we have no problem with transphobia on this site. nope, not at all.

CW: transphobia, misogyny, israel apologia, and mindbreaking nonsense:

https://hexbear.net/post/65674/comment/671786

  • JuneFall [none/use name]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    Principled anti-imperialism gets you cancelled hard in Germany

    True. Except for when it isn't (in terms of numbers of participants between two protests, or the antisemitic protests which are aimed against Israel and so called Zionism which are also organized by the Fascsit Gray Wolves)

    if you include Israel in the list of countries you’re principled on.

    Not quite true, but true enough for this board.

    i mean that we have an actual law that prohibits public funding for any organisation that doesn’t distance itself from BDS.

    Though you can be Anti-imp and still have problems with BDS who have even German spokespersons who argue about blood in terms who is foreign to Israel.

    There’s some pushback against that recently, but discussing the issue always means entering a minefield.

    True.

    To make matters worse, the far right in Germany is championing being pro-Israel

    Some of them champion it, some do it tactically, some strategically and some don't mind to just use whatever argument works better in any given instance, for those what matters is opportunity. So what you wrote about it fits.

    Honestly, i’m not surprised at all that a German who has some reactionary takes also thinks supporting Palestinians is antisemitic, because that’s a shockingly normal position in this country.

    This take will work well on this board, but isn't quite differentiated enough. The vast majority of Germans support a Palestinian statehood. Does answering a questionnaire to that amount mean they support Palestine? Of those the vast majority support the two-state solution.

    In what way the two-state-solution could still be achieved by the people in Israel, Palestine and the Occupied territories is an open question that should be answered by those. Though what happens there is part of the politics of the surrounding states and the Imperial core (to a degree much higher than, say 'South Sudan / Sudan' or alike). That means the question what happens there is a materialistic question that involves a whole net of questions, actors, policies and abilities to wield power.

    Sentences like "Israel is an Apartheid state" (which I just now reproduced for the sake of the argument, which can be seen as a problem i.e. in other contexts reproduction of specific words are a problem in itself) will get you a lot of flak - depending on your audience and setting - in Germany. Though not by all and everyone.

    Would you say instead "Israel's government and military, utilizes apartheid like policies (in the sense of the UN) in the occupied territories" you would get a lot less flak.

    If you say: "I am for the abolishment of all nation states, Germany/USA/those of the imperial core first, Israel last" you would get a lot less flak (except by libs).

    If you chant at a protest for sexual self agency and self determination a slogan used and associated with Hamas "From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free" you will get flak (and maybe beat up by police). If you shout instead "freedom from oppression every gender and consensual sexual self expression including in Palestine" you would get a lot less.

    You can support support a policy of critical support or even principled anti-imperialism in the topic, though if you ignore that Hamas kills my gay comrades I might think that your anti-imperialist action doesn't leave room for me. Any call-out that focuses on Palestine and Israel as dichotomy and ignores the bordering states marginalizes the true interplay of bourgeois state actors, e.g. Egypt. Besides that I would which for a more socialist movement in Palestine and for international struggle that is anti-imperialist being as motivated as it is if the players contain the Occupied territories.

    • the_river_cass [she/her]
      hexagon
      ·
      4 years ago

      Sentences like “Israel is an Apartheid state” (which I just now reproduced for the sake of the argument, which can be seen as a problem i.e. in other contexts reproduction of specific words are a problem in itself) will get you a lot of flak

      Would you say instead “Israel’s government and military, utilizes apartheid like policies (in the sense of the UN) in the occupied territories” you would get a lot less flak.

      the first claim is emphatically not antisemitic, however. conflation of Jewish people with Israel is itself an antisemitic position. and the rewritten version isn't more nuanced - it's just making sure to include your evidence in the claim while avoiding the value judgment.

      • JuneFall [none/use name]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        Neither the UN definition, nor the history of South African Apartheid match Israel though (i.e. you have Arab and Palestinians in Israel who are in all branches of governments and courts, doesn't mean there isn't oppression).

        The occupied territories are a part in which policies that were called by reports Apartheid-like. So the statements are different and the first therefore can be read as antisemitic, cause it conflates only the Israeli nation as the apartheid state (ignoring all other colonialism that happens).

        The evidence is not just the same, it is more specific (and a much stronger argument could be done) and unlike the first one not wrong per se.