Israel and Palestine

Yeah. It was that and the dismissal of anti Semitic violence as “potted history” that didn’t give me the greatest impression.

That and like the most unsympathetic take possible on feeling a connection to Judaism. Although that does make more sense if it was in the context of South Africans trying to encourage you to leave that country b

Edited by Hodor2 on Feb 5th 2019 at 6:37:07 AM

Yup. South Africa: not subtle. Even these days. When I think back to those days, I tend to code-switch a lot to the vocab I used in those days.

And, even today... be female and Jewish? In South Africa: Jewess.

There you go: fun, huh? You could get into big trouble for using the wrong words in the wrong places.

It doesn't mean I am a racist, sexist, self-loathing bitch these days — but, I was indoctrinated to be. And, I still have the marks.

Even having tried to remove them.

That mind-set is never very far away. And I hate it. I didn't want it, but I got it shoved on me at school. And I had to wear that mask (as well as others). Or else.

This is what Apartheid does: it forces you to wear lies, to see lies and to believe lies. You can never get truly rid of them, even if you try upon learning which are the biggest lies (and, even then, you can never be truly sure).

And people will tell you that what you saw you didn't, what you remember wasn't real, what is you isn't really you and what you're feeling you're not. And I HATE THAT.

All of it to make you behave the way you're "supposed" to behave. Not to ask questions. To see what you should see, not what you shouldn't. But, the absolute worst thing is? The people doing it to you? Have had it done to them, and they honestly think it's normal to do this. That it is fine. They truly think that to do otherwise is... dangerous. They're just people — they're honest when they hurt you the way that they were hurt.

Like all people do.

Unless you try to stop.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 5th 2019 at 1:11:16 PM

The main issue with calling Israel an Apartheid state is that Apartheid is de jure descrimination, while Israel practices de facto discrimination. The whole thing about Apartheid was that racial supremacy was deliberately enshrined in law, which isn’t the case in Israel. Total legal seperation doesn’t exist there.

The comparison is adequate but fails to fully describe the situation. It does share some aspects with Apartheid, but to call Israel an Apartheid state is inaccurate.

The situation in parts of Gaza would be better described as an illegal blockade than a bantustan system.

Edited by archonspeaks on Feb 5th 2019 at 6:59:35 AM

It did feel like fourthspartan and Jodie were saying that Hilel’s shittier actions should be overlooked just because they provide good services to Jewish students. By that logic since the Chicago pd were the main law enforcement bodes people should have kept quiet about the torture ring Jon Burge ran (or the other racist policies they ran and still do.)

But as far as I see it if an organization actively does harm it can either reform or hit the road. Hillel doesn’t look like it will change so honestly too bad if they provide services.

Like who cares if they bully opponents and slander people they organize seders so fuck the guys who Hillel attacks

I’m sure it did feel that way to you, since you cannot manage to make a single post condemning anti-Semitism without making a comment about how some group of Jews inside or outside of Israel suck and/or insinuating it is deserved.

You know what. I’ll just say it outright. Other posters in this thread are critical of Israel and maybe I’ve been unfair toward some of them, but you are obviously anti-Semitic and seem proud of it.

Because no, obviously neither of us were saying that. What I will say though is there’s nothing Hillel has done that would justify banning it. Unless you consider support for Israel as a sufficient reason. Which you seem to.

Edit- Also for what it’s worth, the bad behavior you cite was done by the director of a specific campus’s Hillel. So yeah, that’s not a good argument for banning the national organization.

Edited by Hodor2 on Feb 5th 2019 at 9:20:35 AM

I considering slandering your critics and bullying opponents worth getting banned over. Hillel does so therefore I feel that they need to go if they don’t cut it out. I’d feel the same if it was a Palestinian rights group that spread anti semitism on campus.

I can respect people like Richard Cohen (Washington Post) Peter Beinart, and MJ Rosenberg because they support Israel but aren’t assholes about it. They acknowledge that Israel is needlessly cruel a lot of the time and that Palestinians deserve rights and have legitimate reasons to be leery.

I freely admitted that yes anti semitism is a problem that needs to be addressed. Apparently that’s not enough. I also made the comparison to people thinking all Muslims are terrorists because Bin Laden claims to speak for all Muslims. People are going to take claims like that at their word even if it’s unfair.

