Disinterested posted:

Then I'm afraid Israel and Zionism are here to stay as a part of the conversation.

quote:

On June 24th, 2017, a small group of individuals were asked to leave Chicago Dyke March for expressing Zionist views that go directly against the march’s anti-racist core values. In the days following, articles have appeared in a number of major news outlets that put forward false reports based on testimony that is purposefully misleading. We wish to clarify the circumstances under which organizers and community members alike asked the group to leave.

The group in question was heard disrupting chants, replacing the word “Palestine” with “everywhere,” saying: “From everywhere to Mexico, border walls have got to go.” One of the individuals, Laurel Grauer, is the Regional Director of A Wider Bridge, an organization with ties to the Israeli government that was protested for pinkwashing at the Creating Change Conference in Chicago in 2016. It was later revealed that Laurel was aware of Dyke March’s anti-Zionist position from pro-Palestine memes and art that were posted on the Dyke March page, and was also aware of the fact that her flag could be interpreted as being at odds with that position. The night before, she contacted an organizer to ask if her flag would “be protested.” The organizer told her the flag was welcome, but reminded her that the space is one that supports Palestinian rights.

Upon arrival at the rally location in Piotrowski Park, Palestinian marchers approached those carrying the flags to learn more about their intentions, due to its similarity to the Israeli flag and the flag’s long history of use in Pinkwashing efforts. During the conversation, the individuals asserted their Zionist stance and support for Israel. At this point, Jewish allies and Dyke March organizers stepped in to help explain why Zionism was unacceptable at the march. There was an earnest attempt at engagement with these marchers, and the decision to ask them to leave was not made abruptly nor arbitrarily. Throughout a two-hour conversation, the individuals were told that the march was explicitly anti-Zionist, and that if they were not okay with that, they should leave.

qkkl posted:

It's a bad idea for LGBT organizers to ban Zionism from events, since Zionism is a broader idea than just Israel. It would be better if they banned pro-Israel viewpoints. In fact, banning Zionism is essentially stating that the only solution to the Jewish Question is assimilation, i.e. the erasure of Jewish identity.

Gorgo Primus posted:

What the hell are you talking about? Zionism is and always has been explicitly a movement based around the establishment and development of a Jewish majority/dominated state, traditionally in Palestine. The only 'non-Israel' versions of Zionism are ones that propos[ed] making said state somewhere other than Palestine like the Uganda Plan. If you see that definition and go "yeah, that is what I think!" you are a Zionist. This isn't that hard people... it is is a political term that has had this pretty clear definition since its inception.

And, by the way, not having your own ethnically/religiously dominated state doesn't mean you are forced to either assimilate or cease to be Jewish.

Gorgo Primus posted:

What the hell are you talking about? Zionism is and always has been explicitly a movement based around the establishment and development of a Jewish majority/dominated state, traditionally in Palestine. The only 'non-Israel' versions of Zionism are ones that propos[ed] making said state somewhere other than Palestine like the Uganda Plan. If you see that definition and go "yeah, that is what I think!" you are a Zionist. This isn't that hard people... it is is a political term that has had this pretty clear definition since its inception.

And, by the way, not having your own ethnically/religiously dominated state doesn't mean you are forced to either assimilate or cease to be Jewish.

Disinterested posted:

It's my feeling that criticism of Israel will have to focus itself on its policy rather than that it's mere idea. I think this also involves the state of Israel having to become a bit more invested in thinking long and hard about how it's conduct relates to antisemitism - rather than merely condemning that relationship whenever it's drawn - if only for strategic purposes.

Disinterested posted:

On the other hand an end to the state of Israel probably would be disastrous - as well as potentially troubling I'm other ways, since the rate of Jewish migration to Israel as a result of rising antisemitism is only increasing.

In any event, lots of states are founded as an injustice and perhaps as mistakes, but that doesn't give people a right to demand they cease to exist as a result, for moral as well as practical reasons.

It's my feeling that criticism of Israel will have to focus itself on its policy rather than that it's mere idea. I think this also involves the state of Israel having to become a bit more invested in thinking long and hard about how it's conduct relates to antisemitism - rather than merely condemning that relationship whenever it's drawn - if only for strategic purposes.

qkkl posted:

Canada would actually be a great place for a Jewish state. Lots of land that is fertile and a low population density so carving out a small chunk wouldn't cause a massive humanitarian crisis. My guess as to why some Jews don't understand the appeal of Zionism is their families emigrated out of Europe in the early 19th century and prior.

