Easiest would be to answer with the Einstein and Hannah Arendt letter then, warning of the fascist Likud party. Nothing changed since, it even got worse.
This is exactly what the article is talking about. Any criticism of israel immediately gets shut down. Whenever someone tries to open a valid dialogue I typically see either:
* Claims its antisemetic
* Shifting blame (other countries do it too)
* They are forced to do _x_ cause of their neighbors
The US mainstream media is constantly being manipulated by many a special interest group and are also extremely sensitive to anything that may affect their bottom line (e.g. the massive display of cowardice most mainstream media outlet put on during the mohamed danish cartoon affair [1] [2])
The fact that pro-israel interest groups are playing this game as well is nothing special.
They might be playing the game a little better than others, but in general: move along, nothing to see here.
It's not an unprecedented situation, but I think it's important to keep ourselves aware of all the specific things which news outlets won't print. Otherwise you'll get a systematically biased view of the world. (And I don't want to get into the actual debate here, but I feel I could be misinterpreted if I don't note that I'm saying this as someone who's generally pretty friendly to Israel.)
Disclaimer: before reading this and forming an opinion, please consider I am part Jewish myself.
The current situation is that you have: 1) the Jewish faith, 2) Jewish ethnicities, 3) a Jewish state (Israel).
Those 3 are connected: most practictioners of the Jewish faith belong to a Jewish ethnicity, the Jewish state was founded by Jews, and the Israeli law of return states that every Jew has the right to become an immigrant. Today, most people do not have a problem with 1 or 2. But 3 is a different story.
There were ancient kingdoms in the Eretz Yisrael (land of Israel), such as the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Those kingdoms eventually stopped existing, and the Jewish people lost administrative control of that territory. Many Jews continued to inhabit Eretz Yisrael, but did not have administrative control over the territory.
About 1800 years later, the Zionist movement identifies a need for the creation of a Jewish state, and successfully creates a new Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael. A large portion of the first Israeli citizens are members of the Jewish diaspora, that is, peoples who already had left Eretz Yisrael for 1800 years.
To my [limited] knowledge, there is no precedent for this in history, and that is how many people scratch their heads trying to understand the legitimacy of Zionism. Especially, the pre-Israel inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael.
I always thought the question of Zionist legitimacy came more out out the fact that what became Israel was administered by the British after WWI and over the next 20 years, was so embroiled in tension between the Zionists and the ex-ottoman's as to what the final fate of the area should be? The Arab's had a civil war there around '39 but the Jewish population hit highest tensions about a decade later following WWII and a wave of sympathy for the survivors of the Holocaust. Palestine was thought to be the inevitable outcome by the Arabs of the region, but the atrocities levied upon the Jewish people galvanized the Jewish population of the state sufficiently they were able to hold the territory against those that challenged them. An outcome of that was the Palestinian exodus in light of Israel's successful defense of it's claimed Soverignty on the Day following the end of the British Mandate. Sovereignty, and the status quo has been... Eh... Tumultuous as usual ever since. Most of that tension arising out of the dissonant expectation that Israel should lawfully have been co-part of the overall State of Palestine by it's previous residents.
Just talking in terms of following the paper trail. I know both sides have their own feelings on the matter, but in terms of what the International community agreed on, Zionist legitimacy officially is defined within the terms of the U.N. Partition plan. De facto state notwithstanding.
Not passing any judgement either way. I just follow the paper trail.
You are referring to events from the 20th century, but the Zionist movement starts in the late 19th century.
By the time the first World Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland, 1897: there was no Jewish sovereign state, and neither WW1 or WW2 had happened yet, or any of the tragedies and horrors of the 20th century that affected the Jewish people (along with other minorities).
Zionists were mainly European Jewish diaspora. They were born and raised in Europe, and they had political representation through their respective governments in Europe. Zionists did not have a legitimate claim to the ancestral territory known as Eretz Yisrael, a territory that their ancestors had lost control over 1700 years prior. The modern claim to Eretz Yisrael arises from the Jewish faith.
The Jewish diaspora (and every human on Earth) have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, to have a peaceful life, free of discrimination and hate. But that freedom does not equate the freedom to take those same rights from the non-Jewish inhabitants of their ancestral land.
not their ancestral land. Towards the end of the 19 century the ottomans specifically moved in a large number of arabs in order to thwart zionist aspirations. The country of jordan was created to rehouse them. Also a forgotten point that more jews were displaced from arab countries then all the palestinian refugee. Don't see any jewish refugee crisis.
true. But then nor does a crisis around the year 1945. Still, given the option of vanishing into the earth or creating a country where you won't be murdered just for existing...
