#will people act like you shouldn’t be against Israel because ‘antisemitism’ when they actually don’t give a shit about that? yes absolutely

[squidmaid]

Actually I’m not just gonna leave this in the tags

Just… be careful, y’all. Fascists and antisemites will still try and trick you into boosting their ideologies. Stand with Palestine but don’t let people use your good intentions against you.

[notaplaceofhonour]

Hey @frankujito, what exactly about Holocaust denial, Khazar theory, and calls for the genocide of Jews puts antisemitism in scarequotes? Because that’s what I’m talking about, not mere criticism of Israel.

Don’t bother answering, though. The question is rhetorical and you’re already blocked. And I will continue blocking anyone else who denies or seeks to whitewash the antisemitism of these things or anyone who espouses them.

But I thought I’d highlight how this response illustrates just how blatant and obvious the lies are that some leftists will tell about Jewish leftists who dare criticize the antisemitism around them.

For instance, they claim I made no mention of Israel’s crimes, when in fact I very obviously did—more than once in that post. I even start the post they’re replying to with an acknowledgment that Israel abuses the Palestinians, and every sentence that follows takes as a given that Israel is in the wrong in how it treats the Palestinian people and commits crimes against them. I even say:

Oppose Bibi Netanyahu. Oppose Israel’s far-right, authoritarian government. Oppose its apartheid policies. Oppose its violent abuse of the Palestinian people. That isn’t antisemitic.

I go into further criticisms of Israel in greater detail elsewhere (a country I have never been to and have no ties to, and lord willing will never have to flee to, but apparently need to constantly be criticizing simply because I’m Jewish).

I should not have to make an itemized list of every specific crime the Israeli government has ever done in the moment just to talk about how the left shouldn’t embrace Holocaust denial and bombing civilians—just as I don’t need to list out every crime of Japanese Imperialism to talk about how the US bombing Japan was bad, or list out every crime the US has committed to talk about how the OKC bombing was bad, or list out every crime of the Catholic Church to discuss how Protestant anti-Catholicism is often rooted in bigotry. But you know as well as I do that you would not have been willing to listen even if I had sat there and listed out literally every crime that has ever been committed by the state of Israel or even every Jew in all of history.

My post about the left’s embrace of Hamas’ antisemitism was not made “the moment Palestinians were afforded a chance of freedom”. It wasn’t even made the moment some on the American and European Left started embracing antisemitic conspiracy theories like the Khazar theory and claims of Israeli “deep pockets” and control of mass media (side note: I wrote this line before I saw that this person continued on their tirade, in which they invoked exactly these tropes from the Protocols). It is only after YEARS of escalating and increasingly blatant calls for & acts of violence against Jews caused by the rhetoric I am criticizing that I made that post.

I could not have been more measured and nuanced without just shrugging my shoulders and saying “eh, what’s a little Holocaust Denial?”. But this person using the word “nuance” as a pejorative, as something I somehow shouldn’t have been engaging in, speaks volumes about where this attitude comes from. Some people just do not want to wrestle with the fact that a decades-long conflict between the corrupt governments of two oppressed peoples is going to be complex and complicated to engage with, and they will eagerly flatten it into a black-and-white, us-vs-them battle between the virtuous heroes and the dastardly evil villains.

And when anyone engages with this complexity, it is easier to lie and say they didn’t say what they said or that they don’t actually mean it, so you can sort everyone into “the good camp” and “the bad camp”. This Campist logic is exactly the same way of thinking that leads some people on the left to deny the atrocities of the USSR and/or side with modern Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Don’t fall for it.

[evilelitest2]

You keep saying certain trends need to be removed from the progressive movement, which ones?

