Was going to say, the quote sounds great, but of course I had a feeling the context was probably saying… calling the specific government/individuals who are commiting a genocide out for what they are actually doing. Rather than hating people for what their race is.
Actually, the speech is mostly about that last part even as it starts on the Holocaust. Since so far I didn’t see a link to it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I mean people have been criticizing Israel for decades without being called antisemites. At least not credibly. I know because I’ve been calling Gaza and apartheid state since the 90s. The difference here is the way people have formed a rhetorical alliance with actual neo Nazis instead of articulating those specific criticisms. People slinging around “Zionist” are just as obnoxious as people slinging around “antisemite.” The left really needs to do better on this. Use your words, not problematic bumper sticker politics.
(Unfortunately?) no. Even putting asside that the term is a lot more broad than a lot of (well intentioned) critics of Israel think, its been long used as a dog whistle by anti-semites. The novel “The Turner Diaries” for example, which is sometimes referred to as the bible of American neo Nazism, uses the term “Zionist occupied government” (ZOG).
The word Zionist in “Zionist Occupation Government” is used to equate being Jewish with the ideology of Zionism, depicting Zionists as conspiring on behalf of Jews and Israel.
The entire reason the word is problematic is because it is so overloaded. Even setting aside the white supremacist baggage for a moment, purely descriptive definitions depend on time, place and context to determine whether you mean that the Jewish people should have representation in Palestine, the creation of their own independent state, the continuation of their own state, or a justification for colonialist expansion in the Levant. The term is historically favored by white supremacists specifically because it is a dog whistle which has plausible deniability to mean anything from a historical retrospective to actual antisemitism.
For decades, thoughtful critics of Israel have intentionally avoided invoking the term to separate their analysis from hate groups. And this is not a difficult thing to do. It is quite easy to articulate specific problems with Israel’s statecraft. There are many things to choose from, so when people choose the dog whistle instead, there’s a good reason to see it as suspect. Israel also understands this. They prefer you choose the bumper sticker instead of sober analysis, because it is easier to discredit.
Agree with this outside of those opposing genocide being labeled as antisemites.
That’s because non of you truely only criticise genocide
There’s always some other crap or implication attached
Was going to say, the quote sounds great, but of course I had a feeling the context was probably saying… calling the specific government/individuals who are commiting a genocide out for what they are actually doing. Rather than hating people for what their race is.
Actually, the speech is mostly about that last part even as it starts on the Holocaust. Since so far I didn’t see a link to it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I mean people have been criticizing Israel for decades without being called antisemites. At least not credibly. I know because I’ve been calling Gaza and apartheid state since the 90s. The difference here is the way people have formed a rhetorical alliance with actual neo Nazis instead of articulating those specific criticisms. People slinging around “Zionist” are just as obnoxious as people slinging around “antisemite.” The left really needs to do better on this. Use your words, not problematic bumper sticker politics.
Is Zionist not a neutral term?
(Unfortunately?) no. Even putting asside that the term is a lot more broad than a lot of (well intentioned) critics of Israel think, its been long used as a dog whistle by anti-semites. The novel “The Turner Diaries” for example, which is sometimes referred to as the bible of American neo Nazism, uses the term “Zionist occupied government” (ZOG).
And when Hamas leaders use the term Zionist, then they mean Jews more often then not either.
The entire reason the word is problematic is because it is so overloaded. Even setting aside the white supremacist baggage for a moment, purely descriptive definitions depend on time, place and context to determine whether you mean that the Jewish people should have representation in Palestine, the creation of their own independent state, the continuation of their own state, or a justification for colonialist expansion in the Levant. The term is historically favored by white supremacists specifically because it is a dog whistle which has plausible deniability to mean anything from a historical retrospective to actual antisemitism.
For decades, thoughtful critics of Israel have intentionally avoided invoking the term to separate their analysis from hate groups. And this is not a difficult thing to do. It is quite easy to articulate specific problems with Israel’s statecraft. There are many things to choose from, so when people choose the dog whistle instead, there’s a good reason to see it as suspect. Israel also understands this. They prefer you choose the bumper sticker instead of sober analysis, because it is easier to discredit.