On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) over comments she made advocating for Palestinians to be free.
Even if it is an Iranian cultural phrase that’s lost in translation into English, it lacks context. You’ve given the Iranian cultural context, but you’re completely ignoring the global context: the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Hamas has, quite literally, brought “death to Israel.”
If something needs context and explanation to not be antisemitic, it’s probably best to not say that thing rather than risk being antisemitic. Otherwise, you’re just demonstrating that you don’t care if you’re sounding antisemitic.
For the same reason that it was Islamaphobic for the US to invade Iraq, it is antisemitic for you to say “death to Israel” while Hamas is killing Israeli civilians and saying “death to Israel.” We cannot ignore the context of racial/religious tensions and the fact that these nations have racial/religious majorities.
The state of Israel is a genocidal ethnostate, that is the context for the tensions. Israel kills way more Palestinian civilians every day, and has been long before October 7. Before the European colony arrived, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed in Palestine.
For the same reason that it was Islamaphobic for the US to invade Iraq, it is antisemitic for you to say “death to Israel”
This is a bit of a nonsequiter. The US is islamaphobic, and the Iraq invasion was criminal, informed by chauvanism, orientalism, and islamophobia, but it’s hardly the equivalent of an occupied people resisting that occupation.
May they all be free from the river to the sea someday.
You’re now admitting that Israel is a Jewish state despite trying to claim otherwise for this entire thread.
Israel kills way more Palestinian civilians every day
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Israel is doing horrible things, but it doesn’t deflect from the fact that “death to Israel” is antisemitic.
Before the European colony arrived, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed in Palestine.
Well, they aren’t coexisting now. Sorry, can’t go back in time. We solve problems of today because it is impossible to make things the way they once were. And which “European colony” are you referring to? The Jews? I thought this wasn’t about them? Dog whistle.
the Iraq invasion was … informed by … islamophobia
But by your own logic, I thought a government is different from the major racial/religious group of its people? We can’t say it was Islamaphobic just because the people there tend to be majority Muslim, right? We’d need other context, like… above.
hardly the equivalent of an occupied people resisting that occupation
I never said that Palestine doesn’t have a right to resist its occupation.
You’ve taken this argument far away from “death to Israel” not being antisemitic because you’re trying to argue that Palestine should exist. I’m not saying it shouldn’t, but it doesn’t make you not antisemitic.
You’re now admitting that Israel is a Jewish state despite trying to claim otherwise for this entire thread.
I’ve only responded to you a couple times, and all I said is that Israel is not all jews, does not speak for all jews, and is a genocidal ethnostate.
Saying death to an ethnostate does not mean death to the people in it, same as death to america doesn’t literally mean all americans should die.
This isn’t that hard.
Israel kills way more Palestinian civilians every day
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Israel is doing horrible things, but it doesn’t deflect from the fact that “death to Israel” is antisemitic.
One of those parties is a colonial occupier, the other an occupied people resisting state violence. I can support one and not the other.
You’ve taken this argument far away from “death to Israel” not being antisemitic because you’re trying to argue that Palestine should exist. I’m not saying it shouldn’t, but it doesn’t make you not antisemitic.
Death to Israel is not antisemetic, because despite the europeans wrapping it in the trappings of jewishness, it isn’t all jews, doesn’t speak for all jews.
Israel systematically disenfranchises non-jews and sterilizes non-white jews.
Saying death to an ethnostate does not mean death to the people in it
It does when civilians are being killed.
One of those parties is a colonial occupier, the other an occupied people resisting state violence. I can support one and not the other.
Your support for Palestine doesn’t make “death to Israel” not antisemitic.
Death to Israel is not antisemetic, because despite the europeans wrapping it in the trappings of jewishness, it isn’t all jews, doesn’t speak for all jews
Just because Israel doesn’t represent all Jews doesn’t absolve you of antisemitism for wishing death upon Israel. It is majority Jewish, and just above you have stated that the problems are all caused by the “European colony” of Jews. You’re mad at Israel because of those Jews, but not the Jews you like? This was common Nazi apologist rhetoric under Hitler.
Israel systematically disenfranchises non-jews and sterilizes non-white jews.
Occupied people can resist occupation by any means necessary.
No. You can’t start killing civilians just because other civilians or their parents or their grandparents or or their racioethnic group or their government have taken land that belonged to you or your family’s ancestry or your racioethnic group or your government.
Comparing the hamas attack to the holocaust is like comparing an indigenous people’s raid of settler encampments to the holocaust. It is wildly inappropriate and ignores the difference in power between Jewish people under the nazis and Jewish people in a White Jewish ethnostate
the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Makes it sound like you think they’re of similar themes. Theyre not. One was a wholesale slaughter of an oppressed minority, the other was anticolonial violence directed at settlers.
Both involve the killing of innocent civilians based on their racioethnic group.
Different scale, motivation, morals, etc? Yes. Still, they give both context to saying “death to Israel” because they prove that the statement is being used in a violent way.
Both involve the killing of innocent civilians based on their racioethnic group
This is reductionist. You need to wipe away of the context of a white Jewish supremacist apartheid state vs the context of being scapegoats for the nazis for your position to make sense.