1) Conspiracy theorists, this just fucking murders leftism, because it makes people unwilling to accept new information, which means they just inevitably slide into bad places.  See also Rosanne.  This goes for anti vaxxers, Truthers, people who get into the “Israel Lobby” too much but also just general conspiratorial thinking.  I see a lot of people talking about “The DNC” or “The Media” in terms that are more conspiratorial than factual, and have trouble understanding literally how things work.  Which not only makes people unable to really understand WTF is going on, it also feeds into Right wing thinking.  If Sanders fans are already acting as if “The mainstream Media” is one single unified entity secretly controlled by a cabal of capitalists and so you can just dismiss what it has to say*, it is pretty easy for the Right to justify their own narrative that any media that isn’t Fox News/Brietbart/Drudge Report is a single unified entity with a liberal bias secretly controlled by Jews (or George Soros if they want to hide their true intentions)

* Their are certain biases and issues that are shared by the media, but these are more structural systemic issues rather than deliberate efforts by specific individuals.  There are specific networks/newspapers which are purely propaganda piece but that doesn’t apply to the entire media.  Or to put it another way.  Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post does influence its content, but they don’t just get their marching orders from him.

2) No tolerance for bigotry.  This should be obvious but it is remarkable how people who are progressive in on issue (class, gender, race, sexuality) are super intolerant in other respects.  In this primary we see this with the dirtbag left and their class reductionist tendencies where they are pretty left wing in regardless to class, but super racist/sexist/homophobic in every other respect.  or how TERFs are pretty good in terms of fighting women’s oppression, but are vile when it comes to the rights of Trans people.  Or Black Nationalists tendency towards antisemitism and misogyny, or Zionists tendency towards Islamaphobia.  People who are marginalized often have a difficult time recognizing others who are marginalized, doubly so if it involves recognizing a certain privilege they do in fact posses (black men, white homosexuals, straight women the list goes on).  The left really  needs to get better at making intersectionality a reality of its practice rather than a tool of rhetoric. 

3) Drop the romantic revolutionary Aethetic The Left gets really into these 60s images of everybody overthrowing the stodgy all establishment and embracing a new exciting world.  And these always crash because its less about the practical reality of actually fixing problems and more about the image of rebelling.  Its like how Rock n Roll did totally overturn the status quo when it first came into the stage, but very quickly became a form of conservatism in its own right.  

Basically end the Leftist cool kids club. I’m really sick of leftists who seem to get into leftist thought primarily to give them a lenses to look down on people but not do anything about it, the Marxistdude bro approach

It also is self destructive because it leads to the left being like...reluctant to persuade people to our side which is just self destructive (see also Sanders 2020 campaign) 

4) Stop stanning dictators and being nostalgic for autocracy.  It is so very frustrating to see people outraged over the US use of torture (as you should be) but being apologists for Assad.  I am very tired of seeing leftists argue against holocaust Denial and then being like “oh but Stalin wasn’t that bad actually”.  

5) Fucking Moral Cholesterol nonsense, purity fixations are autocannibalism

6) No embrace of Gamergate tactics.  Doxxing is wrong regardless of the target.  Bullying, abuse, harassment is wrong even if the victim is an absolute shit head.  Actually I take this further to murder and torture.  We are the side who oppose police brutality, advocate prison reform and oppose war crimes, we shouldn’t be falling into this nonsense.  

7) No anti intellectualism.  The world is complicated, huge, and nuanced, there isn’t a single source of evil for everything wrong with the world, human beings can be bad in one element and good in another, and we aren’t following the narrative of a drama.  The Right’s values are anti intellectuals we need to stop following their lead but just reversing the scripts

[cbcdiversity]

Rafi Mittlefehldt guest post

Hypable

Hi Rafi.

It’s Monday, November 27, 2000. You just got off the phone with Dad and a weight has lifted. He told you he didn’t like how Saturday’s conversation ended because he never explicitly said that nothing’s changed; he didn’t say, “I love you.” He wanted to make sure you knew.

You did, but hearing it makes all the difference. That creeping first regret at coming out evaporates. It’s done. Everyone at college knows; now your parents know too and it’s cool. You’re done. 

You’re not. It will be years before you even realize you hide this fact of you in small ways from anyone you meet. You try to act straighter than you are. You take comfort in your own natural masculinity, thinking you’re one of the lucky ones, not understanding how destructive that mindset is. You’ll avoid Pride, telling yourself it’s not your scene. You will actually think having pride in your own self is a scene.