I have a question; is it okay that people have made false accusations of anti semitism to shut up their opponents and should that behavior be condemned?

He wasn’t fired; that implies Hilel supports his actions or doesn’t see a problem. The director at Rutgers made Islamophobic comments and didn’t get censured either.

Edited by LordYAM on Feb 5th 2019 at 7:28:34 AM

Yes, some people think that all Muslims are terrorists because of the actions someone like Bin Laden. And similarly, American conservatives will constantly bring up crimes committed by African Americans and Latinos. But those people are bigots and are holding an entire group responsible for bad actions of certain members.

Which it seems to me is something you are doing toward Jews. Or at the least, you are treating that behavior as understandable much more than you are treating it as condemnable. Which I suspect you wouldn't toward any of those other groups. I mean you favor throwing Jewish students under the bus at campuses all over, based on bad behavior by two Hillel directors.

For context for the rest of the thread and for the edification of anyone who had come away with the impression that it was the Jewish KKK (that's ZOA/ the Jewish Defense League), this is Hillel.

I see you are referring to controversies noted there. I definitely condemn the GW Director for slandering the student. And I also condemn the Rutgers director for that Islamophobic shit. I have issues with how the pre-authored questions aimed at Jimmy Carter were praiseworthy toward Alan Dershowitz and Daniel Ross, but I don't really have an issue in general with their being hostile questions toward an anti-Israel speaker (although it seems unfair toward President Carter specifically). I mean I doubt you'd have a problem with hostile questioning of a pro-Israel speaker.

I also don't really have a problem with Hillel's anti-BDS stance. Although the national organization should stop coming down on chapters that invite pro-Peace with Palestine speakers.

So, to answer your question, I definitely do not consider it okay for people to make false accusations of anti-Semitism to shut up their opponents. I just doubt you are the best judge of what is a false accusation.

I suppose I should clarify. Yes it is wrong to dismiss accusations of anti semitism offhand. Yes anti semitism often worms it’s way into the conversation by appropriating criticism of Israel. Look at idiots who still repeat the idea of Jewish involvement in the slave trade, or that senator at Stanford who was all “it’s totes legit to ask if Jews control the media”. That’s real anti semitism and no sane person should buy into that horsecrap.

But human nature is a funny thing. It draws conclusions that are stupid and illogical. And the idea that because people have made bad faith accusations of anti semitism that all accusations are suspect is one of them (it’s like when MR As bring up the fact that there have been a few false rape accusations we should be sceptical of all rape accusations, or that because Bin Laden claims to speak for all Muslims Islam is inherently terroristic.)

Edit: Thanks for the clarification (I mean it sincerely). And no it’s not okay. But human nature is illogical.

Also I’m not trying to say it’s understandable. You’re also right in that I’m probably not the best judge. It’s more that when bad accusations fly people are going to be sceptical regardless of how fair it is. For comparison I’ve seen Israeli supporters throw around the word “pallywood” and cite the fact that a few incidents MAY have been staged to avoid addressing that most of the time the incidents that seem to show the IDF committing cold blooded murder......show the IDF committing cold blooded murder.

That’s what makes it revolting; that many of the same people crying anti Semite at left wing Jews also hang out with neo Nazis and far righters who openly detest Jews but also say nice things about Israel makes it even more galling in some ways.

In short yes I have bought into anti Semitic thinking in the past. I really am trying not to and I’d like to think that for the most part I succeed. However I do sometimes slip into it from time to time.

Edit: With Carter the problem was that they purposefully blocked the mikes so that pro carter students couldn’t ask questions. That created the false impression most people didn’t support carter even though he got a standing ovation. That’s bullshit regardless of one’s leanings

Edited by LordYAM on Feb 5th 2019 at 8:03:44 AM

I really appreciate the clarification. I know it's probably too little too late, but I'm sorry for being so heated and personal.

Yeah, I'm on board with you in terms of hating right-wing Jews (like the current Prime Minister of Israel) being buddy buddy with right-wing Nazi types.

And yeah, I hate that term "Pallywood". Not only is it morally vile, but I hate any argument that's based on the premise that the side one doesn't like are all untrustworthy liars. And no one who says it is likely to be trustworthy themselves.