Let me repeat everything again: The Zionist organization was founded in 1897. Much before WW1 and WW2 happened. The Jewish diaspora had been already out of Eretz Israel for over 1700 years.
Imagine a country like Italy, for some reason, stops existing. Then, 1700 years later, a group of Italian Americans form "The Italian Organization", based in the US, and then get organized to take over the Italian peninsula by force. That would be the same.
Replacing the population of an existing country does not solve a problem, it trades one problem by another problem.
i don't agree with the zionist ideal at all. What i'm saying is after the holocaust there no longer existed the option of staying in Europe' necessitating the creation of a jewish state. As for the arab refugees, a similar number of jews were expelled from arab countries yet a united nations agency wasn't needed to deal with them. At the same, time these jews were exiled under pain of death. The palestinians chose on their own not to participate in the new state (these are 1 million israeli arabs). And up until the 18 century isral was largely a deserted wasteland. The land was made livable by early jewish pioneers.
At the time of the creation of the Zionist organization, there was no legitimate way in which the Zionist Jewish diaspora could have claimed sovereignty over the territory known as Eretz Yisrael, a territory that they had lost 1700 years prior.
> after the holocaust there no longer existed the option of staying in Europe'
Today, there are many Jews living in Europe today.
The governments that persecuted Jews during World War II were defeated and ceased to exist. Today, antisemitism, hate speech and any hate related imagery is illegal and frowned upon pretty much everywhere.
> necessitating the creation of a jewish state
There are many Jews living in Europe, the US and Latin America. Therefore, that necessity is debatable. Also, many Jews are not Zionist.
You can live outside Israel and be Jewish and enjoy a religious life, and most people won't have a problem about it. In fact, most people will find it cool.
> As for the arab refugees, a similar number of jews were expelled from arab countries
A sovereign country has sovereignty over their domestic policies, including immigration. If you disagree with the immigration policies of a sovereign country, you can try to address that through diplomatic means.
> And up until the 18 century isral was largely a deserted wasteland. The land was made livable by early jewish pioneers.
Doesn't matter. If my neighbor doesn't take care of their yard, it is not legitimate for me to annex my neighbors' yard. That is a common logical fallacy used to justify colonialism.
>Today, there are many Jews living in Europe.
I'm talking about in 1948 my friend. >The governments that persecuted
Jews during World War II were
defeated and ceased to exist. Today,
antisemitism, hate speech and any
hate related imagery is illegal and
frowned upon pretty much everywhere.
You are either naive or you have an agenda.
Governments are purely a device to manifest the will of the people. Would you feel comfortable living in europe when the entire continent tried their best to kill you?
>A sovereign country has sovereignty
over their domestic policies, including
immigration.
Your ignorance is shocking. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jews_in_Syria. But it proves my point. If a 2500 year old community are still considered immigrants then they must be citizens somewhere:)
truth is there can't be a real argument based on precedent since there is none. My point, however, is given the tiny size of israel and the relative benignity of their crimes the obsessive focus on them to the point that UNRWA and UNHRC are distinct points to anti semitism.
I do not want to talk about 1948. I want to talk about the foundation of the Zionist organization, at the end of the 19th century.
At that time, none of the attrocities you mentioned had happened yet. And by that time, there was already a plan to colonize Eretz Yisrael, proposed by Theodor Hertzl in Der Judenstaat in 1896.
> Would you feel comfortable living in europe when the entire continent tried their best to kill you?
Shortly after the WW2, all of Europe became effectively vassal states of the United States and the Soviet Union. Neither the US or the USSR would have allowed any of the antisemitism perpetrated by the nazis.
The crisis you refer to is horrible, but we are talking about Eretz Yisrael, not Syria. And we are talking about the 19th century, not the 20th century.
> If a 2500 year old community are still considered immigrants then they must be citizens somewhere:)
Again, if you disagree with Syria, you can start a discussion about Syria. That would be a completely separate discussion from this one.
i already said i could not agree less with the zionists. What i'm saying is that today it is hard to distinguish it from anti semitism. Support for this can be found in the evidence i presented
Jews did suffer hardship in the Soviet Union, that is true. But it the Soviet Union liberated people from extermination camps, and created an Oblast that was dedicated to Jews.