This is the misery of internalized homophobia: Each tiny step is a battle you don’t even know you’re fighting until it’s behind you. You’re never really sure whether it’s over or another invisible battle is just gearing up.

You’ll get there, but, kiddo, it will be years. Part of that will be through your writing. Writing helps you learn so much about yourself that is there, right in front of you, but obscured behind decades of wall-building. This is how your first book will come to be.

And then, when you’ve finally, truly gotten to a point of fearlessness with one part of your identity, you’ll find you’ve been discounting another.

Remember in high school, those two kids who got in the habit of using “jewed” as a verb? They would turn to you afterwards and sheepishly apologize, every time. You would tell them you didn’t care. The worst part: you didn’t.

At an Italian restaurant, you told your friends two awful jokes. Later, the manager handed you a napkin. The family seated next to you had overheard and written you a note. They didn’t know you were Jewish too, but did that matter? You still think about their kids. They looked like they were maybe eight or ten. Do they still think about it, twenty years later?

You will.

How Jewish have you ever felt? You’ve always held that identity at arm’s length. You will continue to do that for years and years.

Then there will be an election you aren’t prepared for.

Suddenly, Jews will become more explicitly targeted than you – you, personally – have lived through. Hate crimes will increase exponentially. People carrying swastika flags will march down the street and you will think, Where did they come from?, not yet getting that they were always there.

On a Friday evening in October, a man will storm into a Pittsburgh synagogue during Shabbat services. As he shoots eleven people to death, he will shout, “All Jews must die!”

On Saturday, everyone will start adding a frame to their profile photos. Six interlocking arms forming the Star of David, with the words: “Together Against Antisemitism.” Something will finally click.

You’ll know what that frame is. You’ll know you’re supposed to feel comforted seeing so many non-Jews tell us we aren’t alone in our horror. That you’re supposed to look at those frames and see empathy, support, kinship, allyship.

You will hate those frames. They’re better than nothing, but only just. What you see instead of allyship is a way for people to provide cover for themselves. How many of the people who set their temporary profile photos engage in casual antisemitism regularly?

You will come to understand the architecture of liberal antisemitism. That it exists because too many liberals don’t view Jews as a legitimate marginalized people. They see the power dynamic within Israel, between Israelis and Palestinians, and extrapolate that to the Jewish diaspora in America.

They will say Israel should cease to exist. They will say the Star of David should be banned. They will make sly references to the power Jews hold, furtive allusions to money or loyalty or globalism. You will think a lot about how enduring anti-Jewish tropes are, even for people who pride themselves in their enlightenment.

You will call out casual antisemitism when you see it, and immediately be labeled a Netanyahu apologist. You will never again feel comfortable criticizing fellow progressives without first making clear your positions on racist Israeli policy. This will baffle you. It shouldn’t. You are an Israeli Jew, so what’s the point of nuance?

When they finally understand your beliefs are aligned with theirs, they will tell you you’re too sensitive. They, white non-Jews, will explain to you what antisemitism is. It’s Pittsburgh you should be focused on. It’s Trump. They will define thresholds that allow them to see their remarks, perversely, as a tool of social justice. They will use euphemisms – “confrontational language” and “justified criticism” – to make their antisemitism more palatable to their own consciences. You will learn what fraudulent progressivism looks like.

You will realize one day that white right-wing anti-Semites kill Jews, but only because white liberal anti-Semites give them cover to believe our lives are worth less.

You’ll write a second book. It will, to your great shame, need prodding from other people to become as Jewish as it obviously should have been. But a round of editing will take you from hating this book to loving it. It will end up meaning so much more to you than you ever expected. It will become a reflection of things you felt but couldn’t yet name.

It won’t be near enough. You’ll read the final version and be… content. It will stick to capturing right-wing antisemitism. Because that’s more violent, because it’s more urgent and orders of magnitude more deadly.

But there will be so much more you want to say. Words you left between the lines, for those who care to find them. But between the lines is a poor substitute for black and white.

You’ll get there. You’re not there yet, but you will be. There will be more books. You’ll use them both to learn more about yourself and to tell others what can be.

