews out of 6,000,000 in Israel to answer these questions. Is this a typical representative percentage (.0083%) to base a general national opinion?
The margin of error is less than 5%. I would be very interested if you have polling to show different attitudes. A poll by Brookings of 1,010 people in Israel in 2011 showed that 7% of Jewish Israeli respondents believed it was an apartheid relationship but 52% said legal equity but institutional and societal discrimination. Those views were 36% and 57%, respectively for Arab Israeli respondents. Obviously, institutional discrimination is happening but it may be broadly defined in the other survey.
Polls generally mean diddly-shit. A recent one showed that 7% of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
I'm thinking it's whereswaldo or whatever. The phrasing is the same as well as the message.
I can't run IP address checks so it's just an educated guess.
Do you not know how to tag either? I don't have any other accounts and don't care enough about your opinions of me to hide behind another account but nice try. Continue to label people who disagree with you anti-semites and trolls. Like I said I'm done with this topic on this board but as you can see the point of view here isn't by any means the final word on this topic.
I'm thinking it's whereswaldo or whatever. The phrasing is the same as well as the message.
I can't run IP address checks so it's just an educated guess.
Do you not know how to tag either? I don't have any other accounts and don't care enough about your opinions of me to hide behind another account but nice try. Continue to label people who disagree with you anti-semites and trolls. Like I said I'm done with this topic on this board but as you can see the point of view here isn't by any means the final word on this topic.
I didn't feel like I should tag a troll. Besides, you were right here to read it.
I'm thinking it's whereswaldo or whatever. The phrasing is the same as well as the message.
I can't run IP address checks so it's just an educated guess.
Do you not know how to tag either? I don't have any other accounts and don't care enough about your opinions of me to hide behind another account but nice try. Continue to label people who disagree with you anti-semites and trolls. Like I said I'm done with this topic on this board but as you can see the point of view here isn't by any means the final word on this topic.
We know how to tag. When someone doesn't tag you, it's done on purpose. You're not wanted here. So now that you're done with this topic, you may leave.
I'm wondering how many times our Jewish posters have to explain why the terms genocide and apartheid are innacurate and downright insulting before they are believed/respected.
This isn't a black and white issue. There was just a fatal stabbing of an Israeli solider in Jerusalem. There have been multiple attacks within Israel proper over the last year alone. They've been classified as terrorist attacks due to the way they were carried out.
So here is a perfect example of why this is so complicated. There are people within Palestine (whether they are Palestinians I do not know and won't speak for them) who are actively targeting Israeli citizens. They try to murder people. So, Israel closes her borders and doesn't allow people who aren't "cleared" in some way to get into Israel proper. This makes perfect sense, right? Keep out the people trying to actively kill you!
Now look at it from the Palestinian side. Some radical person decided to try to stab some Jews. Now, because there is no continuous border between the West Bank and Gaza, or even parts of the West Bank due to the illegal settlements, your right of freedom to move around your own country is severely limited. This means you may have trouble getting to school or work, or much more dangerously, might have issues getting access to food, water, or even medical attention. It is inhumane.
This plays out in so may different facets of the conflict. Both sides have legitimate issues that needs to be dealt with. Both sides are the victims of violence. Both side have acted as aggressors. Both sides have done unspeakable things.
This is such a complex issue, and allowing inflammatory and false rhetoric to cloud it does nothing except for create more chaos, bloodshed, and death.
You are absolutely right. I'm not going to get a 100% definitive answer because so much of it is perception.
Thank you for continuing to engage in the conversation with me.
This, but also because there just may not be a definitive answer at this point. Or ever.
Every time I get ping-ponged between sources and perceptions and the history and commentary on this issue (where ever it is I'm researching it), it just reinforces how utterly tangled and messy the whole thing is and how so many people, millions on both sides, are caught in a web of history and politics.
I'm wondering how many times our Jewish posters have to explain why the terms genocide and apartheid are innacurate and downright insulting before they are believed/respected.
(I just really love this Sandlot gif. And the Sandlot. Like...a lot.)
Can I ask a question(honest genuine question) Do the majority of Palestinian/Palestinian-Americans believe Israel is an Apartheid state. Do they accuse Israel of genocide?