Also settlers aren’t civilians, settlement is part of an extended military campaign of genocide.
Yes. Still, they give both context to saying “death to Israel” because they prove that the statement is being used in a violent way.
Violence is justified against settlers, violence isn’t justified against an oppressed ethnic minority. They are distinct things.
Reach.
Even if it is an Iranian cultural phrase that’s lost in translation into English, it lacks context. You’ve given the Iranian cultural context, but you’re completely ignoring the global context: the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Hamas has, quite literally, brought “death to Israel.”
If something needs context and explanation to not be antisemitic, it’s probably best to not say that thing rather than risk being antisemitic. Otherwise, you’re just demonstrating that you don’t care if you’re sounding antisemitic.
Peace be with you.
Israel isn’t all Jews, doesn’t represent all Jews, and it’s legit antisemitic to say that it is.
You are the one sounding antisemitic.
For the same reason that it was Islamaphobic for the US to invade Iraq, it is antisemitic for you to say “death to Israel” while Hamas is killing Israeli civilians and saying “death to Israel.” We cannot ignore the context of racial/religious tensions and the fact that these nations have racial/religious majorities.
The state of Israel is a genocidal ethnostate, that is the context for the tensions. Israel kills way more Palestinian civilians every day, and has been long before October 7. Before the European colony arrived, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed in Palestine.
This is a bit of a nonsequiter. The US is islamaphobic, and the Iraq invasion was criminal, informed by chauvanism, orientalism, and islamophobia, but it’s hardly the equivalent of an occupied people resisting that occupation.
May they all be free from the river to the sea someday.
You’re now admitting that Israel is a Jewish state despite trying to claim otherwise for this entire thread.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Israel is doing horrible things, but it doesn’t deflect from the fact that “death to Israel” is antisemitic.
Well, they aren’t coexisting now. Sorry, can’t go back in time. We solve problems of today because it is impossible to make things the way they once were. And which “European colony” are you referring to? The Jews? I thought this wasn’t about them? Dog whistle.
But by your own logic, I thought a government is different from the major racial/religious group of its people? We can’t say it was Islamaphobic just because the people there tend to be majority Muslim, right? We’d need other context, like… above.
I never said that Palestine doesn’t have a right to resist its occupation.
You’ve taken this argument far away from “death to Israel” not being antisemitic because you’re trying to argue that Palestine should exist. I’m not saying it shouldn’t, but it doesn’t make you not antisemitic.
I’ve only responded to you a couple times, and all I said is that Israel is not all jews, does not speak for all jews, and is a genocidal ethnostate.
Saying death to an ethnostate does not mean death to the people in it, same as death to america doesn’t literally mean all americans should die.
This isn’t that hard.
One of those parties is a colonial occupier, the other an occupied people resisting state violence. I can support one and not the other.
Death to Israel is not antisemetic, because despite the europeans wrapping it in the trappings of jewishness, it isn’t all jews, doesn’t speak for all jews.
Israel systematically disenfranchises non-jews and sterilizes non-white jews.
It does when civilians are being killed.
Your support for Palestine doesn’t make “death to Israel” not antisemitic.
Just because Israel doesn’t represent all Jews doesn’t absolve you of antisemitism for wishing death upon Israel. It is majority Jewish, and just above you have stated that the problems are all caused by the “European colony” of Jews. You’re mad at Israel because of those Jews, but not the Jews you like? This was common Nazi apologist rhetoric under Hitler.
Fake ass settler state getting defended by the bigger fake ass settler state.
Occupied people can resist occupation by any means necessary.
No. You can’t start killing civilians just because other civilians or their parents or their grandparents or or their racioethnic group or their government have taken land that belonged to you or your family’s ancestry or your racioethnic group or your government.
I’m mad at Israel because of the genocide it is predicated on.
Non white Jews have been sterilized there, it’s got far more in common with the Nazis than any other state besides America
Is saying “death to america” fatphobic?
No, but it does make you a stereotyping asshole, the same kind that might wish death upon a racioethnic group for the actions of a government
No I’m wishing death on the fake ass settle states whitey.
Then you should be more specific, racist.
Comparing the hamas attack to the holocaust is like comparing an indigenous people’s raid of settler encampments to the holocaust. It is wildly inappropriate and ignores the difference in power between Jewish people under the nazis and Jewish people in a White Jewish ethnostate
I did not compare these two events.
This part of the post
Makes it sound like you think they’re of similar themes. Theyre not. One was a wholesale slaughter of an oppressed minority, the other was anticolonial violence directed at settlers.
Both involve the killing of innocent civilians based on their racioethnic group.
Different scale, motivation, morals, etc? Yes. Still, they give both context to saying “death to Israel” because they prove that the statement is being used in a violent way.
This is reductionist. You need to wipe away of the context of a white Jewish supremacist apartheid state vs the context of being scapegoats for the nazis for your position to make sense.
Also settlers aren’t civilians, settlement is part of an extended military campaign of genocide.
Violence is justified against settlers, violence isn’t justified against an oppressed ethnic minority. They are distinct things.
Dehumanization, how original.
Settlers are humans the same way soldiers are humans and the same way civilians are humans.
Bad faith nonsense in defense of settler colonialism, how original