Rafi Mittlefehldt is a writer who has worked as a newspaper reporter, freelance theater critic, and children’s author. His debut novel was It Looks Like This. Rafi Mittlefehldt lives with his husband in Philadelphia.

[wetwareproblem]

@diagnosis-prognosis-psychosis​ Frankly this is taking up way too much real estate on my blog so... this is what you get.

I was drafting an extremely lengthy point-by-point response to this, explaining all of the many, many, many, many things you misunderstand about every religion other than your particular flavour of Xianity, and Judaism in particular. I sunk probably an hour into it.

Then I got to your point 4.

4. You’re right, I am. My faith demands that I find a model of Judaism that fits Christian teachings, and that model is the model that Christ and his apostles preached. That is what my faith considers the true model of Judaism - a model wherein evangelism was only prohibited by the first covenant due to the circumstances of Israel at the time.

That’s... that’s a show-stopper on the religious-education front.

You are never going to find that model, because it doesn’t exist. There is no “version of Judaism” preached by the followers of Oily Josh, because that religion is Xianity. Judaism is, in fact, its own distinct entity with its own distinct history. A history that includes over a millenium of Xian evangelists being the first step toward murdering us.

So yeah. We take a dim view of evangelism.

I’m done talking religion with you; you are just too completely, willfully ignorant to even make sense of it anyway.

That leaves us with the rather disturbing politics you’ve been fed.

9a. You don’t seem to be taking the cute snarky hints, so let me be explicit: The things you are saying? Are made up by racists.

Kid, I have lived over twice as long as you. This means, among other things, I’ve got way more life experience than you. Don’t give me that “if you lived in a small town you’d know” bullshit. I have lived in many places in my time, from cities of millions to a community that still numbers less than 100 people total.

The divide you’re painting does not exist. There are urban communities (and let me come out and say outright what you keep dancing around: communities of coolour) that are tight-knit and vibrant. There are rural “communities” in name only, stretches of road where you might see your neighbours once every couple of months and never know their names.

You have been fed a racist myth, kid. I’m sorry.

9b. [citation needed]

9c. You’re about ten seconds from launching into a diatribe, I can tell. But... riddle me this: 

You claim government is evil.

You claim government is beholden to corporations.

You claim corporations are not evil.

How are corporations not responsible for what their minions do?

9d. No. No it is not. You see, unlike you, I lived through the 90s. I personally witnessed the way “urban” was used in that time. Remind me, when was he apprehended again?

You are talking racially-tinged politics whether you know it or not.

9e. “I never defended their actions, I just said they’re not a problem and we shouldn’t really do anything about them.” Now who’s playing semantics? What you are doing provides cover for their actions because - get this! - if we don’t do anything about them THEY ARE FREE TO FUCKING ACT.

Re the FBI stuff: See point 9b.

Kid, the alt-right literally marched under the slogan “Jews will not replace us” before murdering someone I would have been proud to call a comrade. They routinely talk about how they want to kill us all off, threaten us, beat us, and shoot up synagogues.

So yes. The alt-right do, in fact, see me as Them. They see me as a traitor and collaborator, and they have shown that at least some of them are ready to kill over it.

Have you ever heard your sources talking about ZOG? (If not, please remember this when it happens. Because it will happen.) What that refers to is the “zionist-occupied government,” a common belief in alt-right circles that Jews have infiltrated the government and are the reason it is bad. They will never ally with me against the evil government, because they think I’m the reason the government is evil.

“Is one point of difference enough to condemn your greatest ally against-” When that “one point of difference” is whether I and people like me should be alive or not, then yes, that is enough to condemn anybody who differs from me on that point as an enemy and a would-be murderer.

The rest of that paragraph is racist bullshit that somebody fed you because if you thought that Black people were the cause of everything bad you wouldn’t notice while they picked your pockets. I’m sorry this happened to you, but now you have an opportunity to do better - to show righteousness.\

I will not engage further with racist diatribes, and they will not get reblogged here because there’s no way I’m giving them a wider audience.