It seems like a few people here are trying to make the argument that Israel is trying to control the message here. Of course no country wants to be labeled with such language. That doesn't make it factually untrue.
*Disclaimer: I'm not calling Israel anything. I'm truly trying to understand the other perspective which we don't get to hear too much of*****
No, but it is factually untrue because of all of the reasons that have been posted over the last few months. That is why we keep shutting down the conversation about that specific thing. So if hundreds of Palestinian posters came in here and accused Israel of committing genocide and/or apartheid, I would be screaming the same thing.
I fully support hearing about what Palestinian life is like, their views on the situation, and their ideas for peace. I will not stand by silently while Israel is accused of crimes it has not committed.
No one is saying that Palestinians aren't living under an oppressive regime with their own land. Israel is occupying Palestine. But what we've all been trying to say is that calling Israel's actions/government something that it isn't has consequences, and those consequences if allowed unchecked will lead to the destruction of the Jewish state. The fact that no other country has a war of propaganda waged against it determined to eliminate it shows the specific targeting of the Jews.
I think the history and meaning of the word apartheid and all the reasons it doesn't apply to this conflict were well laid out in the other thread. And your point here is a very clear reason why it's really important to be precise in our language - that these words and concepts in particular have massive consequences. I absolutely get that.
But I actually haven't seen any explanation of why the facets of Article 7 OTHER than apartheid don't apply to the oppression of the Palestinians. Talking about the section I quoted on the first page to ask for sources. We jumped straight into why false claims are particularly hurtful, but I haven't seen anything explaining in what way they're false. The UN is biased. Is amnesty also biased? (actual question, not rhetorical) And if they are...So these things aren't happening? The Palestinians aren't being moved off their land? They aren't being detained in large numbers/having their movements restricted? I thought we were all in agreement that this shit is happening and it's awful. So is it just not widespread enough to qualify for that definition? I am TOTALLY open to the answer being that it's not widespread enough or the fact that there's an active conflict happening changes things or whatever the hell the answer might be. I'm not accusing Israel of anything, but Bucky McNewKid here is and I'd like to understand the full defense.
So who decides these things? I mean...I sure as shit don't since I have no idea 1. what constitutes widespread or what other legal definitions are at play and 2. to what extent this shit is in fact happening. That's what I was trying to ask in my earlier post and would still like to understand - what's the ICC/UN equivalent of a grand jury? Who decides if something is close enough that it should be "charged?" Have they looked at this and decided no? Is there nobody who CAN look at it since they aren't signatories? Or is a mushier issue than that? I'm trying to google and understand, but I have yet to run across a clear answer.
You stated that we "cannot let the oppressor define the language" in reference to this thread as compared to the other one that was being "policed." So let's be clear. As far as I know, we not only do not have a single member of the Israeli government on this board posting, we also have not had an Israeli post (though again, they are not responsible for every action of their government). Therefore, the only oppressor you could have been referring to is the American Jews posting on this forum.
Israel is the controlling language. Obviously, supporters of Israel's actions against Palestine will tone police accordingly. Similar to how men tone police women. It is individual men doing policing, but patriarchy collectively that controls the message and requires power. An individual man cannot tone police alone. One Jewish person cannot tone police alone. It requires a grander message to stifle any conversation of people actually reading the links and UN conventions themselves.
This is getting uncomfortably close to global conspiracy of Jews controlling everything territory.
And look - I totally understand if my question above pisses people the fuck off. There's only so much y'all can take in one day and poking at details is my nature. It's annoying. so I'll out myself as biased here - Honestly, I want to understand the details of the accusations here better so I can better refute them. Because I think the existence of Israel is vital, and I want to understand how to defend it. But why false accusations are awful isn't the whole story - I also need to understand how we know they're false. Apartheid and Genocide I've got. We covered that. The other stuff - I'm less sure about.
Also....does anybody have suggestions for groups doing good work to help the situation in some way, on both sides? Like...is there actually anything we can do? this topic is just hard as fuck when you absolutly support the right of Israel to exist, but also abhor some of the government's actions. Just like our own damn country - we're a messy mess, but we're my messy mess. I live here. I can work on it. I don't know what to do with this situation besides just seek to understand it in more detail and then....argue about it on the internet.