Noam Chomsky has some excellent books and talks on YouTube about how dissident voices are silenced in mainstream media exactly like this. You'll only get hired as a journalist if you seem to agree with the political views of owners and advertisers. And if you publish a political view that owners or advertisers have a problem with, you get fired.
I think it's more that free speech laws mean private companies can say/output what they like within reason. Even if that includes supporting Israel or dropping Donald or whatever.
Israel identifies itself as the Nation State of the Jewish People and have carved out special rights in their constitution for Jewish citizens.
Any criticism of Israel is therefore seen by some a criticism of Judaism itself. This is a power that the Israeli government knows it has and they deploy it as needed.
Censorship here is part of exactly the same greater pattern of suppressing dissent, where dissent includes the discussion of actual levers of power. This is done on various grounds but frankly the technological apparatus created by HN members collectively is deeply responsible for the rapid growth of authoritarianism that these sorts of discussions would draw in to question if they were not so aggressively muted.
It's why I originally left HN and why I owe it to myself to leave again. FYI the reply I was writing before refreshing the post before posting was this:
So the allegation, likely well founded, is that state-affiliated apparatus actually bothered to dedicate resources to monitor twitter, pull him up, and execute such a maneuver. Personally I wonder what the forebears of Israelis who experienced the Stasi would think if they woke up in modern Israel.
On the question of the moral position of Israel, who do you believe: Jewish intellectual greats such as Einstein + Chomsky, the latter who as early as 1992 summarized that he was subject to the endless lies of the Anti-Defamation League and its friends, or a chilling silence still being actively promoted murky behind-the-scenes power structures of centralist media owners in 2021? You be the judge.
This does not only affect traditional media outlets like The Guardian, but also social media giants. Recently, Facebook is being pressured by the Israeli government to adopt the IHRA's (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-semitism to include the term “Zionism”, and therefore ban it as hate speech. Which caused a backlash. See [1], [2] and [3].
36 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 80.8 ms ] threadhttp://wilsonweb.physics.harvard.edu/HUMANRIGHTS/Einstein_Le...
* Claims its antisemetic
* Shifting blame (other countries do it too)
* They are forced to do _x_ cause of their neighbors
* Only democracy in the middle east
The fact that pro-israel interest groups are playing this game as well is nothing special.
They might be playing the game a little better than others, but in general: move along, nothing to see here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_OR3b-97Ds
What you need to criticize is the root cause of the problem, of which pro-israel group media interference is but one manifestation.
The current situation is that you have: 1) the Jewish faith, 2) Jewish ethnicities, 3) a Jewish state (Israel).
Those 3 are connected: most practictioners of the Jewish faith belong to a Jewish ethnicity, the Jewish state was founded by Jews, and the Israeli law of return states that every Jew has the right to become an immigrant. Today, most people do not have a problem with 1 or 2. But 3 is a different story.
There were ancient kingdoms in the Eretz Yisrael (land of Israel), such as the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Those kingdoms eventually stopped existing, and the Jewish people lost administrative control of that territory. Many Jews continued to inhabit Eretz Yisrael, but did not have administrative control over the territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt#Aftermath
About 1800 years later, the Zionist movement identifies a need for the creation of a Jewish state, and successfully creates a new Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael. A large portion of the first Israeli citizens are members of the Jewish diaspora, that is, peoples who already had left Eretz Yisrael for 1800 years.
To my [limited] knowledge, there is no precedent for this in history, and that is how many people scratch their heads trying to understand the legitimacy of Zionism. Especially, the pre-Israel inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael.
Just talking in terms of following the paper trail. I know both sides have their own feelings on the matter, but in terms of what the International community agreed on, Zionist legitimacy officially is defined within the terms of the U.N. Partition plan. De facto state notwithstanding.
Not passing any judgement either way. I just follow the paper trail.
By the time the first World Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland, 1897: there was no Jewish sovereign state, and neither WW1 or WW2 had happened yet, or any of the tragedies and horrors of the 20th century that affected the Jewish people (along with other minorities).