10a. So... where are all of the people shooting up white churches in the name of nonwhite people? Have you got a list of 100 people murdered by antifa? ‘Cause... I was able to find that kind of evidence of a problem on the alt-right side in like 30 seconds tops, and frankly I know it’s being awfully conservative with that body count.

One side in this debate has a list of murderers and gunmen who were specifically motivated by common ideology. The other does not.

Why are you pretending these are equal? Why is it important to you to see “murderers” and “not murderers” as the same?

I don’t care about political registration. That’s one of those clever distortions fed to you by people who want to feed you a story. What I care about is actual motivation, as demonstrated in statements preceding these incidents, documents left by the people, the people themselves when they’re around after the fact, things they said and did while attacking people, etc.

You know, the things that show what their reason for resorting to violence was.

That strikes me as a little more important than a piece of paperwork that they had to fill out once upon a time because your political system is deeply weird.

🚩: Saying that having the “wrong” hormone levels for your gender is bad is something that will always splash on trans people, who literally always naturally have the “wrong” hormone levels for our gender. So yeah. Transphobic. Saying that abnormal hormone levels mean you are irrational and should not be listened to is wildly transphobic.

🚩: See the bolded line in point 9e.

11. I don’t care what your original motivation was for repeating right wing myths. I care that:

You’re repeating right-wing myths as facts, and You are doing so specifically to cover up for the actions of Nazis. Oh, and also: In doing so, you are playing into very old antisemitic conspiracy theories. Eventually, the people you’re listening to are going to use your belief in this myth to convince you that actually Jews are just oppressing ourselves.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous when I put it that way. But there is a direct path from A to B that these people use all the time. I’d lay it out here but frankly I’m not sure you won’t believe it because you are in just that vulnerable and ignorant a position.

I desperately hope you find more honest and less manipulative sources before it’s too late. But... I’ve seen enough kids like you that I’m very, very worried you won’t. Hell, TBH I’m not sure it’s not too late already.

This is an important lesson: It doesn’t matter whether you intended to say bigoted things or not. You did say bigoted things, and now you need to own that. You screwed up; fix the mistake.

You have a model of what you think about Jews, but... I’m afraid that model has some holes in it.

If you don’t think less of us, why do you think that we - people who live and breathe Judaism every single day - know less about it than you, an outsider who literally only knows what other outsiders have told you? Do you think we’re that ignorant of our own history, customs, and culture? Or do you think that you’re just naturally that much more knowledgeable than everybody about everything?

You might not hate us. But you’re spreading falsehoods that have a very ugly and violent history, and that put us in danger. If you don’t hate us, if you don’t want us endangered, that should concern you.

Your perspective is coloured by your faith - and that faith, unfortunately, is stained with a history and undercurrent of bigotry and harm toward Jews. That’s not saying it’s irreparable, but you have to understand that that context is there and it shapes interactions between our cultures. Some of the remnants of that historical bigotry are still there. Some of the less obvious forms of it are still routinely practiced. I don’t expect you to know and recognize all of this - how could you? It doesn’t affect you, after all! - but please, please show us enough kindness to listen when we talk about how it affects us.

[schraubd]

The Problem With Canaries

A group of pro-Israel, anti-BDS students at a variety of college campuses issued a statement harshly criticizing the Canary Mission for hindering their efforts on campus and unjustly maligning fellow students. They wrote:

Canary Mission is an anonymous site that blacklists individuals and professors across the country for their support of the BDS movement, presumed anti-Semitic remarks and hateful rhetoric against Israel and the United States. 

As a group of conscientious students on the front lines fighting BDS on our campuses, we are compelled to speak out against this website because it uses intimidation tactics, is antithetical to our democratic and Jewish values, is counterproductive to our efforts and is morally reprehensible. 

This blacklist aggregates public information about students across the country under the guise of combating anti-Semitism. It highlights their LinkedIn profiles, Facebook pictures, old tweets, quotes in newspapers and YouTube videos. The site chronicles each student’s involvement with pro-Palestinian causes and names other students and organizations with whom the given student may be affiliated. 