Israel is the controlling language. Obviously, supporters of Israel's actions against Palestine will tone police accordingly. Similar to how men tone police women. It is individual men doing policing, but patriarchy collectively that controls the message and requires power. An individual man cannot tone police alone. One Jewish person cannot tone police alone. It requires a grander message to stifle any conversation of people actually reading the links and UN conventions themselves.
This is getting uncomfortably close to global conspiracy of Jews controlling everything territory.
It is a little dog whistley nodding at that stereotype
And look - I totally understand if my question above pisses people the fuck off. There's only so much y'all can take in one day and poking at details is my nature. It's annoying. so I'll out myself as biased here - Honestly, I want to understand the details of the accusations here better so I can better refute them. Because I think the existence of Israel is vital, and I want to understand how to defend it. But why false accusations are awful isn't the whole story - I also need to understand how we know they're false. Apartheid and Genocide I've got. We covered that. The other stuff - I'm less sure about.
Also....does anybody have suggestions for groups doing good work to help the situation in some way, on both sides? Like...is there actually anything we can do? this topic is just hard as fuck when you absolutly support the right of Israel to exist, but also abhor some of the government's actions. Just like our own damn country - we're a messy mess, but we're my messy mess. I live here. I can work on it. I don't know what to do with this situation besides just seek to understand it in more detail and then....argue about it on the internet.
Doesn't piss me off! I want to come back to it but I'm going a bit cross-eyed at the moment and I'm trying to unpack some thoughts. Give me some time and I'll try to put an answer together.
Also, your questions brought up a bunch of other questions for me and I'm adding that to my never-ending Isreali-Palestinian Conflict Journal (OK, I don't really have one, but with all the Post-its around here with notes, I should just open up a notebook or something. lol!)
I'm wondering how many times our Jewish posters have to explain why the terms genocide and apartheid are innacurate and downright insulting before they are believed/respected.
It's also offensive to silence the voices of the oppressed as they search for a diplomatic intervention to their trauma. Either way, someone will be offended. No one person is the authoritative voice for the accuracy of those claims.
OP, how do you feel about Communism? Want to tell posters who grew up in Communist countries how awesome it is?
That and antisemitism ran bunnybean off, not exactly racism, but the same discounting of others experiences and tone deafness.
Tone policing is different than asking for correct word usage and for everyone to follow a method that allows productive conversation (limiting or noting bias, avoiding conflation of 2 distinct groups of people, etc). If that level of nuance is lost on you, I can only imagine how well you understand the conflict.
And I'm sure you would love to dismiss the work of Richard Fall and Rima Khalaf, as well. Only you are right. Oh, and the Trump administration that pressured the UN.
I'm wondering how many times our Jewish posters have to explain why the terms genocide and apartheid are innacurate and downright insulting before they are believed/respected.
But how many times do Palestinians have to say that they are experiencing apartheid like conditions before they are believed/respected and not dismissed by the world?
@tooshort asked upthread if Palestinians think its an apartheid state. I have no idea about majority (like her question asked) but there are many Palestinians (and non Palestinians) that read the definition of apartheid as one that is not just discrimination based on race, but also includes ethnicity, culture etc. and consider themselves to be living under an ethnic and cultural apartheid.
The MerriemWebster dictionary has this as the definition:
1: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2: separation, segregation cultural apartheid gender apartheid
Dictionary.com states this after the word apartheid:noun
1.(in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population. 2. any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.
In South Africa, it referred to government policies that segregated and oppressed nonwhites.
In the West bank and Gaza there are government policies (official and unofficial) that are specifically targeted towards oppressing Palestinians.
I've said so much and outlined examples in the other thread.
And I'll also say again, all those people aren't ignorant or anti-semitic.
I'll also say again, that I personally believe the term should be used just in reference to S. Africa and another word should be used in this situation. Most people use "oppression" but it doesn't seem as though "oppression" is encompassing all of what Palestinians are feeling otherwise they would be using that term.