Gorgo Primus posted:

'Canada' was already taken before it was made into Canada, and it is currently inhabited by a great many people who would not like to be ethnically cleansed or forced to live as second class citizens (if they were lucky enough to be allowed to be a citizen) just for not being Jewish. Thanks.

Also, I get the appeal of Zionism - it is the same appeal that Afrikaners found in South Africa or colonists who came to found the USA felt. Stealing people's land to create a state where the natives are treated like dirt or worse, just so you can set up a state that is utterly dominated by people who look and sound just like you, is a bad thing to want though. Also, just so you know, both my sets of grandparents were in Europe until the mid-late 1940s and a great many of their family members and relatives were murdered in the Holocaust. The idea that any Jew who doesn't want to partake in Zionism is just sheltered or from a long line of sheltered Jews is a disgusting one that you should educate yourself out of holding.

quote:

“I wanted to be in public as a gay Jew of Persian and German heritage. Nothing more, nothing less. So I made a shirt that said ‘Proud Jewish Dyke’ and hoisted a big Jewish Pride flag — a rainbow flag with a Star of David in the center, the centuries-old symbol of the Jewish people,” she wrote. “During the picnic in the park, organizers in their official t-shirts began whispering and pointing at me and soon, a delegation came over, announcing they’d been sent by the organizers. They told me my choices were to roll up my Jewish Pride flag or leave. The Star of David makes it look too much like the Israeli flag, they said, and it triggers people and makes them feel unsafe. This was their complaint.”

She tried to explain that the star is the “ubiquitous symbol of Judaism,” and that she simply wanted “to be Jewish in public.” Then, she “tried using their language,” explaining “this is my intersection. I’m supposed to be able to celebrate it here.”

It didn’t work. Ms. Shoshany Anderson left sobbing. “I was thrown out of Dyke March for being Jewish,” she said. Just so.

For progressive American Jews, intersectionality forces a choice: Which side of your identity do you keep, and which side do you discard and revile? Do you side with the oppressed or with the oppressor?

That kind of choice would have been familiar to previous generations of left-wing Jews, particularly those in Europe, who felt the tug between their ethnic heritage and their “internationalist” ideological sympathies. But this is the United States. Here, progressives are supposed to be comfortable with the idea of hyphenated identities and overlapping ethnic, sexual and political affinities. Since when did a politics that celebrates choice — and choices — devolve into a requirement of being forced to choose?

Jews on the left, particularly in recent years, have attempted to square this growing discomfort by becoming more anti-Israel. But if history has taught the Jews anything it’s that this kind of contortion never ends well.

It may be wrong to read too much into an ugly incident at a single march, but Jews should take what happened in Chicago as a lesson that they might not be as welcome among progressives as they might imagine. That’s a warning for which to be grateful, even as it is a reminder that anti-Semitism remains as much a problem on the far-left as it is on the alt-right.

Gorgo Primus posted:

1: I don't think the end of Israel wouldn't need to be disastrous for anyone except the bigots who want to keep it an Apartheid colonial state, who would see their loss of privilege as a disaster in itself.

2: I'm fairly sure the majority of Jews in the world do and will always continue to live outside of Israel and the immigration rates to Israel aren't actually increasing as much as you're implying. Feel free to prove otherwise cause I'd be interested to know by what degree.

3: So far as I can tell antisemitism isn't actually on the rise unless you count anti-zionism as antisemitism, and I'm fairly sure antisemitism in the middle east would be a lot harder to sustain at present levels if there weren't a state insisting that it that it speaks/acts for all Jews that maintained itself on the basis of apartheid, ethnic cleanings, and retinue mass murder that bigots could point at to try to convince others of their views.

4: I don't know of any state founded on or currently conducting these kinds of grave injustices who are ones currently in the process of carrying out those same injustices over and over again just to keep themselves 'pure' with the full unconditional support of the US and West.

5: Why is Israel the only state in the world with this magical 'right to exist'? Did Apartheid South Africa have a 'right to exist' as such? How come Palestine only has a 'right to exist' as a unsustainable Bantustan with no control over basic things like its airspace and borders? If Israel only counts as existing when it is an apartheid state, then why should it get to exist over a Jewish-Palestinian bi-national state with equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities for all that most people who demand a one state solution want?

6: The mere idea finds it expression in policy, always has and always will. So long as keeping the state majority Jewish and dominated at any cost is part of its mission statement in a sub-region where Jews are only a outright majority due to apartheid and ethnic cleansing - and on top of that also wants to expand even further into areas where Jews are still an outright minority - we're going to have a problem. The fact that it would be seen as a catastrophe for Arabs to get equal rights to Jews and potentially have an Arab party get a plurality in an election is a big loving problem for a state that wants to claim to be a democracy.