Also, I do agree with Carter. I admit some bias because I generally like/respect Lipinstadt (note, as I understand it, they used questions she wrote, but she wasn't involved in giving out those questions), but I see your point that that kind of astroturfing is really shady and bad.

You weren’t entirely wrong though. I have fallen into anti Semitic thinking at times even if I know I shouldn’t and to be honest I actually did once or twice back there. Part of it is that I have really seen a few individual Jews, in entirely good faith, assume that the mere act of pointing out that false accusations of anti semitism exist is hateful. They weren’t even trying to shut me down they just really thought it was bigoted (I’ve also used other Jews as shields in the past; again I’m not terribly proud and am entirely understanding why at least one guy is still pissed at me for it.) Still that supporters of Israel can be assholes shouldn’t make anti semitism okay

Edited by LordYAM on Feb 5th 2019 at 8:36:25 AM

Since I’m trying to become better at recognizing biases I wanted to ask what your take on this article is. Maybe I missed something

https://electronicintifada.net/content/anti-semitism-vs-anti-colonialism/25346

I can already tell that article and site are heavily biased. Maybe steer clear of that site in the future.

Yeah, I think I'm going to give that one a pass.

It’s odd. There have been good articles from that site (one of their main points is that yes many people have thrown the anti semitism accusation around while also hanging with neo Nazis and they DO make clear that the protocols are complete horseshit.

The issue there is more they’ve now become sceptical to the point where even if there are legit accusations they’re numb to it.

It gets iffy, remember Israel isn’t keeping its forces outside of Gaza, Israel controls the airspace of Gaza, the sea zone of Gaza and a solid chunk of the land on the Gaza side of the border, a blockade is normally enforced from outside the border, the Gaza blockade is enforced from the inside as well.

But yes the bantustan comparison is pretty weak when it comes to Gaza, I was mainly intending it when it comes to the West Bank, where even in the areas where the PA (an insidiously corrupt organisation full of hate that would have had most of this members locked up years ago if subject to proper oversight) has full control it doesn’t, it lacks control over its borders, it lacks security/military forces, it lacks control over basic utilities, it doesn’t collect its own taxes, ect...

It’s not a government, it’s at best a shitty local government that still answers to the national government of Israel, which control the people within it while denying them a vote.

I did, but then they clarified that they weren’t so we moved on, isn’t communication fun?

Edited by Silasw on Feb 6th 2019 at 8:28:27 PM

On the Hillel issue. Both incidents are from 2007, 12 years ago. The article about the person who was libeled is about the directer of that chapter admitting the first email was wrong and expressing remorse. The Carter 1 is positively mild compared to the way pro-Israel or Israeli speakers are routinely shouted down and not allowed to speak at all on college campuses in the US. They actually let Carter give his entire speech without interruption.

This is what happens when it's the other way around

https://youtu.be/yseKwBUIimk https://youtu.be/pJLdtdUHfHs https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/26/event-sponsored-jewish-and-pro-israel-groups-university-virginia-disrupted-and And this truly scary story from England http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/219476

But the biggest problem with your attacks on Hillel is that you are taking 2 actions from 2 local chapters from over a decade ago and using them to argue against the entire movement. Hillel has hundreds of branches, and it while it does not represent 'all Jews,' it does represent the vast majority of Jews on campus.

Hillel International has made it clear that it is specifically a Zionist organisation, though, not simply a Jewish one. For example, in 2015, a Hillel chapter had to resign from the organisation in order to bring in Jewish civil rights campaigners who've been critical of the Israeli government.

I should also note that the U.K. link you mention came shortly after the Gaza border massacre in mid-October, where the IDF had killed dozens of protesters and wounded hundreds, including children and medics, for entering or approaching the 'security buffer' near the border with Israel (which, I should stress, is Gazan territory that Gazans can be shot for entering). CAMERA is an Israeli propaganda organisation that routinely attempts to no-platform university speakers it believes are acting counter to Israel's interests, and after it and other Israeli hasbara organisations started going 'why did you make us hit you?' about the massacre, a number of pro-Palestinian protesters decided turnabout was fair play.