We view much of the rhetoric employed to villainize these individuals as hateful and, in some cases, Islamophobic and racist. In addition, Canary Mission’s wide scope wrongfully equates supporting a BDS resolution with some of the most virulent expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric and activity.

The ADL initially supported the students, referring to Canary as "Islamophobic & racist". Critics quickly contested what, exactly, Canary did that was "Islamophobic & racist", and a day later the ADL backed off, apologizing for "overly broad" language. I want to talk through why I think objections to Canary as Islamophobic are potentially justified. But I want to do so in what I think is a more nuanced and specified way, because there really are interesting questions here regarding the ethics of counter-antisemitism (or counter-racism, or counter-Islamophobic) discourse that I think are being elided in the usual rush to back our friends and lambaste our enemies. Let's stipulate for sake of argument that Canary doesn't use specifically Islamophobic rhetoric (in the form of racial slurs, conspiratorial claims about creeping Sharia, and the like), and that in general the factual claims they make about the targeted persons (that they did say X or join group Y) are factually accurate. I'm open to the possibility that they do use such rhetoric or that their claims aren't factual (in which case the argument that they're Islamophobic becomes trivially easy). But I make the stipulation because the case I'm going to make doesn't depend on any such behavior by Canary. Instead, let's focus on what we might think of as Canary's strongest possible foundation: factual revelations of things the profiled individual has definitely said, or groups they have definitely joined, absent any additional commentary. Again, I'm not saying that this is, in fact, all or even most of what Canary does -- I'm saying that this sort of thing would presumably represents the formulation of Canary's mission that would be most resistant to a claim of Islamophobia. So. First, I do not generally think it is a smear or otherwise wrongful to simply republish a terrible thing somebody has said (with appropriate caveats about not taking things out-of-context, omitting apologies, etc.). For example, the other day Seth Mandel accused me of a "smear" and a "lie" towards him in the context of my column on sexist responses to Natalie Portman not attending to the Genesis Prize. The irony of Mandel's complaint was that he was actually never mentioned in the column at all; he only appears in the context of two of his tweets being republished, verbatim, with no additional commentary or interpretation directed towards him whatsoever. If you can be "smeared" simply by quoting your own words back to you, then I suggest that the problem lies inward. Moreover, I'd suggest that there actually is something important about revealing the prevalence of antisemitism that exists amidst certain social movements (on campus or not) -- if only because Jews are so frequently gaslit on this subject. Just this week, the Interfaith Center at Stony Brook University had to release a statement (cosigned by a wide range of campus Jewish, Christian, and Muslim groups) in solidarity with campus Hillel after a campus SJP member demanded that Hillel be expelled from campus and replaced with "a proper Jewish organization" (proper, the student confirmed, meaning anti-Zionist). This blog had already covered the Vassar College SJP chapter distributing literal (1940s-era) Nazi propaganda about Jews. These things happen, and there's something off-putting about claiming that it's a form of cheating or a smear to document it. Too many people think that naming and shaming antisemitism is by definition a witch-hunt. That cannot be right, and we should be very suspicious of political arguments which act as if it is right, or act as if the very act of accusing someone of antisemitism (or, for that matter, racism, or sexism, or Islamophobia) is dirty pool or foul play. So what accounts for my unease? Well, for one it might be the sense that college students, in particular, often say dumb things they regret, and there shouldn't be an entire website dedicated to spotlighting them and inviting people to berate them for it. How much one sympathizes with that point would seemingly correspond to how much one dislikes "call-out culture"; if you're not a huge fan of it (especially when it comes to young people not otherwise in the public eye) then Canary would seem to be one manifestation of a generally malign social trend. Another basis for objection might be the distinctively chad gadya character of many of Canary's