'Canada' was already taken before it was made into Canada, and it is currently inhabited by a great many people who would not like to be ethnically cleansed or forced to live as second class citizens (if they were lucky enough to be allowed to be a citizen) just for not being Jewish. Thanks.

Also, I get the appeal of Zionism - it is the same appeal that Afrikaners found in South Africa or colonists who came to found the USA felt. Stealing people's land to create a state where the natives are treated like dirt or worse, just so you can set up a state that is utterly dominated by people who look and sound just like you, is a bad thing to want though. Also, just so you know, both my sets of grandparents were in Europe until the mid-late 1940s and a great many of their family members and relatives were murdered in the Holocaust. The idea that any Jew who doesn't want to partake in Zionism is just sheltered or from a long line of sheltered Jews is a disgusting one that you should educate yourself out of holding.

qkkl posted:

It's similar to the "kill or be killed" issue. Either you go somewhere else and suppress the natives so you have your safe space, or stay and be suppressed.

Pachakuti posted:

Are you actually claiming that the rise of fascist organizations in Europe and the United States is a fairy tale? I mean, your post looks like a recitation of dogma without any critical thinking involved, but I could be wrong.

Pachakuti posted:

Are you actually claiming that the rise of fascist organizations in Europe and the United States is a fairy tale? I mean, your post looks like a recitation of dogma without any critical thinking involved, but I could be wrong.

Gorgo Primus posted:

Well I'm glad you're on record as being pro-ethnic cleansing/apartheid/genocide/whatever else so long as you feel suppressed then.


Are you trolling me right now? Seriously? Where did you get any single bit of that from my post? No, I don't think the increase in support for fascism in some places like Greece and Hungary is a fairy tale. Saying fascism is meaningfully on the rise in the US is a huge crazy stretch though. But in neither case would I say antisemitism is independently globally on the rise from where it was ten years ago in such a manner as to morally excuse support for Zionism. Fascism often tends to come with antisemitism, but even fascism is nowhere near to becoming a dominant political tendency in any country I'm aware of - even if they have disturbingly high levels of support in Greece with GD and several Eastern European countries have horrific some far-right governments right now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't strawman me. And even if antisemitic ideas were starting to become acceptable and commonplace in every single country, it would still not excuse the desire to ethnically cleanse a people and set up an apartheid state - if anything it would be all the more reason to reject racism in all its forms and strive to support efforts in your and every other country to ensure nobody would to suffer through what you currently were. Leaving the country to hatred and ruin to go set up your own state where you target another people with the same bullshit alongside ethnic cleansing is never an acceptable option to me.

Gorgo Primus posted:

Are you trolling me right now? Seriously? Where did you get any single bit of that from my post? No, I don't think the increase in support for fascism in some places like Greece and Hungary is a fairy tale. Saying fascism is meaningfully on the rise in the US is a huge crazy stretch though. But in neither case would I say antisemitism is independently globally on the rise from where it was ten years ago in such a manner as to morally excuse support for Zionism. Fascism often tends to come with antisemitism, but even fascism is nowhere near to becoming a dominant political tendency in any country I'm aware of - even if they have disturbingly high levels of support in Greece with GD and several Eastern European countries have horrific some far-right governments right now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't strawman me. And even if antisemitic ideas were starting to become acceptable and commonplace in every single country, it would still not excuse the desire to ethnically cleanse a people and set up an apartheid state - if anything it would be all the more reason to reject racism in all its forms and strive to support efforts in your and every other country to ensure nobody would to suffer through what you currently were. Leaving the country to hatred and ruin to go set up your own state where you target another people with the same bullshit alongside ethnic cleansing is never an acceptable option to me.

Agnosticnixie posted:

It's not exactly possible to detach the whole "there needs to be a jewish state" argument from current context either as to what Israel is doing. The whole "maybe zionism good" would look a bit less trashy if it wasn't currently being a justification to keep 4 million people under permanent military supervision with barely any electricity.

Barry Convex posted:

Until/unless the status quo changes drastically for the better, the debate isn't going anywhere, either.

Dyke March statement:

https://chicagodykemarchcollective.org/2017/06/27/chicago-dyke-march-official-statement-on-2017-march-and-solidarity-with-palestine/

quote:

The night before, she contacted an organizer to ask if her flag would “be protested.” The organizer told her the flag was welcome, but reminded her that the space is one that supports Palestinian rights.