Zionists were mainly European Jewish diaspora. They were born and raised in Europe, and they had political representation through their respective governments in Europe. Zionists did not have a legitimate claim to the ancestral territory known as Eretz Yisrael, a territory that their ancestors had lost control over 1700 years prior. The modern claim to Eretz Yisrael arises from the Jewish faith.
The Jewish diaspora (and every human on Earth) have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, to have a peaceful life, free of discrimination and hate. But that freedom does not equate the freedom to take those same rights from the non-Jewish inhabitants of their ancestral land.
Imagine a country like Italy, for some reason, stops existing. Then, 1700 years later, a group of Italian Americans form "The Italian Organization", based in the US, and then get organized to take over the Italian peninsula by force. That would be the same.
Replacing the population of an existing country does not solve a problem, it trades one problem by another problem.
> after the holocaust there no longer existed the option of staying in Europe'
Today, there are many Jews living in Europe today.
The governments that persecuted Jews during World War II were defeated and ceased to exist. Today, antisemitism, hate speech and any hate related imagery is illegal and frowned upon pretty much everywhere.
> necessitating the creation of a jewish state
There are many Jews living in Europe, the US and Latin America. Therefore, that necessity is debatable. Also, many Jews are not Zionist.
You can live outside Israel and be Jewish and enjoy a religious life, and most people won't have a problem about it. In fact, most people will find it cool.
> As for the arab refugees, a similar number of jews were expelled from arab countries
A sovereign country has sovereignty over their domestic policies, including immigration. If you disagree with the immigration policies of a sovereign country, you can try to address that through diplomatic means.
> And up until the 18 century isral was largely a deserted wasteland. The land was made livable by early jewish pioneers.
Doesn't matter. If my neighbor doesn't take care of their yard, it is not legitimate for me to annex my neighbors' yard. That is a common logical fallacy used to justify colonialism.
I do not want to talk about 1948. I want to talk about the foundation of the Zionist organization, at the end of the 19th century.
At that time, none of the attrocities you mentioned had happened yet. And by that time, there was already a plan to colonize Eretz Yisrael, proposed by Theodor Hertzl in Der Judenstaat in 1896.
> Would you feel comfortable living in europe when the entire continent tried their best to kill you?
Shortly after the WW2, all of Europe became effectively vassal states of the United States and the Soviet Union. Neither the US or the USSR would have allowed any of the antisemitism perpetrated by the nazis.
> See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jews_in_Syria.
The crisis you refer to is horrible, but we are talking about Eretz Yisrael, not Syria. And we are talking about the 19th century, not the 20th century.
> If a 2500 year old community are still considered immigrants then they must be citizens somewhere:)
Again, if you disagree with Syria, you can start a discussion about Syria. That would be a completely separate discussion from this one.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12617.Manufacturing_Cons... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/194805.Understanding_Pow...
— typical Hackernews in any other thread about speech being suppressed.
Any criticism of Israel is therefore seen by some a criticism of Judaism itself. This is a power that the Israeli government knows it has and they deploy it as needed.
Or for that matter, any country where there is an official state religion?
Censorship here is part of exactly the same greater pattern of suppressing dissent, where dissent includes the discussion of actual levers of power. This is done on various grounds but frankly the technological apparatus created by HN members collectively is deeply responsible for the rapid growth of authoritarianism that these sorts of discussions would draw in to question if they were not so aggressively muted.
It's why I originally left HN and why I owe it to myself to leave again. FYI the reply I was writing before refreshing the post before posting was this:
So the allegation, likely well founded, is that state-affiliated apparatus actually bothered to dedicate resources to monitor twitter, pull him up, and execute such a maneuver. Personally I wonder what the forebears of Israelis who experienced the Stasi would think if they woke up in modern Israel.
On the question of the moral position of Israel, who do you believe: Jewish intellectual greats such as Einstein + Chomsky, the latter who as early as 1992 summarized that he was subject to the endless lies of the Anti-Defamation League and its friends, or a chilling silence still being actively promoted murky behind-the-scenes power structures of centralist media owners in 2021? You be the judge.
... now of course, that silence has reached HN.
</also-descendant-of-escapees>
Bye, HN.
PS. Here is a recent quality article by the same author https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/01/lets-remember-how-aut...
It's unfortunate because I liked the article and the author's writing style.
[1] https://facebookweneedtotalk.org/
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/31/22256949/facebook-zionist...
[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/facebooks-latest-propo...