entries. If one reads the site, very frequently a profiled individual is listed because he joined a group which hosts a speaker who supports an organization who bit the cat that ate the goat ... and so on. There's a very distinctive "guilt-by-association" character to what Canary does that I think is obviously objectionable, regardless of how you label it. And note how it resonates with the way blacklists are being deployed against Jews and Jewish groups right now (e.g., the announcement by several NYU student groups that they were boycotting a bevy of Jewish organizations -- including the ADL). Such calls very frequently proceed by similar logic: the group supports a program which hosts a speaker who said a thing ... so on and so forth. Such logic could be used  to ensnare essentially anyone who affiliates with anything -- which means in practice it must be deployed selectively to delegitimize certain groups and causes under the guise of neutral idealism. If that stunt makes us uncomfortable when it's deployed against Jewish groups, it should make us uncomfortable when it's deployed against Muslim groups. And here is where I think the Islamophobia charge has legs. I don't want to say "imagine if this were done to Jews", because it is done to Jews (albeit perhaps not in quite as organized a form). But there absolutely are cases of blacklisting Jewish students simply because they've joined pro-Israel groups, without any claims that the student has said or done anything remotely racist or Islamophobic. And such behavior I think is rightfully thought of as deeply chilling, and striking too deep in terms of the way it polices to the letter Jewish political and communal participation. Many Canary entries seem to be based entirely on groups the individual has joined (everything from Students for Justice in Palestine to the Muslim Students Association -- the latter of which, it is worth noting, joined the letter in solidarity with Hillel at Stony Brook), rather than any specifically antisemitic things that the individual has said or done. That seems to be as dangerous as equivalent blacklist efforts targeting Jews who are part of Hillel, or Students Supporting Israel, or J Street (yes, J Street). Indeed, I could go further. Let's take the case of the students who have, themselves, said antisemitic things -- they're on the record. Surely there could be nothing Islamophobic about including them in a database? Yet even here, I'm conflicted -- and again, the mirror-case involving Jews perhaps reveals why. Imagine there was a website which cataloged people -- mostly, though not exclusively, Jews -- who were members of Zionist or Zionist-affiliated groups for the purpose of declaring to the world that they were racist and should not be worked with. Wouldn't we view that as being antisemitic in character? Suppose that it limited itself solely to those persons who had engaged in Islamophobic remarks -- with the goal of showing the degree to which Islamophobia and racism were prevalent in Zionist discourse, in a way that gave the impression that such views ran rampant amongst (Zionist) Jewish college students. Could that be viewed as antisemitic? My instinct is yes. It is an instinct that is, admittedly, at war with my above acknowledgment that documenting the real and non-negligible existence of antisemitism that exists in pro-Palestinian movements is not a form of cheating (and I'd likewise agree that documenting the real and non-negligible existence of Islamophobia that exists in Zionist movements is likewise not wrongful). But in both cases it is a delicate thing, lest the impression be given that Jews Are The Problem or Muslims Are The Problem. It isn't wrong to demand that groups be attentive to that possibility and work proactively against it, and it isn't wrong to be suspicious of them when they seem indifferent to it. What was it that Maajid Nawaz said? “Who compiles lists of individuals these days?" Of course, the answer is "many people and many groups," and maybe that's not per se wrong (or even avoidable). But certainly it is something that requires considerable care and concern, and Canary -- given its propensity for guilt-by-association, given its wide sweep, and given the range of individuals it includes under its ambit -- doesn't strike me as expressing said care and concern. Is that Islamophobic? Depends on how you define it, but I would suggest that there is a prima facie case of a sort of moral negligence directed at Muslim students. In other circumstances, that same sort of moral negligence impacts Jews. Either way, it's a wrong, and it's entirely fair to label it as such. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2r7Rd2y