Upon arrival at the rally location in Piotrowski Park, Palestinian marchers approached those carrying the flags to learn more about their intentions, due to its similarity to the Israeli flag and the flag’s long history of use in Pinkwashing efforts.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

quote:

Upon arrival at the rally location in Piotrowski Park, Palestinian marchers approached those carrying the flags to learn more about their intentions, due to its similarity to the Israeli flag and the flag’s long history of use in Pinkwashing efforts. During the conversation, the individuals asserted their Zionist stance and support for Israel. At this point, Jewish allies and Dyke March organizers stepped in to help explain why Zionism was unacceptable at the march. There was an earnest attempt at engagement with these marchers, and the decision to ask them to leave was not made abruptly nor arbitrarily. Throughout a two-hour conversation, the individuals were told that the march was explicitly anti-Zionist, and that if they were not okay with that, they should leave.

Barry Convex posted:

qkkl posted:

Anti-Zionism is equivalent to anti-Israel for a lot of people, which is probably the misunderstanding. I don't think anyone is actually anti-Zionist, considering that even Hitler thought it was a good idea to send the Jews to Madagascar.

Pachakuti posted:

Okay, so what should be the punishment for Jewish people who decide that Israel is better than risking their life to Le Pen's goons? Because you are claiming that that decision is totally morally unacceptable, and that you are morally obligated not to leave the country of your birth if you face discrimination and violence. This extends far further than just this particular issue, but I won't belabor it because you almost certainly aren't capable of putting together the pieces necessary to go from "it is unacceptable to flee violence and the risk of violence" to "all refugees that haven't been expelled are morally abhorrent people" without a lot of classroom time.

Because the point here is that while Israel's actions are indefensible, the reasoning for its existence as a place of refuge suddenly becomes a lot more understandable in the light of the President of the United States of America employing neo-Nazis as some of his closest advisors, surges in hate crimes, etc. And in this context, demanding that Israel be annihilated and replaced with a state that doesn't offer any guarantee of protection for Jewish people suddenly becomes a lot more morally questionable. So you have a situation where anti-Zionism needs to be more rigorous, and also absolutist positions need to be examined to see if they'd lead you to morally abhorrent ends.

I mean, that's without the nonsense of saying Jewish people moving to Israel currently are setting up their own state. If we took that seriously, it'd be problematic in and of itself, but your brain is obviously running on autopilot so there's not much point in examining the ideology behind what you're saying.

Gorgo Primus posted:

So now you've moved on to personal insults and even more strawman? Cool. I never said that Jews can never leave their country of origin - I said I found it morally unacceptable to leave their country of origin to set up an apartheid state that thrives on ethnic cleansing. People of just about every background emigrate to other countries all the time. I also never once said you can't flee from violence, I said I found it morally wrong to flee from violence to commit repeated racially motivated violence against another people so that you can set up an apartheid state that thrives on ethnic cleansing. Sensing a pattern? Seeing what the one constant is that seems consistently teetered to the whole 'morally unacceptable' thing?

Also the President of the United States is not a fascist (he is just a unstable right wing rear end in a top hat) and the few fascist friends he has have been by and large sidelined or expelled from government as I understand it. Also how did youy get "doesn't offer any guarantee of protection for Jewish people" from "bi-national state with equal rights, privileges, and responsibility for all"?

And the last bit is just utter nonsense you threw in that totally reads past what I wrote and shows some other post that has never been made here what for. So yeah, I don't really have an interest in having a debate with someone with no interest in debating in anything resembling good faith and is mainly just interesting in insults and strawmen.

VitalSigns posted:

Continuing to expand into new areas, cleanse the locals, and build settlements sounds a lot like setting up an apartheid state to me, considering it's taking areas which are not currently part of a racist apartheid state and reconstituting them as one.

Pachakuti posted:

Well, nobody is doing that. Even libertarian seasteaders aren't engaging in ethnic cleansing. There are no people setting up apartheid states. None. Israel already exists. Describing it as being set up currently is nothing more than the crudest of propaganda.

Most importantly, here, you are arguing that there is no ambiguity in Israel, that all Israelis are, effectively, genocidaires. I guess you'll split hairs between ethnic cleansing and genocide (and I'll take it as given that Israeli Arabs and Druze are excluded from that blanket statement), but the point here is that the idea of establishing a one-state solution when close to half of the population is to be seen ideologically as actively genocidal/ethniccleansingcidal is an idiotic one, almost as idiotic as establishing a one-state solution which still places Gentiles as second-class citizens. It's not a recipe for a functional state. Maybe you've personally got a belief in the necessity of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and swift justice against symbolic figures of the long violence in order to establish a functional one-state solution, but you have not spoken about that, because it's not a priority for you. And it should be a priority with the state of the world as it is today, to allow the purpose of Zionism to be decoupled from the policies of Israel. I assume you'll throw a fit about how the purpose of Zionism is actually to murder Palestinians now.