This is a post and run. Sorry! I have to get my kids from camp and have plans after.
Do you not know how to tag either? I don't have any other accounts and don't care enough about your opinions of me to hide behind another account but nice try. Continue to label people who disagree with you anti-semites and trolls. Like I said I'm done with this topic on this board but as you can see the point of view here isn't by any means the final word on this topic.
I didn't feel like I should tag a troll. Besides, you were right here to read it.
Is there anything specific I've said that you consider troll-like? Because I stand by everything I have said and think I have been pretty reasonable. And I don't apologize for being pro-Palestinian.
I'm wondering how many times our Jewish posters have to explain why the terms genocide and apartheid are innacurate and downright insulting before they are believed/respected.
But how many times do Palestinians have to say that they are experiencing apartheid like conditions before they are believed/respected and not dismissed by the world?
@tooshort asked upthread if Palestinians think its an apartheid state. I have no idea about majority (like her question asked) but there are many Palestinians (and non Palestinians) that read the definition of apartheid as one that is not just discrimination based on race, but also includes ethnicity, culture etc. and consider themselves to be living under an ethnic and cultural apartheid.
The MerriemWebster dictionary has this as the definition:
1: racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa
2: separation, segregation cultural apartheid gender apartheid
Dictionary.com states this after the word apartheid:noun
1.(in the Republic of South Africa) a rigid former policy of segregating and economically and politically oppressing the nonwhite population. 2. any system or practice that separates people according to color, ethnicity, caste, etc.
In South Africa, it referred to government policies that segregated and oppressed nonwhites.
In the West bank and Gaza there are government policies (official and unofficial) that are specifically targeted towards oppressing Palestinians.
I've said so much and outlined examples in the other thread.
And I'll also say again, all those people aren't ignorant or anti-semitic.
I'll also say again, that I personally believe the term should be used just in reference to S. Africa and another word should be used in this situation. Most people use "oppression" but it doesn't seem as though "oppression" is encompassing all of what Palestinians are feeling otherwise they would be using that term.
This is a post and run. Sorry! I have to get my kids from camp and have plans after.
I think I have less of a problem with people who are being oppressed saying they are living under apartheid or apartheid-like conditions. Certainly they are entitled to articulate their conditions in the words they find most accurate. My problem is more when the word is adopted wholesale by others not directly involved, as from my understanding it's not accurate. so I think I agree with you that another term is preferable (though I also take your point about oppression not being precise enough in their view.
My struggle with the word apartheid (and again, more educated people jump in here), is that Palestinians that are living in Israel are granted the same rights (at least on paper) as Jewish citizens. Do Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza identify as ethnically different from the Palestinians living in Israel that have citizenship (this is a genuine question)?
OP, how do you feel about Communism? Want to tell posters who grew up in Communist countries how awesome it is?
That and antisemitism ran bunnybean off, not exactly racism, but the same discounting of others experiences and tone deafness.
Tone policing is different than asking for correct word usage and for everyone to follow a method that allows productive conversation (limiting or noting bias, avoiding conflation of 2 distinct groups of people, etc). If that level of nuance is lost on you, I can only imagine how well you understand the conflict.
And I'm sure you would love to dismiss the work of Richard Fall and Rima Khalaf, as well. Only you are right. Oh, and the Trump administration that pressured the UN.
And I'm sure you would love to dismiss the work of Richard Fall and Rima Khalaf, as well. Only you are right. Oh, and the Trump administration that pressured the UN.
Post by jerseyjaybird on Jun 27, 2017 14:46:06 GMT -5
I'm always interested in reading more and suggest the following lefty Jewish organizations doing (IMHO) good work on Israel/Palestine:
B'Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories www.btselem.org/
T'Ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights www.truah.org/
More controversial is Breaking the Silence, which gathers testimonies from former IDF soldiers: www.breakingthesilence.org.il/
fryjack2, I would also like to support Palestinian organizations, and if you have any to suggest, I'd be grateful. I'm cautious around well-intentioned Jewish organizations doing what looks to me like good work but failing to center Palestinian leadership.