[tiocfaidharlulz]

The reason I'm saying you're implying all Israelis are responsible for the actions of the military is because you're literally bitching about this one Israeli woman winning the Eurovision as though it's a travesty and she represents everything Israel has done. Yes, she is representing her country - IN A SONG COMPETITION. She has NOTHING to do with any of the shit you're going on about and she doesn't deserve the criticism. Like just admit you didn't like the song, you don't have to make up (1)

(2) political reasons why it shouldn’t have won. I can guarantee other years you weren’t bitching about Israel being involved, it’s just this year that it’s won, because it was voted to have to most points BY THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE. They didn’t vote to say they condone the military actions of the country or anything else, they voted that THEY LIKED THE SONG, AND THE SINGER, and next year the contest will be hosted there and will have nothing to do with anything but music. It’s not that deep fam. Like “I don’t hate ordinary Israelis but I don’t think they should be allowed to compete in anything representing their country without my criticising them for the actions of their government because they happened to be born there” do you think they shouldn’t be allowed in the olympics as well? The uk has committed ATROCITIES and I never see anyone complaining about their acts for that reason. Israel is not just its military. People there have to live their lives. 

And I resent that anon telling me to do research. I know what happens over there (and there are hideous things done by BOTH sides thank you, and if you took your antisemetic blinders off for two seconds you’d realise) and THAT IS NOT MY POINT. My point is that is still that actions of the military. Not the general population. It is not the Israeli military that is competing in the Eurovision. It is the general population. I don’t think I can make myself any clearer.            

First off, it has nothing to do with me not liking the song. The song’s fine. Your wan is fine. It’s not about the song, it’s about the country. And honestly, for someone saying it’s not that deep fam, it’s a bit ironic that you’re getting so wound up by a flippant, irritated remark I made, when it’s about… the eurovision. If you were familiar with the Eurovision at all, you’d know it isn’t actually about the songs very much at all. It’s well known for being about a) outrageous and weird entertainment and b) political voting. Ask literally anyone who watches the Eurovision. It’s not a singing competition like the X-Factor; it’s a complete farce, and that’s why people love it. So if you think this is a massive attack on an individual because I didn’t want her, personally, to win, you’re an idiot. And if you think people complaining about politics when it comes to Eurovision is stupid, you’ve evidently missed the entire history of Eurovision. Most years there’s a slew of political songs entered to make a point regarding European politics.

And on that note, if you think it being hosting in Tel Aviv will be all about the music, you’re mental. Nobody is under the impression that the host country is going to start bragging about massacring Palestinian children. But in the current political climate, Israel has a BDS campaign against - for a very good reason - and the normalisation of Israel and it’s tourist propaganda - which is often used to drive tourism, which funds the state, which funds the state’s military action and ideology - that’s not something I want to see happen. I’m not misunderstanding what you’re saying. I’m not confused or ignorant towards your position. I just wholeheartedly disagree with you.

And I don’t know why you’re saying I don’t think Israel shouldn’t compete in international competitions lol. Again, if you knew anything about the Eurovision, you’d know it’s a tribal competition that elicits a funny, petty response. My issue with Israel is political, but the reason people are annoyed they won is also because the Eurovision is a European Song Contest, and Israel is not in Europe. It’s why people also don’t like Australia being in the competition. Which is incredibly stupid - but like you said - it’s not that deep fam. It’s not all political.

Also, you don’t see people complaining about the UK in the Eurovision? You don’t think people punish the UK in the Eurovision for their political stances and historical actions? Are you mad? Did you actually send that in this ask to a person from Northern Ireland? The UK is despised in the Eurovision. They’re regularly at the bottom of the board, they’re always the butt of the joke and there’s an ancient and sacred rule about Ireland not giving the UK points because of imperialism. Don’t hoist yourself by your own petard trying to make a point using the UK’s status in Europe because Europe hates the UK and consistently punish the UK for being the way they are.

Also, don’t call me antisemitic. It doesn’t matter who you are, everyone is better than pure dunce logic in thinking anyone criticising Israel hates Jewish people. You can’t be that thick, you just can’t. There’s not a person in this world who lacks enough intelligence to make the distinction between hating the state of Israel and a religious group. People complaining about Israel is in the Eurovision is not an attack on the general population of Israel. This is not an Israeli individual participating in their own capacity; they are representing the State. That’s the whole point of the competition. It’s not like the X-Factor where they’re doing it for themselves, but they happen to be from X, Y or Z, they’re there to bring a title home for their country. It is the actual fundamental purpose of the competition. I don’t understand why you can’t grasp that and realise it’s not a personal attack on an individual person.

Ps.  “ I can guarantee other years you weren’t bitching about Israel being involved” :You clearly don’t follow me or know me if you don’t know that I’ve been complaining about Israel’s involvement in the Eurovision since I started watching the Eurovision over a decade ago.