Edited by Iaculus on Feb 6th 2019 at 10:00:22 AM

That link is rather interesting. It says that one Hillel branch refused to sponsor an event with a pro-BDS speaker and gives no indication Hillel did anything to stop or protest the event when it was held without Hillel funding. And another Hillel chapter did sponsor an event with the same pro-BDS speaker with the approval of the larger organization provided it included one other speaker to counter the BDS viewpoint. According to the article, that speaker was the only one Hillel had a problem with, even though the others were also critical of Israel. And the chapter that resigned was not one of the ones that wanted to bring those speakers

Hillel is a private organization and is under no obligations to provide funding for events outside its mandate of being a center for Jewish life on of campus, especially for movements that the organization and the majority of Jews consider anti-Semitic. As long as Hillel isn't shouting down or disrupting these speakers I don't what the problem is with refusing to fund them. From their point of view it's like asking them to fund a neo-Nazi or KKK speaker.

A Gaza massacre of October 2016? Please provide a source. And even if it really happened, does that really justify what was done on a British college campus? This goes beyond disrupting an event. This was full-blown physical intimidation.

Edited by uncannybeetle on Feb 6th 2019 at 2:14:19 AM

Ah, my mistake, the Gaza massacre was in 2018 and I misread the article date. That said, the IDF attacking protesters is nothing new, although 2018 was unusually extreme. You can make a reasonable argument that a propaganda organisation for a state that violently suppresses protest at home is not a useful or welcome contributor to university debate, and should be expelled much as the government they represent would do to its domestic opponents (in fact, more politely, since the British protesters didn't use tear gas canisters, rifle butts, or live fire, or indeed hurt the CAMERA representatives in any way).

About "homelands" aka Buntustans... they were not policed identically, particularly internally — by design. Compare Bophuthatswana with the Transkei — even just a quick glance at the maps of each will give you a hint as to some of why.

One of the other reasons? Having each treated differently according to pseudo-treaties kind of "negotiated" with local "governments" provided the figleaf that they were really, honestly, truly not really part of really real South Africa, but independent entities entirely. Of course they were. They had control of their own budgets (allocated by the South African government, naturally — with carrot, stick and "suggestions"), government positions, government structures and everything! (But, not the lion's share of the important infrastructure. Including the full running costs of governmental buildings.)

Heck, the licensing system for their workers to entire South Afrca was, like, totally different and the visas visitors needed to get to enter, like, followed totally different requirements and formats on their end! And, you needed to register businesses and births, like, totally differently, too! (The differences were pretty superficial, but kept a lot of bureaucrats and border staff employed.)

But, there were differences; sometimes quite large internal ones. Living in the Ciskei (way more corrupt, for starters, and the grift within the internal bureaucracy was way worse — and, you really didn't want to be a fatherless girl in the Ciskei) was not like living in the Transkei (somewhat better social services on the user end, especially when considering the shared chronic underfunding "suggested" by the South African government), for all they were in close proximity (the sacred Great Kei River, most of which was in neither — the hint as to why is in the names: one was on one side of the "white enclave"; and, the other on the other side). Divide and conquer at its most cynical.

Yeah.

So, excuse me while I side-eye that "they're totally different because they are not run the same" thing.

PS — I still have my old passports with the various different visa and permission stamps and inserts needed just to drive distances within South Africa. I ain't sharing any pictures over the internet, thanks. Because then my real life ID would be a little... obvious.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Feb 6th 2019 at 6:35:55 PM

Silas: the bantustan comparison is much more accurate when talking about the PA, I’ll agree. They still manage to have far more autonomy than any bantustan did though, and Israel still lacks many of the defining features of Apartheid.

The UN described the situation in Israel as having some characteristics of Apartheid, which I do think is accurate. Like I said above it’s certain that many Israeli politicians would have liked to follow the Apartheid model, and if things don’t get any better it’s possible they’ll get there. I don’t think it’s accurate to describe Israel as an Apartheid state at this point in time though.

Maybe aparthield-like state? it sound better that way.

In what areas do you feel the PA has more autonomy, I admit I’m working from Euo’s descriptions here but the two systems seem like a pretty solid fit.

and I'm curious about this. I agree on the point that the lack of laws explicitly enshrining discrimination makes it a somewhat different (but still bad) situation, but even so, Israel has certainly waded into that pool as well.

So Netanyahu's going to be rolling with actual, no-fooling Kahanists this time around. Cool.