No, but it is factually untrue because of all of the reasons that have been posted over the last few months. That is why we keep shutting down the conversation about that specific thing. So if hundreds of Palestinian posters came in here and accused Israel of committing genocide and/or apartheid, I would be screaming the same thing.
I fully support hearing about what Palestinian life is like, their views on the situation, and their ideas for peace. I will not stand by silently while Israel is accused of crimes it has not committed.
No one is saying that Palestinians aren't living under an oppressive regime with their own land. Israel is occupying Palestine. But what we've all been trying to say is that calling Israel's actions/government something that it isn't has consequences, and those consequences if allowed unchecked will lead to the destruction of the Jewish state. The fact that no other country has a war of propaganda waged against it determined to eliminate it shows the specific targeting of the Jews.
I think the history and meaning of the word apartheid and all the reasons it doesn't apply to this conflict were well laid out in the other thread. And your point here is a very clear reason why it's really important to be precise in our language - that these words and concepts in particular have massive consequences. I absolutely get that.
But I actually haven't seen any explanation of why the facets of Article 7 OTHER than apartheid don't apply to the oppression of the Palestinians. Talking about the section I quoted on the first page to ask for sources. We jumped straight into why false claims are particularly hurtful, but I haven't seen anything explaining in what way they're false. The UN is biased. Is amnesty also biased? (actual question, not rhetorical) And if they are...So these things aren't happening? The Palestinians aren't being moved off their land? They aren't being detained in large numbers/having their movements restricted? I thought we were all in agreement that this shit is happening and it's awful. So is it just not widespread enough to qualify for that definition? I am TOTALLY open to the answer being that it's not widespread enough or the fact that there's an active conflict happening changes things or whatever the hell the answer might be. I'm not accusing Israel of anything, but Bucky McNewKid here is and I'd like to understand the full defense.
So who decides these things? I mean...I sure as shit don't since I have no idea 1. what constitutes widespread or what other legal definitions are at play and 2. to what extent this shit is in fact happening. That's what I was trying to ask in my earlier post and would still like to understand - what's the ICC/UN equivalent of a grand jury? Who decides if something is close enough that it should be "charged?" Have they looked at this and decided no? Is there nobody who CAN look at it since they aren't signatories? Or is a mushier issue than that? I'm trying to google and understand, but I have yet to run across a clear answer.
There's a lot here to respond to, most of which I'm not really qualified to weigh in on, but I do want to respond to the bolded because I have two responses to that.
First, I have heard from people that work in this field that Amnesty International's reputation has declined somewhat in the last decade or two. (@mx might be able to back me up on this) From what I understand, while they still do some very good work, they have moved in a more radical direction. For example, I'm pretty sure it was their statement which seemed to be pro-legalization of sex work that resulted in the epic thread here involving arborgold leaving. Other groups, like Human Rights Watch, are better respected. I was not familiar with HRW's work on Israel and Palestine, a look at their website just now suggests it's more balanced.
Second, the white liberal left is pretty anti-Semitic. And that's who is staffing many of the human and civil rights organizations. So I'd read their publications with a critical eye.
OP, how do you feel about Communism? Want to tell posters who grew up in Communist countries how awesome it is?
That and antisemitism ran bunnybean off, not exactly racism, but the same discounting of others experiences and tone deafness.
Tone policing is different than asking for correct word usage and for everyone to follow a method that allows productive conversation (limiting or noting bias, avoiding conflation of 2 distinct groups of people, etc). If that level of nuance is lost on you, I can only imagine how well you understand the conflict.
And I'm sure you would love to dismiss the work of Richard Fall and Rima Khalaf, as well. Only you are right. Oh, and the Trump administration that pressured the UN.
You mean Richard Falk? The man who compared Israel to the Nazis? That guy. Yes. I'm going to dismiss his work as biased.
Did someone say anywhere that Ehtiopian Jews were not treated poorly? Posters spoke to a specific incident and corrected this misinformation about that incident.
I don't know if you lack comprehension skills but NOT ONE PERSON has said that Israel isn't treating its minority populations poorly. Israel has some seriously fucked up, racist attitudes. So does the U.S. Racism is a huge issues among ourselves as Jews. But this doesn't change the discussion. So put your straw man away.