Gorgo Primus posted:

Keep those strawmen coming. I can't wait to hear what else it turns out I really secretly think and feel about any number of topics!

Gorgo Primus posted:

Did I also not post about how I think education is a right and therefore think all schools in Israel should be privatized? Am I arguing for fascism? Do I want to nuke Israel like in those old LF gifs?

Gorgo Primus posted:

vvv That's the spirit! Who cares what I really wrote or think? I'm not angry, I'm frustrated with the fact that your style of bullshit posting is a-okay here now and am done wasting my time. vvv

Pachakuti posted:

Another aspect of this which is fundamentally problematic is the extent to which anti-Zionism is not about ideas but about repeating the proper catechism. If you say that it's absurd to say that Israel is being "set up", then people immediately claim that the illegal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem historically is irrelevant, and settlements emerge apparently from the aether rather than being a manifestation of existing Israeli policy for decades. It's a stupid statement to make, but it's of course not about thinking, it's about the fact that someone disputed one of the slogans.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Yeah. A conversation that would not have happened had the people interrogating them not been antisemites. How many times must this be explained to you? This also doesn't explain the non-/anti-Zionists forced to leave for carrying similar "offensive" symbols.

VitalSigns posted:

Building new settlements isn't setting them up, because other settlements were built before?

Pachakuti posted:

Do you know what a "state" is?

Gorgo Primus posted:

1: I don't think the end of Israel wouldn't need to be disastrous for anyone except the bigots who want to keep it an Apartheid colonial state, who would see their loss of privilege as a disaster in itself.

Gorgo Primus posted:

2: I'm fairly sure the majority of Jews in the world do and will always continue to live outside of Israel and the immigration rates to Israel aren't actually increasing as much as you're implying. Feel free to prove otherwise cause I'd be interested to know by what degree.

Gorgo Primus posted:

So far as I can tell antisemitism isn't actually on the rise unless you count anti-zionism as antisemitism, and I'm fairly sure antisemitism in the middle east would be a lot harder to sustain at present levels if there weren't a state insisting that it that it speaks/acts for all Jews that maintained itself on the basis of apartheid, ethnic cleanings, and retinue mass murder that bigots could point at to try to convince others of their views.

Gorgo Primus posted:

4: I don't know of any state founded on or currently conducting these kinds of grave injustices who are ones currently in the process of carrying out those same injustices over and over again just to keep themselves 'pure' with the full unconditional support of the US and West.

Gorgo Primus posted:

5: Why is Israel the only state in the world with this magical 'right to exist'? Did Apartheid South Africa have a 'right to exist' as such? How come Palestine only has a 'right to exist' as a unsustainable Bantustan with no control over basic things like its airspace and borders? If Israel only counts as existing when it is an apartheid state, then why should it get to exist over a Jewish-Palestinian bi-national state with equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities for all that most people who demand a one state solution want?

Gorgo Primus posted:

6: The mere idea finds it expression in policy, always has and always will. So long as keeping the state majority Jewish and dominated at any cost is part of its mission statement in a sub-region where Jews are only a outright majority due to apartheid and ethnic cleansing - and on top of that also wants to expand even further into areas where Jews are still an outright minority - we're going to have a problem. The fact that it would be seen as a catastrophe for Arabs to get equal rights to Jews and potentially have an Arab party get a plurality in an election is a big loving problem for a state that wants to claim to be a democracy.

VitalSigns posted:

Yes.

Do you know that states aren't "set up" in one instant, and that "setting up" a state is a long process that takes decades and often centuries?

Continuing to incorporate more and more areas into an ever-greater expansionist state is certainly an ongoing process of setting up a state. No one would ever argue, regarding any other state, that an ongoing program of military conquest and occupation isn't "setting up" a wider imperial state because "oh well you see we have been expanding for decades so we must be past the set-up stage by now"

Barry Convex posted:

How many times must I explain that no one has claimed that anyone who was not bearing a flag resembling the Israeli one or attempting to drown out pro-Palestinian chants was "interrogated?"

If I'm wrong and people were similarly treated for entirely different but equally public expressions of Jewish identity - T-shirts, kippot, tallit, banners, etc. - please point me to their accounts and I'll join you in condemning that.