The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
I mean you opened your mouth wide enough for your foot with that one. I don’t know what you expected to happen when commenting about a geopolitical situation that’s grown a gravity so large it’s collapsed in on itself to the point that because your comment doesn’t specify a side it can be validly used by someone on either side of the debate.
Unless you are going back to the war with the Romans, the Jews were not a persecuted minority in that region any more than any other minority, which would include the Arabs themselves seeing as they were controlled by the Ottomans for hundreds of years previous. The Jews were tolerated, and there was a very small religious community living in Jerusalem during the hundreds of years of Ottoman control that got along perfectly fine. The greater diaspora, especially in Eastern Europe through the 18th and 19th centuries was, however, constantly persecuted and were victims of numerous pogroms.
The Zionist movement was a reaction to the fact that European countries could not be trusted. It was a common cycle that the Jews would make a living for themselves, beginning to think that they could finally establish a home but then get attacked, scapegoated, and forced to flee. It was the Eastern European Jews fleeing such pogroms who would make up the majority of the first settlers of the Zionist mission in Palestine.
All this is simply to say that when people claim “oh they’ve been fighting there for thousands of years” and “the Jews were being persecuted there for so long” is not accurate. There really has not been a Jewish presence in the region since the Jewish revolt was put down by the Romans 2,000 years ago. While the current conflict is decades old, it is entirely related to the circumstances around the founding of Israel.
This is not entirely accurate. For most of history Jews were tolerated in the region, but even then they were systematically discriminated against through the legal system that would for instance not allow a Jew to testify against a Muslim in court or subject jews and other minorities to taxes not levied on Muslims.
By the late 19th and early 20th century the Muslim world began engaging in the same sort of anti-semitism and pogroms that had mostly been limited to Europe prior. This did largely have its roots in the European influence on Middle Eastern nations but nevertheless the rise in anti-semitism(for lack of a better word since most parties are semitic) in the middle east predated the formation of Isreal in 1948.
It is certainly true that this discrimination was less than they faced in Europe for most of the history of the middle east, but being better than that is a very low bar.
What they’re referring to deserves to be talked about and brought up as it is demonstrably intrinsic to a conversation concerning Israel-Palestine relations.
Had they brought up literally any other country it would be what-aboutism. You can’t just throw that term around every time someone issues a counterpoint that you don’t feel is valid.
Over a million of Palestinians since the 1940s, including over 50 kids this year apparently means nothing.
Oh my bad. Then by all means start executing people in the streets and drag their naked bodies around to be paraded then 🙄
I mean you opened your mouth wide enough for your foot with that one. I don’t know what you expected to happen when commenting about a geopolitical situation that’s grown a gravity so large it’s collapsed in on itself to the point that because your comment doesn’t specify a side it can be validly used by someone on either side of the debate.
Fair enough
Starting the count from the 1940s seems pretty convenient. Jews have been a persecuted minority in the region for centuries previously.
Using history to justify atrocities will just end up in endless misery for everyone. Particularly in the middle east.
Unless you are going back to the war with the Romans, the Jews were not a persecuted minority in that region any more than any other minority, which would include the Arabs themselves seeing as they were controlled by the Ottomans for hundreds of years previous. The Jews were tolerated, and there was a very small religious community living in Jerusalem during the hundreds of years of Ottoman control that got along perfectly fine. The greater diaspora, especially in Eastern Europe through the 18th and 19th centuries was, however, constantly persecuted and were victims of numerous pogroms.
The Zionist movement was a reaction to the fact that European countries could not be trusted. It was a common cycle that the Jews would make a living for themselves, beginning to think that they could finally establish a home but then get attacked, scapegoated, and forced to flee. It was the Eastern European Jews fleeing such pogroms who would make up the majority of the first settlers of the Zionist mission in Palestine.
All this is simply to say that when people claim “oh they’ve been fighting there for thousands of years” and “the Jews were being persecuted there for so long” is not accurate. There really has not been a Jewish presence in the region since the Jewish revolt was put down by the Romans 2,000 years ago. While the current conflict is decades old, it is entirely related to the circumstances around the founding of Israel.
This is not entirely accurate. For most of history Jews were tolerated in the region, but even then they were systematically discriminated against through the legal system that would for instance not allow a Jew to testify against a Muslim in court or subject jews and other minorities to taxes not levied on Muslims.
By the late 19th and early 20th century the Muslim world began engaging in the same sort of anti-semitism and pogroms that had mostly been limited to Europe prior. This did largely have its roots in the European influence on Middle Eastern nations but nevertheless the rise in anti-semitism(for lack of a better word since most parties are semitic) in the middle east predated the formation of Isreal in 1948.
It is certainly true that this discrimination was less than they faced in Europe for most of the history of the middle east, but being better than that is a very low bar.
Zionism is anti-semidic.
Next.
But what about ism?
Senseless killing does not justify more senseless killing.
That’s not what-aboutism.
What they’re referring to deserves to be talked about and brought up as it is demonstrably intrinsic to a conversation concerning Israel-Palestine relations.
Had they brought up literally any other country it would be what-aboutism. You can’t just throw that term around every time someone issues a counterpoint that you don’t feel is valid.